ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9807

Internet Message Format | 1998-07-30 | 674KB

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun Poll Results
Date: 30 Jun 1998 22:19:00 -0700


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

from Jon LeVee:

http://pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html
I particularly like the fact that the overwhelming viewpoint was held
by almost 40%, who were NOT handgun owners .... this is encouraging.
Send this sucker out to whoever you can ...
Jon

Gun Poll Results

1. Do you own a gun?

62.75%  Yes
37.24%  No

2. Should the U.S. have stricter gun control laws?

7.22%   Yes
92.77%  No

3. Do you believe that allowing people to carry concealed weapons
reduces crime?

89.16%  Yes
10.83%  No

4. Do you believe that U.S. cities should sue gun manufacturers to
recoup money spent dealing with gun-related crime?

4.20%   Yes
95.79%  No

5. How would you rate the effectiveness of the Brady Bill and the assault
weapons ban in preventing the illegal use and distribution of guns?

1.03%   Very effective
3.74%   Somewhat effective
6.29%   Somewhat ineffective
87.24%  Not at all effective
1.68%   Don't know

Total Votes Cast: 5526



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Schmuckwhomp News
Date: 30 Jun 1998 22:56:00 -0700


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

By Carl Alexander

WASHINGTON, D.C. - An overzealous congressional
aide was suffocated to death today while trying to give
his boss, Rep. Charles E. Schumer, D-NY, an enema to
relieve constipation.

Investigators say that Administrative Asst. Josh Isay,
37, fed the Congressman several doses of laxatives, and
more than a quart of berries, figs, and prunes, after being
concerned for several weeks that the elected representative
did not seem to be producing his usual amount of poop.

He was attempting to administer an olive-oil enema,
when the relieved politician unloaded on him like a
dump truck full of mud.

"The sheer force of the Congressman's unexpected defecation
knocked Mr. Isay to the floor, where he struck his head on the
corner of a desk, and lay unconscious as Rep. Schumer
continued to evacuate his bowels on top of him," said a
flabbergasted Capitol Police spokesman.

"With no one to help him, he lay under all that dung for
at least an hour before a staffmember came along, and during
that time he suffocated. It seems to be one of those freak
accidents that happen here in the Capitol, from time to time...
a billion-to-one shot, at least."

The heartbreaking tale of constipation and tragedy began
May 30th, when the conscientious aide noticed that Schumer
did not seem to be voiding in his usual copious manner. A
number of speeches on gun control had been re-scheduled
due to the problem.

"Isay had been concerned for some time, because he knew
that severe constipation can kill a politician. He told me that
he was going to stay late that afternoon and treat Congressman
Schumer with laxatives, and possibly give him an enema," said
Appointments Secretary Tricia McGovern. "I offered to stay
and help, but he sent me on home, saying he had everything
under control."

But two hours later, a horrified assistant found Isay lying
lifeless under a 200 lb mound of muck, his body only visible
from the knees down. The laxatives had caused Schumer to
unleash an outpouring of crap that buried his aide alive.

"I had never really thought about it before," said Capitol Police
Detective Burns. "But obviously, giving a politician an enema
can be a very dangerous activity - and is not something that
should be attempted alone."

Rep. Schumer was reported to be unavailable for comment,
so the problem may not yet be fully resolved.

Original version


It looks like Dick Brown and Janalee Tobias got off easy in their close
encounters with Utah's elephants. They got shat on politically, but they're
still alive . . . and kicking back.

PADERBORN, GERMANY - Overzealous zookeeper Friedrich Riesfeld fed
his constipated elephant Stefan, 22, doses of animal laxative and
more than a bushel of berries, figs and prunes before the
plugged-up pachyderm finally let fly and suffocated the keeper
under 200 pounds of poop!

Investigators say ill-fated Friedrich, 46, was attempting to give
the ailing elephant an olive-oil enema when the relieved beast
unloaded on him like a dump truck full of mud.

"The sheer force of the elephant's unexpected defecation knocked
Mr. Riesfeldt to the ground, where he struck his head on a rock
and lay unconscious as the elephant continued to evacuate his
bowels on top of him," said flabbergasted Paderborn police
detective Erik Dern.

"With no one there to help him, he lay under all that dung for at
least an hour before a watchman came along, and during that time
he suffocated.

"It seems to be just one of those freak accidents that happen
sometimes a billion-to-one shot, at least."

The heartbreaking tale of constipation and tragedy began April 23
when the conscientious zookeeper noticed that his prize, 8,000-pound
African elephant didn't seem to be producing his usual poop aplenty.

"Friedrich had actually been concerned for several days because
he knew that severe constipation can kill an elephant," assistant
zookeeper Kurt Herrman recalled.

"He told me he was going to stay late that Thursday night to
treat Stefan with laxatives and possibly give him an enema.

"I offered to help, but he sent me on home, saying he had
everything under control." But two hours later, horrified night
watchman Walter Pleuger found Friedrich lying lifeless under a
mound of muck, his body visible only from the knees down.

Laxatives caused Stefan to unleash an outpouring of poop, burying
his trainer alive.

"I had never really thought about it before," Det. Dern said.
"But obviously, giving an elephant an enema can be a very dangerous
activity -- and not something that should be attempted alone."



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: State judge rules federal policy is unconstitutional
Date: 01 Jul 1998 10:57:17 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 01 Jul 1998 10:29:24 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA05011; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:18:56 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA27045; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:26:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026838; Wed Jul  1 12:22:19 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Is your assumption true?  or is it that the judge is defending the 14th
amendment rights of sodomites?
I assume this also opens the doors for pedophiles, and those with a =
natural
propensity for beastiality, is this correct?  How about those who have a
"natural" propensity for sex with dead bodies?  Will you be able to trust
them on the field of battle?  or will they get sidetracked?

Larry Ball
[e-mail]

Bruce Stanton wrote:

> http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/01/natl.guard.gays/
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (CNN) - A
> California Superior Court judge
> Monday ruled against the military's
> "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays
> and ordered the California National Guard to open its
> ranks to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
>
> Judge David Garcia, said in his ruling that the California
> National Guard violates the rights of gays, lesbians and
> bisexuals under the California Constitution by banning
> them from service under "don't ask, don't tell."
> **********************************************************
>
> This is interesting.  The anti-gun crowd has long argued
> the Second Amendment applies to state run militias, such
> as the National Guard.
>
> If the federal government steps in to fight this, it will
> show the National Guard are really federal troops.
>
> Pilgrim
>
> --
> Home page at: http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~bruels
> PGP public keys at: http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~bruels/publickey.htm





-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: *Re: Fwd: Re: homicide rates
Date: 01 Jul 1998 11:44:15 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 04:10:35 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id EAA02395; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 04:00:06 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id GAA05224; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 06:00:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma005200; Sun Jun 28 05:58:53 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Scot wrote:

> When you add suicide and homicide rates together Japan, because of its
> high suicide rate, is has a higher rate than that of the US. You may not
> like to believe it but it is true.


Huh?  Is this *supposed* to read "Since you add suicide and homicide rates
together, Japan--because of its high suicide rate--has a higher rate than
that of the U.S.."?

Speaking of suicide, my Nipponese Chicago neighbor should be aware that in
their fraudulent--though much-ballyhooed--piece in the New England Journal
of Medicine, Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay cleverly manipulated the
numbers to arrive at their "43-times-more-likely to kill a loved one than
an intruder" characterization of a firearm kept in the home.

When one closely examines the data associated with this study, one finds
that 86% of the "homicides"--almost 9 out of 10--were actually SUICIDES!

Why is this important?  Because, current wisdom to the contrary, suicide
is *not* an impulsive act!  Oftentimes, it is a painstakingly-methodical
process of will-writing, goodbye visits, acquisition of a weapon (if one
is not already owned), final preparations, and--ultimately--the act of
pulling the trigger. (Anecdotal evidence gleaned from psych-types---no
demands for "hard" statistical evidence, please!)

Does *anyone* seriously believe that a concerted effort (or even a law)
to rid homes of firearms will thwart that sort of determined effort? (I
once knew a woman whose husband tried to kill himself three times before
he finally jumped off a third-story fire escape and broke his neck!)

Yet charlatans like Kellermann and Reay manipulate the statistics
(sponsored by the CDC and paid for by the Pew Memorial Trust) to suggest
that we will use our bedside guns to murder our spouses 43 times more
often than we will use them to repel home invaders.  What balderdash!

David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte
Wheeling, Illinois

Replies/Abuse: [e-mail]



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: GunsSaveLives makes it to ABC News!
Date: 01 Jul 1998 12:07:16 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:09:32 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id TAA00641; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 19:52:52 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA26287; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:01:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026237; Thu Jun 25 22:01:08 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


GunSavesLives (http://gunssavelives.com) made it the latest ABC News story
on guns! Click below for the story.

http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/DailyNews/ringoffire980623.html

Tim Casey
Executive Director
GunsSaveLives

Tim Casey

AOL Instant Messenger ID jhp115gr
DSS/DH PGP public key available upon request.


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [retiree-mil] Gen. Marion Carl
Date: 01 Jul 1998 12:17:48 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:38:44 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id VAA04546; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:28:16 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA04374; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:37:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma004193; Tue Jun 30 23:33:23 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Albert-

I too.  This was reported on the network news tonight.  Instant ammo for
the control set, although it certainly should unfortunately count for our
point, that a weapon could have prevented this crime.

-Dave

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Albert Buys <[e-mail]>
writes:
>
>This news shocked me.
>Albert
>
>
>
>ROSEBURG, Ore. - Retired Gen. Marion Carl, a World War II ace
>                 and postwar test pilot considered the "Chuck Yeager=20
>of
>                 the Marine
>                 Corps," was shot to death in a robbery at his home by=20
>a
>                 man who
>                 kicked in his door.=20
>
>                 The 82-year-old Carl, one of the Marines' most highly
>                 decorated
>                 aviators, was shot in the head Sunday night. His=20
>wife,
>                 Edna, suffered a
>                 glancing shotgun blast to the head.
>
>
>
>
>
>----=20
>Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/retiree-mil/=20
>
>To unsubscribe, email to [e-mail]
>To subscribe, email to [e-mail]
>--
>Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://makelist.com !
>

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: from today's WATimes
Date: 01 Jul 1998 12:38:30 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 17:30:39 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA00582; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 17:20:17 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA18931; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 19:28:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma018864; Thu Jun 25 19:26:58 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Would that it were possible to speak it, and make it true.

-----
     Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott astonished many in attendance at =
the
National Rifle Association meeting in Philadelphia, writes David Keene,
chairman of the American Conservative Union.
     The normally circumspect Republican from Mississippi promised "to =
fight
and defeat the latest Clinton administration assault on gun owners and
purchasers -- the fee the government proposes to collect to finance the
background checks imposed by the so-called Brady Bill," Mr. Keene wrote in
his column in the Hill newspaper.
     And Mr. Lott did not stop there. He also said the government should
encourage gun ownership as a way to deter crime.
     "He even suggested that the law ought to be changed so that ROTC =
units
on the nation's campuses can provide firearms training to students who
aren't enrolled in ROTC and suggested that police stations in crime-plagued=

neighborhoods be turned into 'self-defense centers' to provide residents =
of
such neighborhoods with the training they need to defend themselves, their
families and their homes from the criminals among them."
     Few who heard Mr. Lott doubt that he will follow through on his =
words,
said Mr. Keene, who added: "We'll see."



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: re: Scholarly thesis on Lott book
Date: 01 Jul 1998 12:42:18 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:20:37 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA29246; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:10:16 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA17544; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:17:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma017311; Wed Jun 24 13:13:38 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Finally! FINALLY! The war of the sound bites turns in our favor! Check =
this out:

-----

Frank Zimring, a professor of law at the University of California at
Berkeley, says the huge drop in crime that Mr. Lott attributes to one =
piece
of legislation would, if true, amount to "a miracle of the loaves and the
fishes."
To back up those first impressions, however, social scientists have had to
dive into the data themselves. And there, they say, Mr. Lott has a polemic
advantage over them. "There isn't any way to boil down the criticism into =
a
simple message, and that's a big problem," says Jon Vernick, associate
director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins
University. "Lott is able to say, 'My study shows that this law is
responsible for X fewer murders every year, and if every state passed this
kind of law, X lives would be saved each year.' That's a media-ready thing
to say. For the most part, the criticisms get at complex methodological =
stuff."

-----

For years we've been fighting the anti's ability to quip emotional sound
bites, while we struggled with logical arguments. Our positions were
irrefutable, but suffered from a critical flaw: They required the listener
(voter) to _think_. Lott's material changes that. "These laws are
responsible for X fewer murders every year, and if every state passed this
kind of law, X lives would be saved each year." What a PERFECT sound bite.
Short, with huge emotional impact, conveying an easy-to-remember message. =
It
can even be compressed onto a sign carried at rallies - the classic "video
bite" of network television.

In the 19 states where shall-issue CCW has yet to be passed, perhaps this
should become our main message. Finally, _we_ have an emotional sound and
video bite that the opposition cannot simply wave away. It won't last
forever... let's use it for all it's worth.

RLH



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: A True Test
Date: 01 Jul 1998 18:29:46 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:50:23 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA05348; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:39:55 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA21793; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:48:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma021660; Wed Jul  1 19:46:28 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

If Clinton argues against this, it's pure hypocrisy. Richmond VA has =
already
shown that this plan works to reduce crime while preserving civil rights.
What good are more laws if Clinton refuses to enforce the ones we've got?
That's nothing but hypocrisy, pure and simple. Are they afraid that the
existing laws might actually WORK in Philadelphia like they do in =
Richmond?
Heavens, we can't have that! It might remove gun control as a topic of
political rhetoric... they might actually have to start dealing with REAL
issues for a change.

Here's your litmus test, Clinton. Do you care more about people, or =
politics?

-----
     PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Mayor Edward Rendell said Wednesday that he
would meet with Clinton administration officials in hopes of getting White
House support for a controversial plan to combat gun violence in Philadelph=
ia.=20
     The plan, which has been promoted by the National Rifle Association,
would make the fifth-largest U.S. city a test case for curtailing
gun-related violence through strict enforcement of existing federal =
statutes.=20
     City officials said $1.5 million already has been set aside in
legislation under discussion by a U.S. Senate committee to fund extra
federal prosecutors, investigators and other resources necessary for
implementing the program in Philadelphia.=20
     Up to now, White House officials have been lukewarm to the idea in
public. But Rendell said he believes President Clinton could come to =
support
the idea, despite harsh NRA rhetoric toward the administration.=20
     Officials from the city and the White House were expected to discuss
the program in Washington this summer. The plan has strong support from =
Sen.
Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania.=20
     "They've said they're interested. I do believe they're going to
cooperate," Rendell, a liberal Democrat, said of the Clinton administration=
.=20
     "Nobody should misunderstand that this means we agree with the NRA on
everything. By no means. Any idea that has the chance to reduce the level =
of
gun violence in Philadelphia, I'm willing to try."=20
     The strategy, aired by NRA President Charlton Heston at the
organization's annual convention in Philadelphia this month, would single
out one U.S. city as a "zero-tolerance" zone for federal gun violations by
beefing up the number of U.S. prosecutors and investigators.=20
     The NRA backs the idea because it promises to demonstrate that gun
violence in the United States can be traced not to lax gun control laws =
but
to a lack of enforcement.=20
     Philadelphia has the highest proportion of murders and robberies
committed with guns among top U.S. cities.
Eighty-two percent of the city's 409 homicides in 1997 involved firearms,
compared with 62 percent for New York
City.=20
     The plan is based on an existing program called "Operation Exile,"
which the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond, Va., has had in place since
early 1997. The initiative has helped that city reduce its rate of
gun-related homicide by more than 60 percent.=20



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Fwd: from today's WATimes
Date: 01 Jul 1998 21:46:00 -0700


These are good suggestions. However, I am surprised that ROTC can't
provide firearms training to students who aren't enrolled in ROTC.
I have had such marksmanship instruction at both East High School
and the University of Utah. When did the "law" change?

On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 12:38:30 -0600 David Sagers forwarded:
(By the way, any chance of using short headers on your forwards?)

>Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 19:28:57 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Richard Hartman <[e-mail]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
>Subject: from today's WATimes

>Would that it were possible to speak it, and make it true.

>-----
>     Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott astonished many in attendance at
>the National Rifle Association meeting in Philadelphia, writes David Keene,
>chairman of the American Conservative Union.
>     The normally circumspect Republican from Mississippi promised "to
>fight and defeat the latest Clinton administration assault on gun owners
>and purchasers -- the fee the government proposes to collect to finance
>the background checks imposed by the so-called Brady Bill," Mr. Keene
>wrote in his column in the Hill newspaper.
>     And Mr. Lott did not stop there. He also said the government should
>encourage gun ownership as a way to deter crime.
>     "He even suggested that the law ought to be changed so that ROTC
>units on the nation's campuses can provide firearms training to students
>who aren't enrolled in ROTC and suggested that police stations in
>crime-plagued neighborhoods be turned into 'self-defense centers' to
>provide residents of such neighborhoods with the training they need to
>defend themselves, their families and their homes from the criminals
>among them."
>     Few who heard Mr. Lott doubt that he will follow through on his
>words, said Mr. Keene, who added: "We'll see."



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Family doctors asked to point out gun risks
Date: 01 Jul 1998 21:09:00 -0700


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

Sounds like they're just making up numbers again. Pretty common tactic
among those folk.

Good God this is aggravating!

If I had a doctor that laid this kind of crap on me, I'd simply change doctors.

COL. HARRY S. BACHSTEIN

------------------------
NOTE: Will doctors be required to ask patients if they own guns, and if
so, will they be required to make a record of this and report it? And will
it become a crime to refuse to offer this info to a doctor, or to falsely
respond to any questions he may ask about this subject?
------------------------

Family doctors asked to point out gun risks

Copyright ⌐ 1998 Scripps Howard

WASHINGTON (July 1, 1998 01:04 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) -- Along
with shots for mumps and measles and a plot on the growth chart, public
health advocates are pressing family doctors and nurses to talk to patients
about the risks posed by guns in their home during routine office visits.

An expanded program to promote these discussions was announced Tuesday by
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Sarah Brady,
chairwoman of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

With more than 5,000 children under 18 killed by guns each year, "gun
accidents in the home are a major public health concern no less than polio
or polluted water," Shalala said. "We need to get the message into every
household and to every parent: If you want to keep a gun in your house, the
only way to keep it is unloaded and locked up."

Even before the recent rash of fatal school shootings by youngsters using
high-powered weapons drew new attention to the problem, a number of
physician associations had started urging members to become more active in
preventing firearms injury.

Noting that one out of five pediatricians nationwide had treated a young
gunshot victim, the American Academy of Pediatrics joined with the Center
to Prevent Handgun Violence four years ago to distribute brochures and
counseling kits to some 20,000 physicians offices nationwide.

And the American College of Physicians in January issued a call to its
100,000 members to counsel patients on handgun use and safety and support
other efforts to reduce gun injury and violence.

But a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine this year found
that while 9 of 10 physicians consider firearm violence to be a major
public health issue, fewer than 20 percent said they routinely discuss the
risks of firearms ownership and storage with their patients.

A spokeswoman for the pediatric organization said no surveys have been done
to determine how many of the doctors who received the original information
kits have been using them regularly.

But Brady said she knows of "case after case of people all over the country
who have used these ... There's every evidence in the world that it's been
used and been used very effectively."

While there's some evidence that gun ownership and violence may have peaked
in the past two or three years, gunshot wounds remain the second-leading
cause of traumatic death in the U.S., behind only auto crashes. About
40,000 Americans are killed by guns every year.

Shalala said health care providers would rather prevent an injury than
fight to save a life after a shooting. Despite the time pressures faced by
many doctors and other caregivers, "I can't imagine a physician or a nurse
or another public health provider in this country not wanting to focus on
things that affect kids' lives and families' lives. This doesn't have to be
a lengthy conversation, but an ongoing conversation."

Brady said there are an estimated 192 million firearms in the country,
including 65 million handguns, and that surveys indicate a quarter of gun
owners keep a weapon loaded and ready for use.

The risks from such guns extend not just to children, but anyone in the
home. Shalala said that for every instance in which a gun is used in a home
to kill in self-defense, 43 family members and acquaintances die in
suicides, homicides and accidents.

The program unveiled Tuesday is called Steps To Prevent Firearm Injuries in
the Home. Promotional mailings and distribution of the materials is being
paid for by the Metropolitan Life Foundation.

Besides urging gun safety within the home, the educational materials also
caution parents to find out whether guns are kept in homes of their
children's friends, and if so, talk to other parents to ensure they're
stored safely.

Lee Bowman covers health and science for Scripps Howard News Service. He
can be reached at [e-mail].

Copyright 1998 Nando.net
-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.
-----------------------

COL. HARRY S. BACHSTEIN
http://members.aol.com/bach11/adventurer.htm
"Man is not my Ultimate Judge."
1998 Polaris News Syndicate
**************************************************
NEW! The Colonel has joined STEELHORSE MAGAZINE
http://www.steelhorsemag.com



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Gun-safety starts with parental responsibility
Date: 02 Jul 1998 08:55:05 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 02 Jul 1998 08:37:15 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA05799; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 08:26:45 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA15568; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:35:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma015475; Thu Jul  2 10:34:08 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


Jewish World Review / July 2, 1998 / 8 Tamuz, 5758

Thomas Sowell

Gun-safety starts with parental responsibility

POLITICAL REACTIONS to this year's rash of schoolhouse shootings have
been classic liberalism:  The government should crack down on gun
owners who haven't shot anybody.  Meanwhile, liberals have very
little interest in punishing the young murderers, and instead are
ready to listen to psychobabble excuses.

The latest ploy in the anti-gun crusade is shifting from emphasis on
gun "control" to emphasis on gun "safety."  As with so many other
safety issues, few people -- least of all politicians -- seem ready
to acknowledge that one kind of safety often comes at the expense of
other kinds of safety.

Child-locks for guns are the latest safety craze.  But schoolhouse
shootings are not being done by infants and toddlers.  They are being
done by people old enough to figure out any lock that an adult can
figure out.  Child-locks provide no protection whatever against the
premeditated murder of school children and their teachers.

If you are serious about stopping smaller children from firing guns
that they may find around the house, there is an incredibly simple
way to prevent that:  Don't leave the guns loaded.  Moreover, most
guns already have safety devices.

Maybe some parents are not responsible enough or thoughtful enough to
remember to take the bullets out of guns that they keep in their
homes.  But are such parents any more likely to remember to lock the
gun?

More important, how often does this happen?  More children die each
year from bicycle accidents than from gun accidents, but where is
there any such orchestrated hysteria about a need to ban bicycles?

There is a dangerous down side to locking guns -- and especially
adding a child-lock to the existing safety devices.  Many people keep
guns in their homes to protect themselves and their families.
Studies show that these guns have in fact saved great numbers of
people from being victims of intruders in their homes.

Multiple safety devices slow down the very people who need to be able
to fire in self-defense.  Criminals with guns will undoubtedly
already have them unlocked and loaded.  Zealots for gun-control laws
never seem to understand that criminals do not obey laws.  Gun
control means unilateral disarmament of law-abiding citizens.

These law-abiding citizens have used guns to defend themselves at
least 760,000 times in a single year.  Some people with gun permits
have saved policemen's lives by coming to their rescue.

None of this fits the liberal vision, so you are unlikely to hear
about it in the mainstream media.  In the liberal vision, the rest of
us are such irresponsible slobs that we will go around shooting
members of our family or our friends, whether in anger at the moment
or out of sheer carelessness.

But what are the facts?  Since the mid-1980s, there has been a 50
percent increase in gun ownership.  If guns are the problem, then we
should have seen a rise in murders.  Instead, there has been a
decline in murder and other violent crimes -- especially in places
where gun ownership has gone up.

In a country with more than a quarter of a billion people, you can
find isolated examples of almost anything.  But the handful of
accidental deaths from guns are far outweighed by the reduced murder
rate with increased gun ownership.

If guns are the problem, then there should be higher murder rates in
rural areas, where guns are more prevalent, or among whites, who have
a higher rate of gun ownership than blacks.  In both cases, the facts
are directly the opposite.

A careful and extensive study of the actual effects of gun ownership
has just been published by Professor John Lott of the University of
Chicago.  It is titled "More Guns, Less Crime."  You may not hear
much about this book in the media because its factual data annihilate
the liberal shibboleths about gun control.

The truly ugly side of the gun-control crusade is in its typical
liberal assumption that ordinary people must be deprived of
self-reliance and have the government take care of them instead.
Unfortunately, the government is in no position to put a cop on every
street corner, much less in every home.

As Professor Lott discovered, gun ownership deters crime.  But what
will deter liberals?  Certainly not the facts.  They have too much
invested in their vision of themselves as the saviors of us all.
Crime.






-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: July 6 column - national ID]
Date: 02 Jul 1998 10:28:21 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 6, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    'If we're treated like a number, we're property'

    Lisa S. Dean,  Director of the Center for Technology Policy at the Free
Congress Foundation writes:

  "I recently traveled in Russia where, despite the collapse of the Soviet
Union, every citizen is still required to have an internal passport on  his
person at all times. If the citizen is ever stopped and asked for proper
identification and fails to produce his internal passport, there are
serious consequences. ...

  "We in the United States always prided ourselves on the fact that we had
no such internal controls. ... When Social Security was first debated in
the Roosevelt Administration, the president himself assured American
citizens that a Social Security number would never be used for
identification purposes."

  But on June 17, the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration issued proposed new rules requiring all
citizens to obtain a driver's license containing a Social Security number
by Oct. 1, 2000 -- previous federal enactments already require this ID card
to include such "biometric identifiers" as a digitized thumbprint on a
magnetic strip -- and requiring the states to verify those numbers with the
Social Security Administration.

  "Without that license," Ms. Dean warns, "citizens will no longer be
eligible for health care, or employment, to conduct bank transactions, to
board an airplane, purchase insurance, will be ineligible for a passport
and so forth. Any medical provider who takes care of you if you don't have
this card will forfeit any reimbursements from federal medical programs.
Fat chance that you can get medical care under these rules."

  Meantime, The Orange County Register reported on June 24: "Immigration
and Nationalization Service officials (on June 23) unveiled INSPASS, a
high-tech identification system that checks a person's biometrics -- such
as hand and retina scans -- for the purposes of getting frequent travelers
quickly through Customs. ...

  "Both (INSPASS and the nationalized 'driver's license') are part of a
growing trend that is unhealthy in a free society -- the federal government
amassing more and more information about individual citizens in centralized
databases," the California daily noted in its June 24 editorial. "And this
isn't a government that can be trusted with such data. Congress has been
holding hearings on the abuses of taxpayers by the IRS, in which agents
intimidated taxpayers and in some cases sold private tax data. The Clinton
administration also is being investigated for inappropriately using the FBI
files of 900 persons."


    #   #   #

  When Congress took an up-or-down vote on a national ID card during the
recent immigration debates, our representatives emphatically rejected such
a requirement, reports Ms. Dean of the Free Congress Foundation (sister
think tank to Washington's Heritage Foundation.) But "That never stops
either those who would destroy our liberty in Congress or in the Clinton
Administration.

  "God help you if your name gets messed up in the computer," Ms. Dean
warns. "You might bleed to death before you get medical treatment. You
might be denied that new job you worked so hard to get."

  Ms. Dean only concentrates on (highly likely) government foul-ups. The
more ominous question with a national personal tracking system is what
happens if some bureaucrat with time on his hands decides to
cross-reference "registered gun owners" with people who write
"anti-government letters" ...

  Adds Cold War scholar Dave Wren of Chicago: "My first serious political
discussions took place in the 1940s with DP's (Displaced Persons.) Chicago
back then was filled with DP's from every part of Europe. All had one thing
in common, a burning hate for the political system that had forced them to
leave their homeland, homes and family. Each hated the USSR and its
socialism, built on internal passports, national identification documents,
papers, pass cards and those blue ID numbers tattooed on some arms. Fifty
years later Americans are being fitted with the same chains, Americans
reach their hands out for the shackles. ..."

  Not everywhere, fortunately.

  Bobby Franklin, a first-term member of the Georgia House of
Representatives, reports mandatory fingerprinting for Georgia was slipped
through on the last day of the 1996 legislative session there, and that
efforts to repeal it have since been stymied by consummate procedural
chicanery.

  Next door in Alabama, Franklin reports, "Their department of public
safety just up and said, 'Hey guys, we're fingerprinting.' And there was
such a public outcry against it that the department backed down and they're
not fingerprinting. And we're very close to repealing, here. Our two major
Republican candidates for governor this year are both saying they will
issue an executive order banning our Motor Vehicle Department from
fingerprinting."

    #   #   #

  In New Jersey, Patrick Poole (also of the Free Congress Foundation)
writes that on June 29, "A coalition of Right/Left organizations turned
back New Jersey's Gov. Christie Todd Whitman's 'AccessNJ' driver's license
proposal in both the State Assembly and Senate."

  The AccessNJ proposal would have created a 10-year "smart card" drivers
license that would have been required for all government programs and
services, while authorizing banks, hospitals, schools, libraries, credit
card and insurance companies to electronically store information on the
drivers license as well.

  Dr. Seriah Rein of Concerned Women for America -- one of the groups
lobbying against the New Jersey proposal -- told Poole, "This is not an
AccessNJ card; this is an access our privacy card."

  Hearings were held on the New Jersey proposal on June 22, only days after
the bills were introduced. In no state where attempts have been made to
adopt the so-called "new drivers license" have the proponents invited any
study and orderly debate. In Georgia, in Alabama, in New Jersey, every move
to adopt this "National ID Card" has been run through under cover, often in
the hectic, closing days of a legislative session.

  And (with the notable exception of New York Times columnist William
Safire, last Jan. 8) the "Mainstream Media" has been all too happy to go
along with any scheme touted as likely to help corner "deadbeat dads" ...
blithely declining to cover the issue, dismissing any protests as more
paranoia from the kind of "anti-government nuts" who simply can't
appreciate the lovely efficiency of it all.

  So it is now -- not after such a Big Brother measure has already been
adopted and we're told "Gee, there's nothing we can do" -- that residents
of the remaining states must demand that their legislative and
gubernatorial candidates pledge to resist any National ID card.

  Those seeking more information may contact the Coalition to Repeal the
Fingerprint Law, 5446 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Suite 133, Atlanta,
GA 30341. (Web site http://www.atlantainfoguide/repeal/.)

  Attorneys wishing legal background on precedents for opposition to this
back-door attempt to give us all the electronic equivalent of a tattoo in
the ear may want to review the June 22 "letter of objection" to USDOT by
attorney Lowell H. "Larry" Becraft, of 209 Lincoln St., Huntsville, AL
35801, which I'm told can be tracked down on the web via
http://www.efga.org, or http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml.

  "Our draft legislation says they're not allowed to use (start
ital)any(end ital) biometric identifiers" -- thumbprints, retinal scans,
whatever -- says Bobby Franklin of Marietta. "We hope if we can prevent
them from instituting their program here in Georgia, that resistance will
spread. No one wants to be chattel. If we're treated like a number, we're
property."


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.

"In war you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times." --
 Winston Churchill



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Family doctors asked to point out gun risks
Date: 02 Jul 1998 17:34:45 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 02 Jul 1998 00:45:52 -0600
Received: from lists.xmission.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id AAA05618; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:35:25 -0600
Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0yrd6a-0002QE-00; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:44:28 -0600
Received: from (mail.xmission.com) [198.60.22.22]
    by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0yrd6Y-0002Q9-00; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:44:26 -0600
Received: from xmission.xmission.com [198.60.22.2] (admn)
    by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2)
    id 0yrd6X-0001vg-00; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:44:25 -0600
Received: (from admn@localhost) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.8/8.7.5) id AAA22637 for [e-mail]; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:44:23 -0600 (MDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: xmission.xmission.com: admn set sender to utahnet!scott.bergeson using -f
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA  801-281-8339
X-Mailreader: PCBoard Version 15.22
X-Mailer: PCBoard/UUOUT Version 1.20
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Apparently-To: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


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

Sounds like they're just making up numbers again. Pretty common tactic
among those folk.

Good God this is aggravating!

If I had a doctor that laid this kind of crap on me, I'd simply change =
doctors.

COL. HARRY S. BACHSTEIN

------------------------
NOTE: Will doctors be required to ask patients if they own guns, and if
so, will they be required to make a record of this and report it? And will
it become a crime to refuse to offer this info to a doctor, or to falsely
respond to any questions he may ask about this subject?
------------------------

Family doctors asked to point out gun risks

Copyright * 1998 Scripps Howard

WASHINGTON (July 1, 1998 01:04 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) -- =
Along
with shots for mumps and measles and a plot on the growth chart, public
health advocates are pressing family doctors and nurses to talk to =
patients
about the risks posed by guns in their home during routine office visits.

An expanded program to promote these discussions was announced Tuesday by
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Sarah Brady,
chairwoman of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

With more than 5,000 children under 18 killed by guns each year, "gun
accidents in the home are a major public health concern no less than polio
or polluted water," Shalala said. "We need to get the message into every
household and to every parent: If you want to keep a gun in your house, =
the
only way to keep it is unloaded and locked up."

Even before the recent rash of fatal school shootings by youngsters using
high-powered weapons drew new attention to the problem, a number of
physician associations had started urging members to become more active in
preventing firearms injury.

Noting that one out of five pediatricians nationwide had treated a young
gunshot victim, the American Academy of Pediatrics joined with the Center
to Prevent Handgun Violence four years ago to distribute brochures and
counseling kits to some 20,000 physicians offices nationwide.=20

And the American College of Physicians in January issued a call to its
100,000 members to counsel patients on handgun use and safety and support
other efforts to reduce gun injury and violence.

But a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine this year found
that while 9 of 10 physicians consider firearm violence to be a major
public health issue, fewer than 20 percent said they routinely discuss the
risks of firearms ownership and storage with their patients.=20

A spokeswoman for the pediatric organization said no surveys have been =
done
to determine how many of the doctors who received the original information
kits have been using them regularly.

But Brady said she knows of "case after case of people all over the =
country
who have used these ... There's every evidence in the world that it's been
used and been used very effectively."

While there's some evidence that gun ownership and violence may have =
peaked
in the past two or three years, gunshot wounds remain the second-leading
cause of traumatic death in the U.S., behind only auto crashes. About
40,000 Americans are killed by guns every year.

Shalala said health care providers would rather prevent an injury than
fight to save a life after a shooting. Despite the time pressures faced by
many doctors and other caregivers, "I can't imagine a physician or a nurse
or another public health provider in this country not wanting to focus on
things that affect kids' lives and families' lives. This doesn't have to =
be
a lengthy conversation, but an ongoing conversation."

Brady said there are an estimated 192 million firearms in the country,
including 65 million handguns, and that surveys indicate a quarter of gun
owners keep a weapon loaded and ready for use.=20

The risks from such guns extend not just to children, but anyone in the
home. Shalala said that for every instance in which a gun is used in a =
home
to kill in self-defense, 43 family members and acquaintances die in
suicides, homicides and accidents.

The program unveiled Tuesday is called Steps To Prevent Firearm Injuries =
in
the Home. Promotional mailings and distribution of the materials is being
paid for by the Metropolitan Life Foundation.

Besides urging gun safety within the home, the educational materials also
caution parents to find out whether guns are kept in homes of their
children's friends, and if so, talk to other parents to ensure they're
stored safely.

Lee Bowman covers health and science for Scripps Howard News Service. He
can be reached at [e-mail].

Copyright 1998 Nando.net
-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.=20
-----------------------

COL. HARRY S. BACHSTEIN
http://members.aol.com/bach11/adventurer.htm
"Man is not my Ultimate Judge."
1998 Polaris News Syndicate
**************************************************
NEW! The Colonel has joined STEELHORSE MAGAZINE
http://www.steelhorsemag.com



-



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Verification of Colt's donation to Schumer
Date: 03 Jul 1998 23:54:00 -0700


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

Verification of Colt's donations to Schumer and the Democratic party can
be found at www.tray.com/fecinfo

It is painfully obvious that Colt is buttering both sides of it's
bread. Many law firms, businesses and corporations do the same thing.
Play both sides, so someone in the firm always stays on the good side of
those in power.
Also the gentleman may go to the same synagogue, so it might be
considered like a donation to a family member.
Dennis Walker: [e-mail]
IN THE ARENA!
Quis custodiet ipso custodes?

--
********************************************************
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]
********************************************************



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Cultural War for Independence
Date: 03 Jul 1998 23:54:00 -0700


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

Source: PR Newswire

Gun Rights Dean: Right to Bear Arms for Self-Defense On Cutting Edge of
Today's Cultural War for Independence

WASHINGTON, July 3 /PRNewswire/ -- "The struggle to preserve the
right to keep and bear arms is as important today as it was on that
first Independence Day in 1776," John Snyder, named "Dean" of gun
lobbyists by both The Washington Post and the New York Times, said here
this morning.

"Few today realize that the proximate cause of our War for
Independence was the attempt by British Crown troops to seize Americans'
arms and ammunition," continued Snyder, Public Affairs Director of the
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

"Now, more than two centuries later," he added, "the underlying cause
for the developing pro-gun movement in our country is the attempt by
modern statist forces to eviscerate the traditional American Second
Amendment right of individual law-abiding citizens to keep and bear
arms.

"This political struggle, the fight to preserve our right to keep
and bear arms, our right to protect life and property from criminal
attack, our right to self-defense, is at the cutting edge of today's
general cultural war to preserve traditional American civil rights and
economic values against continuing collectivist assaults.

"Among today's political descendants of the late 18th Century gun
grabbing Crown government are gun grabbing United Nations bureaucrats,
the Clinton-Gore Administration, congressional anti-gun owner hate
mongers, and anti-gun owner organizations.

"The statists use wedge issues such as fear of violent crime and
concern for the safety of children as pretexts for advancing their
attacks on the rights of law-abiding citizens. They often are aided and
abetted by emotionally convulsed media personalities who have not yet
realized that the gun grabbers already have lost out on the intellectual
battlefield. The book More Guns -- Less Crime, by Professor John R.
Lott, Jr., is just the latest example of the intellectual whipping the
gun grabbers have been suffering in
recent months and years.

"Today, the future belongs to those of us who, like our political
forebears on that first Independence Day, cherish freedom and are ready
to struggle to maintain it. We shall overcome."

Snyder is a former Associate Editor of The American Rifleman, official
monthly journal of the National Rifle Association. The Washington Times
has characterized him as "a Champion of the right to self-defense."

SOURCE Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
CONTACT: John Snyder of the Citizens Committee for the Right to
Keep and Bear Arms, 202-543-3363 or 703-418-0849

⌐1998 PR Newswire.
--
********************************************************
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]
********************************************************




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The Government Has Our Number
Date: 03 Jul 1998 23:54:00 -0700


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

Source: Wired
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/13441.html

The Government Has Our Numbers
by Lori Patel

4:00am3.Jul.98.PDT
Your banker has it. Your employer has it. Your
insurer, the IRS, and, frankly, you can't remember
who else has it. So what difference does it make if
the US Department of Transportation joins the
crowd asking to see your Social Security number?

Recently, the department published its intention to
require all states to verify Social Security numbers
before issuing or renewing drivers' licenses.
Depending on who one asks, the significance of
this decision can swell or shrink like a top-notch
special effect.

"Fear of crime and terrorism has caused us to let
down our guard against excessive intrusion into
the lives of the law abiding. The ease of minor
borrowing and the transformation of shopping into
recreation has addicted us to credit cards," wrote
New York Times columnist William Safire. "Taken
together, the fear and the ease make a map of our
lives available to cops, crazies, and con men
alike."

As strategies to combat the technology-fueled
growth of database portraiture, Safire
recommended that readers "write your local
legislator demanding that a Privacy Impact
Statement be required before passage of any new
law ... [and] resist mightily requests for your
Social Security number."

Much as Safire rails against it, the drive to collect
citizens' Social Security numbers seems past the
point of no return. Indeed, while the Department of
Transportation may have just published its
intention to collect the numbers, the proposed rule
was legislated as part of the 1996 Immigration
Reform Act. The idea was to make it harder for
illegal immigrants to obtain fraudulent licenses, as
well as welfare and other benefits available to US
citizens.

To achieve this goal, the Transportation
Department rule would give states until October
2000 to include greater security features on their
licenses. States would also be required to sharpen
identity checks by verifying the Social Security
numbers of applicants. In the past, states
collected the numbers -- some even used them as
driver's license numbers -- but did not verify their
accuracy with the Social Security Administration.

Among some observers, the proposed rule is
causing a great deal of angst. Critics charge that
the rule would create what amounts to a national
ID card, which would smooth the way for the US
government to profile and monitor its citizens.
"What I'm imagining is martial law, in which you
can't move from place to place, you can't access
your bank account information, can't own a gun
because you've been profiled as a deadbeat dad,"
said Lisa S. Dean, vice president of governance
and policy at the conservative Free Congress
Foundation.

The Department of Transportation denies its
database could be used for nefarious purposes
and points out that even its own department does
not maintain a comprehensive file of US drivers.

"There is no file of all drivers," said William
Holden, chief of the Driver Registration and Traffic
Records division. He explained that the National
Driver Registry tracks only problem motorists.
"Creating a file of all US drivers would require
legislation and cost a substantial sum of money,"
he said. Holden said he believes the states would
be unlikely to agree to such a scheme.

The proposed rule is open to commentary until 3
August. But since the rule merely implements
legislation that has already passed, there is little
doubt that -- unless the legislation is reversed --
some version of the rule will go forward. "We don't
have a whole lot of options there," Holden said.

While Holden disagreed that the verification plan
could enable any sort of Big Brother state, the
idea is not quite as far-fetched as it may seem.

The American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, a private organization that works
closely with the transportation agency, is laying
the groundwork for such a database. The group is
planning a two-year study of a comprehensive
database, said Linda Lewis, director of public and
legislative affairs at the association, which is made
up of chief administrators from the United States
and Canadian provinces.

"Tickets, citations, revocations, suspensions,
child-support delinquencies -- all would show up,"
Lewis said.

Lewis offered cold comfort for privacy advocates'
fears about the database. "If it's not the Social
Security number that ties you to that information,
it's some other number. It's just a fact of life," she
said.

The amount of information bundled to one's Social
Security number has grown enormously in recent
years while the requirements to give it up freely
have increased. It is no longer just the Social
Security Administration or the Internal Revenue
Service that demands the number. In pursuit of
deadbeat parents, for instance, the Department of
Health and Human Services collects the Social
Security numbers of all new employees in a "new
hires" database.

But as privacy advocates point out, once
information is collected, it can be used for
previously unconsidered purposes. "New kinds of
data will be collected in ways that weren't in the
past, because it can now be brought together with
other data," information studies scholar Phil Agre
predicts. "Once [the information is] in place,
imaginations work overtime about what to do with
it and what to start collecting."

Under one proposed bill, the Department of
Treasury could access the Department of Health's
new hires database to collect debt owed to the
government. In other words, a file created to
protect kids could be used to ensure Uncle Sam
collects his cash, too.

"I don't go ballistic when I hear the words 'national
ID card,'" said Gary Marx, a sociology professor
who writes about the implications of
information-gathering techniques. "Belgium has a
national ID card. It's a joke. It doesn't really mean
anything."

While Marx rates the new licenses fairly low on
the list of privacy issues that should command
Americans' attention, he has no question that
such databases do create a realistic potential for
abuse.

"This is not just paranoia," he said. "[During the
Holocaust], the percentage of Jews killed in the
Netherlands was higher than anywhere. That's because
the Dutch were really efficient census takers."
--
********************************************************
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]
********************************************************


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Computers fired up to check gun sales - ssns required
Date: 03 Jul 1998 23:54:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
July 1, 1998

Computers fired up to check gun sales

Pennsylvania's new system begins today. Crime records are checked on the
spot.

http://www.phillynews.com:80/inquirer/98/Jul/01/city/GUNS01.htm

ASSOCIATED PRESS

HARRISBURG -- Pennsylvania State Police officials say the new computerized
system to check the criminal backgrounds of people buying handguns, which
goes into effect today, is the most comprehensive in the nation.

State police expect to conduct more than 1 million background checks for
about 4,000 gun dealers on both handguns and long guns by the end of this
year.

"We'll be working well into the evening tonight to make sure this is ready,"
Maj. Ronald J. Hackenberg, director of the State Police Bureau of Forensics
and Criminal Identification, said yesterday.

Those who will be barred from buying guns include anyone convicted of
violent felony crimes or of drunken driving three times in a five-year
period or anyone with a history of serious mental-health problems. In
addition, those who have had a protection-from-abuse order filed against
them or who have been convicted of simple assault in relation to a domestic
violence incident will be barred.

State police expect to reject only about 10 percent of the total requests,
Hackenberg said.

The data base has stored about 1.5 million criminal records, and no other
state has such a comprehensive system, Hackenberg said. The only other state
with a similarly vast background-check system is Georgia, but it handles
only 90,000 requests per year, he said.

On Tuesday, state police operators gave the $3.5 million computer system a
test run, answering background-check requests on fictitious names submitted
by two participating Harrisburg-area gun dealers.

The system resembles a large telemarketing office; 29 phone operators sit in
office cubicles at computers and answer up to 46 telephone lines, Hackenberg
said.

Checks could take two minutes or could last several days. The system is
automated, and requires the caller to enter driver's license and Social
Security numbers. Clearance is given automatically if the buyer has no
criminal record, Hackenberg said. If the computer flags a call, however, it
routes it to the state police phone operators for further investigation.

Currently, federal law requires handgun buyers to wait five days while
background criminal records are checked manually. Local sheriffs send
information requests to the state police and the FBI.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Your papers, please
Date: 03 Jul 1998 23:54:00 -0700


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

Source: WorldNetDaily

Your papers, please
By Joseph Farah

The day is coming soon when Americans will be required
to carry a nationally approved identification card to
get work and satisfy other basic needs of survival.

No, I know you haven't seen much on this threat to
privacy on the network television news or read about it
in the establishment press. Don't let that fact lull you
into a false sense of complacency that what I am about
to tell you is black-helicopter stuff.

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Nearly
everyone rejoiced because they assumed the legislation
cracked down, as the name implied, on illegal aliens.
Few, including members of Congress, actually
bothered to read the bill.

One section of that law requires all states to make their
driver's licenses comply with strict guidelines of the act.
As of Oct. 1, 2000 -- a month before the next
presidential election -- the federal government
mandates that Social Security numbers be included as
the license number. Eventually, the act also requires the
cards to include digitized biometric information such as
fingerprints, retina scans and DNA prints.

The Department of Transportation has already
developed elaborate guidelines for the new licenses.
Suffice it to say that without them, otherwise
law-abiding citizens of the United States will find it next
to impossible to buy a gun, get a job, board a plane,
vote, cash a check, open a bank account, purchase
insurance, receive federal benefits, obtain a loan or
receive medical service.

And that's just what we can see from here. Remember,
when the Social Security card was instituted, and for
many years thereafter, use of the number for
identification purposes was strictly forbidden. My card
still insists it is.

Don't count on the 10th Amendment guarantees to
save you from this fate, either. Executive Order
13083, issued by Clinton last month, effectively
neutered any notions about federalism and states' rights
without objection from the cowardly Congress. As I
mentioned in a previous column, the executive order
pretty much allows the federal government to do what
it wants, when it wants, for any reason it wants.

There's only one hope of stopping this march to a
belated 1984 nightmare world -- and, if past results
are any indication of future performance, it isn't much
of a hope. Congress still has the power to strike this
monster down -- if members can muster the courage,
foresight and boldness. That's a big "if." But it's worth
a try.

The Free Congress Foundation, one of the few activist
organizations fighting both the national ID card and
Clinton's executive order, is urging people to write and
call their representatives and senators.

For what it's worth, you can also make your voice
heard at the Department of Transportation, which is
getting ready to dot the "I's" and cross the "T's" on its
plan for the national ID card. All comments must be in
writing, are limited to 15 pages and must be received
no later than Aug. 3. Two copies of your comments
should be sent to Docket No. NHTSA-98-3945,
Docket Management Room PL-401, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20590. Be sure to place the docket number on each
page of your comments. These bureaucrats will look
for any reason to place your missive in the circular file.
And, no, they don't accept e-mails.

I don't know about you, but I, for one, do not want my
kids growing up in a land where they are required to
carry national identity papers. That's not what America
is about. Wake up your political representatives.
Explain to them that, while they are preoccupied with
side issues like tobacco taxes, somebody is stealing
our country, our heritage of freedom, our legacy of
individual rights.

More to the point: Tell them to take their national
identity card and stick it where the sun don't shine.

A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph
Farah's commentaries can be heard at
http://www.ktkz.com/

⌐ 1998 Western Journalism Center
--
********************************************************
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]
********************************************************




-



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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Verification of Colt's donation to Schumer
Date: 04 Jul 1998 06:38:59 -0700 (PDT)



On Fri, 03 Jul 98, [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) wrote:
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 14:18:29 -0400
>From: E Pluribus Unum <[e-mail]>
>To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network <[e-mail]>
>
>Verification of Colt's donations to Schumer and the Democratic party
can
>be found at www.tray.com/fecinfo

Colt?  or Zilkha?

If you want to go after Colt, read Colt CEO(?)/President(?) Ron
Stewart's column about user proprietary technology and federal
standards for firearm ownership.


>
>It is painfully obvious that Colt is buttering both sides of it's
>bread. Many law firms, businesses and corporations do the same thing.
>Play both sides, so someone in the firm always stays on the good side
of
>those in power.

>Also the gentleman may go to the same synagogue, so it might be
>considered like a donation to a family member.


And Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist, therefore we can smear all
Southern Baptists with the Clinton brush?  Hard to decide here whether
this is a little mild anti-Semitism or just simple-minded b.s.  I
would have thought if ANY firearms list was sensitive to religious
slurs, it would be the Utah list.

Joe W


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Where's the publicity?
Date: 04 Jul 1998 09:53:04 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 03 Jul 1998 12:58:43 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id MAA06729; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 12:48:10 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA26577; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026537; Fri Jul  3 14:55:36 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Why isn't this getting more publicity? Because there's no gun involved?
Apparently being set afire, and burned over 99% of your body until you're
unconscious for four days, just isn't nasty or painful enough to make the
news. Even a little child molestation doesn't make the story good enough.
But if that 13-year-old had waved a toy gun... hoo boy, stop the presses!

-----
     CONROE, Texas, July 3 (UPI) - A 13-year-old boy is behind bars on
suspicion he poured flammable liquid on an 8-year-old boy and set him =
ablaze
last week.=20
     Montgomery County investigators took the boy into custody Thursday, =
and
they say he has admitted to attacking Robert Middleton in Splendora, north
of Houston, on the victim's eighth birthday.=20
     He remains in juvenile detention today awaiting formal charges in the
case, and may stay locked up until Monday.=20
     The boy suffered third-degree burns over 99 percent of his body.=20
     The Houston Chronicle quotes an investigator saying the 13-year-old
attacked the boy because he may have seen the older boy molesting a small
child in some woods.=20
     The Montgomery County sheriff's investigator tells the Chronicle, =
``We
do have information that Robert told people he saw (the teen) molesting a
child in the woods some time ago.''=20
     Montgomery County Sheriff Guy Williams says the case was like a =
murder
investigation for several days because Middleton was unable to name his
assailant.=20
     Four days later he regained consciousness and told police who was at
the scene at the time.=20
     Middleton remains in critical condition, but he continues to improve =
at
the Shriners Burn Hospital in Galveston after his brush with death. =
Doctors
have removed a ventilator he was using after he showed he could breathe on
his own.
     Family members are keeping a round-the-clock vigil at his side.=20
     Doctors at the hospital say people that badly burned have about a 50
percent chance of survival.=20
     They say the boy's ability to survive this long is a good indicator
that he may pull through. Still, he faces a long recovery and more than a
dozen surgeries, and he will be hospitalized at least 150 days.=20



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Contributions
Date: 04 Jul 1998 10:29:21 -0600

Received: from legacy.lgcy.com
    ([209.180.84.51])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 04 Jul 1998 10:28:11 -0600
Received: from [204.246.130.98] by legacy.lgcy.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa691501 for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 10:26:58 -0600
Received: from WVCDomain-Message_Server by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us
    with Novell_GroupWise; Sat, 04 Jul 1998 10:28:02 -0600
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListManager: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Your following message has been delivered to the 77 members of
  the list [e-mail] at 10:26:58 on 4 Jul 1998.


If you want to see who is donating to candidates see the web site at
www.tray.com/fecinfo

I looked at LILY FOR CONGRESS, and found some interesting names. =20

I'm interested to see if Jane Fonda donates to Lilly like she donated to =
Karen Shepherd a few years ago.



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: INDEPENDENCE DAY ALERT]
Date: 04 Jul 1998 10:39:36 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 04 Jul 1998 01:54:55 -0600
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA07093; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 01:44:25 -0600
Received: (qmail 2274 invoked by uid 516); 4 Jul 1998 07:53:44 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 2256 invoked from network); 4 Jul 1998 07:53:40 -0000
Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg1.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.11)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 1998 07:53:40 -0000
Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14])
    by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA17070
    for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 01:53:38 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from helmetfish (166-93-57-227.rmi.net [166.93.57.227])
    by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA23545
    for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 01:53:00 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Global Neighbourhood Watch, (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; U)
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Posted to rkba-co by "Charles 'Chuck' Inston" <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
Chris W. Stark wrote:
>=20
>                     ****JPFO e-mail Alert!****
>=20
>        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]
>=20
>                              07/04/98
>                              --------
>=20
>                       INDEPENDENCE DAY ALERT
>=20
>   On July 4 we commemorate when the Founders declared for Americans
> their independence from arbitrary oppressive rule. By the Declaration
> of Independence, they affirmed that all men are created equal with
> inalienable rights, and that governments are legitimate only when
> they derive their powers from the consent of the governed.
>=20
>   The Founders did not merely debate the matter -- they declared
> War against their own (British) government.  They were not
> rocking-chair patriots;  they signed their names below the
> following ominous sentence:
>=20
>    "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
>     reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we
>     mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes,
>     and our sacred Honor."
>=20
>   The Founders pledged, and many lost, their lives and fortunes
> during the Revolutionary War.  That struggle created the nation
> where we can enjoy the fruits of liberty.
>=20
>   Toward the cause of liberty, are modern Americans willing to
> *mutually pledge* even the cost of pizza and beer?  A family of
> four spends over $20 at a pizza parlor for dinner.  Can the
> supporters of liberty pledge $20 to preserve their hard-won
> heritage?
>=20
>   Twenty dollars buys 25 copies of Gran*pa Jack*s Common Sense
> -- the booklet that teaches Americans all about the Bill of
> Rights.  Buy a bundle, hand them out to kids, or leave them on
> the coffee table for teens to discover. Go to:
>=20
> http://www.jpfo.org/editor.htm
>=20
> ....or go to:
>=20
> http://www.jpfo.org/jpfobor.htm
>=20
> ....for more info.
>=20
>   Our Founders pledged their lives and fortunes -- surely
> we can honor their sacrifice by passing the word to future
> generations.  There is no better time to declare war on
> ignorance of the Bill of Rights!  Act now!
>=20
>   As well, if you havent already, consider becoming a fighting
> member of JPFO. To become a JPFO member, go to:
>=20
> http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> What does the 4th of July mean to you? For our founding fathers,
> it meant to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes,
> and our sacred Honor."
>=20
> .......and you?
>=20
> ****************************************************************
> 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]
>=20
> Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org
>=20
> MEMBERSHIP IS OPEN TO ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
>=20
> "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership."
>   "If you don't support JPFO, then WHY support ANYONE?"
> ****************************************************************
> Copyright (c) 1998, JPFO
> Republication permitted provided this article & attribution
> is left intact in its original state.
> ****************************************************************
>=20
>      TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to:
>=20
>                      [e-mail]
>=20
> ...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe".
> ****************************************************************

--=20
                              Charles 'Chuck' Inston

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@=
@
It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself,
to resist invasions of it in the case of others:
or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.=20
     --Thomas Jefferson
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@=
@


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


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: INDEPENDENCE DAY ALERT
Date: 04 Jul 1998 23:14:00 -0700


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

****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]

                      07/04/98
                      --------

               INDEPENDENCE DAY ALERT

On July 4 we commemorate when the Founders declared for Americans
their independence from arbitrary oppressive rule. By the Declaration
of Independence, they affirmed that all men are created equal with
inalienable rights, and that governments are legitimate only when
they derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

The Founders did not merely debate the matter -- they declared
War against their own (British) government. They were not
rocking-chair patriots; they signed their names below the
following ominous sentence:

   "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
    reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we
    mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes,
    and our sacred Honor."

The Founders pledged, and many lost, their lives and fortunes
during the Revolutionary War. That struggle created the nation
where we can enjoy the fruits of liberty.

Toward the cause of liberty, are modern Americans willing to
"mutually pledge" even the cost of pizza and beer? A family of
four spends over $20 at a pizza parlor for dinner. Can the
supporters of liberty pledge $20 to preserve their hard-won
heritage?

Twenty dollars buys 25 copies of Gran'pa Jack's Common Sense
-- the booklet that teaches Americans all about the Bill of
Rights. Buy a bundle, hand them out to kids, or leave them on
the coffee table for teens to discover. Go to:

http://www.jpfo.org/editor.htm

....or go to:

http://www.jpfo.org/jpfobor.htm

....for more info.

Our Founders pledged their lives and fortunes -- surely
we can honor their sacrifice by passing the word to future
generations. There is no better time to declare war on
ignorance of the Bill of Rights! Act now!

As well, if you haven't already, consider becoming a fighting
member of JPFO. 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.

What does the 4th of July mean to you? For our founding fathers,
it meant to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes,
and our sacred Honor."

.......and you?

****************************************************************
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."
"If you don't support JPFO, then WHY support ANYONE?"
****************************************************************
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".


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: 4th of July blitz
Date: 06 Jul 1998 06:56:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded messages ----------

Dear Citizens:

Mark ([e-mail]) is requesting that we all log onto the following
listed web site and voice our opinion on our U.S. Constitutionally guarantee
to keep and bear arms and to be a part of the Unorganized Militia to protect
our country from EVIL government.

USCMike1



Time magazine is doing an online survey. It was running 55% to 45%
against us but we're gaining fast! Please take the poll and pass
the address on to others!!
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html


Subj: Help

http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html TIME.com Poll On Guns

Send to all your readers - our 4th of July blitz has really changed the
"fixing of the numbers" - let's turn things around!!!!

Mark



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA-ILA FAX ALERT
Date: 06 Jul 1998 06:56:00 -0700


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

NRA-ILA FAX ALERT
11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA  22030
Phone: [phone] * Fax: [phone] * [e-mail]
Vol. 5, No. 26  7/2/98

HCI WANTS TO PREVENT FIREARMS, NOT FIREARM INJURIES

Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), through their "educational" spin-off
the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV), recently
introduced their latest "education" program -- "Steps to Prevent
Firearm Injury in the Home," or "STOP 2." CPHV Chair Sarah Brady,
flanked by Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala,
held a press conference on June 30 to make the announcement.
Brady claims that the program is designed to: raise awareness
about gun risks in the home, serve as a counseling tool to reduce
the number of gun-related injuries and deaths in the home, and
place gun violence prevention at the forefront of national public
health concerns. The program is to be distributed to "all health
providers who counsel clients/patients and families on health
promotion," and has been funded by the Metropolitan Life
Foundation, which was established in 1976 by the Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company. Of course, if HCI and CPHV were truly
interested in helping to reduce firearm-related injuries, they
would look toward safety programs that have already proven to be
successful, like those developed by NRA. NRA has been in the
injury prevention business since 1871, and over the last eight
years alone we have spent over $100 million teaching firearm
safety and responsibility. Largely due to NRA education programs,
annual fatal firearm accidents are currently at an all-time low,
both in rate and number. It is important to remember that
firearm-related violence is a criminological problem, not a
public health issue. HCI is the same organization that supports
the current bans on the private ownership of firearms in cities
like Washington, D.C., and Morton Grove, Ill. Their own "STOP 2"
literature even suggests the following as health-care
"counseling": "Remind (parents/clients) that the safest thing is
not to have a gun in the home, especially not a handgun."
Remember, NRA has 40,000 certified firearm safety instructors
across the U.S., 700 NRA Training Counselors -- the experts who
train the instructors -- and the award-winning Eddie Eagle Gun
Safety Program, which has reached over 10 million children since
its inception in 1988. Eddie Eagle has even been adopted by the
FBI Academy, for those agents who have families with young
children. If you would like a copy of our Firearm Safety In
America Fact Sheet, please call the Grassroots Division at 1-800-
392-8683. For information on the Eddie Eagle Program, please call
1-800-231-0752.

TANYA METAKSA ADDRESSES LIBERTARIANS

The Libertarian National Convention started today, July 2, in
Washington, D.C., and NRA-ILA Executive Director Tanya K. Metaksa
addressed the attendees, promoting NRA's message of safety,
responsibility, and freedom. Mrs. Metaksa spoke of NRA's
unflinching support of the right to keep and bear arms, a message
not lost on Libertarians, whose official party platform is in
support of the Second Amendment. Other speakers include a diverse
collection of prominent individuals, including Roy Innis, the
national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (and also an
NRA Board Member), Harry Browne, the 1996 Libertarian Party's
presidential candidate, Dan & Amy Gifford, the producers of the
Academy Award-nominated documentary, "Waco: The Rules of
Engagement," and several Libertarians currently holding public
offices. For a copy of the speech call 1-800-392-8683, or you can
find it on our website at http://www.nra.org .



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Verification of Colt's donation to Schumer
Date: 06 Jul 1998 06:56:00 -0700


On Sat, 4 Jul 1998 06:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Joe W wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Jul 98, [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) wrote:

>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 14:18:29 -0400
>>From: E Pluribus Unum <[e-mail]>
>>To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network <[e-mail]>

>>Verification of Colt's donations to Schumer and the Democratic party
>>can be found at www.tray.com/fecinfo

>Colt?  or Zilkha?

>If you want to go after Colt, read Colt CEO(?)/President(?) Ron
>Stewart's column about user proprietary technology and federal
>standards for firearm ownership.

I post what I find about this, from any side.

>>It is painfully obvious that Colt is buttering both sides of it's
>>bread. Many law firms, businesses and corporations do the same thing.
>>Play both sides, so someone in the firm always stays on the good side
>>of those in power.

>>Also the gentleman may go to the same synagogue, so it might be
>>considered like a donation to a family member.

>And Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist, therefore we can smear all
>Southern Baptists with the Clinton brush?  Hard to decide here whether
>this is a little mild anti-Semitism or just simple-minded b.s.  I
>would have thought if ANY firearms list was sensitive to religious
>slurs, it would be the Utah list.

>Joe W

Sorry, but I won't edit these forwards to remove potentially offensive
material. I do post opposing viewpoints. If someone wants to reduce his
credibility with such slurs, that is his affair. I hope the URL Dennis
Walker provided above doesn't share such flaws.



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FW: Gun Confiscation
Date: 06 Jul 1998 09:45:50 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 06 Jul 1998 07:33:06 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id HAA08486; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 07:22:28 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA06421; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:31:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma006200; Mon Jul  6 09:29:52 1998
Message-Id: <A23F70F99FF9D011816A00805F196139018D2356@ccl_exchange.carnival.com>
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

forwarded from CEBS

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    Charlie Mealy [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    Saturday, July 04, 1998 3:40 PM
> To:    [e-mail]
> Subject:    Gun Confiscation
>=20
> This is the site for the SF Underground (Special Forces). The
> following is a quote from their page, it makes for interesting
> reading.
>=20
"In the face of the spectre of disarmament of the American public by
military force, the big question now is whether military personnel would
fire on American citizens who resisted. In a survey circulated within
the military last year, it was found that only 20% would follow orders
to fire on Americans during gun seizure raids. On radio talk shows,
military officers stated outright that they would be much more inclined
to fire on superiors who gave such an order."

> http://www.creative.net/~star/resister.htm
>=20


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 number for Contacting congresscritters
Date: 07 Jul 1998 08:52:34 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 06 Jul 1998 23:00:32 -0600
Received: from legacy.lgcy.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA09063; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 22:49:59 -0600
Received: from [204.228.135.142] by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ta692191; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 22:47:44 -0600
Received: from slc701.modem.xmission.com (allen.leigh.jasmine.leigh) [166.70.7.205]
    by hobbiton.shire.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0ytPfU-0004a8-00; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 22:47:53 -0600
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

From the Michael Reagan web site.

NEW Toll Free Congressional Number!=20
1-800-361-5222: In order to make this number work, you must=20
punch in a zip code from the district of the House Member you=20
are calling or the area code for the Senator you are calling.=20
Then a computer will automatically connect you to the office.=20
You do NOT get connected to the Capitol Switchboard.=20
HOWEVER, if the zip code 90001 is entered, the Capitol=20
Switchboard will answer and one can then ask for ANY=20
Member's office. This number is brought to us compliments of=20
the AARP.

/Allen


-----------------
Big Brother is watching you!
http://www.shire.net/big.brother/


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: In Memory of July 4, 1776
Date: 07 Jul 1998 08:57:32 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 04 Jul 1998 20:45:14 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id UAA07565; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 20:34:43 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA18818; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 22:43:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma018687; Sat Jul  4 22:38:58 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Here is part of a post to me from a friend.  I am reposting it without =
name
credits as I am sure he would want it that way.  It is interesting and =
with
regard to our history and founding these comments are very pertinent.



:

>
>
>      By the way, have you ever read much about the Russo-Finnish War of
>      1939?  If you want a textbook model of how guns in the hands of
>      citizen patriots who have grown up knowing how to use them are THE
>      surest way to resist tyranny, just take a look at that war.  When
>      Stalin's armies moved into Finland, they took a terrible beating.
>      Finnish hunters and outdoorsmen decimated entire Soviet regiments.
>      They even did an admirable job of standing up to armored units.
>      Despite the fact that not a single nation, including the U.S., =
would
>      offer Finland any substantive aid, the Finns held their own for a =
good
>      time  --  until, of course, they were simply overwhelmed by =
numbers.
>      Even in defeat, though, they retained their sovereignty and much of
>      their territorial integrity.  When all was said and done, an =
estimated
>      million soviet dead were left to fertilize the Finnish countryside.
>
>      When I was an undergraduate, I took a history course called "Nazi
>      Germany," taught by an old Hungarian tank commander who had been
>      captured and spent years in a Soviet prison camp after the war.
>      Sometimes, he would come into class and say, "I don't feel like
>      teaching today.  How would you like to hear some war stories?"  =
Then,
>      he would tell about life as an Axis soldier and conditions in a
>      post-war Soviet prison camp.  As far as I was concerned, that was =
as
>      good of an education as anything that we ever read in books.
>
>      Anyway, this professor mentioned a couple of times that the prison
>      camp to which he had been sent had soldiers of many different
>      nationalities.  Out of them all, though, he said that the Russian
>      guards kept their distance from the Finns  --  because, even after =
the
>      war, the Russians still feared them.  Not only had they been superb
>      marksmen, but also the Finns were apparently expert at the art of
>      sneaking into the camps of Soviet invaders at night and slitting =
the
>      throats of sleeping soldiers.
>
>      The Finns in 1939 and the Hungarians in 1956 are both shining =
examples
>      to me of what a people are capable of when armed properly  --  how
>      much more successful might the Hungarians have been had they =
actually
>      had their own guns to practice and train with, rather than having =
to
>      rely on weapons captured from the offices of the secret police?
>
>      Talk to you later.
>
> .





-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fratrum: Is Gun Control a Christian Issue? (fwd)
Date: 07 Jul 1998 10:06:14 -0600

Some of you may find these arguments useful.

On Jul 04, Eugene W. Gross wrote:

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

(From http://www.patriarch.com/articles.html -- Patriarch magazine's Web =
page.)

Is Gun Control a Christian Issue?

It is not easy to keep a proper balance on issues like gun control.  We =
must approach any public policy issue in a Christ-centered way, with an =
eye on the cross, or we do, indeed, run the risk of merely parroting the =
arguments of those whose only hope is in man and his institutions.

We have received a number of letters on this subject and some of my =
brothers in our local fellowship have challenged me on the issue of =
balance, tone, and keeping a Christ-like attitude in these matters.  Let =
me try to summarize how I see things, with these admonitions in mind.

(1) Christians need explicitly Christian arguments on issues.  I can see =
how Larry Pratt's article (Patriarch, Issue # 12) would bother some who =
are looking for a Christian perspective.  Mr. Pratt is a godly man and =
elder in his church, but the piece we reprinted was written for general =
audiences and contained no explicit references to God or his Word.  This =
will not be the last time we use materials on public policy issues that =
express what we believe are views consistent with a Christian perspective =
but which do not make the connection obvious.  The problem is that there =
simply is not much written by Christians who apply the Bible
thoughtfully to themes in contemporary society.  But we need to add =
something to make the connection clear, perhaps an introduction to the =
article or an accompanying piece.

(2) Our hope is in God, not in government or guns.  One risk in taking =
seriously issues of public policy like gun control is that we may give the =
impression that we trust in political solutions to our problems or that we =
depend on guns for our family protection.  This is not the case.  Unless =
the Lord protects our house and watches over our nation, there is nothing =
we can do (Psalm 127:1).  Prayer is always our first responsibility =
because it expresses where our true hope lies.  This, however, does not =
remove our responsibility to act in other ways that are
glorifying to God.=20

(3) Physical defense is a godly man's responsibility.  God is a defender =
of the vulnerable (Exod. 22:22-24; Psalm 68:5).  Rescuing those who are =
threatened with harm is commanded by God, and those who fail to act will =
be judged (Prov.=20
24:11,12).  Abram and David used physical force to rescue their families =
when they were attacked by enemies (Gen. 14; 1 Sam.  30).  The commandment =
prohibiting murder (Exod.  20:13) suggests a responsibility to oppose =
those who aim to break this commandment.  Inaction is complicity when it =
is in our power to act.

We must "turn the other cheek" to personal offenses and be willing to give =
up all our rights, as Jesus did.  Nowhere, however, does Scripture suggest =
that we should turn our eyes away and do nothing to protect those who are =
vulnerable, especially those placed by God under our protection.=20

Keeping and using a gun for the defense of his family is one way a father =
bears the image of his heavenly Father-Protector.  He must trust in God, =
not his gun; but God may choose to extend his sovereign protection through =
that gun.  God's works are often executed through responsible human =
action.

(4) Defense of the Constitution is a godly citizen's responsibility.  We =
do not live in Rome under Nero.  We live in a constitutional republic.  =
Nero was the law and Christians had no grounds or means to oppose his =
tyranny.  In the United States, the Constitution is the law which every =
citizen, and especially every public official, is obligated to obey.  It =
is the responsibility of citizens to oppose those who seek to disobey the =
law of the land, including public officials.  Failure to actively uphold =
the law is failure to submit to the Lord who establishes civil authority.  =
Christian responsibility requires defense of the Second Amendment.  To =
yield to unlawful laws in our system of government is to abdicate the =
responsibility which God in his providence has placed in our hands.  We =
are not attacking government when we speak out against gun control or in =
support of the right to form militias; we are defending the highest law of =
the land from its attackers=3D97and that is our Christian duty!

The influence of Christianity and a biblical world view made this nation =
possible.  We are the first nation to have put the power of civil =
government (yes, even the power of the sword; Rom. 13:4) ultimately in the =
hands of the citizens.  This was possible because of the character and =
virtue of our predominately Christian populace.  Individual citizens were =
expected to govern themselves under God's law and then, in turn, participat=
e in the governance of the nation.  Our form of government is an historical=
 outgrowth of the gospel of Christ.  The personal liberty from sin and =
Satan which Christ grants the individual believer bore fruit in a system =
of government that was not only founded upon these spiritually free men, =
but assured their liberty in every sphere of public life.  The civil =
liberty we enjoy in America is a result of the gospel.

It is wrong for Christian Americans to revert to a sub-Christian understand=
ing of government, to live as if they were in Rome and sheepishly =
acquiesce to tyranny.  In the United States, the people are in charge, =
under God; we are responsible for the direction of this nation.  I am =
afraid too many Christians lack the knowledge or the character to act like =
Christian citizens any more.  It is no virtue to suffer persecution when =
it results from ignorance, cowardice, laziness, or a simple unwillingness =
to be responsible for the direction of the nation.  That would be =
suffering for our unrighteousness.

(5) Armed defense against unlawful tyranny is a last resort.  In our =
system of government each citizen is part of the militia, the armed =
defenders of liberty.  When the King of England broke his word and =
violated the laws he had promised to observe, the colonists were prepared =
to defend their nation with arms, but only after every diplomatic recourse =
had been exhausted.  Today we must fight for the Constitution at the =
ballot box, not with bullets.  But we must also assert, as the Constitution=
 does, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and even to organize =
themselves as citizen militias (which was the whole point of the amendment)=
.  And, yes, the government should fear the people.  That is just another =
way of saying that public officials ought to fear breaking their oath to =
uphold the law.  In our republic, the citizens have the final word in =
defending the law, first at the ballot box, but also with bullets if =
tyranny should ever proceed that far.

(6) Political issues are not our main task, though they ought not be =
neglected.  The church of Jesus Christ has failed miserably in recent =
years to live out her calling.  We have failed in our homes, in our =
churches, in our communities.  We must begin again to proclaim the whole =
counsel of God, calling all men to the cross of Christ for salvation and =
to a life of discipleship.  Government power has increased as Christians =
have abdicated responsibility over more and more areas of their lives: =
education, health care, financial security, care for the needy, etc.=20

Our main task is not to fix the government but to proclaim the cross of =
Christ and start living like Jesus' disciples again in all these areas and =
more.  It is too easy to blame government for our woes and to seek merely =
political solutions to them.  At the same time, we cannot neglect our role =
as citizens and our stewardship for the direction of the civil government.

We just have to keep our priorities in order.  "Politics" is just one =
among many responsibilities of Christ's disciples.  If we lose our =
political battles, it's no big deal because our hope is in God, not in =
government.  But if we lose them because we neglected one of the duties =
God has given us, we will answer to Him for it.=20

(7) Christian Americans need to study the Founding Fathers.  Our Christian =
forefathers did not have our ambivalence bout being Christians and =
citizens.  They did not think it contradictory for Christian men to talk =
of the Gospel of Christ in one breath and the need for war in the next.  =
They spoke of both without tension because they saw both as matters of =
Christian responsibility.  They saw that war can be an application of the =
gospel, a Christian response to unlawful tyranny.  The gospel asserts the =
authority of the resurrected, ascended and reigning Jesus; and maintenance =
of a lawful civil order (established by God) is an expression of our =
allegiance to our Lord and King.

Patrick Henry wrote: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often =
that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians;=
 not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. " Larry Pratt's =
article reminded us of how it was Patrick Henry who gathered the militia =
to oppose the unlawful acts of the British Governor in Virginia=3D97and =
issued his stirring call to arms in a church! This is the same man who =
cried, "Give me liberty or give me death. " Those words could be spoken by =
a godless man concerned only with his "right" to do as he pleased.  =
However, what the Christian patriot meant was (in expansive paraphrase): =
"I am willing to die to uphold the lawful order of civil government which =
God, in His providence, has established in this nation, an order which =
allows maximum liberty to self-governing Christians."

I fear too many Christian men today would think it virtuous to choose =
death rather than fight for the liberty God has granted us under law.  We =
are losing our country because we have forgotten what we have inherited, =
because we have a weak and feminized view of what it means to be Christian =
citizens.  A generation of Christian men raised on such simplistic =
caricatures as "tender Jesus, meek and mild" would scold Patrick Henry =
were he alive today, speaking and acting as he did before.  We need to =
rediscover the robust and manly faith that embraced the tender mercies of =
the gospel in one hand and the fearful responsibilities of godly citizenshi=
p in the other.  They are not contradictory; they are both part of a =
Christian man's calling.  In fact, given America's origins and civil =
structure, we could say that our citizenship responsibilities are a direct =
outgrowth of the gospel of Christ in history.

We talk about gun control because we believe it is part of how we express =
our allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord=3D97Lord even of our nation, and =
our guns.=20

[------------------------- 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 =3D Freedom |  DIAL  | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a
on every side! | 1911-A1.  | word.   --  The Bible  | sword. --Jesus =
Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: NRA joins Clinton & Rendell]
Date: 07 Jul 1998 11:16:02 -0600

Received: from [192.40.29.55] by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA21542; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:10:30 -0600
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from toro.phbtsus.com by philipsdvs.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA01229; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:08:45 -0600
Received: from mocha.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA21532; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:09:57 -0600
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Philips Digital Video Systems
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; U)
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

....And one person I know claims that Tanya Metaksa is a
"radical gun-rights activist"....  More horse-pucky from
the world's largest gun-control organization - the NRA.

S. Thompson wrote:
>
> http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2554912546-4ab
>
> Final proof the NRA endorses gun control...
> Non-residents?  Is that illegal aliens or non-residents of Philadelphia?
>
> > [INFOBEAT | ][Profile | ][Feedback | ][About | ][Terms | ][Custom]
> >
> >  -----------------------------------------------------------
> >  [Image]
> >  -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 10:13 AM ET 07/03/98
> >
> > Pressure builds for Clinton backing of NRA gun program
> >
> >
> >             By David Morgan
> >             PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The Clinton administrationis under
> > growing pressure to support a program for combating gun violence
> > touted by the president's political adversaries at the National
> > Rifle Association, officials say.
> >             In recent weeks, senior officials in the Justice Department
> > and the FBI have begun to take a close look at an initiative
> > called ``Operation Exile'' which has dramatically cut
> > gun-related crime in Richmond, Virginia, through the strict
> > enforcement of existing federal gun statutes.
> >             Now, Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell is asking the White
> > House to endorse a plan to make his city the test case for a
> > similar program that could serve as a model for other big U.S.
> > cities from the District of Columbia to Los Angeles.
> >             The Republican-controlled Congress, at the urging of the NRA
> > and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, has reopened a Senate
> > appropriations bill to set aside $1.5 million for extra federal
> > prosecutors, investigators and other resources in Philadelphia.
> >             U.S. prosecutors in the fifth largest U.S. city already are
> > talking about the specifics of such a program with local police
> > and say the talks could produce a general blueprint by autumn.
> >             ``Any idea that has the chance to reduce the level of gun
> > violence in Philadelphia, I'm willing to try,'' said Rendell, an
> > influential liberal Democrat and staunch Clinton ally who is
> > ordinarily no friend of the NRA.
> >             Rendell expects the White House to back the initiative for
> > Philadelphia after he meets with administration officials in
> > Washington later this summer.
> >             ``I do believe they're going to cooperate, notwithstanding
> > the very bitter personal nature of the NRA rhetoric against the
> > president,'' the mayor told Reuters. ``The president's always
> > been better than that and bigger than that, and I think he'll be
> > that here. And I think it's going to pass the Congress.''
> >             City officials in Rochester, New York, say they too are
> > considering a similar approach to that city's gun problems.
> >             The idea is to prosecute every violation of federal gun
> > statutes, which include specific prohibitions of gun possession
> > by convicted felons, drug users and dealers, nonresidents,
> > fugitives and people convicted of domestic violence. Violators
> > can expect five years in a federal prison on average.
> >             In Richmond, where Operation Exile has been under way since
> > early 1997, the rate of gun-related homicides has fallen more
> > than 60 percent and the program has won endorsements not only
> > from the NRA but from leading gun-control advocates including
> > the Washington-based group, Handgun Control Inc.
> >             ``Nobody believes that criminals should be allowed to carry
> > guns,'' said assistant U.S. Attorney David Schiller, one of the
> > federal prosecutors who came up with the initiative.
> >             The NRA, the powerful gun lobby that popularized the slogan
> > ''guns don't kill people, people kill people,'' likes the idea
> > of addressing the nation's gun epidemic with strict enforcement
> > of existing statutes because NRA officials believe the approach
> > would show that tougher gun-control laws are unnecessary.
> >             NRA President Charlton Heston touted the idea of making one
> > U.S. city a zero-tolerance zone for federal gun violations a
> > month ago at the group's annual convention in Philadelphia.
> >             Philadelphia would be a prime candidate not only because it
> > is the city where the constitutional right to bear arms was
> > formulated and adopted in the late 18th century, but because it
> > has since become a national leader in firearms violence.
> >             Law enforcement officials say guns were involved in 82
> > percent of the more than 400 murders committed in Philadelphia
> > last year, constituting the grim pace of nearly one firearm
> > homicide a day.
> >             The administration has been lukewarm to a Philadelphia
> > experiment, however.
> >             White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said the administration
> > was not opposed to a program for Philadelphia. But he said
> > Clinton wanted to expand U.S. Attorney's Offices nationwide and
> > blamed the NRA's Republican allies in Congress for not
> > supporting funding for such a plan.
> >             ``Our concern is that running this program somehow becomes
> > an excuse not to fund these other programs and that would be a
> > mistake,'' Lockhart told Reuters.
> >             ``We're for enforcing gun laws all across America. If the
> > NRA wants to jump in and convince their traditional allies that
> > they ought to support this funding, then Philadelphia,
> > Washington, New York, Los Angeles will all take advantage of
> > expanded gun prosecution. There's legislation before Congress
> > now that they need to act on.''
> >             Specter's funding measure for Philadelphia would pay for
> > five prosecutors dedicated to gun cases and at least 10 extra
> > investigators for the Philadelphia office of the U.S. Bureau of
> > Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
> >             Operation Exile in Richmond was launched without extra
> > resources or special endorsements from the White House and
> > Congress.
> >          ^REUTERS@



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Citizens Protection Act  HR 3396
Date: 07 Jul 1998 11:16:37 -0600

Would you like to see a law that makes it illegal for federal law officers =
to break the law?


HR 3396
The Attorney General shall establish, by plain rule, that it shall be =
punishable conduct for any Department of Justice employee to--

(1) in the absence of probable cause seek the indictment of any person;

(2) fail promptly to release information that would exonerate a person =
under indictment;

(3) intentionally mislead a court as to the guilt of any person;

(4) intentionally or knowingly misstate evidence;

(5) intentionally or knowingly alter evidence;

(6) attempt to influence or color a witness' testimony;

(7) act to frustrate or impede a defendant's right to discovery;

(8) offer or provide sexual activities to any government witness or =
potential witness;

(9) leak or otherwise improperly disseminate information to any person =
during an investigation; or

(10) engage in conduct that discredits the Department.

HR3396 is now in the House.  Call your Congresscritters and encourage them =
to promote this bill.  Try your local office as I believe Congress is in =
recess and your reps are home campaigning.

http://thomas.loc.gov


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Lott/HCI Debate Full Transcript
Date: 07 Jul 1998 18:58:44 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 04 Jul 1998 19:02:08 -0600
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id SAA07531; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 18:51:36 -0600
Received: (qmail 2763 invoked by uid 516); 5 Jul 1998 00:59:52 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 2508 invoked from network); 5 Jul 1998 00:59:23 -0000
Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 1998 00:59:23 -0000
Received: from mg2.rockymtn.net (mailserv.rockymtn.net [166.93.205.12])
    by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA25345
    for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 20:59:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 166-93-76-162.rmi.net (166-93-76-162.rmi.net [166.93.76.162])
    by mg2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA27615;
    Sat, 4 Jul 1998 18:36:21 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 03:10:33 -0400 (EDT)
>Errors-To: [e-mail]
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Originator: [e-mail]
>Sender: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail]
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Lott/HCI Debate Full Transcript
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
>
>   Damn this guy is good. The HCI dude was foaming at the mouth.
>Time cut the debate short I'm told, I wonder why?
>
>    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"
>
>Regards,
>Dennis Baron
>                            ------------------------------------------
>http://www.pathfinder.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html
>
>
>More Guns, Less Crime?
>A debate between John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, and Douglas
>Weil, research director of Handgun Control, Inc.
>
>Transcript from July 1, 1998
>
>Timehost: This week, TIME returned to a cover story topic it first looked
>at 30 years ago...Guns in America. Tonight we have with us a man who is =
the
>subject of one of the stories in the package -- John Lott of the =
University
>of Chicago, whose book More Guns, Less Crime argues that allowing =
citizens
>to carry concealed weapons actually lowers crime rates. We are also =
joined
>by someone who is in direct opposition to Mr. Lott's theory. He is =
Douglas
>Weil, director of research for Handgun Control, Inc. and the Center To
>Prevent Handgun Violence. Mr. Lott, perhaps you could first outline what
>your book has to say about concealed weapons. We've had a lot of =
questions
>about it already.
>
>John Lott: I find that just as criminals can be deterred by higher arrest
>or conviction rates, they can also be deterred by the fact that would-be
>victims might be able to defend themselves with a gun. Criminals are less
>likely to commit a crime as the probability that a victim is going to be
>able to defend themselves increases.
>
>Timehost: Mr. Weil, your response?
>
>Douglas Weil First, there's no evidence that we have any significant
>increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an
>increased risk of an armed victim. Most important, when Lott's research =
was
>published, a number of academic researchers looked at this methods and =
his
>conclusions and determined his research was fundamentally flawed. The
>criticism was so convincing that even Gary Kleck, a criminologist whose
>work is often cited by John Lott and the NRA, has dismissed Lott's
>conclusions. Kleck wrote in his book, Targeting Guns, that "more likely =
the
>declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely
>attributable to other factors not controlled for in the Lott Mustard
>analysis."
>
>John Lott: First, there is a very close relationship between the number =
of
>permits issued in a state and the decline in violent crime rates. Those
>states that issue the most permits have had the largest drops in violent
>crime, and over time as more permits are issued there is a continued drop
>in violent crime. As to Mr. Weil's second point, I have provided my data =
to
>researchers at 36 different universities. I believe that the vast =
majority
>would support the findings that I have provided, but if Mr. Weil has
>specific criticisms, I would be happy to address them. This is by far the
>largest study that has been done on crime, and I have tried to control =
for
>as many variables as it has been possible to control for.
>
>Alliezach_98 asks: Mr. Lott, If more guns bring less crime, how come
>virtually every other nation has less guns and less violent crime, and =
have
>taken steps to reduce guns?
>
>Lott: In fact, there's no relationship internationally between gun
>ownership and murder rates. There are many countries with gun ownership
>rates similar to or higher than what we have in the US, and they have =
very
>low murder rates. The reverse is also true. There are many countries like
>Finland, Switzerland, and New Zealand that have virtually identical gun
>ownership rates to what we have in the US, and their murder rates are
>significantly lower than those of surrounding countries. Israel, with one
>of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, has a murder rate 40%
>below Canada's. In my book, I find that the states that have had the
>highest growth in gun ownership have in fact had the biggest drops in
>violent crime rates.
>
>Douglas Weil: John said he found that states with the highest growth in =
gun
>ownership have the biggest drop in violent crime. John reached the
>conclusion using two voter exit polls in applying a made-up formula which
>concluded that the percentage of adults who own a firearm increased by =
50%
>from 1988 to 1996. But we know that's wrong. According the General Social
>Survey, gun ownership has remained essentially unchanged since at least
>1990. But the most important information is that the Voters News Service,
>which conducted the 1996 poll has said the poll cannot be used in the
>manner Dr. Lott used it. It cannot be used to say anything about gun
>ownership in any state, and it cannot be used to compare gun ownership to
>the earlier 1988 voter poll. I'd also like to respond to an earlier =
point.
>Earlier John said that he believes that other researchers would support =
his
>conclusions. Dan Black Dan Nagin are two researchers are two researchers =
he
>gave his data to. They concluded, after re-analyzing the data, that "it
>would be a mistake to formulate policy based on the findings of Dr. =
Lott's
>study." In the Journal of Legal Studies, January 1988, they used a
>well-known statistical test which proved that John failed to control for
>other factors that affect crime rates. Again, I repeat, the analysis was =
so
>convincing that Gary Kleck has dismissed Lott's findings.
>
>John Lott: Mr. Weil is simply wrong about the polls. There has been a =
large
>increase in gun ownership in the last decade. This increase occurred
>especially around the introduction of the Brady Law in 1994. My empirical
>work accounts for differences in polling standards over time. And it =
tries
>to account for other changes that could affect changing crime rates over
>time. To get to his second point, the debate among economists using the
>data I've put together ranges from people who find very large drops in
>violent crime after concealed handgun laws are adopted, to those who find =
a
>small amount of evidence that crime has fallen slightly. The vast =
majority
>of studies support my findings. The Black and Nagin study that Mr. Weil
>refers to eliminated all counties with fewer than 100,000 people, 86% of
>all counties in the US. Even at that point they were only able to weaken =
my
>results when they also threw out the data from Florida from the sample. =
Mr.
>Weil says that I haven't accounted for factors that could affect the =
crime
>rate. If he could suggest what they are, I would be interested in hearing
>them.
>
>Douglas Weil: As far as my misreading polls, let's cite the Journal of
>Criminal Law and Criminology: "The facts of gun ownership by women are
>dramatically different from that described by pro-gun groups and the =
media.
>According to the best available data, the ownership of firearms among =
women
>is not increasing. The gender gap is not closing, and the level of
>ownership is much smaller than commonly stated." This is from analysis of
>the General Social Survey.
>
>Timehost: We have two related questions for Mr. Weil now: We have a lot =
of
>questions, so it would be great if you can keep your answers a little
>shorter. Thanks.
>
>Redcloak_98 asks: How does HCI explain Mexico's high violent crime rate =
and
>low gun ownership rate?
>
>FireMedic291 asks: I have seen stupid acts of violence occur more with
>knives and impact weapons...than just with guns...criminals are criminals
>-- they will use whatever TOOLS they can find. Why not outlaw knives and
>baseball bats?
>
>Douglas Weil: First, if I have a choice of being chased by someone with a
>baseball bat or someone with a gun, I would rather be chased by someone
>with a baseball bat. Now there is a growing body of scientific studies
>which show an association between gun ownership rates and murder and
>suicide, when you compare across countries. Most recently, the Centers =
for
>Disease Control and Prevention reported that the gun death rate for
>children in the United States was many times higher than the combined =
rate
>for 25 other high income countries. The difference: we have guns at much
>higher rates. What's important to know is that, while our rates of =
violence
>are not significantly different than many other countries, our death =
rate,
>our fatal violence rate, is much higher, and the reason is that we have =
far
>greater access to guns.
>
>John Lott: Bad things obviously happen with guns. And guns make it easier
>for those things to happen, but guns also prevent bad things from
>happening, and make it easier for people to defend themselves. The =
ability
>to defend oneself with a gun is particularly important for those people =
who
>are relatively weak physically, such as women and the elderly. Women who
>behave passively when they are confronted by a criminal are 2.5 times =
more
>likely to be seriously injured than women who defend themselves with a =
gun.
>There's no evidence that murder rates are higher in those countries with
>higher levels of gun ownership. The only way that people have been able =
to
>show such relationships is to selectively pick just a few countries to =
make
>a comparison between. When one looks at all countries, there is in fact a
>negative relationship between suicide rates and gun ownership.
>
>Timehost: These next two for Mr. Lott:
>
>Robtboyd asks: Do you think children should be trained in school to use
>guns?
>
>Dick_Brudzynski asks: ? for JL: Should teachers be equipped with guns so
>they can protect their students?
>
>John Lott: I think that educating children about gun safety is very
>important, and would reduce accidental gun deaths. Accidental gun deaths
>are probably much smaller than most people would believe. In 1996, =
children
>ages 5 and under were involved in 30 accidental gun deaths. For ages =
6-14,
>there were 170. If one compares that to other ways that children die
>accidentally, these numbers are relatively small. For ages 6-14, 950
>children drowned in pools, and 15 times more children die in automobile
>accidents. With regard to teachers, I have four school age children, and =
I
>teach. And so I don't take my answer to this question very lightly. I =
think
>the 1995 law that banned guns within 1000 feet of a school was
>well-intentioned, but has had unintended consequences. Rather than making
>schools safe for children, these laws have made it relatively safer for =
bad
>people to threaten our children. I don't think that all or even a
>significant number of teachers or administrators need to be allowed to
>carry concealed handguns, but my research has indicated that allowing
>citizens to carry concealed handguns has a huge deterrent effect on
>multiple victim public shootings. Looking at multiple victim public
>shootings from 1977 through 1995 indicates that the passage of
>right-to-carry concealed handgun laws is associated with an 84% drop in =
the
>rate at which these multiple victim public shootings occur. To the extent
>that shootings still occur in those states with concealed handgun laws,
>they tend to overwhelmingly occur in those parts of the state where
>concealed handguns are not allowed. No other factors, like the death
>penalty, arrest rates for murder, waiting periods, or background checks
>have any affect on reducing these multiple victim shootings.
>
>Douglas Weil: First, John's research has been dismissed by people on both
>sides of the gun issue, including Gary Kleck, and, the organization that
>produced the most recent poll that you used to determine more guns equals
>less crime, said that you misused the data. So, let's not pretend that =
your
>research shows anything about effects of allowing people to carry =
concealed
>handguns on mass shootings. Now, while Dr. Lott says that there are few
>accidental deaths by firearms among young children, what's clear is that
>they are both predictable and preventable. We know that as designed,
>virtually every handgun can be fired by children as young as three and =
four
>years of age. This is a design flaw in firearms and it is information
>available to the gun industry. There is no reason that guns should be
>designed so that children who are only three and four years old can fire
>them. Furthermore, we know that one third of gun owning parents keep =
their
>guns unlocked and half those parents keep their guns loaded. There is no
>reason for gun owners to keep their guns stored, loaded, unlocked and
>accessible to children. Lyn Bates, contributing editor to Women and Guns
>magazine, wrote that guns, kept for self-defense, should be kept in a
>locked box and that children should not be allowed to see the gun owner
>open the box. Dr. Lott refers to educating children. So does the NRA =
which
>touts its Eddie Eagle program. The problem with both Dr. Lott's and the
>NRA's position is that it puts the responsibility for gun safety on
>children and not on gun owners who keep their guns improperly stored and
>gun makers who continue to design guns that can be fired by any child as
>well as by any unauthorized user who steals the guns, which are not
>properly locked away.
>
>Jemonaly asks: Mr. Weil: Why does HCI and other gun control groups seek =
to
>ban ownership of firearms (or seriously control it) rather than focusing =
on
>holding people accountable for their actions?
>
>Douglas Weil: First, HCI and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence do =
not
>support a ban on the ownership of firearms, including handguns. We do =
seek
>reasonable gun laws. We know that limiting handgun purchases to one gun =
per
>month and requiring background checks on all handgun purchases has a
>significant impact on stopping illegal gun trafficking. I would like to
>know if John Lott supports limiting handgun purchases to something like =
one
>gun a month and supports mandatory background checks and waiting periods
>which have been shown to stop gun trafficking. Neither law impinges on an
>individual's privilege of owning a firearm or using that gun for self
>protection. Those are the types of laws supported by Handgun Control.
>
>John Lott: Unfortunately, while laws such as the Brady Law are well
>intentioned, my book provides evidence that their effect is actually
>counter-productive. The waiting period portion of the Brady Law has no
>effect on murder rates or robbery rates but is actually associated with a
>few percent increase in rape and aggravated assault rates. There are a =
few
>cases, particularly for women, who have noticed that they may be being
>stalked, where the delay in obtaining a gun caused by the waiting period
>has serious consequences for their safety. My book provides the first
>systematic study that's been done on the Brady Law and state waiting
>periods. My research on background checks indicates that they have no
>effect in preventing criminals from obtaining guns. My concern with the
>many rules that Handgun Controls proposes is that they will significantly
>raise the price of guns, and hurt the ability of poor, law-abiding =
citizens
>to obtain guns to protect themselves. My research indicates that it is =
the
>poor who live in high crime, urban areas who benefit the most from
>increased gun ownership. In response to Mr. Weil's continued references =
to
>Gary Kleck, I would like to quote what Mr. Kleck actually says about my
>book: "John Lott has done the most extensive, thorough and sophisticated
>study we have on the effects of loosening gun control laws."
>
>Timehost: All right, we're going to run a bit over here. We have one
>comment that I'd be interested in getting both your reactions to:
>
>LUCKY77_ asks: I think that it is people that kill people and not guns.. =
if
>everybody was informed and taught about guns there would be less crime..
>people also have less respect for life and it is in the people that lies
>the problem
>
>Douglas Weil: First, John only partially quoted Gary Kleck from the back
>flap of John's book. Nowhere does Gary say that John has proved anything.
>And again, I refer you directly to page 372 of Gary Kleck's book, =
Targeting
>Guns. Second, since John's data does not cover the years following
>implementation of the Brady Act, it's hard to know how he can claim to =
have
>studied the impact of the Brady law on crime rates or criminal access to
>guns. We know from a study of data maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol
>Tobacco and Firearms that implementation of the Brady Act cut gun
>trafficking from Ohio to Michigan. 66% of guns recovered in Michigan,
>bought before Brady and traced to other states by the police, were traced
>to Ohio. After Ohio started conducting background checks, the percentage
>fell by two-thirds to 22%.
>
>Timehost: OK, let's get back to the comment already presented for a
>moment....The premise is that it's people that cause violence, not guns,
>and that the problem of our crime-ridden society lies in people, not the
>weapons they use. Your reactions?
>
>Douglas Weil: As for the question, people kill people with guns. Some of
>those deaths are accident and suicides. And they can be prevented by
>designing guns that cannot be fired by children. Some of those killing
>occur when criminals use guns. We can reduce the demand for guns by
>criminals as evidenced in Boston, where law enforcement applied severe
>pressure to youth gangs. And we can reduce the supply of guns available =
to
>criminals with background checks, waiting periods, one gun a month laws,
>and by requiring that guns be stored in a locked box.
>
>John Lott: Evidently, Mr. Weil has not read my book. The data that I =
study
>goes from the end of 1977 through the end of 1994, which thus includes =
the
>first year that the Brady Law was in effect. Mr. Weil cites recent =
federal
>government evidence of the effectiveness of the Brady Law. Unfortunately,
>in the last couple of weeks, serious questions have arisen concerning the
>Clinton Administration's biasing of data to show benefits from the Brady
>Law. Last week, the Indianapolis Star reported that the Justice
>Department's study overstated by more than 1300% the number of handgun
>sales that were blocked in Indiana. The numbers of for Arizona were also
>off by at least 30 percent. Similar misstatements of numbers have been
>found for many other states. In every case the numbers were biased to
>support the Clinton Administration's position on the Brady Law. With =
regard
>to the second point, reducing gun ownership by criminals would be great,
>unfortunately, the rules that groups such as Handgun Control propose have =
a
>greater impact on gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Rules that =
reduce
>gun ownership more by law abiding citizens increase violent crime rates.
>
>Timehost: And with that, I'm afraid we'll have to end since we're out of
>time. Thanks to both of our guests for joining us. We've enjoyed having
>you.
>
>Timehost: Any closing comments? Very brief, please....
>
>John Lott: The question that I have tried to answer in my book is whether
>guns on net save lives or cost lives, and what impact guns have on the
>threats that people face every day from crimes like rape, robbery and
>aggravated assault. I find that police are extremely important in =
reducing
>crime rates, but police virtually always arrive on the crime scene after
>the crime has already been committed. The question is what is the best
>course of action for would be victims when they are confronted by a
>criminal. My research indicates that gun ownership is the most effective
>means for people to defend themselves, particularly for women and poor
>blacks who live in high crime urban areas.
>
>Timehost: Thank you, Mr. Lott. Now, Mr. Weil:
>
>Douglas Weil: Since August 1996 John's research has been harshly =
criticized
>by any number of academic researchers. Earlier this year, I joined Dr. =
Lott
>at the annual meeting of the American Economics Association in Chicago, =
and
>criticized John for his continued failure to address the many problems
>identified with his work. Now, without having made any significant =
changes
>to his work which would justify bringing his conclusions to a larger
>audience, Lott is restating his claims, in his book and on the op-ed =
pages
>of a number of nationally important newspapers. At some point it becomes
>irresponsible to continue to promote a study shown to have no credibility
>with those qualified to evaluate its scientific merit. It is a point that
>John passed some time ago. Finally, John, in his book and in the National
>Review, has accused gun control advocates including Handgun Control, of
>failing to address his study on the merits. He knows this is untrue. In
>August of 1996, he thanked me for comments on his paper that I made =
before
>he presented his findings at the Cato Institute. In December, Dr. Lott
>participated in a nationally televised symposium, sponsored by Handgun
>Control. John was allotted half the time available to all researchers to
>give him ample time to respond to his critics. It isn't often that an
>advocacy group pays to put its opponent on national TV. We did it. His
>study fails on the merits. Thank you for your time.
>
>John Lott: Thank you, but let me just say that that is a misrepresentation=

>of my research and of the discussions we have had.
>
>Timehost: Thanks to both of our guests and good night. And a gigantic =
thank
>you to the audience for its terrific questions! We're very sorry that we
>didn't have the time to submit them all to our guests.
>
>NOTE: We had unusual difficulty bringing this online debate to a close, =
but
>we hope that the arguments and discussion will continue with John Lott,
>Douglas Weil, and our online readers on our bulletin boards. To join the
>debate, go to our America Under the Gun board.
>
>
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
********************


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


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Trigger Locks and "Other Measures"
Date: 08 Jul 1998 10:40:50 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 08 Jul 1998 07:57:49 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id HAA10374; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 07:47:14 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA07129; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 09:55:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma007007; Wed Jul  8 09:54:04 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

=20

-
----

-
----
 =20


08:18 PM ET 07/07/98

Clinton to back gun-safety measures for children

    =20
        By Randall Mikkelsen
        WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton on Wednesday will
back a proposal to penalize gun owners who let weapons fall into
the hands of children, and promote other measures to protect
youth from firearms, officials said.
        ``He's got a package of things,'' White House spokesman Joe
Lockhart said.
        A central element will be Clinton's endorsement of a
proposal by Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois and
Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island, designed to
encourage the use of so-called ``trigger locks'' or other
security mechanisms when storing guns.
        ``If we do not want to see children killed or permanently
disabled, we must do something about our insanely easy access to
guns,'' Chafee said in a news release about Wednesday's
endorsement by Clinton.
        The proposal would impose penalties on gun owners when
juveniles get hold of their guns and use them against another
person, show them in a public place, or take one to school.
        The penalties would not apply when the owner has used a
trigger lock or kept the gun in locked storage. They also would
not apply where the gun is used in self-defense, or in relation
to military service.
        An aide to Chafee said the proposal was introduced after a
flurry of school shootings this year in which evidently
disturbed children obtained weapons from their parents.
        The aide said he hoped the proposal would be included in any
broader juvenile justice legislation considered by Congress this
year.
        A government official said another element of the Clinton
announcement related to gun tracing, and other measures would
also be included.
        The Durbin-Chafee measure has long been sought by
gun-control advocates. But some advocates said Clinton's White
House event Wednesday endorsing the proposal will be
overshadowed by product-liability legislation moving toward a
Senate vote that they said could set back the cause.
        That legislation, which the White House said Clinton would
sign if it reached him in its present form, includes caps on
punitive damage awards against small businesses that would
include many gun makers.
        ``Whatever they are going to do in the Rose Garden tomorrow
that is good, is going to be dwarfed by signing a bill which
would slam the courthouse door to victims of gun violence across
America,'' said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center, a
group which supports gun control.
        Two Democratic Senators, Robert Torricelli of New Jersey and
Dianne Feinstein of California, unveiled an amendment Tuesday
designed to exclude gun manufacturers from any of the pending
legal relief.
        But the White House, working to keep intact a delicate
compromise over the overall product-liability bill, is not
taking a position on the amendment. ``We're not going to upset
the apple cart,'' White House spokesman Barry Toiv said.
        Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee
for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said the secure-storage
measure to be endorsed by Clinton would be ineffective and an
unfair intrusion on state rights.
      =20
 ^REUTERS@


              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: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Firearms Owners Protection Act
Date: 08 Jul 1998 10:42:36 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 08 Jul 1998 01:40:31 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA10187; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 01:29:58 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA22699; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 03:38:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma022653; Wed Jul  8 03:38:21 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 01:16 AM 7/8/98 -0400, larry ball wrote:
>Can somebody explain this Act to me?  Can I purchase a long gun in a
>state other than mine?
>
>Larry Ball
>[e-mail]
>

Go to David Hardy's website. He helped write the thing, plus was the
counsel for Sherrif Mack in the Brady lawsuit.

(actually the link on Hardy's page takes you to:

http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/FOPA.html

It's long but it tells the whole story of FOPA. Incidently it was the law
that did away with showing ID and signing for "pistol" ammunition.  I used
my military ID to buy .22 shorts way back then pre FOPA.  It was also the
law that re-allowed purchase of ammunition by mail by non FFLs. It also
"theoretically" protects you when transporting firearms through gun
unfriendly states or locals. As long as the guns are unloaded and "out of
reach" and they are legal to have in both origin and destination
states/locals, they aren't supposed to bust you for what would otherwise =
be
a state/local charge of illegal possesion. I say theoretically becasue =
some
locals, N.J. for example, sometimes honor the law in breach, at least =
until
you end up in court.





              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: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FW: GSL> None dare call it fascism - It's later than you
Date: 08 Jul 1998 14:31:09 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 08 Jul 1998 11:24:43 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA10542; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:14:09 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA20201; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 13:22:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma020008; Wed Jul  8 13:19:09 1998
Message-Id: <A23F70F99FF9D011816A00805F196139018D2365@ccl_exchange.carnival.com>
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

forwarded from GSL

Ken Grubb
Miami, FL


> -----Original Message-----
> From:    AARC Distributors, Inc.
> [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    Tuesday, July 07, 1998 8:31 PM
> To:    [e-mail]
> Subject:    GSL> It's later than you think
>=20
> ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
> 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"
> =20
None dare call it fascism=20

What if a U.S. administration announced it was violating the
Constitution and no one cared? That seems to be what's happening today
as President Clinton moves to amass what can only be described as
"imperial powers" without as much as a whimper of protest heard in the
land.=20

In May, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13083, a frontal
assault on 10th Amendment-protected powers of the states and
individuals. No one noticed, or cared.=20

Congress allowed it to become law by not lifting a finger. No governors
or state legislatures protested. The media didn't even report on the
federal power grab.=20

Having gotten away with the cold-blooded, broad daylight murder of one
constitutional principle, President Clinton has decided to use his
enormous, new-found dictatorial authority more frequently in the final
two years of his term. He plans to issue more and more executive orders,
beginning as early as today.=20

The first order of business will likely be an executive order promoting
more federal control over the health-care needs of federal employees.
During that ceremony, Clinton plans to urge Congress to enact his
"Patients' Bill of Rights" legislation setting national standards for
managed medical care.=20

As top White House aide Paul Begala arrogantly put it: "Stroke of the
pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool."=20

Yeah, cool dude. Meet the hip, new face of fascism in America. Whatever
it takes to rule, so be it. The Constitution be damned. We've got
important public policy reforms to enact. If the Congress won't
cooperate, then we'll make the Congress irrelevant -- go over their
heads. Mussolini would be proud -- not to mention Jiang Zemin.

"He's ready to work with Congress if they work with him," Rahm Emanuel,
senior policy adviser to the president, explained. "But if they choose
partisanship, he will choose progress." Translation: Unless Congress
gets on its knees a la Monica Lewinsky and gives the president
everything he wants, he will resort to governing by decree.=20

Is Clinton within his rights as president to use the power of the
executive order? There's no question other presidents have abused the
practice. But none more than Clinton.=20

Executive orders were originally intended to give presidents rule-making
authority over the executive branch -- to allow him to preside as the
chief executive officer of the White House and its vast number of
employees and departments. Clinton has reinvented the executive order as
a form of presidential law-making authority -- something in direct
contradiction with the Constitution.=20

In fact, as recently as June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in its
line-item veto case, that the president of the United States cannot
initiate legislation. If followed to its natural conclusion, this ruling
would invalidate all executive orders -- past and present.=20

The problem, of course, is that it takes some bold person in Congress,
or even at the state government level, to challenge this grotesque
usurpation and centralization of power. So far, they're all scurrying
away from this issue like rats fleeing a burning Reichstag.=20

What's at stake here? Well, just consider the fact that one of Clinton's
executive orders empowers him to declare a national emergency and set up
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to direct federal, state and
local governments. This provision replicates the executive powers laid
down in the 1933 War Powers Act and would allow FEMA to control all
communication facilities (including, presumably, WorldNetDaily), power
supplies, food supplies, airports, transportation of any kind, seaports,
waterways and highways. Congress would not even be able to debate the
president's declaration for the first six months of totalitarian rule.=20

The president could implement this draconian plan under "any threat to
national security, perceived or real." Do you trust Bill Clinton with
that kind of authority? Apparently, the Republican-controlled Congress
does. And so does the corporate media establishment. No one is speaking
out against the prospect of American fascism -- not even the American
Civil Liberties Union.=20

I would just like to remind my "progressive" friends that it was a
similar arrangement under which Adolph Hitler suspended the German
constitution by presidential decree.=20

Do you really think it can't happen here? Is it inconceivable that
America could ever lose its freedom? If the only thing that prevents
evil from triumphing is for good men to do nothing, it seems our nation
is well on its way down the road to destruction.=20
=20
A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be
heard at
http://www.ktkz.com/=20



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: PT Alert (fwd)
Date: 09 Jul 1998 08:41:18 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 08 Jul 1998 17:16:57 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA10786; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 17:06:23 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA13621; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 19:14:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma013546; Wed Jul  8 19:11:18 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline





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

Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Ed Lawson" <[e-mail]>

*********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ***********

On 7/8/98, at 2:30 PM, Peaceable Texans <[e-mail] wrote:=20


Peaceable Texans for Firearm Rights =20
1122 Colorado St., Ste. 2320, Austin, TX  78701
512-476-2299, fax [phone]
http://www.io.com/~velte/pt.htm        July 8, 1998



    For those of you who still watch the mainstream news media, you =
might want
to watch tonight's Nightline.  We have advance word that ABC's NightLine
show will be doing an attack piece on gun shows tonight.  Those that have
tuned out on such "news" services, you may want to watch anyway to see how
the issues are presented. =20

    A recent fundraising letter to HCI members from Sarah Brady =
outlined how
gun shows will be the next target of the antis.  The media is now doing
their part to soften us all up for their legislative push.  We must stay
organized to defeat the coming legislative onslaught.  Ultimately, if
gunshows are banned due to the private transfers that occur at them, then
it is the private transfer that will be deemed the evil to be avoided.
Which means that eventually, all private transfers will be outlawed. =20

    One can also expect to see a few gun store owners actually come =
out
publicly to support anti-gun show bills for the reason that it will hurt
their competition.  Gun shows provide quite a bit of price competition to
established store-front gun dealers.  It is sad to see the old "divide and
conquer" routine being used upon gun owners.  Some seem to put their own
short term financial interests above the good of the gun rights movement =
in
general.=20



*********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE ***********
--
For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.=
net
with the word help in the message body.



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Gun Poll (fwd)
Date: 09 Jul 1998 08:51:45 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 08 Jul 1998 17:16:57 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA10789; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 17:06:24 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA13685; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 19:15:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma013558; Wed Jul  8 19:11:24 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Jul 08, Josh Amos wrote:

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


We are getting hammered here too

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm


[------------------------- 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 =3D 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: Fwd: Re: FW: Gun Confiscation
Date: 09 Jul 1998 09:06:46 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 09 Jul 1998 04:10:53 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id EAA11168; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 04:00:19 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA25581; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 03:43:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma025446; Thu Jul  9 03:40:29 1998
Message-Id: <v0153050ab1c7fbd110dc@[206.163.5.164]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>
>Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:44:11 -0400
>From: "Grubb, Ken" <[e-mail]>
>To: "'Noban'" <[e-mail]>
>Cc: "'FSSA'" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: FW: Gun Confiscation
>Message-ID:
><A23F70F99FF9D011816A00805F196139018D2356@ccl_exchange.carnival.com>
>
>forwarded from CEBS
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charlie Mealy [SMTP:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 1998 3:40 PM
>> To:   [e-mail]
>> Subject:      Gun Confiscation
>>
>> This is the site for the SF Underground (Special Forces). The
>> following is a quote from their page, it makes for interesting
>> reading.
>>
>"In the face of the spectre of disarmament of the American public by
>military force, the big question now is whether military personnel would
>fire on American citizens who resisted. In a survey circulated within
>the military last year, it was found that only 20% would follow orders
>to fire on Americans during gun seizure raids. On radio talk shows,
>military officers stated outright that they would be much more inclined
>to fire on superiors who gave such an order."
>
>> http://www.creative.net/~star/resister.htm

This all sounds well and good and reassuring, however let me ask some =
questions:

How many fedgov agents refused to participate in the deaths of 83 men,
women and children at Waco, Texas where the worst penalty for doing so
would have been loss of a job?

How many militarily indoctrinated young men who have been freshly trained
to obey orders would refuse to fire when the penalty for doing so is =
death?

How many CIVILIANS protested when the Waco debacle was going on, when the
penalty for doing so was nil?

It's one thing to take some written "survey" in the safety of your =
barracks
with no pressure applied or consequences to be suffered; it's something
else entirely when the hounds catch the scent of blood and the chase
commences.

Personally, I'd hate to put the results of that "survey" to the test. I'd
far rather derail the confiscation scenario.




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Elections
Date: 09 Jul 1998 09:07:29 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 09 Jul 1998 04:10:52 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id EAA11166; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 04:00:17 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA25614; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 03:43:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma025454; Thu Jul  9 03:40:33 1998
Message-Id: <v0153050db1c806297f2b@[206.163.5.164]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>3 of 4 pollsters predict low voter turnout in fall
>By Nancy E. Roman
>THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
>
> Voter turnout will hit a record low and Republicans will
> retain control of Congress in the fall, predicted three of
> four pollsters who convened on Capitol Hill yesterday to talk
> politics.
> Doc Sweitzer, Democratic media consultant, said he wished
> he could be more optimistic, but he predicted day-after-election
> headlines would say "no change-low turnout."
> Dan Hazelwood, GOP campaign strategist, predicted
> Republicans will pick up seats.


This appears to be shaping up as an excellent chance for gun owners in
general, and members of the NRA, GOA, JPFO, etc. in particular, to do some
real good in advancing the agenda of freedom...if they can be somehow
motivated to move from their TVs to the polling booths...




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Clinton FOB life expectancy (fwd)
Date: 09 Jul 1998 09:13:13 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 09 Jul 1998 09:00:49 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA11326; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 08:50:14 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA15206; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:58:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma015030; Thu Jul  9 10:58:14 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

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


>                       CLINTON-WITNESS LIFE EXPECTANCY
>                                 HITS ALL TIME LOW
>=20
>    With the death at age 29 of Little Rock transmission shop owner
> Johnny Lawhon, the average life expectancy for witnesses against
> Bill Clinton has dropped dramatically.  Lawhon, who last year
> discovered a Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan cashiers check
> made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of an abandoned car, died in
> a car crash early Sunday morning.  He becomes the second witness
> connected to that evidence to die within a month.  The first, former
> Madison Guaranty owner James McDougal, was found dead in his jail
> cell just three weeks prior to Lawhon's fatal accident.
>    Prior to Lawhon's death, insurance industry experts had calculated
> the average life expectancy for Clinton scandal witnesses at a full
> 49.3 years.  But given Mr. Lawhon's relative youth, Clinton-witness
> actuarial tables have been revised down to a median AOD (age of death)
> of just 44.8 years.
>    That figure may plummet even further, should actuarial experts
> decide to include the death of former White House intern Mary Caity
> Mahoney, who was shot to death last year at the age of 25.
>    Given this trend, industry sources say they may begin screening
> life insurance candidates for a new risk factor - a past or present,
> direct or indirect association with Bill Clinton.  Such a risk
> factor might be weighed in the manner insurers currently evaluate
> those who participate in high-risk activities like skydiving,
> motorcycling or heavy smoking.
> Carl of Oyster Bay
>=20
>=20


Paul Watson [e-mail]
Sr.Buyer UTD The University of Texas at Dallas
972-883-2307, fax [phone]




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: An Open Letter to the "Today" Show
Date: 09 Jul 1998 09:21:24 -0600

Received: from vader.thnet.com
    ([206.98.115.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 09 Jul 1998 06:04:14 -0600
Received: from bruce37.thnet.com (bruce37.thnet.com [206.98.115.137]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA20469; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 06:53:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Vigo Examiner
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

GUEST EDITORIAL

                     An Open Letter to the "Today" Show

by COL HARRY S. BACHSTEAN
[e-mail]
Polaris News Syndicate


Al, I have no idea how to get e-mail to Ms. Couric, and I would appreciate
it if you could pass this on to her.

With all due respect (and I have always enjoyed each of you on the "Today"
show), I am willing to wager that guns are something completely foreign to
Ms. Couric. Thus, knowing little or nothing at all about the subject =
matter
in conducting her interview of Mr. Heston, she was forced to rely not on
matters within her personal knowledge, but upon what she has heard - and
that is the propaganda made popular by hysterics who make the rush to
judgment every time there is a tragedy involving a firearm.

Many lives of innocent citizens have been saved by firearms, but we rarely
hear of those cases. Across our great nation, there has been a mass
movement among the several states to permit citizens to carry weapons
concealed, and as more and more states have been enacting legislation in
that respect, crimes of violence have been dramatically and demonstrably
reduced (attested to by FBI statistics on violent crimes over each of the
last seven years).

Permitting citizens to carry concealed has, in fact, been such an
overwhelming success that the several states are now expanding that right
and extending reciprocity to citizens of other states who have such
permits.

Frankly, it amazes me how many people are ready to jump on any old
bandwagon that comes along in an effort to regulate and legislate the =
lives
of others. In other words, as long as it doesn't affect them, these people
are eager to curtail the rights and freedoms of others to make personal
decisions.

There are those who want to pass laws forcing me to wear a helmet when I'm
driving a motorcycle. I've been riding motorcycles for 41 years and can
testify that most helmets seriously obstruct hearing and peripheral =
vision,
thus increasing the likelihood of a rider becoming involved in an =
accident.
The absence of a helmet has on more than one occasion enabled me to hear =
an
oncoming vehicle speeding towards me from behind, and I was able to get =
out
of the way before I was struck from the rear.

There are those who want to make it unlawful for me to use tobacco in any
form, and I presume such people are non-smokers. Despite the lessons we
have learned from history during the Prohibition Era, there are people who
want to make the consumption of alcohol illegal. I presume such people are
tee-totallers.

And then we have those who are ready to surrender their constitutional
right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. I presume these
people are not owners of guns - I mean, after all, why would they want to
give up something they own? (I realize they own their 2d Amendment Rights,
too, but that is too abstract for purposes of this letter. It all too
quickly shows how stupid it is to give up and surrender to the government =
a
thing you own).

Now, it's OK with me if there are motorcycle riders who want to wear
helmets. It's OK with me if there are people who want to use tobacco. It's
OK with me if there are people who want to drink alcoholic beverages. If
people want to get tattooed, pierce their ears, pierce their nipples,
tongues, lips, nose or genitals - it's OK with me. In fact, if there are
people out there who want to eat an asbestos sandwich every afternoon at
3:00 p.m., and wash it down with a gallon of jet fuel, that's OK with me. =
I
was not placed on this earth to lead their lives or make their decisions
for them.

It's no secret that there are people who place no value upon their 2nd
Amendment guarantee, and that these people are perfectly willing to
surrender their right to keep and bear arms. That, in and of itself, is OK
with me.

See? I'm a pretty easy-going guy. "Live and let live." "Mind your own
business." Good words to live by, no?

The problem is that those people can't wait to surrender MY constitutional
right to keep and bear arms, and I strongly resent such people stepping on
my civil rights and making yet another intrusion into my life.

To these "gun-grabbers" I say this: If you choose to give up your rights,
that's OK with me. Chances are you don't know the first thing about guns =
or
the responsibilites that go with owning and using them. That makes you
dangerous, so we're probably better off if you don't have them. That's =
YOUR
CHOICE, and only you know whether you are capable of handling a gun =
safely.

Gun-grabbers tell us that the answer is to pass more laws and make guns
illegal. These folks somehow believe that such laws will take guns out of
the hands of criminals and make us all "safe."

OK, Gun-grabbers. I may not be from Missouri, but you're going to have to
SHOW ME that you're right. If you really believe that making it unlawful =
to
have guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals, I CHALLENGE YOU to
put your money where your mouth is. Take the first step. Get rid of YOUR
guns (but let me keep mine). Post signs in your front yard, or hang them =
in
the windows of your home, plainly labelled in bold letters, "GUN-FREE
ZONE." In smaller print should appear the following: "Having determined
that guns are a danger to themselves and others, and in the exercise of
doing that which is best for their community, the occupants of this
residence have waived their right to keep and bear arms; this property is
declared as a Gun-Free Zone, meaning NO GUNS are on the premises, nor will
the occupants of these premises allow any individual to bring firearms =
onto
the property. Violators will be treated as trespassers and will be
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

Now post similar signs at your place of business and in your car. Wear a
lapel pin with the international "no" sign, i.e., a red circle with a red
slash running from top left to bottom right of the circle, and superimpose
this over the likeness of a gun, so people on the street will know you are
unarmed and incapable of shooting anyone.

And check back with me in six months to let me know how things are going
for you.

Respectfully,

COL. HARRY S. BACHSTEIN
http://members.aol.com/bach11/adventurer.htm
http://www.steelhorsemag.com /

http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com


Enjoy a free 90 day trial subscription to The Vigo Examiner.
You will receive one to three of our top articles each day. =20
Send your subscription request, and all other
communication to [e-mail].


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FYI: Display at your own risk
Date: 09 Jul 1998 16:14:18 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 09 Jul 1998 13:13:38 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA11592; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:03:03 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA02307; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 15:10:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma002203; Thu Jul  9 15:07:58 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This is hilarious, and goes right to the heart of the anti-gun hypocrisy.
I've asked several anti's if they'd be willing to post similar signs, and
I've gotten similar responses.

The URL is:
http://webserv1.startribune.com/cgi-bin/stOnLine/article?thisStory=3D456639=
90

-----
     On the face of it, it's a gesture toward eliminating guns from =
American
society. But look closer. David Gross, a St. Louis Park lawyer and a
longtime gun-rights activist, is offering a pair of stickers to anyone who
wants to display them on the doors of their homes.
     They're free. Just send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to =
Gun-Free,
8323 Franklin Av. W., St. Louis Park MN 554426-1914.=20
     (One string is attached: He asks that takers promise to display the
sticker. He doesn't want to be inundated with phony requests.)=20
     He's had no takers so far. Gross is convinced that most people see =
the
stickers as an advertisement to criminals that those within the house are
unarmed and therefore can't defend themselves against intruders. He said =
he
was inspired to make the stickers by a recent New York Times story that =
said
"the Presbyterian Church (USA) has passed a resolution calling on the
denomination's 2.6 million members to move toward removing handguns and
assault weapons from their homes."=20
     "I have tried to give them away to everybody who has mentioned =
banning
guns," he said. Gross said he's often at the Minnesota legislature and =
comes
into contact with antigun advocates."They say, 'Do you think I'm crazy?' =
"=20
     Gross said he has had about 500 of the 3-inch by 6-inch vinyl,
self-stick stickers made.=20



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: GSL> New House Bill Involves CPSC In Gun Standards
Date: 09 Jul 1998 20:40:27 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 09 Jul 1998 20:16:08 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id UAA11929; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 20:05:33 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA25063; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:14:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024986; Thu Jul  9 22:11:39 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Delivered-To: [e-mail]
>From: "R.J.K Sr." <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:55:03 +0000
>Subject: GSL> New House Bill Involves CPSC In Gun Standards
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>
>----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
>New House Bill Involves CPSC In Gun Standards
>
>Anti-gunners in the House of Representatives introduced legislation on
>June 18 intended to make it harder for children to gain access to
>guns.
> The bill give the Consumer Product Safety Commission authority over
> firearms by requiring the CFSC to evaluate technology that would make
> guns more "child resistant." It would also require safety locks on
> all firearms and prohibit the sale of "assault weapons" to anyone
> under 18 years of age. It provides for automatic revocation of an FFL
> for a dealer who knowingly sells a gun to a minor, and provides a
> fine of up to $10,000 and six months injail for a gunowner who allows
> a child access to a loaded gun used in an act ofviolencc. The
> legislation also would authorize $25 million to the Injury Prevention
> Center at the Centers for Disease Control to set up a program to
> track firearm injuries to children. It also would provide grants to
> local law enforcement to help them trace guns used injuvenile crime.
>
>The New Gun Week   July 1998
>
>
>--------------------------
>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.
>
>
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
********************



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The M-16 in Viet Nam
Date: 12 Jul 1998 08:21:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Hi folks -

While the lists I'm posting this to are primarily political in nature,
the saga of the M-16 in Viet Nam is something that few people really
know the details of and that a lot of people know was a problem. And,
actually, it *was* a political problem, and it got a lot of good American
soldiers killed.

31 years later, the story of what really went wrong with the "Matty Mattel
Mouse Gun" is still controversial, and still important.

A friend of mine, Dick Culver, has written the first of a series of
articles on the M-16 in Viet Nam. Dick was a Marine officer in Viet Nam,
and in fact was one of the two Marines that wrote the infamous letter
about the M-16's problems that eventually wound up in the Washington Post
and pretty much started all the hoopla back home about the little black
rifle that couldn't.

I think a lot of you will find this fascinating, and a good read. Part One
is at the following URL:

http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html

I'll let you all know when he's finished with Part Two, which is going to
delve more into the technical reasons why the M-16, as delivered, was
responsible for *many* American soldiers being found dead with their
cleaning rod in the barrel of their rifle and only one shot fired from
the magazine.

While you're at his website, look around  :)  I think you'll like it.


- Monte

                 Let the sea roar and its fulness,
               The world and those who dwell in it.
                 Let the rivers clap their hands;
      Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord.
               For He is coming to judge the earth;
            He will judge the world with righteousness,
                   And the peoples with equity.
                           - Psalm 98



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun Control Solutions
Date: 12 Jul 1998 08:21:00 -0700


Notice: Original message was poorly formatted. Reformatting likely
fouled the PGP verification. I didn't test it.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have been thinking of several ways we can deal with the problem
of gun control. Here are some of the proposals I would like to make.

1. Identify tax-exempt charities and public service organizations
which are lobbying in favor of gun control. Lobby for the revocation
of their tax-exempt status.

2. Lobby both Congress and the IRS to revoke the tax-deductibility
of all contributions covered by point one, above.

3. Identify gun-control organizations which receive government
grants. Seek prosecution of all such organizations, their officers,
and as many of their members as is feasible. Make broad use of
conspiracy statutes for this purpose.

4. Investigate all politicians advocating gun control for a
history of mental illness in their families.

5. Investigate all politicians advocating gun control for
financial contributions from NAMBLA, Boston/Boise, Rene Guyon,
and other pedophile liberation organizations.

6. Boycott businesspeople who advertise in media taking a stand
in favor of gun control. Promote the sending of boycott letters
to ALL sponsors that air commercials during anti-gun news or
feature programs, and CC:s to the Sales Managers of the offending
media. NOTHING gets the attention of media like the withdrawal
of ad revenues. Send boycott letters to national advertisers who
use anti-gun-activist celebrities as actors or V/Os in their ads
(notable examples, Candace Bergen/Sprint and  Martin Sheen & Eli
Wallach/Toyota). NOTHING spooks a major advertiser like negative
product image. Major companies spend millions of dollars to make
themselves perfectly acceptable to everyone, and the companies who
WILLINGLY link themselves to gun control are relatively few. Most
have blundered into indirect support of gun-control and are VERY
amenable to dropping it if it shows signs of backfiring with a
substantial market share.

7. Whenever a politician takes a stand in favor of gun control,
check police records. Find out what carry permits he or she has.
Then disseminate this information to as wide an audience as possible.

8. Whenever a politician takes a stand in favor of gun control,
find out what private security and bodyguard services he/she
has protecting him/her. Find out what arms they carry. Then
disseminate this information to as wide an audience as possible.

9. Whenever any lawyer (especially a public officeholder elected
or otherwise) takes a stand in favor of gun control, attempt to
find grounds for his/her disbarment. Calls for information over
Internet should be most useful here.

10. Teach your children to become gun users. There is nothing
like the strength that comes from numbers.

11. With the current interest of women in self-defense, seek to
heighten awareness among women of the usefulness of a gun for
self-defense. Special emphasis should be paid to special problems
that many women may face, such as gun safety in a single-parent
household which has young children.

12. Determine the feasibility of starting NRA-sanctioned shooting
programs in your community.

These steps should effectively deal with the problem of gun control.
They will NOT interfere with the free speech of any individual citizen.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
Comment: It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.

iQA/AwUBNafV8EmFVnoWPchkEQI47ACfdahS4Ejeq6aul+O4S7UQH6oHJCgAoPiK
UyFQ6dVytfTuqX0mLcFbBjsW
=IdPU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
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=GmM7
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: I'm Tired
Date: 12 Jul 1998 13:46:09 -0600

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE ISSUE 40

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under =
any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being or to =
advocate or delegate its initiation.  Those who act consistently with this =
principle are libertarians whether they realize it or not.  Those who fail =
to act consistently with it are _not_ libertarians, regardless of what =
they may claim."
L. Neil Smith=20
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 I'M TIRED

 (With Apologies to Pearl Bailey and Madeleine Kahn)

 [As presented to the second annual Liberty Round Table
 Conclave near Estes Park, Colorado, July 2nd, 1998]

 By L. Neil Smith <mailto:[e-mail]

Exclusive to "The Libertarian Enterprise"

    You may remember the way that, at the start of Robert Heinlein's =
novel "Methuselah's Children", a secret gathering of the exceptionally =
long-lived "Howard Families" began with the hero Lazarus Long assuming the =
chairmanship on the grounds that he was the oldest individual present.

    Well ... I've been an active libertarian for 36 years last month,  =
which, I suspect, makes me the senior "libertarian" at this gathering,  =
presumably full of mature wisdom -- not to mention a great many other =
things I'm sure that several of you are practically bursting to bring up.

     Mature wisdom.  Heinlein also asked us -- in "The Notebooks of =
Lazarus Long", as I recall -- if we'd ever noticed how often "mature =
wisdom" resembles "just being too tired".  Ayn Rand said something very =
like that, too.  And I certainly qualify on those grounds, as well.

     I'm tired.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of living with a government that, in the name of making the =
world "safer for democracy", took a young religious conscientious objector =
during World War I -- a kid who was willing to do everything the Army =
required of him but wear a uniform and kill the people they'd picked out =
for him to kill -- and hung him by his shackled wrists in the deepest =
dungeon at Leavenworth, standing in a foot of icy water in the dead of =
Kansas winter, let him die of pneumonia, and then buried him -- in a =
uniform -- before his mother could arrive to claim his body.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of living with a government which, at the end of a war =
widely advertised as having been fought to obliterate fascism forever, =
nevertheless agreed to round up two million Russian refugees in France and =
elsewhere in Europe at the end of that war, crowded them into boxcars =
"exactly as Hitler had done to the Jews", and sent them back to Stalin, =
who had them all shot to death within a few hours of their arrival.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of living with a government that smashed its way into the =
Utah homes of Mormon polygamists in the 1950s, people harming no one by =
practicing their First Amendment right to freedom of religion, sorted out =
the women and children and made them pose for humiliating photographs with =
numbered cards around their necks, while imprisoning their menfolk until =
they signed statements making bastards of their children.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.
     I'm tired of living with a government that, sliming its way from one =
sleazy justification to another every day for 51 days, confined, terrorized=
, tortured, poison-gassed, machine gunned, and incinerated 80 innocent =
individuals -- two dozen of them beautiful little children -- in broad =
daylight, on national television, and not only got away with it, but =
prosecuted the survivors, and -- when they were acquitted -- sent them to =
prison anyway, for what will likely be the rest of their lives.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of carrying around the knowledge that a crooked federal =
judge imprisoned that handful of innocent, "acquitted" victims of state =
terrorism to keep the government from being on trial in "his" courtroom.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of knowing that another crooked federal judge, in Idaho =
this time, deliberately set a killer loose to kill again for his vile =
masters, and that what he's expected to kill for his them -- fully as much =
as any innocent women or babies he happens to find in his high- powered =
rifle's cross hairs -- are the very things every American would most like =
to believe about himself, his country, and his children's future.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of waking up in the middle of the night, or not being able =
to get to sleep at all, worried about a gang of masked thugs in black body =
armor smashing into "my" house, brutalizing "my" family, crushing my pets =
under their jack booted feet, laughing, and stealing anything they want -- =
with no legal obligation to give it back ever, even when it turns out that =
we're all innocent -- because they happen to disapprove of something I =
wrote ... or simply got the wrong address.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of having it back there all the time in the corner of my =
mind, whether I want it there or not, that I should really hide all of the =
possessions I treasure most -- possessions I like most to display in my =
home for everyone to see and enjoy -- and even worse, to find some hole to =
bury my family and myself in, in order to survive another year or two in =
what was once the freest country in history and in the world.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of being considered some kind of criminal or dangerous =
throwback for no other reason than that I value, exercise, and defend my =
rights under the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of being portrayed as a perverted monster for passing on to =
my daughter what my father passed on to me, the love of deeply blued steel =
and richly polished walnut, the smell of Hoppe's #9, the proper way to =
align the sights, breathe correctly, squeeze-don't-jerk that trigger, and =
hold solid as the sear breaks, the weapon bellows, and the delicious aroma =
of smokeless powder wafts back to you on the breeze.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of being treated as some kind of lunatic or villain, even =
by some members of my own family, even by some members of my own party and =
political movement, because I want -- all I want or ever wanted -- is to =
give people back control over their own lives and to live out my life in =
the land of liberty that I was promised as a child.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of living with a government that's supposed to be, above =
all, subject to ten laws that were supposed to make all of these travesties=
 and atrocities unthinkable and impossible, ten laws that were supposed to =
shield me and my family from the kind of oppression my ancestors once fled =
from in Europe, ten laws that were supposed to let me know where I stand =
and what the rules are, ten laws that were supposed to let me and every =
other American think, say, do, and be whatever we wish without filling out =
a single form or asking anyone's permission.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of having to fight for my rights every day in a country =
where those rights were supposed to have been guaranteed, when what I want =
to be doing -- what I "ought" to be doing, after 36 mind-numbing years -- =
is enjoying my one true profession of storytelling, and my family.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of living in a culture where the police are a greater =
danger to innocent civilians than they are to real criminals -- many of =
whom give the police their orders -- and where the military is a far =
greater threat to the people of America than it is to any enemy overseas.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of living with a government that terrorizes, bullies, beats =
up, tortures, and kills more and more individuals every day, here and =
abroad, and does it in my name, and at my involuntary expense.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of living in a culture where you're considered lucky if =
you're allowed to register your name and Social Security number, surrender =
your fingerprints, provide your photograph and the serial number of your =
weapon, visit a psychiatrist, endure endless hours of expensive, useless =
"instruction" at the feet of some mercantilist parasite who lobbied for =
the legislation in the first place, and, finally, pay a whopping fee in =
order to exercise a right you were born with.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm even more tired of the dull-witted individuals and corrupt =
organizations who claim self-righteously to support and defend the Second =
Amendment, and at the same time give their wholehearted enthusiastic =
support to such a blatant abrogation of my inalienable rights.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of paying rent to the county on a home I bought and paid =
for; I'm tired of paying rent "on my own life" to the IRS and Social =
Security Administration; I'm tired of watching the government take a slice =
of everything I earn or possess, even though all they ever do is get in =
the way -- and make it more and more impossible to live every day.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of being lied to by government, by the media, and by every =
corporation I have anything to do with.  I'm tired of always being on the =
losing side because I refuse to lie, cheat, or steal, myself.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of no one being considered a "real life hero" unless =
they're forcing some poor, helpless, broken creature eke out another =
miserable moment of existence -- while those who help to make life =
possible for "productive" individuals are reviled as exploiters and =
profiteers.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of being considered "property".

     Make no mistake:  when the government can tell you what drugs you can =
take, what drugs you can't take, and what drugs you "must" take; when the =
government can define the circumstances under which you may or may not =
obtain, own, or carry weapons; when the government can force you to =
surrender your children -- the sweet hope of your heart -- to indoctrinatio=
n centers where they'll be transformed into your bitter political enemies; =
when the government can tell you that you have to sign up for military =
slavery; when the government can tell you that you "must" have that baby =
-- those are assertions of a "property" right.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     And I'm tired of a world where being the property of the fascist =
dictatorship that America has become is the best that anyone can hope for.

     I'm tired of living in a police state.

     I'm tired of being tired.

                               *********

     Are you tired of living in a police state?

     I am, but after 36 years of political activism, I know "exactly" what =
to do about it.  Now all I have to do is convince "you" to help me.

     And this time, we're going to do it right.

     The key to the future we all look forward to can be found in four =
words:

     "Bill of Rights "enforcement"".

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".  Many years ago, I was a member of two =
Libertarian Party national platform committees -- 1977 and 1979 -- two =
Libertarian Party national platform committees that produced the most =
radical platforms that the party had ever seen and, tragically, would ever =
see -- the platforms that the Nerf libertarians presently running what's =
left of the party are most embarrassed by and have been chipping away at =
hysterically, in the fear that other people might mistakenly believe they =
really stand for something besides collecting campaign contributions and =
doling them out to themselves as consultant fees.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     I'm as radical as libertarians come.  I've proven it again and again =
over 36 years of activism.  But let me tell you now that if the first ten =
Amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were fully and stringentl=
y enforced like the highest law of the land they happen to be, any =
difference between the "New America" that would give rise to, and the "New =
America" that would have been created by those radical Libertarian Party =
platforms, would only be a matter of fine tuning.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".
     And the advantage is that, unlike those platforms, the original =
radical libertarian document on which this nation was founded, the Bill of =
Rights, has all the respectability, all the historical cache, all the =
time-honored tradition any suit-and-tie could possibly wish for.  Now =
throw in the fact I mentioned a paragraph or two ago, that it's "already" =
the highest law of the land, something to be enforced, something for which =
you -- meaning "them" -- can be thrown in jail or breaking.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     So what do we do about it?  Well for starters, from this moment =
forward, never let a day pass without writing those words, "Bill of Rights =
"enforcement"", at least once, preferably over the internet, or in paper =
correspondence with some sitting politician or political candidate.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     From this moment forward, never let a day pass without saying those =
words, "Bill of Rights "enforcement"", at least once, preferably on the =
telephone to a aluminum siding salesman or a radio talk show host.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     From this moment forward, never let a day pass without saying those =
words, "Bill of Rights "enforcement"", at least once, preferably to some =
door-to-door evangelist or, even better, to a political canvasser.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     Our future, our very survival, depends on making those four words, =
"Bill of Rights "enforcement"", the widest-spread catchphrase in history.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     No sitting politician or candidate should be able to make an =
appearance without being asked where he stands on Bill of Rights enforcemen=
t.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     No worldwide website anywhere should be without the Bill of Rights =
enforcement logo (which I'll have up on my "Webley Page" about the time =
you get home) on its opening screen, beside the free speech blue ribbon.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     No sidewalk should be without a t-shirt or two echoing the same idea.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     No car bumper or pickup truck window should be without that same =
logo.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     No storefront should be without that symbol, displayed proudly in the =
window along with the words, "We are a Bill of Rights enforcement =
establishment".

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     There's no need for a national libertarian political party (a good =
thing, because we no longer have one) or for any other kind of group =
activity.  When enough of us, acting on our own, have saturated this =
culture with the idea, politicians of every stripe will be stumbling all =
over themselves to get aboard the Bill of Rights enforcement bandwagon.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     Which is a good thing because by then (and it could be no more than a =
year or two from now) the most important, perhaps the "only" criterion by =
which any politician -- including judges and prosecutors, and why not =
throw in television, radio, and newspaper commentators, as well? -- will =
be evaluated will be his position on Bill of Rights enforcement.

     Bill of Rights "enforcement".

     And we'll have taken an important, unprecedented -- and, with any =
luck at all, irreversible -- first step to reclaiming the nation we always =
wished America could be, for ourselves, and for our children's future.

     And then, perhaps, I won't be quite so tired.

     Thank you.

 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Novelist and political essayist L. Neil Smith is the only Libertarian ever =
to be called a "thug" within the pages of the "Libertarian Party News".  =
He has also been characterized by one disgruntled reader as having written =
the "single most repugnant ... piece of tripe ... ever
 seen in an American newspaper."  In his spare time, he's the award- =
winning author of "THE PROBABILITY BROACH", "PALLAS", "HENRY MARTYN", and =
"BRETTA MARTYN" and 15 other novels, as well as publisher of "The =
Libertarian Enterprise"    <http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html.
 Order his books from Amazon.com at his home site "The Webley Page" at =
<http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html, from Laissez Faire Books at =
<http://www.laissezfaire.com or call toll-free at 1-800-326-0996.

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Legasy of the Republican Revolution
Date: 13 Jul 1998 09:20:51 -0600

Received: from vader.thnet.com
    ([206.98.115.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 06:00:30 -0600
Received: from bruce54.thnet.com (bruce54.thnet.com [206.98.115.154]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA01247; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 06:47:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Vigo Examiner
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

GUEST EDITORIAL

                    Legasy of the Republican Revolution
                           Land-Mine Legislation

by CLAIRE WOLFE

Let me run by you a brief list of items that are "the law" in America
today. As you read, consider what all these have in common.

1.  A national database of employed people.

2.  100 pages of new "health care crimes," for which the penalty is (among
other things) seizure of assets from both doctors and patients.

3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign
citizenship.

4. The largest gun confiscation act in U.S. history - which is also an
unconstitutional ex postfacto law and the first law ever to remove =
people's
constitutional rights for committing a misdemeanor.

5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones; random roadblocks may =
be
used for enforcement; gun-bearing residents could become federal criminals
just by stepping outside their doors or getting into vehicles.

6. Increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, an
agency infamous for its brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude.

7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups
"Terrorists" - without stating any reason and without the possibility of
appeal. Once a group has been so declared, its mailing and membership =
lists
must be turned over to the government.

8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain =
classes
of people.

9. A law requiring that all states begin issuing drivers licenses carrying
Social Security numbers and "security features" (such as magnetically =
coded
fingerprints and personal records) by October 1, 2000. By October 1, 2006,
"Neither the Social Security Administration or the Passport Office or any
other Federal agency or any State or local government agency may accept =
for
any evidentiary purpose a State driver's license or identification =
document
in a form other than [one issued with a verified Social Security number =
and
'security features']."

10. And my personal favorite - a national database, now being constructed,
that will contain every exchange and observation that takes place in your
doctor's office. This includes records of your prescriptions, your
hemorrhoids and your mental illness. It also includes - by law - any
statements you make ("Doc, I'm worried my kid may be on drugs...... Doc,
I've been so stressed out lately I feel about ready to go postal.") and =
any
observations your doctor makes about your mental or physical condition,
whether accurate or not, whether made with your knowledge or not. For the
time being, there will be zero (count 'em, zero) privacy safeguards on =
this
data. But don't worry, your government will protect you with some =
undefined
"privacy standards" in a few years. All of the above items are the law of
the land. Federal law. What else do they have in common? Well, when I ask
this question to audiences, I usually get the answer, "They're all
unconstitutional." True. My favorite answer came from an eloquent college
student who blurted, "They all SUUUCK!" Also true. But the saddest and =
most
telling answer is: They were all the product of the 104th Congress. Every
one of the horrors above was imposed upon you by the Congress of the
Republican-Revolution -- the Congress that pledged to "get government off
your back."



                             BURYING TIME BOMBS

All of the above became law by being buried in larger bills. In many =
cases,
they are hidden sneak attacks upon individual liberties that were neither
debated on the floor of Congress nor reported in the media. For instance,
three of the most horrific items (the health care database, asset
confiscation for foreign residency and the 100 pages of health care =
crimes)
were hidden in the Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HR 3103). You didn't hear about them at the
time because the media was too busy celebrating this moderate, compromise
bill that "simply" ensured that no American would ever lose insurance
coverage due to a job change or a Pre-existing condition. Your legislator
may not have heard about them, either. Because he or she didn't care =
enough
to do so. The fact is, most legislators don't even read the laws they
inflict upon the public. They read the title of the bill (which may be
something like "The Save the Sweet Widdle Babies from Gun Violence by
Drooling Drug Fiends Act of 1984"). They read summaries, which are often
prepared by the very agencies or groups pushing the bill. And they vote
according to various deals or pressures. It also sometimes happens that =
the
most horrible provisions are sneaked into bills during conference =
committee
negotiations, after both House and Senate have voted on their separate
versions of the bills. The conference committee process is supposed simply
to reconcile differences between two versions of a bill. But power brokers
use it for purposes of their own, adding what they wish. Then members of
the House and Senate vote on the final, unified version of the bill, often
in a great rush, and often without even having the amended text available
for review. I have even heard (though I cannot verify) that stealth
provisions were written into some bills after all the voting has taken
place. Someone with a hidden agenda simply edits them in to suit his or =
her
own purposes. So these time bombs become "law" without ever having been
voted on by anybody. And who's to know? If congress people don't even read
legislation before they vote on it, why would they bother reading it
afterward? Are power brokers capable of such chicanery? Do we even need to
ask? Is the computer system in which bills are stored vulnerable to
tampering by people within or outside of Congress? We certainly should =
ask.
Whether your legislators were ignorant of the infamy they were
perpetrating, or whether they knew, one thing is absolutely certain: The
Constitution, your legislator's oath to it, and your inalienable rights
(which precede the Constitution) never entered into anyone's consideration.=

Ironically, you may recall that one of the early pledges of Newt Gingrich
and Company was to stop these stealth attacks. Very early in the 104th
Congress, the Republican leadership declared that, henceforth, all bills
would deal only with the subject matter named in the title of the bill.
When, at the beginning of the first session of the 104th, pro-gun
Republicans attempted to attach a repeal of the "assault weapons" ban to
another bill, House leaders dismissed their amendment as not being
"germane." After that self-righteous and successful attempt to prevent
pro-freedom stealth legislation, Congress people turned right around and
got back to the dirty old business of practicing all the anti-freedom
stealth they were capable of.



                     STEALTH ATTACKS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT

Three other items on my list (ATF funding, gun confiscation and school =
zone
roadblocks) were also buried in a big bill - HR 3610, the budget
appropriation passed near the end of the second session of the 104th
Congress. No legislator can claim to have been unaware of these three
because they were brought to public attention by gun-rights groups and
hotly debated in both Congress and the media. Yet some 90 percent of all
congress people voted for them including many who claim to be ardent
protectors of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Why? Well, in
the case of my wrapped-in-the-flag, allegedly pro-gun, Republican
congressperson: "Bill Clinton made me do it!" Okay, I paraphrase. What she
actually said was more like, "It was part of a budget appropriations
package. The public got mad at us for shutting the government down in =
1994.
If we hadn't voted for this budget bill, they might have elected a
Democratic legislature in 1996 - and you wouldn't want THAT, would you?" =
Oh
heavens, no I'd much rather be enslaved by people who spell their name =
with
an R than people who spell their name with a D. Makes all the difference =
in
the world!



                      HOW SNEAK ATTACKS ARE JUSTIFIED

The Republicans are fond of claiming that Bill Clinton "forced" them to
pass certain legislation by threatening to veto anything they sent to the
White House that didn't meet his specs. In other cases (as with the
Kennedy-Kassebaum bill), they proudly proclaim their misdeeds in the name
of bipartisanship - while carefully forgetting -to mention the true nature
of what they're doing. In still others, they trumpet their triumph over =
the
evil Democrats and claim the mantle of limited government while sticking =
it
to us and to the Constitution. The national database of workers was in the
welfare reform bill they "forced" Clinton to accept. The requirement for =
SS
numbers and ominous "security" devices on drivers licenses originated in
their very own Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of
1996, HR 2202. Another common trick, called to my attention by Redmon
Barbry, publisher of the electronic magazine Fratricide, is to hide
duplicate or near-duplicate provisions in several bills. Then, when the
Supreme Court declares Section A of Law Z to be -unconstitutional, its
kissing cousin, Section B of Law Y, remains to rule us. Sometimes this
particular form of trickery is done even more brazenly; when the Supreme
Court, in its Lopez decision, declared federal-level school zone gun bans
unconstitutional because Congress demonstrated no jurisdiction, Congress
brassily changed a few words. They claimed that school zones fell under =
the
heading of "interstate commerce." Then they sneaked the provision into HR
3610, where it became "law" once again. When angry voters upbraid congress
people about some Big Brotherish horror they've inflicted upon the country
by stealth, they claim lack of knowledge, lack of time, party pressure,
public pressure, or they justify themselves by claiming that the rest of
the bill was "good". The simple fact is that, regardless of what reasons
legislators may claim, the U.S. Congress has passed more Big Brother
legislation in the last two years - more laws to enable tracking, spying
and controlling - than any Democratic congress ever passed. And they have
done it, in large part, in secret. Redmon Barbry put it best: "We the
people have the right to expect our elected representatives to read,
comprehend and master the bills they vote on. If this means Congress =
passes
only 50 bills per session instead of 5,000, so be it. As far as I am
concerned, whoever subverts this process is committing treason." By
whatever means the deed is done, there is no acceptable excuse for voting
against the Constitution, voting for tyranny. And I would add to Redmon's
comments: Those who do read the bills, then knowingly vote to ravage our
liberties, are doubly guilty. But when do the treason trials begin?



                BILLS AS WINDOW DRESSING FOR AN UGLY AGENDA

The truth is that these tiny, buried provisions are often the real intent
of the law, and that the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pages that
surround them are sometimes nothing more than elaborate window dressing.
These tiny time bombs are placed there at the behest of federal police
agencies or other power groups whose agenda is not clearly visible to us.
And their impact is felt long after the outward intent of the bill has =
been
forgotten. Civil forfeiture - now one of the plagues of the nation was
first introduced in the 1970s as one of those buried, almost unnoticed
provisions of a larger law. One wonders why on earth a "health care bill"
carried a provision to confiscate the assets of people who become
frightened or discouraged enough to leave the country. (In fact, the =
entire
bill was an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code. Go figure.) I think we
all realize by now that that database of employed people will still be
around enabling government to track our locations (and heaven knows what
else. about us, as the database is enhanced and expanded) long after the
touted benefits of "welfare reform" have failed to materialize. And most
grimly of all, our drivers licenses will be our de facto national ID card
long after immigrants have ceased to want to come to this Land of the Once
Free.

                               CONTROL REIGNS

It matters not one whit whether the people controlling you call themselves
R's or D's, liberals or conservatives, socialists or even (I hate to admit
it) libertarians. It doesn't matter whether they vote for these horrors
because they're not paying attention or because they actually like such
things. What matters is that the pace of totalitarianism is increasing. =
And
it is coming closer to our daily lives all the time. Once your state =
passes
the enabling legislation (under threat of losing "federal welfare
dollars"), it is YOUR name and Social Security number that will be entered
in that employee database the moment you go to work for a new employer. It
is YOU who will be unable to cash a check, board an airplane, get a
passport or be allowed any dealings with any government agency if you
refuse to give your SS number to the drivers license bureau. It is YOU who
will be endangered by driving "illegally" if you refuse to submit to Big
Brother's procedures. It is YOU whose psoriasis, manic depression or
prostate troubles will soon be the reading matter of any bureaucrat with a
computer. It is YOU who could be declared a member of a "foreign terrorist"=

organization just because you bought a book or concert tickets from some
group the government doesn't like. It is YOU who could lose your home, =
bank
account and reputation because you made a mistake on a health insurance
form. Finally, when you become truly desperate for freedom, it is YOU =
whose
assets will be seized if you try to flee this increasingly insane country.
As Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged, "There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so
many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live
without breaking laws." It's time to drop any pretense: We are no longer
law-abiding citizens. We have lost our law-abiding status. There are =
simply
too many laws to abide. And because of increasingly draconian penalties =
and
electronic tracking mechanisms, our "lawbreaking" places us and our
families in greater jeopardy every day.



                        STOPPING RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT

The question is: What are we going to do about it?

- Concluded with Part 2 tomorrow -
http://www.america-collins.com/essay-art1.htm

http//:www.Vigo-Examiner.com


Enjoy a free 90 day trial subscription to The Vigo Examiner.
You will receive one to three of our top articles each day. =20
Send your subscription request, and all other
communication to [e-mail].


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Lott/Olin Connection
Date: 13 Jul 1998 09:37:04 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 15:11:28 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id PAA14282; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 15:00:04 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id RAA19178; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 17:08:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma019123; Sun Jul 12 17:06:43 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

If I recall, someone on this list was looking for a rebuttal of the
Lott/Olin?Winchester-Western connection.  Following is the letter from the
President of the Olin Foundation, printed in the WSJ, that did a number on
that.

---


Wall Street Journal
Letter to Editor
September 6, 1996

An Insult to Our Foundation

As president of the John M. Olin Foundation, I take great
umbrage at Rep. Charles Schumer's scurrilous charge (Letters
to the Editor, Sept. 4) that our foundation underwrites
bogus research to advance the interests of companies that
manufacture guns and ammunition. He asserts (falsely) that
the John M. Olin Foundation is "associated" with the Olin
Corp. and (falsely again) that the Olin Corp. is one of the
nation's largest gun manufacturers. Mr. Schumer then
suggests on the basis of these premises that Prof. John
Lott's article on gun control legislation (editorial page,
Aug. 28) must have been fabricated because his research
fellowship at the University of Chicago was funded by the
John M. Olin Foundation.

This is an outrageous slander against our foundation, the
Olin Corp., and the scholarly integrity of Prof. Lott. Mr.
Schumer would have known that his charges were false if he
had taken a little time to check his facts before rushing
into print. Others have taken the trouble to do so. For
example, Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune looked into
the charges surrounding Mr. Lott's study, and published an
informative story in the Aug. 15 issue of that paper, which
concluded that, in conducting his research, Prof. Lott was
not influenced either by the John M. Olin Foundation or by
the Olin Corp. Anyone wishing to comment on this controversy
ought first to consult Mr. Chapman's article and, more
importantly, should follow his example of sifting the facts
before reaching a conclusion.

For readers of the Journal, here are the key facts:

The John M. Olin Foundation, of which I have been president
for nearly 20 years, is an independent foundation whose
purpose is to support individuals and institutions working
to strengthen the free enterprise system. We support
academic programs at the finest institutions in the nation,
including the University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Stanford,
Columbia, the University of Virginia, and many others. We do
not tell scholars what to write or what to say.

The foundation was created by the personal fortune of the
late John M. Olin, and is not associated with the Olin Corp.
The Olin Corp. has never sought to influence our
deliberations. Our trustees have never taken into account the
corporate interests of the Olin Corp. or any other company
when reviewing grant proposals. We are as independent of the
Olin Corp. as the Ford Foundation is of the Ford Motor Co.

The John M. Olin Foundation has supported for many years a
program in law and economics at the University of Chicago Law
School. This program is administered and directed by a
committee of faculty members in the law school. This committee,
after reviewing many applications in a very competitive process,
awarded a research fellowship to Mr. Lott. We at the foundation
had no knowledge of who applied for these fellowships, nor did
we ever suggest that Mr. Lott should be awarded one of them. We
did not commission his study, nor, indeed, did we even know of
it until last month, when Mr. Lott presented his findings at a
conference sponsored by a Washington think tank.

As a general rule, criticism of research studies should be
based on factual grounds rather than on careless and
irresponsible charges about the motives of the researcher.
Mr. Lott's study should be evaluated on its own merits without
imputing motives to him that do not exist. I urge Mr. Schumer
to check his facts more carefully in the future.

Finally, it was incorrectly reported in the Journal (Sept. 5)
that the John M. Olin Foundation is "headed by members of the
family that founded the Olin Corp." This is untrue. The trustees
and officers of the foundation have been selected by virtue of
their devotion to John Olin's principles, not by virtue of
family connections. Of our seven board members, only one is a
member of the Olin family. None of our officers is a member of
the Olin family--neither myself as president, nor our secretary-
treasurer, nor our executive director.

William E. Simon
President
John M. Olin Foundation Inc.
New York

----------------------
Regards,
TSB






-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Houston Chron story on CCW law failure]
Date: 13 Jul 1998 09:42:36 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 19:00:34 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id SAA13698; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:49:00 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id UAA21008; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 20:56:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma020958; Sat Jul 11 20:52:55 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------47DE90F2D185F1F165F7223A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am forwarding this from Texas Gun Owners List.  It shows, I believe,
one of the chief problems with the permit system (aside from the fact
that such a system is a violation of fundamental right.)  That problem
is that it permits cataloging of supposed offenses and then promotes the
demand for greater regulation and outright repeal.  The demand for
permits will get us into as much trouble as the insta-check law is
creating.

Notice in the following piece that ALL arrests, gun related or not, are
counted against the CHL law.  Notice that there is NO comparison agains
a benchmark such as the arrest records of police.  Notice that they have
tabulated charges and NOT convictions.

The Permit system is NOT the way to go.  A stand for RIGHT is.  Tell the
NRA to wake up!

Larry Ball
[e-mail]

--------------47DE90F2D185F1F165F7223A
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from mailing-list.net (mailing-list.net [192.41.59.89])
    by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA09723
    for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:06:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (mlist@localhost) by mailing-list.net (8.8.5) id =
RAA01159; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:06:12 -0600 (MDT)
Received: by mailing-list.net (bulk_mailer v1.9); Sat, 11 Jul 1998 =
17:06:11 -0600
Received: (mlist@localhost) by mailing-list.net (8.8.5) id RAA01137; Sat, =
11 Jul 1998 17:06:10 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from insync.net ([e-mail] [204.253.208.10]) by =
mailing-list.net (8.8.5) id RAA01119; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:06:08 -0600 =
(MDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: mailing-list.net: Host [e-mail] =
[204.253.208.10] claimed to be insync.net
Received: from 209-113-28-3.insync.net (209-113-28-3.insync.net [209.113.28=
.3]) by insync.net (8.8.8/8.7.1) with SMTP id SAA13870; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 =
18:06:11 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to texas-gun-owners by [e-mail] (schuetzen)
8:24 PM 7/10/1998=20
                              =20
                              =20

                             Arrest statistics fuel fears over gun
                             law

                             Cases involve 1,600 Texans with
                             permits to carry concealed arms

                             By JOHN W. GONZALEZ=20
                             Copyright 1998 Houston Chronicle Austin
Bureau=20

                             AUSTIN -- More than 1,600 Texans with
permits to carry  concealed handguns have been arrested for state
crimes since the "right-to-carry" law went into effect in 1996, the
Department of Public Safety said Friday.=20

                             The disclosure came with confirmation
that an Austin permit-holder, charged with murder this week after
gunning down a suspected car burglar near the Sixth Street
entertainment district, is the fifth licensee to be accused of murder.


                             Nearly 200,000 Texans are licensed to
carry concealed handguns. Licensees have been arrested a total of
2,203 times, though not all the crimes involved weapons and many
of the charges were dismissed, the DPS said. Nearly 600 of
the arrests were on federal or out-of-state charges and
non-criminal matters such as tax delinquency.=20

                             Opponents of the law find the numbers a
confirmation of their fears.=20

                             "There have been well over 1,000
individuals who had permits who have been charged with crimes --
everything from criminal mischief to disorderly conduct to attempted
murder," said Travis County Constable Bruce Elfant, who
campaigned against the concealed-carry law passed by the
1995 Legislature.=20

                             "My concern is that with as little as 10
hours of training,  we're expecting them to exercise the same level of
judgment as police officers. I don't think that's realistic, and it's
not good public policy," said Elfant, a spokesman for Texans
Against Gun Violence.=20

                             The more serious charges compiled by the
DPS include 97 counts of aggravated assault, 26 counts of aggravated
sexual assault, 24 counts of assault causing bodily injury and nine
counts of attempted murder.=20

                             Although one license has been revoked and
three suspended by DPS because of murder allegations, no
license-holder has ever actually been tried for murder -- a fact that
gun-rights supporters cite as proof the Texas law provides
for adequate screening and training, even in use of deadly
force.=20

                             Last year in Houston, a state district
judge was cleared by a grand jury in the shooting death of a mentally
ill homeless man who attacked him. The judge had pursued the man for
stealing another lawyer's briefcase. The case was referred to
the grand jury with no charges.=20

                             State Sen. Jerry Patterson, R-Pasadena,
the lifetime National Rifle Association member who authored the
concealed-weapon law, on Friday predicted the Austin
shooting would not produce an indictment nor cause
legislative tinkering in 1999.=20

                             Killed with two .380-caliber gunshot
wounds to the back was Eric Demart Smith, 20. Unarmed and carrying no
stolen items, Smith was slain in a downtown alley about 2 a.m.
Wednesday, police said.=20

                             Free in lieu of $100,000 bond after being
jailed on a murder charge is Paul A. Saustrup, 33, a self-employed
mechanic  with a permit to carry a concealed handgun.=20

                             His attorney said this week that Saustrup
was lawfully defending his girlfriend's property when he shot Smith,
whom they caught breaking into the woman's Chevrolet
Suburban. Saustrup used deadly force after Smith refused to
submit to a citizen's arrest and made verbal death threats
and menacing gestures, the lawyer said.=20

                             But Austin police and Travis County
prosecutors said Saustrup acted unreasonably. Citing the fact that
Saustrup pursued Smith three blocks before shooting him in the back,
they charged Saustrup with murder, a crime punishable by
up to life in prison. Prosecutors will ask a grand jury to
review the case.=20

                             At least three other Texans licensed to
carry handguns have been cleared of wrongdoing after killing someone;
disposition of a fourth case could not immediately be
determined.=20

                             Saustrup's case likewise should end with
a grand jury  declining to indict him, Patterson said.=20

                             "Would I have done what this gentleman
did? Probably not.   But what he did was lawful," Patterson said.=20

                             "There are a couple of lessons here," he
added. "The first one is, don't steal cars. The second lesson is, if
you have a license and you shoot somebody, you will spend some time
explaining it to a grand jury."=20

                             Saustrup faces a first-degree felony
charge of "knowingly and intentionally" killing Smith, said Assistant
District Attorney Buddy Meyer. He added that Saustrup invoked his
right against self-incrimination in refusing to talk to
investigators.=20

                             Saustrup's attorney, Sandra Ritz,
described her client as "a normal guy, a good kid, one of four
brothers who pretty much raised themselves." She said that 45 to 50
letters from friends attesting to Saustrup's "good character" showed
up at her law office unsolicited within hours of his arrest.=20

                             On Austin talk-radio shows and Internet
chat rooms,  Saustrup has been portrayed both as a vigilante and as a
hero.=20

                             The fact that the fleeing burglary
suspect was shot in the back, blocks away from the crime scene, caused
many to claim the shooting was premeditated and an unreasonable
response to the property damage. But other Austinites
praised Saustrup's bravery and predicted he would not be
indicted.=20

                             Ritz said a 911 recording would prove
Saustrup tried to make a peaceful citizen's arrest but used his weapon
because he feared for his life. She added that autopsy results
should verify his claim that Smith was wheeling around when
shot. Preliminary findings reportedly indicated the two bullets
entered below each shoulder blade and penetrated the
victim's heart.=20

                             The fatal shooting, near the Austin
Convention and Visitors Center, occurred about three blocks from where
Saustrup and his girlfriend claimed they caught Smith ransacking the
woman's Suburban. As they approached, they noticed its
brake lights illuminated and a window broken, Ritz said.=20

                             "Paul pulled his handgun out and told him
to get out of the car. This guy threatened that there were other
`homies' around there and they were going to kill him," Ritz said.=20

                             "Paul made a comment that he was making a
citizen's arrest for burglary of his vehicle and he wanted this person
to get out of the car, lay on the floor and leave his hands where he
could see them."=20

                             She said the man lifted up his T-shirt,
pointed to gang tattoos and said, "Do you know what these are?" and
"My homies are going to kill you."=20

                             Saustrup then asked his girlfriend to
take the cellular phone out of his back pocket to call police, said
Ritz, who added that she stayed on the phone with 911 dispatchers
throughout the ordeal and was only known witness.=20

                             "Paul was obviously fearing for his life
at that point," Ritz said. "This person was digging in his belt and
crotch area and made a sudden sharp turn toward Paul, and at that
time, Paul shot him."=20

                             Unbeknown to Saustrup, the man he
confronted was a property-crime and drug offender on probation with
two felony and five misdemeanor convictions in Dallas, all
resulting in probationary terms, police said.=20

                             Ritz said Saustrup's reaction was based
on his instincts and training and was not an overreaction or the work
of a "vigilante."=20

                             "They try to prevent vigilante-type
situations by educating people. He was as educated as the handgun law
requires.
                             He was educated, in fact, by a DPS
officer," Ritz said.=20

                             "Under the law, he was authorized to use
deadly force at the time he saw him burglarizing the vehicle at night
time. But he didn't use deadly force at that time. He called 911 and
tried to get the law over there.=20

                             "All he was trying to do was keep this
criminal from fleeing."=20
--
For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.=
net
with the word help in the message body.


--------------47DE90F2D185F1F165F7223A--



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Upcoming Federal Legislation
Date: 13 Jul 1998 10:22:10 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 21:21:38 -0600
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id VAA13024; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 21:11:02 -0600
Received: (qmail 12556 invoked by uid 516); 11 Jul 1998 03:20:27 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 12475 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1998 03:20:18 -0000
Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1998 03:20:18 -0000
Received: from mg2.rockymtn.net (mailserv.rockymtn.net [166.93.205.12])
    by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAB09556
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:20:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 166-93-76-53.rmi.net (166-93-76-53.rmi.net [166.93.76.53])
    by mg2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA11109;
    Fri, 10 Jul 1998 20:52:25 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 16:46:36 -0400
>From: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Upcoming Federal Legislation
>
>House to Reconvene Next Week:
>
>Issues affecting your 1st and 2nd Amend.
>Rights soon coming for a vote
>
>by Gun Owners of America
>8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA  22151,
>[phone], http://www.gunowners.org
>
>(Friday, July 10, 1998)
>
>
>ACTION:  Send the letter found below to Sen. Bob Smith
>(R-NH).  He's the number one champion in the U.S. Senate
>defending our rights, and we need to encourage him to remain
>strong against the pressures of the leadership in Washington,
>D.C.!
>
>
>Incumbent Protection Bill to rear its ugly head again (Call
>Capitol Hill: 202-225-3121)
>
>It's often said that two things you can count on are "death and
>taxes."  Well, add another one to the list: "Politicians always
>find ways to keep themselves in power."  Last year, Senators
>McCain and Feingold tried to force the passage of an
>Incumbent Protection Bill, but were thwarted by a minority of
>Senators.  (As you may remember, that bill would have heavily
>restricted the ability of GOA to communicate with its members
>on 2nd Amendment issues.)  Earlier this year, Representatives
>defeated a similar proposal in the House.  But the battle is far
>from over.
>
>A threatened discharge petition has forced the issue once
>again in the House.  Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) has done a
>yeoman's job of trying to kill the Incumbent Protection Bill, and
>has organized the introduction of over 400 "killer" amendments
>to the bill.
>
>For example, on Tuesday, July 14, an amendment sponsored
>by Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) will be voted on.  His
>amendment will preserve the ability of groups - like GOA - to
>provide you with voter guide information near an election.
>[Under the House Incumbent Protection Plan (introduced by
>Reps. Shays and Meehan), these kinds of voter guides would
>be made virtually illegal.]  Ask your Reps. to support the
>Doolittle amendment and to vigorously oppose any so-called
>Campaign Finance Reform like the Shays-Meehan bill (H.R.
>3526) that would trample the 1st Amendment.
>
>
>Pro-gun champion Sen. Bob Smith still has his "hold" on
>Hatch's Horror Bill (S. 10)
>
>Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called a press conference in late June
>to push his fledgling anti-gun crime bill.  GOA had met with his
>staff - and the staff of Sen. Sessions (R-AL) - to discuss our
>opposition to the bill.  While some positive changes have been
>made, S. 10 still contains anti-gun provisions.  Thus, GOA's
>strong opposition to the bill remains in force.
>
>Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) still has a "hold" on S. 10,
>and recently indicated to Gun Owners of America his intention
>to continue fighting for the rights of gun owners.  People should
>write Sen. Smith and thank him for his vigilant defense of our
>constitutional rights.  [See the letter below.]
>
>
>Sen. Smith puts FBI on notice; looks to gut Brady
>Registration Law
>
>In early June, the FBI released its draft proposals for
>implementing the Brady Registration Act.  Among other things,
>the FBI wants to register gun owners for at least 18 months
>and to impose an additional tax on certain gun owners.
>
>After the FBI draft regulations were issued, Senator Bob Smith
>put the FBI on notice regarding his intentions to get an
>amendment placed in an upcoming appropriations bill.  The
>Smith amendment would defund the ability of the FBI to collect
>a tax on gun owners.  Moreover, it would defund any attempt
>by the FBI to use the Brady instant check as a mechanism to
>keep gun owners' names, and requires the "immediate
>destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form
>whatsoever."
>
>Finally, the Smith amendment improves upon other proposals
>in Congress that would seek to prevent the FBI from registering
>gun buyers.  Other bills leave the "policing" of the FBI to
>Attorney General Janet Reno.  Not Senator Smith's language.
>His proposal specifically allows for aggrieved private citizens
>to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including
>attorney's fees.
>
>
>Please send the letter below to Sen. Bob Smith.  Senator Smith is
>going to come under fire from the leadership in Washington for
>the stand he's taken in defending gun owners' rights.
>
>We need to let him know that gun owners stand behind him!  Don't
>let the fact that you live outside of New Hampshire keep you from
>contacting him.  As a Presidential candidate, Senator Smith
>should be happy to hear from you, even if you live outside of his
>home state.
>
>To contact Senator Bob Smith:
>
>Fax:    [phone]
>Email:  [e-mail]
>
>
>-------------- Clip to Fax or E-Mail -------------------
>
>Dear Senator Smith:
>
>I know that statesmanship can sometimes be a thankless job.  And
>so I wanted to make sure you knew that Americans like myself are
>very grateful for your leadership on a couple of issues that
>relate to gun owners.
>
>First, I'm sure that the "hold" you placed on S. 10 is one of the
>main reasons this legislation has not proceeded forward.  As long
>as S. 10 applies RICO to firearms in any way, shape or form, then
>this bill will remain unacceptable!  Even beyond the RICO
>problems, S. 10 still contains a myriad of penalties for innocent
>activity that gun dealers and gun owners might engage in.  These
>penalties range from punishing dealers who make record-keeping
>mistakes, to increasing penalties on gun owners for taking their
>kids handgun shooting without a written note of permission.  It's
>incredible that legislation like this could even pass out of the
>Senate Judiciary Committee!
>
>Second, I agree with you that the FBI needs to be slapped down in
>its attempts to use the Brady Law to register and tax gun owners.
>This registration scheme needs to be completely dismantled.  But
>short of that, your proposal is the next best way to deal with
>bureaucratic abuse - hit them in the pocketbook!  Giving
>aggrieved citizens the ability to sue, and upon winning, to get
>their attorney's fees, is certainly a potent way of keeping
>bureaucrats from violating the privacy of gun owners.
>
>Again, thank you for your efforts on both of these fronts.  If
>you can single-handedly stop S. 10 from moving, then I'm all in
>favor of that.  And, whatever you can do to repeal the effects of
>the Brady Registration Law will be "icing on the cake."  Please
>keep up the fight for our rights, and know that millions of
>Americans like myself appreciate what you are doing.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>___________________________________________
>
>___________________________________________
>
>___________________________________________
>
>
>
>****************************************************************
>Did someone else forward this alert to you? To be certain of
>getting up-to-date information, please consider joining the GOA
>E-Mail Alert Network directly. The service is free, your e-mail
>address remains confidential, and the volume is quite low: five
>messages a  week would mean a very busy week indeed. To
>subscribe, simply send a note (or forward this notice) to
>[e-mail] and include your state of residence in
>either the subject line or the body.
>
>
>
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
********************


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


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: CS: Pol-Lethal Weapon 4
Date: 13 Jul 1998 11:43:11 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:39:20 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA14937; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:28:41 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA27880; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:37:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma027763; Mon Jul 13 12:36:59 1998
Message-Id: <v04011701b1cfd45c22ec@[204.182.72.70]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

    Thot u'd all want to see this:

ET

>Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 05:40:53 -0400
>From: Steven Kendrick/UK <[e-mail]>
>Subject: CS: Pol-Lethal Weapon 4
>To: CyberShooters <[e-mail]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Precedence: bulk
>
>> From: james.woodard
>>
>> To all gun owners:
>>
>> Save your money on this one!!!  Not one minute into the movie Mel =
Gibson
>> slams the NRA (thought he was a free-thinking conservative?).  Later in =
the
>> movie, Danny Glover is framed with a poster that states that a child is
>> killed every day with a handgun; to make matters worse there is an
>> international prohibition sign (red circle with a diagonal slash) with =
NRA
>> in the middle of it!!!  Warner Brothers has got my last dime and with =
it an
>> angry letter.  Spread the word to avoid this movie.  If they want to =
trash
>> my 2nd Amendment rights while glorifying violence, they can kiss my ass
>
>  ---------[advertisement]-----------
>
>  We can't all sue the Government, but we can give money to
>  people who are making the attempt:
>
>  Justice for Shooters, PO Box 705, Bourne End, Bucks, SL8 5FS.
>  http://home.rednet.co.uk/homepages/markg/index.html
>
>  NPA Fighting Fund, BM Box 1456, London WC1N 3XX.
>
>  "A pound a day keeps the gun-grabbers away"
>
>  ----------[subscription info]----------
>
>  To subscribe (or unsubscribe), send email to
>  [e-mail] with text:
>
>  subscribe cybershooters (or unsubscribe cybershooters)
>
>  as the first and only line in the message body.  For further
>  information, please refer to the Cybershooters FAQ at
>  http://www.tsra.demon.co.uk/csfaq.htm
>


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: It's the Bill of Rights, Stupid
Date: 13 Jul 1998 11:51:34 -0600

MSGID: 1:362/627.0 35a5a808
 * Crossposted from: Fido: Local Controversy(Net 362)

It's the Bill of Rights, Stupid
Especially the Second Amendment
by L. Neil Smith



Texas congressman Dick Armey is talking up some pretty good ideas --
for a Republican.  According to a recent announcement, he wants to
cut federal income taxes to a flat rate of 17 percent -- which is
too much, but what do you expect?  He would allow generous
exemptions: $10,000 for individuals, $14,000 for single parents,
$20,000 for couples, and so on, meaning that most people would wind
up paying that 17 percent on merely a fraction of their income.  The
best news is that he would replace the hated Form 1040 with a
postcard, and eliminate tax-withholding altogether, something that
would be extremely good for this country.  But what is he going to
do about Kay Bailey Hutchison?

Hutchison, you may recall, is the lady that conservatives were
aflutter over, who humiliated the Democrats by taking Lloyd
Bentsen's Senate seat away from them when he descended to the
Clinton cabinet, and who survived what amounted to an assassination
attempt -- assault-lawyers at thirty paces -- on the part of
Governor Ann "Ma" Richards, more or less by staring the old crone
squarely in the eye and saying, "Let she who is without graft cast
the first aspersion." Great stuff.

But when push came to shove, what kind of conservative, what kind of
Republican, what kind of Senator did Kay turn out to be?  No better
than Ma Richards, really, who earned the contempt of everyone with
an educated concern for the Bill of Rights by vetoing a liberalized
concealed-carry statute passed overwhelmingly by her legislature.
Bailey's first significant act as a United States Senator was to
join one-too-many of her fellow Republicans in voting the Brady Bill
-- primarily intended to reduce handgun purchases by women -- into
law.  Ironically, the old pre-Waco Bentsen would probably have voted
against it.  And that, of course, set the stage for Republicans to
join the Clinton Gang in its blatantly illegal attempt -- the
Feinstein Amendment -- to outlaw that very class of weapons most
clearly meant to be protected by the Second Amendment.  Now what, I
hear you asking, does Hutchison's dimwitted betrayal of the
Constitution have to do with Armey's good-hearted, high-minded
effort to help Americans keep more of their income?  Simply this:
conservatives frequently -- and erroneously -- assume that a free
economy is the same thing as a free country.  Let no one doubt my
fervent desire for an economy less constrained than any Republican
can imagine, but what good is money if you don't have any rights?
Let me put it another way: the Bill of Rights is basically the only
thing that keeps America from becoming the world's largest banana
republic -- and there are plenty of banana republics that don't have
any income tax at all.  Or let me put it still another way, seeing
as how Armey's proposal isn't good-hearted or high-minded at all,
but just a stab -- and a commendable one -- at taking advantage of
Bill and Hillary's loopy policies of governmental greed and
implacable hatred for individual achievement: most observers on both
sides of the ideological fence were quick to cite George Bush's
broken promise about taxes as a factor in his 1992 defeat; few of
them noticed -- or wanted to discuss publicly -- the fact that he
lost by a margin remarkably similar to the number of gun-owning
single-issue voters he had offended on several occasions.  All
along, it was the Bill of Rights, stupid -- especially the Second
Amendment.  Ancient Rome had some odd institutions, among them the
phenomenon of wealthy slaves.  I don't want to be part of that
particular classical revival, do you?  Tell you what, Dick, make me
an offer I really can't refuse.  Before you volunteer again to let
me keep more of what was mine to begin with anyway, why not try
enforcing the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights?  Each and
every article.  Lock up -- that's right, arrest, indict, try, and
imprison -- those among your colleagues, Republican or Democrat, who
attempt to vote my liberties away.

I might take you seriously if you do that.

You may not remember, but it's what you promised to do when you took
office.  Until then, I will continue to vote Libertarian -- and work
as hard as I can at persuading others to do the same -- even if in
practical terms it means seeing one slimy, repulsive, liberal
Democrat after another elected to office.  To put that another way,
it may be necessary to destroy the GOP in order to save it.  And
it's preferable to supporting a party that consistently demonstrates
treacherous disregard for certain basic civilities -- as embodied in
the first ten Amendments to the Constitution -- to which we all
supposedly agreed, so long ago.


L.  Neil Smith is the award-winning author of 19 books including The
Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando
Calrissian Adventures, Pallas, and (forthcoming) Bretta Martyn and
Lever Action.  An NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian
Second Amendment Caucus, he has been active in the Libertarian
movement for 34 years and is its most prolific and widely-published
living novelist.

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the
author - provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety,
and appropriate credit given.


... Government's a disease masquerading as its own cure. - L. Neil Smith
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
 # Origin: River Canyon Rd. BBS   Chattanooga, Tn (1:362/627)

GPTH: 362/627 701 3615/50 396/1 270/101 2624/306 273/304

GATE: 176:500/14.0@PRNet 35a82a36
 * Origin: PRNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (176:500/14.0)

--
 (Ray Ledford)
         AirPower Information Services BBS * 610-259-2193
            The Shooter's Online Service - since 1989
      http://www.airpower.com  Telnet://airpower.dyn.ml.org
--=20
Regards

Meplat
=20
             **********************************
=20
                Take not lightly liberty
                To have it you must live it
=20
                And like love, don't you see
                To keep it you must give it
=20
             **********************************


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Harass Congress for Free
Date: 13 Jul 1998 12:19:03 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:12:36 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id MAA15051; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:01:59 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA03323; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:11:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma003175; Mon Jul 13 14:08:48 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


FYI -- it'd be a good time to hit them on killing the NICS tax, particularl=
y
in the Senate, where the amendment will have to be shoved into the =
Commerce-
State-Justice Approps. bill on the floor.

PGO'M.
Wash., D.C.

>MONDAY
>JULY 13, 1998=20
>
>New toll-free hotline to Congress=20
>Line working again after being shut down for months=20
>                 =20
>Congress is making a new toll-free number available for
>citizens who would like to make their voices heard in
> Washington.=20
>
>The new number for the U.S. Capitol switchboard is
>1-800-504-0031.=20
>
>* 1998 Western Journalism Center=20


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dangers of CCW
Date: 13 Jul 1998 15:03:17 -0600

By L. Neil Smith
[e-mail]=20

Exclusive to The Libertarian Enterprise=20


Recently we've heard astonishing fallout from an impressive study of the =
achievements, so far, of a growing effort -- almost amounting to a =
movement -- to make it easier for ordinary folks to legally carry =
concealed weapons.  In states where this effort has been successful, crime =
rates (in terms of violent confrontation) have fallen so dramatically even =
the media can no longer deny it.  Advocates of the right to own and carry =
weapons rendered cynical by years of watching media act as a fourth branch =
of government, rather than its adversaries as Jefferson intended, are =
inclined to wonder why the hairsprayheads have decided, unprecedentedly, =
to tell the truth.  I suspect an answer lies in a troubling aspect of =
concealed carry I've attempted to warn gunfolk about previously.

When I entered the argument three and a half decades ago, the issue where =
both sides were concerned was registration and licensing.  Antigunners =
wanted every firearm in the country listed in government directories, =
every user required to obtain written permission to exercise his Second =
Amendment rights -- rights to be converted into privileges, revocable upon =
the whim of politicians and bureaucrats.=20

Antigunners were unsuccessful until 1968, when, grotesquely stampeded by =
the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King =
(I don't recall any similar outrage on the part of the media over the =
shooting of George Wallace), government began enforcing the registration =
of weapons, new and used, at the point of retail sale, under Lyndon =
Johnson's Omnibus Crime Control Act.

Over the next quarter-century, we managed to "live with" this law, which, =
with the collaboration of a criminal justice system so putrescently =
corrupt it shines in the dark, blatantly violated the letter and intent of =
the Second Amendment.  It helped that guns in private hands or traded =
among individuals didn't enter the retail stream and remained unregistered.=
  It also helped that, thanks to Ronald Reagan, the outlaw BATF (what else =
do you call an out-of- control agency that coldbloodedly murders 81 =
individuals -- 22 of them kids -- and whose very existence is forbidden by =
the Constitution?) was prohibited from computerizing forms generated under =
the 1968 Gun Control Act.  And there was still no provision for licensing =
owners.

Now, the danger of a national Sullivan Act has raised its stealthy head =
again, brought on by well-intended but misguided efforts to issue =
concealed carry permits.  The danger is exacerbated by the fact that this =
extremely circumscribed return of a fundamental liberty has produced such =
remarkably beneficial results.  It reminds us of the way, in the Soviet =
Union, that the 5% of farmland privately owned produced 80% of the crops.  =
Even from our own side, we hear how crime is falling in states that =
generously allow 1% of the people to carry weapons.  But there can be no =
"allow" where an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human =
right is concerned.

One more time, just to get it straight: there is no "allow".  The word =
applies only to slaves, collared dogs, maybe children, and government.  It =
does not apply to free adults.  We've forgotten that, in America, unlike =
any other nation on Earth, "We the People" allow government to do things =
(too many, as we're belatedly starting to realize), not the other way =
around.  That's the point of the 9th and 10th Amendments.  Second-highest =
on the list of things we don't allow is interference with our right to own =
and carry weapons.

It's undeniable that crime has decreased wherever the right to own and =
carry weapons, previously suppressed, has been converted into a privilege, =
granted or denied by the state.  Overlooked, however, is the fact that, in =
1994, Vermont was named (Crime State Rankings 1994) the safest state in =
America.  It's the only state without laws of any kind forbidding -- or =
allowing -- concealed weapons.  Hence the term, "Vermont Carry", which I =
coined years ago to describe the proper way to observe the Second =
Amendment.

Where licensing proponents tip their hand is that, in many states, in many =
versions of concealed carry legislation, failure to comply with their =
illegal requirements becomes -- without explanation or justification -- a =
felony rather than the misdemeanor it was before.

In other instances, the applicant -- make that, "supplicant" -- must name =
the weapon he or she will be allowed to carry, along with its serial =
number.  Thus we've come, the long way around, by our own clumsy doing, to =
the registration and licensing we once opposed.

An unalienable right is one that can't be taken away by anyone for any =
reason.  All rights are individual rights; no group has rights beyond =
those possessed individually by its members.  My dictionary says a civil =
right is one guaranteed (not "given" or "granted") to the individual by =
law.  A Constitutional right is no right at all, but a limit on the power =
of government.  A human right is one you possess inherently, by virtue of =
being alive; it's what we mean when we say "natural" right.

The right to own and carry weapons is all of these things, not one -- not =
even civil rights; that's why we busted big fat segregationist sheriffs in =
Smokey Bear hats and mirrored sunglasses in the 1960s -- subject to =
government approval.

Anti-gunners are striking back, suing to expose permits lists, violate =
privacy, endanger lives.  The law is with them: permits are a matter of =
public record and must be disclosed.  Elsewhere, we hear of discriminatory =
licensing based on income or race.  In terms of potential abuses, you =
ain't seen nothin' yet.

The Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus, SAFE (Second Amendment is For =
Everyone), and GOLF (Gun Owners' Liberation Front) were the first to =
demand nothing less than Vermont Carry -- repeal of any law having =
anything to do with how people carry weapons.  We're gratified that SWARM =
(Safety for Women And Responsible Motherhood) and GOA (Gun Owners of =
America) have followed suit.

It's time for the National Rifle Association to join us in calling for a =
national non-system of Vermont Carry.  No prerequisites, no records, no =
nothing.

Then watch the crime rate start to fall.=20

L.  Neil Smith's award-winning first novel, The Probability Broach, which =
has long been out of print, will be republished by TOR Books this October. =
 A complete list of his novels and collection of his essays and other data =
may be reached on the World Wide Web through  http://www.webleyweb.com/lnei=
l/.  Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the =
author, provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and =
appropriate credit given.

A Juror's Creed: As an American juror, I will exercise my 1000 year old =
duty to arrive at a verdict, not just on the basis of the facts of a =
particular case or instructions I am given, but through my ability to =
reason, my knowledge of the Bill of Rights, and my individual conscience.  =
-- L. Neil Smith

.. My concealed carry permit is my birth certificate - L. Neil Smith

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Handguns
Date: 14 Jul 1998 08:14:00 -0700


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

[Federal Register: July 13, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 133)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37739-37743]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13jy98-20]

[[Page 37739]]
_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI

Department of the Treasury
_______________________________________________________________________

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
_______________________________________________________________________

27 CFR Part 178

Posting of Signs and Written Notification to Purchasers of Handguns;
Final Rule

[[Page 37740]]


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

27 CFR Part 178

[T.D. ATF-402; Ref: Notice No. 855]
RIN 1512-AB68

Posting of Signs and Written Notification to Purchasers of Handguns

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Department of
the Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.


SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is amending
the firearms regulations to require that signs be posted on the premises
of Federal firearms licensees and that written notification be issued
with each handgun sold advising of the provisions of the Youth Handgun
Safety Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marsha D. Baker, Regulations Division,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, DC 20226 (202-927-8210).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Youth Handgun Safety Act (YHSA), 18 U.S.C. 922(x), generally
makes it unlawful for a person to transfer a handgun to anyone under 18
years of age or for anyone under 18 years of age to knowingly possess a
handgun. Certain exceptions are set forth in the statute.
    In enacting the YHSA in 1994, Congress found that criminal misuse
of firearms often starts with the easy availability of guns to juvenile
gang members. In addition, Congress found that individual States and
localities may find it difficult to control this problem by themselves.
Therefore, Congress found it necessary and appropriate to assist the
States in controlling violent crime by stopping the commerce in
handguns with juveniles nationwide and allowing the possession of
handguns by juveniles only when handguns are possessed and used under
certain limited circumstances.
    In a memorandum to the Secretary of the Treasury dated June 11,
1997, the President stated that a major problem in our nation is the
ease with which young people gain illegal access to guns. The President
observed that firearms are now responsible for 12 percent of fatalities
among American children and teenagers.
    The President's memorandum directed the Secretary of the Treasury
to propose regulations that would require the posting of signs and
issuance of written notices warning handgun purchasers of the
provisions of the YHSA.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In response to the concerns raised by the President's memorandum,
ATF published Notice No. 855 in the Federal Register (62 FR 45364) on
August 27, 1997. To enforce the provisions of the YHSA and to ensure
that handgun purchasers are familiar with its provisions, the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposed regulations requiring that
signs be posted on the premises of Federal firearms licensees and that
written notification be issued by licensees to nonlicensed handgun
purchasers warning as follows:

    (1) Federal law prohibits, except in certain limited circumstances,
anyone under 18 years of age from knowingly possessing a handgun, or
any person from transferring a handgun to a person under 18;
    (2) A violation of the prohibition against transferring a handgun
to a person under the age of 18 is, under certain circumstances,
punishable by up to 10 years in prison;
    (3) Handguns are a leading contributor to juvenile violence and
fatalities; and
    (4) Safely storing and locking handguns away from children can
help ensure compliance with Federal law.

    The proposed rule stipulated that signs provided by ATF must be
posted by licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers on their
licensed premises where prospective handgun purchasers can readily
see them. In addition, the written notification to be issued to each
handgun purchaser must be made available either by providing the
purchaser with an ATF Publication or some other type of written
notification that contains the same language, e.g., a manufacturer's
or importer's instruction manual or brochure provided to the handgun
purchaser.

Analysis of Comments

    ATF received sixty-two (62) comments during the comment period in
response to Notice No. 855. These comments were received from fifty-
three (53) members of the public, one (1) Member of Congress, four (4)
Federal firearms licensees (FFLs), and four (4) firearms industry
organizations. Five (5) of the respondents were in agreement with the
proposed regulations. Fifty-seven (57) respondents opposed certain
provisions of the proposed regulations.



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Modern Framing Techniques, A Gross Miscarriage of Justice
Date: 14 Jul 1998 08:36:43 -0600

Received: from vader.thnet.com
    ([206.98.115.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 05:55:11 -0600
Received: from bruce26.thnet.com (bruce26.thnet.com [206.98.115.126]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA11150; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 06:47:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Vigo Examiner
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

GUEST EDITORIAL

                         Modern Framing Techniques
                       A Gross Miscarriage of Justice

by RICHARD V. PITNER MSG USA (ret)
[e-mail].

The following is a truthful, documented report on the Arrest, Trial and
incarceration of John Irvin Pitner.

John Irvin Pitner formed the Washington State Militia about four years =
ago.
The goal of this group was strictly non-violent and instructive to the
public concerning the violations of the Constitution and the inherent
danger of a New World Order. The BATF investigated the group and classified=

them as no danger to anyone. John Pitner's political philosophy was that
violence would not correct any problems at this stage of the development =
of
the NWO and the continuing intrusion of foreign troops on United States
Lands.

A three time convicted Felon, one Edward Maeurer offered his services to
the FBI in Bellingham, Washington while in Jail for forgery. The District
Agent for the FBI, Ramon Garcia, accepted his offer and paid him enough
money to pay his bail on the charge that he was in jail for. Maeurer had
previously approached the County Sheriff with the same offer, but was
rebuffed. Maeurer had been previously fired as an informant for the FBI
because he had divulged his undercover status to a friend.

In June 1996 Maeurer began attending meetings of the WSM, and by August he
was reporting to Agent Garcia that he had observed a "fortified room" at
John Pitner's house, where boxes of dynamite, a box of grenades,
fertilizer, and fully automatic weapons were kept for the group. Garcia's
response was to initiate a formal investigation of the WSM. Maeurer was
being amply paid by Garcia for these later proved lies. He collected over
$25,000 of the taxpayers money from Agent Garcia for his ability to
fabricate, lie and swear under oath that his data was true. Maeurer was
also guilty of fraud while working for the FBI as he was drawing Labor and
Industry payments at the same time he was being paid by the FBI. That is a
felony and if any of us ordinary people did that, we would wind up in =
Jail.

The Judge in this case ignored that fact and did nothing about it. The =
same
as when the two FBI Agents, while under oath on the witness stand, =
admitted
that they had entered John Pitner's house without a Warrant. All this =
Judge
had to say about that was "I CAN'T BELIEVE I AM HEARING THIS!" Nothing
further was done about it.

During the fall of 1995 and early winter of 1996, Maeurer continued to =
send
reports of illegal activities to Garcia, including reports that the group
possessed stolen night vision devices taken from Fort Lewis, Washington,
and that they were plotting to kill Federal Agents, and intended to
assassinate David Rockefeller. All of this was fabricated by Maeurer to
insure that his pay check would continue to come in.

In February, 1996 Garcia prepared to insert an undercover FBI Agent into
the WSM, namely, SPECIAL AGENT MICHAEL GERMAN. German would establish a
false identity as "ROCK", A childhood friend of Maeurer's from California,
and would pose as a buyer and seller of surplus military equipment.

As a prelude to that plan, Garcia ordered the paid informant to submit to =
a
polygraph examination, administered by Special Agent Raymond Lauer. On
February 20th, during the pre-test interview, Maeurer recanted his =
previous
reports about seeing fully-automatic weapons, grenades, and dynamite at
Pitner's home. Now he was not sure any of them had actually been there,
only their boxes. Agent Lauer then administered the test, which Maeurer
FAILED.

After the first Polygraph, and informed that he had failed, Maeurer again
changed his story about what he had, or had not, seen in Pitner's house.
The fortified room became Pitner's Garage. The report about stolen
night-vision devices was recanted. He also admitted that he had again told
someone he was working as an undercover FBI Informant. Agent Lauer then
administered the test for the second time, and again, Maeurer FAILED. (At
Trial, this evidence of failed polygraph tests was precluded from the Jury
by the Presiding Judge, John Coughenour, and Maeurer testified to his
original FBI reports). This is the false data that was presented to the
Grand Jury and caused a false indictment to be determined by that Grand
Jury. Therefore, the entire case began and ended based on the testimony of
a LIAR.
[NOTE: Judge John Coughenour earlier this year dropped Manslaughter =
charges
against FBI assasin Lon Horiuchi, citing Article 6 of the US Constitution
as redering federal agents not subject to State laws such as Murder or
Manslaughter. ED]

Despite such clear evidence that Maeurer was unreliable, and that
operational security had been breached, Agent Garcia proceeded with the
undercover investigation, and Agent German was ordered to infiltrate the
WSM, posing as "ROCK". At this stage, Special Agent Garcia was invested
heavily into the investigation and in spite of evidence that nothing was
wrong, he continued to press forward.

In late April, Pitner's wife left him. In early May, he began to suffer
from visual problems and disorientation, which his family physician, Dr.
Scott Tarleton, diagnosed as a temporary short term stroke. Later that =
same
month, Pitner resigned as Director of the WSM due to his illness, marital
and financial problems. After repeatedly urging Pitner to re-assume
leadership of the WSM (to no avail), Maeurer and Agent German began to
assume absolute control of the organization themselves. They were both
appointed members of a four person leadership council, and began to take
charge of daily operations of the members. Up to this time, nothing had
happened that was illegal within the group. This was because John Pitner
would not have tolerated any activity that was illegal. In fact, he would
have probably reported them to the FBI himself for the things that they =
set
up after he was no longer active in the group.
[NOTE: Federal agents normally refuse top level leadership positions
because any crimes they order or permit to be committed are legally
sanctioned or ordered by the US government. They prefer the role of
"helpful advisor." ED]

During the remainder of the undercover FBI investigation, the two of them
(Maeurer and German) developed plans to obtain chemicals for home made C-4
Plastic Explosives, to instruct the members on how to make Pipe Bombs, and
how to convert semi-automatic weapons to fully Automatic, and to convince
the other WSM members that Pitner was not to be trusted anymore. Selected
members of the group were directed by the Undercover Agent and the =
Informer
to begin constructing Pipe Bombs, [NOTE: Ordered by the governenment to
commit the crime. ED] and started delivering them to the two undercover
Agents. "ROCK" (German) was supposedly selling them to raise funds for the
group. Again, John Pitner, being no longer associated with the group, had
no knowledge of these illegal happenings going on as initiated by the
Undercover Provocateur's.

Special Agent German rented a warehouse in Bellingham, Washington to use
for meetings, weapons storage, and stockpiling supplies and equipment. He
went to the BATF and asked for help in acquiring a couple of semi-automatic=

weapons to use in entrapping the people of the WSM by getting them to
convert the weapons to fully automatic. The BATF turned him down, telling
him that they had also investigated this group and found them not =
dangerous
at all. He acquired a pair of M-15 semi-automatic rifles and the necessary
parts for conversion to fully automatic. One of the members had some
gunsmithing experience and was selected as the one to do the job.
Incidentally, the warehouse in Bellingham was also planted with tape
recorders, audio and video cameras. The person who was going to do the
conversion said he could not do it without a machine tool of a certain
type. German promptly went out and bought him one. Again, I remind you =
that
John Pitner was not privy to any of this. In fact, the group was told by
the two Agents that John Pitner was specifically not to know of these
activities they were embarking on.

A class was scheduled for 27 July, where "ROCK" would teach how to make a
home-made C-4, after he had obtained the ingredients needed. The FBI made
plans for a mass arrest of everyone who attended. Separate plans were made
for John Pitner's arrest.

FBI Agents Garcia and Cathy Fahey made a pretextual visit to Pitner's =
home,
which had been placed on the market for sale, posing as prospective buyers
on July 25th. Pitner was out of town in Seattle, working for his sister =
who
owned a landscaping business during that time. The Agents met with =
Pitner's
Real Estate Agent at the home and went through the entire house,
familiarizing themselves with the layout, and examining the contents of =
the
house. Agent Garcia discovered two legal Rifles in a bedroom closet. This
was done WITHOUT A WARRANT!!

At 5:43 on the afternoon of the 27th, following the arrest of those in the
warehouse, FBI Agents Cathy Fahey, Stephan, and Burroughs - posing as two
interested buyers and the Real- Estate Agent, went to Pitner's home,
introduced themselves and asked to see the house. Pitner agreed, even
though they had no appointment. Once inside the house, the Agents =
abandoned
their subterfuge, pulled their weapons and placed Pitner under arrest. =
This
was also done WITHOUT A WARRANT!! Pitner offered no resistance, never
raised his voice, was completely cooperative with all requests made by the
arresting officers. He provided truthful information when asked for the
location of firearms in the house. He was asked to consent to a search of
the Garage and outbuildings, and signed a written consent to search. The
Agents did NOT ask him for consent to search the house which they had
already done illegally by surreptitious means. The Agents searched the
Garage and outbuildings and found nothing. At no time were there any
illegal weapons, bombs, bomb parts, fuses, grenades, dynamite, fertilizer,
or residue ever found at Pitner's house, or in his possession. As Pitner
was placed in the Police car for transport to jail, Special Agent =
Burroughs
commented to him, " well, Mr. Pitner, we don't have anything on you it
seems, but we're going to see to it that you go to jail for a couple of
years, anyway" Then, he laughed.

The Trial which ensued was a collage of evidence tampering by the Federal
Judge and the Prosecutors, the denial by the Judge of the protection of =
the
2nd and 9th amendments to the Constitution, continuous overruling of
objections by the defense, and a statement made by the Judge that THE 1ST
AMENDMENT MAY WORK IN THE STREET, BUT NOT IN HIS COURT [emphasis added.
ED]. It was obvious from the beginning of this trial that Justice was not
the obvious target of these people. In fact, the way that the charge was
made included John Pitner in all of the Provocateuring that the FBI Agent
and the Criminal informant did. The charge was against "JOHN I PITNER ET
AL". In this way, the Federal Prosecution included John as being also
involved in the illegal acts that they provoked the others into doing. It
was get these guys even if you have to cheat, lie, provoke, ad infinitum.
Along with the obvious violations of court procedure, the prosecution used
means other than evidence to make these people look bad. One graphic
example of that was the Federal Prosecutor utilizing verbal blasts by
saying JOHN PITNER in a loud voice, and then make the correction saying, =
"I
mean John Kirk" in a low voice making the emphasis on John Pitner's name =
to
the Jury when he was talking about John Kirk. He did it several times
during this trial.

John Pitner was charged with two counts, selling an automatic weapon and
conspiracy against the United States. The jury, a confused group under the
domination of Judge Cougenhour, found him guilty of selling the automatic
weapon when another man was the one that confessed to doing it. The =
weapon,
a Korean version of the UZI, was brought home by the young man's uncle
after military duty during that war. It was an antique almost 50 years =
old.

John Pitner never saw this weapon, and of course never touched it, so
therefore could not have sold it. In fact, the young man who was also
convicted of selling it sold it to one of the FBI Agents for $1,500.00,
exactly what John Pitner was asking for a Mustang car he had for sale.
Somehow, the sale of the car got inter- twined with the young man talking
about the weapon and wondering what it was worth. Use you imagination!! I
would like to see that tape examined by a sound engineer to see if it has
been tampered with. Added evidence that John Pitner had nothing to do with
the sale of the weapon is that the young man who was convicted of it =
signed
an affidavit to the effect that John Pitner had nothing to do with the
sale, nor knew about it. He also stood up in court and verbally stated the
same thing. No one believed him I guess, but they believed a proven liar,
the Criminal Informant Edward Maeurer, a three time felon. As of this
writing, the young man convicted of selling the weapon is out of jail. He
was released after spending about 18 months in prison. He has three years
of probation to endure always with the fear that he will be framed as John
Pitner was and returned to prison for something that he DID NOT DO.

The current status of John Pitner is that he will have completed two years
in custody as of July 28th, 1998. To date, he has not been sentenced for
the illegal conviction because the prosecutors have indicated they would
like to re-try him and two others on the conspiracy charge. John's =
Attorney
has filed an Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, asking that the Double
Jeopardy rule be applied and to stop the Federal Prosecutors from pursing
this false charge of Conspiracy.

This appeal was filed several months ago, and it was just placed on the
Docket. This means that it could be another 14 months before the case is
heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. John Pitner has competed most =
of
the time that sentencing guidelines show, and is perhaps looking at =
another
year and a half before anything more happens. JUST WHERE IS THE CONSPIRACY
NOW?? I believe that there is a Conspiracy, by the Federal Government, to
contain John Pitner as long as they can, or even longer if they are =
allowed
to get away with it.

This entire miscarriage of Justice has caused John Pitner to lose his =
wife,
his property and his reputation. The Federal Government has managed, in
their zeal to attack anyone who says anything about them, to destroy this
Veteran of the US Army (who did his part and didn't go to Canada or hide
behind a Rhodes Scholarship to get out of the draft). He did his duty the
same as his father who gave 26 years of honorable service to the US
Military.

To all who read this, I implore you to make yourself heard so we can force
some kind of decision out of these delaying, lying, conniving Lawyers who
are daily ruining peoples lives in this Country. They must be stopped or
our Country is doomed to become a third world nation after the rest of the
world, through the UN, has raped us of all our 225 years of Freedom. GOD
HELP US IF IT IS NOT STOPPED.

http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com
                                TEXT VERSION


Enjoy a free 90 day trial subscription to The Vigo Examiner.
You will receive one to three of our top articles each day. =20
Send your subscription request, and all other
communication to [e-mail].


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: THIS HAPPENED IN ILLINOIS A FEW DAYS AGO !!!!!!!!!!!
Date: 14 Jul 1998 14:20:53 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:37:05 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA15892; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:26:26 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA27341; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:32:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma027038; Tue Jul 14 13:26:48 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This incident happened a few days ago in Illinois, in the
Granite City/Edwardsville area.

The wife of a Granite City alderman was arrested and charged for
allegedly
carrying a loaded weapon into the Madison County Courthouse on
Wednesday morning ( 7-8-98)

The womans name is Pamela Partney, she was stopped by a madison county
Sheriff's Department deputy after he noticed the gun in her purse as she
passed
through the courthouses X-Ray equipment.

Partney told the deputies that she had forgotten that the weapon was
still in
her purse. She was charged with Unlawfull use of a weapon. The gun she
was carrying was a 6.35-caliber semiautomatic handgun.

Pamela Partney is the wife of  Granite City alderman Dan Partney who
has been prominent in Democratic politice in Madison County. Dan Partney

has said he and his wife are upset at the way the situation played out.
He said
his wife was treated like a common criminal.

Mrs Partney was at the courthouse for a civil suit she is currently
involved in.

Police set her bail at $15,000

Mr. Partney said his wife carries the gun for saftey reasons, that she
works
a night shift and travels on rual roads to St. Genevieve, MO where she
resides
in the couples other residence. Mr. Partney also said his wife brings
the gun
in from the car in her purse every morning when she comes home
from work, but because of the schedualed court appearance Wednesday his
wife was off work for a day and forgot to remove the gun from her purse.

Dan Partney was quoted as saying  " My wife tried to explain the
situation, her
lawyer tried to explain and nobody listened, so my wife spent the entire
day in
the Madison County Jail "        also    " She's very upset, its been a
very
emotional and traumatic day "

A court hearing has been scheduled for July 25 for Pamela Partney to
appear
on the gun charge.

----

Here is the kicker about this story. This case is going to be prosecuted
by
Madison County States attorney Bill Haine. Several years ago an Attorney

named Rod Pitts was busted for shooting an AK-47 into the air just for
the hell
of it. He was charged with a felony. Well this Rod Pitts had a very
extensive firearm
collection. Bill Haine had the case and let Rod Pitts go on a misdemenor
charge
because he was an attorney and a felony conviction would hurt his
attorney standing
and also because of Mr. Pitts extensive weapons collection, because if
he was convicted
of a felony he would have to get rid of all his guns. Mr Pitts got the
easy treatment.
Buy would you or I get the same, better question yet will Pamela Partney
get the same
preferencial treatment. Lets make sure she dont!!!!!!!

If anyone wants to verify this story as true you can get a copy of the
Alton Telegraph
Thursday July 9, 1998 edition.  The story is on page A-5 in the lower
right hand corner.
The story appeared in this paper and was also on the local radio
stations.

We need to put pressure on Bill Haine to prosecute this case the same as
you and I will get prosecuted.
I might mention that Madison County is heavily a Democratic County,
infested with those who do not
believe WE the people should carry weapons for self defence. Our State
Police are the same way.
Its because of them we cant get concealed carry in Illinois (my
opinion). So I guess the story goes like
this, The Elites can carry and the citizens cant be trusted.

Contact info below :

States Attorney Bill Haine    618-692-6280

Reporter Dennis Grubaugh   618-656-7500   This guy wrote the Alton
Telegraph story

Madison County Sheriff Bob Churchich     618-692-4433

>From what I have learned this charge is a Class 4 Felony. If anyone
contacts these people,   some follow up
post would be appreciated.

John




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FCO 7-13-98
Date: 14 Jul 1998 17:08:14 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 01:30:50 -0600
Received: from lists1.best.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA15570; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 01:20:10 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.9.0/8.8.BEST) id XAA02715 for [e-mail]; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 23:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
BestServHost: lists.best.com
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


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


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
                              Online Report
                                  to the
                   F I R E A R M S   C O A L I T I O N
                         7771 Sudley Rd., No. 44=20
                           Manassas, VA  20109
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
     See last page for subscription and administrative information.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
July 13, 1998                                            Vol. 5, No. 6
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
In this issue:

    Hard Corps Report for June 6

    Shotgun News Columns=20

       June 1 -- 'Instant Check' Headache

       June 11 -- 'Instant Check' Hearings

       July 1 -- Clinton's New Nose

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

    For current legislative information, call the Firearms Coalition=20
Legislative Hotline =20
=20
                   1-900-225-3006 $0.89 per minute =20
=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

A Note from Chris


     This is a long one, so I'll just point to a few links. =20

     The Philadelphia Convention was a brutal affair.  I vented into a=20
diary of the thing and put it at

   http://www.nealknox.com/fc/nra98/convention_diary.html

                           * * * * *

     I've looked for some time for an electronic copy of Fitzgerald v.=20
NRA.  It is now available at=20

   http://www.nealknox.com/fc/nra98/Fitzgerald_v_NRA.html

I had just started tinkering with a text only version when Chris=20
BeHanna told me that he had html-ified a copy.  From that case comes=20
the admonition, "officers and directors cannot utilize corporate=20
instrumentalities such as The American Rifleman to perpetuate=20
themselves in office."

     Well, they can if nobody sues them.

                           * * * * *

     Finally, I have put up a page covering Bob Barr's H.R. 3949 at=20
http://www.nealknox.com/fc/1998/barr.html.  The initial item on this=20
page, which will grow as the bill moves through the process, is an=20
answer to a query by one of our readers to the effect of "where was=20
Neal during the hearings on the Barr bill." =20

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
   I wrote and am solely responsible for everything above this line.
                               Chris Knox
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Hard Corps Report

                                             June 12, 1998

Dear Friend and Supporter,

     The FBI plans to keep Brady Act "Instant Check" firearms
purchase records for 18 months -- despite the law's clear
prohibitions against keeping records on law-abiding citizens.

     Last week the FBI published its proposed regulations
implementing the "National Instant Criminal Background Check
System" (NICS), which goes into effect Nov. 30.

     Yesterday the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee held a
hearing on those regulations and Rep. Bob Barr's bill (H.R. 3949)
which says FBI can't keep NICS records for more than 24 hours --
subject to 10 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine -- and
forbids FBI from charging a fee.

     By allowing FBI to retain anything but a transfer number,
which is all the law provides, the courts could rule that H.R.
3949 supersedes the various prohibitions against Federal agencies
keeping any record or portion of record of a firearms purchase. =20

     But NRA's lawyers, and Rep. Barr's, contend existing law
wouldn't be affected, and that the 24-hour prohibition provision
will prohibit "rolling" computer backups that would keep the
records in perpetuity.  I hope they're right.

     Despite the whopping potential punishment for violating gun
owners' privacy, I can't believe an Attorney General Reno would
prosecute her own bureaucrats -- considering her refusal to
prosecute many flagrant violations by the Clinton Administration.

     I would feel better if H.R. 3949 specifically provided for
individual gunowners to be able to bring lawsuits against those
who wrongfully keep or misuse the records.  The bill's drafters
say they will consider that as an amendment.

     Although I asked to testify in yesterday's hearings, I
wasn't invited.  However, I plan to submit written testimony to
be sure these points are covered.

     "Instant Check" was created a decade ago as a tactic to head
off the Brady waiting period in Congress, but it developed a life
of its own.  The cure is proving worse than the illness.  =20

     NRA used an "Instant Check" bill to head off a Virginia
waiting period in 1991, but "Instant Check" caused the computer
system which made Virginia's one-gun-per-month law possible two
years later.  Now FBI is trying to use "Instant Check" to build=20
a national gun registration system.=20

     In 1992, Wayne LaPierre told our minority caucus of NRA
Directors that if we tried to prohibit NRA-ILA from supporting
the "Instant Check" he would resign.  We should have stood fast.=20

     In the 1998 election battle over what philosophies will
determine NRA policies, Charlton Heston's "Mainstreamers" stomped
the group I endorsed with an expensive negative ad campaign.  I
don't know who paid for it; their candidates say they didn't.

     As you may have seen on C-Span, in last Saturday's Members'
Meeting in Philadelphia I was personally attacked by EVP Wayne
LaPierre and VP Kayne Robinson, and accused of being a
"disgruntled former employee" who was "trying to destroy NRA." =20

     I got almost no rebuttal time, and even then my microphone
kept getting turned off when I mentioned touchy subjects like
Heston's support of the 1968 Gun Control Act.

     The meeting set a record for how few ordinary members were
allowed to speak.  Only one or two were recognized, and the
officers took no questions. =20

     All eight corporate charter amendments were buried in one
motion by former President Joe Foss and new Director Lt. Col.
Oliver North, including the "radical" proposal to allow NRA
members to obtain NRA's IRS returns and other public records.

     Heston was elected NRA President -- not unanimously -- in
Monday's Board meeting without explaining his support for GCA '68
or last year's comments that "AK-47's are inappropriate for
private possession."  However, his recent statements have solidly
supported the Second Amendment, and I pray they don't change.

     Frankly, it wasn't a pleasant week.  We should have been
spending our energies fighting real enemies like Chuck Schumer
and Sarah Brady; it isn't fun being attacked by old friends.  But
it's critical to watchdog NRA because NRA determines what happens
to our gun rights, and we've got to do everything we can to
prevent future mistakes like "Instant Check."

     With your help, I've been able to stay in this fight.=20
Thanks for your confidence and support.

                              Yours for the Second Amendment,



                              Neal Knox

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

FBI Plans To Keep 'Instant Check' Records

     Hearings were held Thursday in the House Crime Subcommittee
on Rep. Bob Barr's (R-Ga.) H.R. 3949, which would block the FBI
from keeping records of firearms purchasers more than one day
when they implement the "National Instant Criminal Background
Check System" (NICS) this fall.

     The FBI intends to maintain records of conducting the check
for 18 months on some 11.4 million purchases by law-abiding
citizens each year despite prohibitions against keeping such
records in the "Instant Check" section of Brady and the 1986
McClure-Volkmer amendments. =20

     The Barr bill, called the "No Gun Tax Act of 1998" would
also prohibit FBI from collecting a planned $16 fee for
conducting the check. =20

     NRA-ILA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa said the FBI has no
authority to impose such a "user fee," noting that such fees were
discussed and rejected while the bill was being debated.

     In Thursday's hearing, FBI Spokesman James Kessler Jr.
repeated the proposed regulations' justification for keeping the
records for 18 months:  that it would allow audits to assure
there were no unauthorized use of the NICS system.  (Keeping the
records is itself an unauthorized privacy violation!)

     Kessler said that gunsmiths and pawnbrokers will be required
to conduct a $16 "Instant Check" before returning a gun left for
repair or modification, or redeeming a firearm securing a loan.=20
According to Kessler's testimony, that will total about 2.5
million pawn shop redemptions and four million gunsmith repairs
each year.

     James J. Baker, testifying for the Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, likened the charges on
gunsmithing to requiring people to get a driver's license every
time they had their car's oil changed.

     Chairman Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) extensively queried Kessler
as to why they intended to charge for checks conducted directly
for gun dealers, but not charge for the same checks if done for a
state.

     Kessler said that if they didn't charge for the background
checks in states that don't "cooperate," more states would opt
out of the system, perhaps doubling the manpower FBI now needs to
keep the system running 17 hours per day, 364 days per year.

     "Without user fees, none of the states will participate," he
said.

     Critics are convinced that the reason for doing the checks
"free" for states which establish their own "Instant Check"
system is to "encourage" the states, and their gun owners, to
adopt state laws.

     Unlike the Federal government, states may use an "Instant
Check" system to create a registration system, as Pennsylvania's
NRA-backed Act 17 did on long guns.  Federal agencies would then
able to access the state gun registration data.

     Rep. Barr said that despite much-hyped claims of success,
"background checks are a poor way of preventing criminals from
obtaining guns," noting that at best they merely delayed an
acquisition.

     He said the purpose of the firearms purchase tax was to
"discourage firearms ownership" and was scathing in attacking
FBI's unauthorized plan to keep records on purchases by law-
abiding citizens.

     "There is no legitimate reason to require citizens' guns to
be registered," he said, adding:  "The Federal government cannot
be trusted with this information."

     His bill provides a criminal penalty of up to $250,000 and
10 years imprisonment for keeping or misusing "Instant Check"
records, though he has privately acknowledged that it would be
difficult to get the Justice Department to prosecute itself.

     Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform,
testified that because there is no authority to charge a "user
fee" for purchasing a firearm, there is no cap on the amount that
could be charged.

     He said a user fee can be justified when the payer obtains a
benefit, such as a background check for licensing or employment,
but firearms purchasers are supposedly being checked for the
benefit of the public, so the public should pay the cost.

     Baker and other industry spokesmen have said that the volume
of checks to be conducted is too low, and that FBI will need to
directly respond to far more direct dealer inquiries than the 4.9
million that they anticipate, particularly since most states do
not presently conduct checks on long guns and their estimates do
not include the 6.5 million redemptions and gunsmithing returns.

     The resultant understaffing would mean additional delays,
particularly during times of heavy purchases such as before
hunting seasons and Christmas.  The law allows up to three days
before a dealer could transfer a gun without approval.

     Spokesmen for both the Virginia and Maryland state police
opposed the Barr bill, contending it would result in less local
screening in other states. Those states' background checks each
resulted in about 10 percent unjustified delays, and only about 1
percent disqualified from purchase -- many of them for offenses
that are not disqualifying under Federal law.

     Chairman McCollum indicated that he favored expanding the
"Instant Check" to include fingerprinting of firearms purchasers
when the Justice Department's digitized fingerprint checking
system becomes operational next year.

     Although both BATF and Handgun Control Inc. were invited to
testify, neither did.  HCI submitted written testimony calling
for addition of a 72-hour waiting period and continued reporting
of purchases to local police.

     Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee was the only Democrat to attend, and
only long enough to make a statement condemning H.R. 3949 as "a
contradiction of the ideals of the Brady Act."  She blamed the
bill on the "intrusion and oppression of NRA."=20

     After the hearings the police groups told Neal Knox that
they did not have data on how many illegal attempted purchases
were prosecuted or resulted in convictions.  Most of the
attempted purchases by felons were very old or white-collar
felonies, they said.

     The FBI's proposed regulations were published in the Federal
Register June 4 (and are available on the Internet at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html).  Comments
may be made until Sept. 2 to Mr. Emmet A. Rathbun, NICS Project
Manager, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, Module
C-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia
26306-0147.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Clarification And Correction

     In my column in the May 20, 1998 Shotgun News and the May 15
Firearms Coalition "Online Bulletin," I stated that "The 1985 (NRA)
meeting in Seattle was stacked with paid staffers who attended at
NRA expense, and California Rifle & Pistol Association members,
many traveling at CRPA expense (for which CRPA was reportedly
fined $70,000 by the IRS for commingling political and
association money)."

     CRPA's attorneys have challenged the part of the statement
in parentheses, stating that "CRPA never was penalized by the IRS
for any commingling of funds, nor ... any activities related to
payments for travel or similar activities.  Furthermore, the CRPA
did not pay for travel for anyone to attend the 1985 NRA meeting
in Seattle."

     According to the CRPA attorney's letter the rumored fines
"reportedly" levied by IRS were actually "extraordinary payments
made by CRPA to the IRS ... to comply with technical provisions
of IRS regulations for the years 1975-1980 in which payments were
made for taxes on income unrelated to CRPA's tax exempt purposes."

     I made efforts several years ago to determine whether the
rumors of CRPA funding of travel of large numbers of its members
to the 1985 Seattle meeting (and the 1983 Phoenix NRA meeting)
were true, and whether the rumors of an IRS fine were indeed
related, but could get no hard verification.

     In those days, CRPA did not provide sensitive financial
information even to Directors who were members of its executive
committee, or so I was told by more than one CRPA director.

     When a then-paid official of CRPA was specifically asked
about the rumored IRS fine for getting members to the NRA
meetings he snapped something to the effect:  "You don't need to
know anything about that," which was erroneously taken as
confirmation.

     I'm happy to set the record straight. -- Neal Knox

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


Heston Elected At Philly Meeting

     The election of Charlton Heston as NRA President, and the
clean sweep of the Director candidates he endorsed, was the main
news out of the Philadelphia NRA meetings, the first in the
northeast in 16 years and the largest in history.

     Heston pledged to steer the organization back to the=20
political mainstream from what he called "the fringe of American=20
life."=20

     Much of the 41,000 turnout and the doubling of the votes in
the director election (194,378 ballots cast in 1998 compared to
92,590 last year) were due to Heston's starring role in
unprecedented advertising campaigns.

     A petitioned mail bylaw amendment requiring reporting of
relationships between Directors, paid staff and NRA contractors
was defeated five to one.

     Eight somewhat contradictory amendments to the corporate
charter requiring increased disclosure by directors and officers,
requiring NRA to make public documents available to members and
directors, and reducing the size of the board from 76 to 24 were
effectively killed by referral as a block to the Board of
Directors at the members' meeting.

     Kayne Robinson of Des Moines was elected First Vice
President and Sandra Froman was elected Second Vice President.

     After the election Heston read a statement that he was
leaving to do a series of press interviews, and that he would
only attend future meetings "from time to time."

     The Board's final action was unanimous adoption of an NRA
financial policy almost word-for-word as recommended in February
1997 by former Director and Finance Committee Chairman Rick
Carone as part of his management audit (which was much-praised by
former vice presidents Neal Knox and Albert Ross, and reviled by
Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and outgoing President
Marion Hammer).

     Most Directors, and even most members of the Finance
Committee, were oblivious to the irony.  They were unaware that
the much-needed financial policy, and its requirements for
tighter fiscal management in NRA, was the primary cause of last
year's internal uproar that unseated Knox, Ross and over a dozen
directors in the last two elections.

     The Board meeting concluded at the end of one day, for the
first time in memory.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Planned FBI Fee Speeds State System

     The Pennsylvania House unanimously passed a bill Tuesday to
move up the deadline for instant checks on long guns by one year,
so Pennsylvania gunowners will not be subject to the proposed
more expensive FBI background checks that will be required by
Nov. 30 in states that don't have a screening system.

     States which check only handgun purchasers would charge for
that fee, but if the buyer also simultaneously purchased a long
gun he would have to pay a second fee to FBI.

     An NRA-backed amendment to tighten the state's prohibition
on gun ownership for a person "involuntarily committed" for
observation of a possible mental condition would be of little
help, according to local activists. =20

     Russell Laing, the best-known victim of that provision, lost
his gun ownership rights despite an unnecessary and unjustified
committment by a police officer.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


Police Stung For Stealing Guns

    Four veteran Newark police supervisors and an officer are
accused of stealing two guns turned in under a  handgun "buy-back"=20
(sic) program this spring.

     High-quality guns, including a valuable Luger, turned in
under the "no questions asked" program allegedly were taken by
the officers, who substituted cheap guns.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Illinois Pols Run From Guns

     Gubernatorial candidate Glenn Poshard, a Democrat, and
Republican George Ryan, are trying to distance themselves from
gun positions taken when they weren't running statewide but from
pro-gunrights districts.

     Ryan stiffarmed gunowners at a 1982 rally at the Springfield
capital by ruling, as Speaker of the House, that a preemption
bill designed to overturn the Morton Grove handgun ban required a
super majority.  Gunowners had only a simple majority, made
slightly greater by Ryan's cynical vote for preemption after
torpedoing the bill.

     Poshard has a longer gun voting record, including
Congressional votes against the Brady Bill and repeal of the
federal "assault-weapons" ban.  He now supports the semi-auto
ban.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

School Shootings Trigger Gun Bills

     Using the school shootings as a springboard, Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy (D-N.Y.) is introducing a bill "to limit children's
access to handguns."  It would hold parents criminally liable if
their gun  falls into a child's hands and would also would
require manufacturers to include trigger locks and new "safety
features."

     A technological grant program is being pushed by the Justice
Department and in Congress to develop "smart guns" that could
only be fired by the lawful user.=20

     H.R. 3895 by Reps. Barbara Kenelly, Charles Schumer and
others would authorize $20 million to the National Institute of
Justice for studies of "smart gun" technologies.

     "Personalization methods" now under study include
radio-frequency transmitters, remote controls, magnets,
combination locks and even biometric technology, such as
fingerprint or voice recognition.

     A New Jersey bill, similar to one endorsed by Sarah Brady
last year, would prohibit sale of any handgun without such "smart
gun" features after three year, although Colt, which seems to be
closest to development of a system, says its five years away.
=20
     Law enforcement is the greatest market for "smart guns"
because 16 percent of fatally shot police officers are killed
with their own guns.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Chicago's Daley Ponders Gun Suit

     Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said this week he is
considering filing a lawsuit against firearms makers, marketers
and sellers as "a way to stop the flow of illegal guns into the
city."

     The suit would use a different basis than the approach
pushed by Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell but both would break new
legal ground.

     Mayor Daley's father caused passage of the Illinois Firearms
Owner Licensing Card as an alternative to his statewide
registration proposal, then enacted a Chicago registration
ordinance which specifically exempted criminals and mental
incompetents.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Medical Journal Hits "Private Arsenals"

     The New England Journal of Medicine, long a purveyor of
pseudoscientific studies into the assumed benefits of gun
control, has published an editorial calling for ending school
shooting by eliminating "private arsenals" like the ones stolen
by the boys who committed the Jonesboro school killing.

     Three of the school murders were stopped by gunowners like
Jake Ryker, the Springfield, Ore. boy, who tackled the killer
after being shot in the lung.

     The Pearl, Mississippi school killer, Luke Woodham, who is
on trial this week, was stopped by assistant principal Joel
Myrick with a .45 pistol recovered from his car.

     In Edenborough, Pa., a private citizen went into a field
with a shotgun and captured that school killer.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Gun Gatherings Under Assault
=20
     The anti-gunrights crowd's hatred of firearms groups shines
through in H.R. 3833, "A bill to better regulate the transfer of
firearms at gun shows," by Rep. Ron Blagojevich (D-Ill.) and a
string of anti-gunners, including Reps. Carolyn McCarthy and John
Conyers.

     Intentionally or otherwise, a "gun show" is defined to
include any event -- even the Grand American trap tournament, the
Camp Perry Matches, or a local sighting-in day -- where 50 or
more guns are present.=20

     The "operator" or persons in charge of "an organization or
association that sponsors functions devoted to the collection,
competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the
community," statewide or nationally, could be prosecuted for
committing a Federal felony punishable by up to five years
imprisonment if even one of those guns is sold or traded.

     The bill requires all "gun show operators" -- as defined --
to be licensed, including fingerprinting. =20

     Once licensed, the 50-gun event where trading might occur
can be conducted only after notification of BATF, at least 30
days in advance of the event.

     Anyone who transfers a firearm at such a "gun show" -- not
just table holders -- must provide the "gun show operator" with
the name, age and address of the "prospective transferee," and
the make, model and serial number of the gun.

     Failure to do so is punishable by fine or up to one year in
prison.

     The "show operator" is to follow the requirements of a
Federal dealer, then turn over all records to BATF within 30 days
of the show, shoot or match.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Shotgun News Columns


                    'Instant Check' Headache
                          By NEAL KNOX
     WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 1) --  "Instant Check," the Brady
Act's computer-driven criminal background check which goes into
effect on all firearms purchases Nov. 30, 1998, is showing signs
of being exactly what skeptics feared:  an expensive and
intrusive national gun registration system.

     The FBI, which has been holding briefings for FFL's on their
implementation plan, the "National Instant Criminal Background
Check System" (NICS), intends to charge a $13-16 fee and keep the
record of the check -- including information on the gun buyer and
type of gun -- for as much as two years, despite the law's
prohibition against keeping such records.

     Newly elected NRA Director Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), with NRA
encouragement, last week filed H.R. 3949, which would prohibit
FBI from charging any fee and prohibit them from keeping a record
of the background check for more than two hours.

     I had urged Rep. Barr to file a bill to completely eliminate
the background check on long guns (which could get through
Congress, though repealing the entire "instant check" could not).=20

     That would take advantage of the growing opposition to the
check, particularly as shotgunners and riflemen learn about it.=20
As a practical matter, neither bill could get past President Bill
Clinton's certain veto, but it would increase the vote against
Congressional anti-gunners this fall.

     FBI has not yet published its proposed regulations, but the
plan they describe in their briefing materials conflicts on
several key points with the proposed BATF regulations published
in the Federal Register Feb. 19.

     One major difference is whether the buyer would have to
submit paperwork (and pay the requisite fees) to both the Justice
Department and to his state if the state has its own "instant
check" law (as BATF says), or if the FBI would do the check
"free" for a state, so the gun buyer would pay only the state's
fee (as FBI says).

     (The reason for Justice Department's "generosity" is that
the law specifically prohibits any Federal agency from using the
system to create a registration system or "requiring" a state to
do it, but there is nothing in the law to prohibit a state from
using the data to create its own system, which would then be
accessible to Federal agencies.)

     Under both the Treasury and Justice proposals, someone who
simultaneously purchased a handgun and a shotgun in a state with
a handgun instant check but no long gun check would have to pay
"$13-$16" for the Federal check as a long gun buyer plus the
state's fee for the handgun check. =20

     That could run the buyer's cost to over $30.

     Far more important from a Second Amendment/civil liberties
standpoint, is the Clinton Justice Department's plan to keep the
record of purchase up to two years -- which really means forever,
since computer backup copies will always exist in some form.

     The "Instant Check" plan was created by NRA as an
alternative to the Brady Bill's seven-day waiting period on
handgun purchases.  About 1990 NRA convinced Rep. Harley Staggers
(D-W.Va.) to introduce it, and got a lot of other gun rights
advocates to support it.

     Instead of avoiding the waiting period, or preventing
enactment of any law, it was folded into the Brady Act as a
replacement for the mandatory wait -- though under the final law,
a dealer may not transfer a gun without waiting up to three days
for the check.=20

     The price paid for substituting the "instant-up-to-three-
days-check" after five years was to include long gun buyers in
the background check -- a deal worked out by Majority Leader
Robert Dole and Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, with the blessing of NRA,
shortly before the bill passed in 1993.

     Handgun Control Inc. has repeatedly said they will attempt
to make the present five-working-day wait permanent; don't bet
that they can't do it.

     An unintended consequence of the "instant check," which NRA-
ILA introduced and pushed through the Virginia legislature after
it was introduced in Congress, was the one-gun-per-month law
Virginia subsequently passed -- which was made possible only
because of the computer system created for "instant check." =20

     "One-Gun" laws have since been enacted in Maryland and are
pending in Congress and various states.=20

     Despite the serious problems that "Instant Check" has
created, and is creating, it has been enthusiastically promoted
by NRA-ILA in several states, and was signed into law in
Tennessee last week. =20

     "Instant Check" is proving to be worse than the waiting
period it was designed to cure.  Though Treasury and Justice are
exceeding their authority under the Brady Act, that merely proves
the axiom that if a law can be abused it will be.

     As my grandmother used to tell me, "When you're in a hole,
quit digging."=20

     It's past time to quit pushing "Gun Control Lite."


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

                    'Instant Check' Hearings
                          By NEAL KNOX
     WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 11) -- Hearings were held today in
the House Crime Subcommittee on Rep. Bob Barr's (R-Ga.) H.R.
3949, which would prohibit the FBI from keeping records of
firearms purchasers when they implement the "National Instant
Criminal Background Check System" (NICS).

     The NICS stage of the Brady Act will go into effect on all
firearms purchases Nov. 30, 1998, replacing the law's five
working-day waiting period on handgun purchases. =20

     The "Instant Check" section of Brady and the 1986 McClure-
Volkmer amendments specifically prohibit Federal agencies and
employees from requiring what FBI plans to do, as described in
proposed regulations published in the June 4 Federal Register.

     The Barr bill, called the "No Gun Tax Act of 1998" would
also prohibit FBI from collecting a planned $16 fee for
conducting the check.  NRA-ILA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa
said the FBI has no authority to impose such a "user fee," noting
that such fees were discussed and rejected while the bill was
being debated.

     Beginning in about 1988 NRA had advocated an "instant check"
in lieu of a Brady waiting period.  In 1991 Sens. Robert Dole and
Howard Metzenbaum reached an agreement (originally opposed by
NRA) providing that after five years the waiting period on
handguns would be replaced by an "instant check" on purchasers of
all firearms.

     In 1993, NRA "acquiesced" to the "Dole-Metzenbaum
Compromise," despite the concerns of many members.  The key
provision demanded by NRA was the language prohibiting retention
of any record of the check.

     That provision says no Federal government agency or employee
may "require that any record or portion thereof generated by the
system established under this section be recorded at or
transferred to" any state or Federal facility. =20

     In today's hearing, FBI Spokesman James Kessler Jr. repeated
the proposed regulations' justification for keeping the records
for 18 months:  that it would "assist the FBI and state and local
officials in auditing and/or investigating unauthorized use of
the NICS."

     In other words, to make sure there was no "unauthorized"
violations of gun buyers' privacy the FBI plan would violate the
law designed to protect their privacy!

     Now that's chutzpah!

     My concern, as I have discussed with Rep. Barr, is that the
courts might rule that a new law allowing FBI to keep the records
24 hours (or even 24 minutes) supercedes the prohibitions against
the Feds creating a registration system. =20

     Rep. Barr's staff and the attorneys who drafted H.R. 3949
contend it wouldn't affect the existing language against
registration.  Rep. Barr said today he sees no reason for FBI to
keep the records at all; that his bill adds to the earlier
prohibitions.

     Today the FBI spokesman said that if they didn't charge for
the background checks in states that don't "cooperate," more
states would back out of the system, perhaps doubling the
manpower FBI now needs to keep the system running 17 hours per
day, 364 days per year.

     What bureaucracy opposes having more power or personnel?

     I think the real reason for the admitted bribe is to get
more states to establish their own "Instant Check" system.=20
Virginia, for instance, charges gunowners $2 to conduct a check,
which uses the NICS system at no cost to the state.  Texans would
pay $16 for the same NICS check.

     Pennsylvania's Act 17, which was passed with NRA support to
implement the "Instant Check," creates the kind of gun
registration system that the Feds are prohibited from creating.

     Another cute trick spelled out in today's FBI testimony is
requiring pawnbrokers to conduct a $16 "Instant Check" before
returning a firearm securing a loan. =20

     FBI says the same rule applies to gunsmiths who take in a
gun for repair, fitting a scope, cleaning or other work.  The
owner would have to pay for a $16 "Instant Check" before getting
his property back!

     James J. Baker, testifying for the Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, likened that to requiring
people to get a driver's license every time they had their car's
oil changed.

     The Barr bill provides a whopping criminal penalty of up to
$250,000 and 10 years imprisonment for keeping or misusing
"Instant Check" records, but I can't imagine an Attorney General
Reno prosecuting her own agency -- notice her refusal to
prosecute the Clinton White House's snooping into the FBI files
of 900 Republicans. =20

     I've suggested a civil penalty be added to H.R. 3949, with
specified money damages, that could be filed by any gun purchaser
whose privacy is violated.  That might keep them honest.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

               NRA Board Adopts Financial Reforms=20

                          By NEAL KNOX
     WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 20) -- The final action of NRA
Directors at the end of last week's unprecedented one-day Board
meeting in Philadelphia was unanimous adoption of an extremely
sound NRA financial policy and a well-thought-out purchasing
procedure that requires competitive bidding -- and notification
of the Board when those policies aren't followed.

     If the Board watchdogs those policies, it should do much to
rein in NRA's free-spending habits, and particularly the practice
of agreeing to, and paying, millions of dollars for services
without competitive bidding, without formal agreements, and
without complying with Board requirements.

     Ironically, those were the very problems that led to the
efforts by a minority of the Board -- led by vice presidents
Albert Ross and myself, and Finance Committee Chairman Rick
Carone -- to clamp down on financial practices of the staff, and
particularly Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.=20

     It cost Albert and me our vice presidencies, and Albert and
Rick, and about a dozen other directors, their Board seats in a
carefully contrived coup led by the senior staff and at least
partially directed and funded by NRA contractors who benefitted
from those loose policies.

     What's hilarious is that the financial policy adopted in
Philadelphia is almost word-for-word what was recommended in
February 1997 by former Finance Chair Carone at the conclusion of
his and former Director Ronin Colman's management audit.

     Most Directors, and even most members of the Finance
Committee -- almost all of whom were newly appointed by President
Marion Hammer -- were oblivious to the irony. =20

     I have often been asked why I didn't wait until the
Philadelphia meeting (at which I was in line to have been elected
President) to put NRA's financial house in order.  The short
answer is that Albert, Rick and I weren't sure we would still
have a viable NRA.

     If the stock market hadn't continued its upward spiral last
year, and if the members hadn't responded so well to the Bylaws-
violating sale of Life and contributory Memberships at cut-rate
prices, NRA might not have survived.

     I didn't dare say that out loud last year.

     If NRA's financial portfolio had dropped just 10 percent 18
months ago, we would have been in default on our loan on the HQ
building.  At best, it wouldn't have been pleasant.

     What got NRA over the hump was the soaring stock market and
some $15 million in cash from the "Legion of Honor" cut-rate
memberships.  (Full Disclosure:  My wife and I took advantage of
that sale to upgrade our boys' Life Memberships to Endowment as
Christmas presents; but we paid off the last $1,000 or so of
Jay's Benefactor membership at the full price.) =20

     On a cash basis, NRA is now far more solid; long term there
may still be problems paying for 30 or 40 years of magazines and
services for members whose dues were entirely spent last year. =20

     But the much-reviled, much-needed Carone financial plan
belatedly approved last week should help keep NRA afloat.



=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

                       Clinton's New Nose
                          By NEAL KNOX
     WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 1 ) --  A friend gave me a computer
"screen saver" that depicts Bill Clinton as Pinocchio, with a
nose that grows every few seconds as he tells another lie.

     Pinnochio Clinton's nose should've stretched around the
corner last week when his Justice Department triumphantly
announced that the Brady Act had stopped 69,000 "felons,
fugitives and drug addicts" from getting a gun last year, and
242,000 since the law went into effect in 1994.

     It was part of the buildup to extend the five working-day
waiting period on handguns that is supposed to end when the so-
called "Instant Check" kicks in on all firearms purchases from
dealers Nov. 30.

     As usual, the news media swooned over the wondrous
achievement that they had wrought.  Every half hour CNN
triumphantly insisted that "there are 69,000 fewer guns on the
street thanks to the Brady Act."

     But hold on just a cotton-picking minute.  The Justice
Department numbers weren't a hard count based on actual data,
only an "estimate" based on information provided by some of the
law enforcement agencies which do the checks.

     The fact that it was an estimate was seldom mentioned;
instead the public was assured that of the 2.6 million handgun=20
applications considered in 1997, precisely 2.7% were rejected --
exactly 62 percent of them because of felony convictions or
indictments, 9 percent because of domestic violence misdemeanor
convictions and 2 percent because of domestic violence protection
orders.

     Those numbers are phony.

     Unlike "reporters" from the rest of news media, who
unquestioningly accepted Pinocchio's numbers, the Indianapolis
Star and News checked with Indiana State Police.  They found that
instead of 1,085 handgun sales in Indiana being blocked in 1997
by the Brady law, as the Clintons claimed, the actual count was
only 82.=20

     "The error calls into question the (Justice) department's
estimate of 69,000 sales blocked nationwide," the newspaper said.

     Of four other states the newspaper checked, Arizona was
reported by DOJ to have had 2,277 rejections.  "But only 1,691
people were  actually restricted from buying a gun once duplicate
or incorrect applications were removed."

     University of Chicago law professor John Lott, who didn't
even own a gun when he began researching the effect of concealed
carry laws on crime (summarized in his new book, "More Guns, Less
Crime,") told the Star and News:  "The Brady law's proponents
have continuously inflated the number of stopped sales since the
law went into effect."

     "Prof. Lott cited an early study done by the Government
Accounting Office, which estimated that 60,000 purchases had been
stopped in one year. Most refusals, though, were due to human
error or paperwork problems. Only 3,000 of the denials were
because an applicant had a violent crime record," the newspaper
reported.

     "'I don't believe the (DOJ) numbers,' Lott said. `They
include  everything -- people improperly filling out forms, human
error.  The vast majority re-fill out paperwork and get their
gun.'"

     James Bovard, author of "Lost Rights: The Destruction of
American Liberty," was even less gentle in a June 25 article in
the Wall Street Journal. =20

     He bluntly declared:  "The Clinton administration ... claims
about the law's effects are bogus."

     Bovard pounced on a Clinton pronouncement the day of the
Justice Department release which further inflated the fake
"69,000" figure.  The White House statement declared "law
enforcement officials have stopped hundreds of thousands of =20
from buying handguns every year"=20

     White House spokeswoman Nanda Chitre attributed the
discrepancy between Justice Department and Clinton numbers to an
"editing mistake." =20

     "This is nothing new," Bovard declared.  "After a Justice
Department report in 1996 asserted that the Brady act had barred
60,000 people from buying guns, Mr. Clinton told supporters in
Michigan: 'We did pass the  Brady Bill and 100,000 felons,=20
fugitives and stalkers lost their handguns.' White House Deputy
Press Secretary Mary Ellen Glynn explained at that time that the
president 'misspoke' as 'he was reaching the end of a train
trip.'"

     The train trip wasn't nearly so long as Mr. Clinton's nose.

     The real measure of Brady's impact is that prosecutions of
felons attempting to buy a gun by lying on the Form 4473 -- an
easily proved 10-year felony -- has declined from 253 in 1994 to
36!=20

     So either Clinton is lying about the law's effectiveness,
criminals are evading the Brady scheme, or the Clinton
Administration turned 69,000 "felons, fugitives and stalkers"
back on the streets last year.



=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Electronic newsletter subscription information

This newsletter is sent free upon request.  It is never sent without a=20
subscription.  To subscribe, send email to=20

               [e-mail]

containing the following text:

               SUBSCRIBE [e-mail]

You will receive a confirmation note at the address you provide=20
requiring a reply to start the subscription. =20

To terminate a subscription, send a note to [e-mail]=20
but with the word "UNSUBSCRIBE [e-mail]" in the body.  You may
also use this procedure to change an address.

Please report any problems directly to [e-mail] and include=20
the bulletin in question *with headers intact*.  The simplest way to
do that is to save the newsletter to a file and attach it to your mai.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Copyright (c) 1998 by Neal Knox Associates
               7771 Sudley Rd., No. 44=20
               Manassas, VA  20109

Non-commercial reproduction and distribution is permitted so long as
this statement is included.  All other uses prohibited.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

        Do not put your credit card number in e-mail.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Dear Neal,

Enclosed is my retainer for your services as my Capitol Hill lobbyist:

$500 [  ]      $250 [  ]     $50 [  ]     $25 [  ]     Other:____ [  ]

                                                        Quarterly [  ]
      Bill my MasterCard [  ]          Visa [  ]          Monthly [  ]
                                                             Once [  ]

Card No. _______________________________________ Expiration Date  _____=20

Mr. [  ]
Mrs.[  ] ______________________________________________________________ =
=20
Ms. [  ]
Signature
    ______________________________________________________________

Address_________________________________________ Phone ________________

City ____________________________________________State ____ Zip________

Email Address ______________________

Print and mail to:

               Firearms Coalition
               7771 Sudley Rd., No. 44=20
               Manassas, VA  20109

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

PGP users: remove the leading asterisks from the BEGIN and END lines=20
before using this key. =20

*-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2

mQCNAy8Q4mIAAAEEALKdSCTF6BvTg4luk1IOYtiQyxPotnTjjijSawo9htwZeFS/
KU0WAPkeDuhgKSN3H5242irpkfUu8g84fAPBH6a6joaFN7OchRa49WXnz2dReT0V
iT9xeec9rPSASH04dz+lEONeDZ17yh/JGt+tjYq0CIenFZ9JMCGz4I2lBJDFAAUR
tCdDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBXYXJyZW4gS25veCA8Y2tub3hAY3JsLmNvbT6JAJUDBRAv
pxqvIbPgjaUEkMUBAS8BA/9PP4teu4vja6dTXkOMhVN8xgf1fl66VCc2V4A0/lli
uRdf75GS1uQd+pzPIZoIReU440uuLfNSMqAAjCLHDja9ViAUllTk7YIKJMe53+nZ
UnQndT2a6ikeQgh/kFxFM1z4NHgTBZ/KMg3td45WzEA3XpjWACrXWNAtYplaQ0hg
Iw=3D=3D
=3DVDsh
*-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

               "None genuine without this signature."


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

iQCVAwUBNar0zyGz4I2lBJDFAQFwgQP+PIa7rlGr/vip7kQFHbcLzUXs1zlOzhHH
epBOGs12pIrKt13qQq9QpnJY+iQJUc6TRJBz1aVCXI+eN4DnjuL1fWAvtr9eO1cD
eT09aX7vCJE11sGdfyBGvmGJiIA2xLnmgQPl9fS3aV5+GXYmR9XNkh12J6JfdQpA
PdjUNqvtXUk=3D
=3Dy3j0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: BATF Juvy/black market firearms stats (fwd)
Date: 14 Jul 1998 17:08:51 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:06:06 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA16152; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:55:25 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA26538; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:04:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026381; Tue Jul 14 18:59:54 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline





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

Posted to texas-gun-owners by [e-mail]
Anyone interested in statistics the BATF has obtained regarding black
market guns used by juveniles in crimes in major cities can find them
(mostly in PDF format) at:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/core/firearms/ycgii/ycgii.htm
--
For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.=
net
with the word help in the message body.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: UN to Disarm Albanians
Date: 14 Jul 1998 22:07:00 -0700


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

Source: New York Times

July 14, 1998

U.N. Agrees to Help Albanian Government Disarm Civilians
By BARBARA CROSSETTE

UNITED NATIONS -- At the request of the Albanian government, the United
Nations has agreed for the first time to help disarm a civilian population
that has amassed hundreds of thousands of weapons and a vast supply of
ammunition, a senior official said on Monday.

Albanians, who are among those supplying or selling arms to ethnic Albanian
fighters in Kosovo Province in Serbia, raided weapons depots in the spring
of 1997, after the collapse of a nationwide pyramid scheme wiped out many
people's savings and led to general unrest. Since then, many more arms from
abroad have also been smuggled into the country, to be shipped to Albanians
in Kosovo.

"Even before the Kosovo situation erupted, an estimate of 650,000 weapons
is what we are talking about that had been taken away from government
depots," said Jayantha Dhanapala, undersecretary-general for disarmament
affairs, who went to Albania last month to evaluate the situation.

"An estimate of about 30 percent was given to us of weapons that have
leaked to other parts, not merely to Kosovo but to Macedonia and
elsewhere," he added.

In a report to the secretary-general issued on Monday, Dhanapala, a Sri
Lankan, listed pistols, automatic rifles, machines guns and grenade
launchers among the weapons in local caches. They also hold 20,000 tons of
explosives and more than 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition, including
artillery shells.

Dhanapala and his team met with government and opposition leaders,
including the former president, Sali Berisha, and discussed how to persuade
people to relinquish the weapons, which would then be destroyed.

The U.N. officials rejected buyback plans, which Dhanapala said would be
"highly inflationary" and would in effect reward people who had
unauthorized weapons in their possession. Instead, U.N. officials are
proposing a "development for guns project," in which communities that
turned in weapons would get public works projects that also provided needed
jobs.

"The weapons are largely in civilian hands," he said. "Many of the people
are unemployed, and sought the weapons as a means of some kind of wealth
which they could trade for money or goods at some later stage. In the rural
areas you had some of them burying them underground or keeping them in
trees."

"We were told that the amount of guns that fell into criminal hands is
about 10 percent," he said. "So most are in civilian hands."

Dhanapala said that the United Nations hopes to start a pilot project in
Gramshi, a district with a population of about 50,000 that is thought to
have 8 percent to 10 percent of all weapons commandeered in 1997. Gramshi
also has a 30 percent unemployment rate.

In return for turning in weapons, the district has asked for about 120
miles of rural roads, a small processing plant for agricultural products
and a training center to teach furniture making. The area is heavily
forested.

Dhanapala now has to find money to pay for his project. He said on Monday
that he hoped for help from the poverty-alleviation programs of the U.N.
Development Program, from small-scale credit projects at the World Bank and
from country donations.

In some areas, there is imminent danger of catastrophe, he said. Some arms
depots have been mined and are unapproachable, he said. "They could explode
in the summer heat."

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company
-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.
-----------------------

******************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
[e-mail]
with the message:
(un)subscribe ignition-point email@address
******************************************
www.telepath.com/believer
******************************************




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: RE: GSL> Bibliographic Minigun
Date: 15 Jul 1998 10:04:17 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:08:51 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA16419; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:58:11 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id BAA13188; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 01:07:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma013083; Wed Jul 15 01:05:32 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


A "collective right" is no right at all  -  period.

-----Original Message-----
Sent:    Tuesday, July 14, 1998 22:30
Cc:    'Noban'

May I suggest reading a review of Dennis Henigan's futile attempt at
writing, "Guns and the Constitution : The Myth of Second Amendment
Protection for Firearms in America" at:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1880831147/gunssavelives/002-
> 0802953-6210460
>=20
Dr. Edgar A. Suter, Chairman, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
http://www.dipr.org writes:

"Since 1980 there have been 62 articles in the peer reviewed legal
literature discussing whether or not the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is
an individual or a states right. Of the 11 articles claiming the Second
Amendment is a collective states' right, 5 are by employees of Handgun
Control Inc or the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and 3 are by
students. Of the 51 articles noting that the Second Amendment guarantees
the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, 4 are by
attorneys employed by the National Rifle Association. Excluding students
and employees of lobbying organizations then, 47 support the individual
right view and 3 support the collective right view."

> Ken Grubb
> Miami, FL
> ***** If arms are a token of power, then they belong in the hands of
> the people. *****
>=20


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

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

To unsubscribe send a message to
[e-mail]

with the following line in the body:

unsubscribe gsl

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



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: NewHoo
Date: 15 Jul 1998 16:50:55 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:43:16 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA17121; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:32:36 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id SAA24548; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:41:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024402; Wed Jul 15 18:36:55 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I just finished checking out http://www.newhoo.com. I have no idea whether
this will catch on or not, but their willingness to accept volunteer =
editors
for any category is an opportunity. I agree those of us who have the time
should volunteer.

For example, the Sports section has roughly three dozen categories... but
only one related to firearms, "Hunting". I don't know about you, but I
participate in quite a few firearm hobbies: Plinking, pin shooting, and
other stationary target sports with both handguns and long guns; sporting
clays, skeet, trap, and other shotgun sports; etc. There are numerous =
other
categories that I haven't even gotten into yet, including DCM, reloading,
extreme accuracy, practical pistol, cowboy action... the list is long. =
Seems
to me that we ought to be able to create 8-12 firearm related categories =
in
the Sports section alone, all of which will be entirely legitimate sports =
in
their own rights.

Then there's the Politics area. Self-defense, hunting, CCW, interstate
CCW... get the idea? Our chosen hobby/profession is extremely broad
spectrumed, yet the only thing anyone has bothered to include is "Hunting".=

How different would be the impression given to visitors if 20-30% of the
Sports and Politics topics were related to firearms. Not "invented" =
topics,
but serious, honest categories and issues facing the RKBA community. =
Perhaps
we'd increase our profile just a little, and not be dismissed as oddballs
and weirdos who dream of nothing but slaughtering children on playgrounds.
Perhaps visitors would become more aware that there are numerous good,
entertaining, healthy uses for firearms. And the hyperlinks would allow =
them
to learn more if their interest was piqued.

A few volunteers are needed. All it costs is time. Isn't your
hobby/profession, and your rights, worth at least that?

RLH



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Learn an exciting new language! 2/2
Date: 15 Jul 1998 18:39:00 -0700


Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as
distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private
or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or
association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not
necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases,
include artificial persons See also Person.

As an adjective, "individual" means pertaining or belonging to, or
characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm,
association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto.
_________________________________________________

So it would appear that an "individual" is:

a) a single "person" - meaning any one or more of the ten
different definitions listed above that do not mean "human being"

b) "very commonly" (whether that means in English or Legalese is not
known) but not inherently or primarily, a "private" or "natural person"

The reader should note that the words "include(s)" and "including" are
used extensively in the Legalese language. This is a powerful and often
frustrating term in Legalese. Primarily, it means "to shut in," or to
"keep within" (as in the English word "only") and is restrictive, but
may have EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE meaning (as in the English word and phrase
"and" or "in addition to,") and becomes expansive depending on the context
in which it is used. In most cases, this opposite usage will be revealed
in cases where it is politically expedient or if there is money or power
to be extracted from the unwitting.

Since it is apparent from the previous paragraph that words in Legalese
may mean exactly the opposite of what they mean in English, or Legalese
(usually depending on whether the reader has something of value that he
may be relieved of), surely some generalizations may be made regarding
wording in Legalese by a careful statistical analysis of usage. For this
the author will turn to the Taxxachusetts General Laws.

A careful study of the usage of the word "person" where it is
specifically defined in Taxxachusetts General Laws revealed the
following interesting statistics.

1) The term "person" was specifically defined in
twenty-two (22) different places.

2) Of the twenty-two (22) places the word "person" was defined,
in only eleven (11) instances was the phrase "natural
person" in the list of terms defining the word. In other words, half
of the time that the term "person" was defined, the term
"person" clearly did not apply to a single human being.

3) In those twenty-two (22) different instances where the term
"person" was defined, it was defined a total of fifty-three
(53) different ways.

4) The fifty-three different definitions were used a total of one
hundred and fourteen (114) times.

5) Of the one hundred and fourteen (114) times those definitions were used,

a) the term "natural person" was used eleven (11) times,

b) the term "individual" was used one (1) time

c) the remaining forty-one (41) different terms used to define
"person" clearly did not refer to a single human being.

6) As a percentage of the fifty-three (53) different definitions,
"natural person" represents 1.89 percent.

7) As a percentage of total usage, "natural person"
represents 11/114 or 9.6 percent.

8) The terms "man/woman" were not used.

What conclusions can we draw from this analysis?

1) There is one term that can always reasonably be construed to
mean a single human being and that phrase is "natural person."

2) In the cases where the term "person" is specifically defined,
only half of the time does the term mean a "natural person."

3) In cases where the term "person" is not specifically defined,
as a function of total usage, the statistical likelihood that the
term "person" means a single human being is no more than ten (10)
percent.

4) In cases where the term "person" is not specifically defined,
the statistical likelihood that the language is referring to a
single human being is slightly less than two (2) percent.
_________________________________________________

Sample exercise.

Consider the following examples of Legalese usage where the term
"person" is NOT specifically defined and determine whether they apply
to you as a single human being, not acting in "commerce," "traffic,"
"trade," or "transportation,"or a commercial or corporate capacity
(terms defined in the Legalese dictionary)

a) "Any person who..."
b) "The individual required...shall..."
c) "Persons subject to this statute may apply for a license to..."
d) "Every person required under this chapter to...shall..."
e) "Violators are subject to..."

Hint:

How much money do you have ?
_________________________________________________

The author hopes you have enjoyed this brief foray into the exciting
world of Legalese although the reader may want to consider their
financial situation before engaging in an exhaustive study.

Documentation of statistical analysis available on request in MSExcel format.
_________________________________________

http://agitator.dynip.com



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: United Nations
Date: 15 Jul 1998 18:39:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
worldwide

Dear Citizens:

As we have been informing you for the past year, the United Nations is in
its last stage of confiscating ALL guns from civilians all over the world.
The U.N. hs stepped up its push and even has stated that knives and clubs
are now on their list too as weapons that MUST be confiscated from
civilians (see earlier post).

The following post is how the United Nations is pushing very hard to start
its world-wide program to take weapons of protection from citizens in ALL
countries.  Please read this post and project in your mind what stepped up
plans the U.N. and Clinton has for U.S. Citizens.

Thanks to [e-mail] (spiker) for forwarding this post.

USCMike1

HERE IS THE POST:

Subj: GUN GRAB....UN Advises Albanian Weapons Program

To All,
This UN Gun Grab if successful, could be a precursor to what will happen
in the USA if our traitorous politicians continue to turn over our hard
earned taxes to the communist controlled United Nations.

GET THE UN OUT OF THE USA!!!!!
GET THE USA OUT OF THE UN!!!!

UN Advises Albanian Weapons Program
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19980714/V000868-071498-idx.html

By Nicole Winfield
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, July 14, 1998; 5:58 a.m. EDT

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- A U.N. team has recommended a program to
collect tens of thousands of guns and ammunition rounds that fell
into civilian hands during the unrest that rocked Albania last year.

Many of the weapons have found their way to Albanian separatists in
neighboring Kosovo. The team leader, Undersecretary-General Jayantha
Dhanapala, acknowledged there would be resistance to weapons
collection in the Albanian border areas through which arms are smuggled.

Nevertheless, the team's report said Monday the Albanian government
viewed the conflict in Kosovo, where ethnic Albanians are fighting for
independence from Serbia, ``as an additional reason to retrieve weapons
from the civilian population.''

Dhanapala and a U.N. delegation recently traveled to Albania at the
invitation of the Albanian government to evaluate prospects for a
collection program.

Similar programs have been launched in Angola, Cambodia, Guatemala,
Mali and Somalia, among others. Albania represented a unique situation
because the guns were largely in the hands of civilians, not combatants,
Dhanapala said at a briefing Monday.

An estimated 650,000 guns were looted from army and police depots
during riots last year after the collapse of widely popular pyramid
investment schemes. Also stolen were 1.5 billion bullets and artillery
shells, and 20,000 tons of explosives -- detonator capsules,
anti-personnel and anti-tank mines.

The team recommended that a pilot program be launched in the
south-central district of Gramsh, which accounts for an estimated 8-10
percent of the stolen goods.

If successful and if funding was available, the project would be
expanded. Job training and development-related benefits, such as road
building, would be offered as incentives to turning in guns and
ammunition.

The team recommended against a cash buy-back, which has worked elsewhere,
because it would lead to high inflation and would send the wrong message,
the report said.

The evaluation team, funded by Italy, recommended Albania pass legislation
to delineate legal gun ownership and publicize the benefits of turning
over weapons.

Though an estimated 30 percent of the looted goods have `leaked'' into
Kosovo, Macedonia and elsewhere, the collection program will focus on
collecting weapons still in Albania, Dhanapala said. In Gramsh, 65 miles
south of Tirana, villagers ``notwithstanding the Kosovo situation, stood
ready to collect weapons,'' Dhanapala said.

``Clearly closer to the Kosovo border, that possibility may be reduced.''
The evaluation team didn't go to northeastern Albania, which borders
Kosovo.

The weapons, of Albanian, Chinese, Italian, Russian and Yugoslav origin,
included rifles, pistols, revolvers, mortars and grenades, automatic
rifles, machine guns and anti-tank grenade-launchers.

Copyright 1998 The Associated Press


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Learn an exciting new language! 1/2
Date: 15 Jul 1998 18:39:00 -0700


Learn an exciting new language!

Legalese!

Learn to speak a fascinating foreign language. It's called "Legalese"
and it's spoken by people who live in a mysterious land. This place
seems to be populated by people who weren't born there but actually
make an adult decision to live where they must become bilingual and
the primary method of making a living involves becoming parasites,
con-men, and extortionists.

Curiously, the language they speak sounds very much like English but more
often than not, a word used in Legalese does not have the same meaning as
its English counterpart! In fact, they have developed a giant dictionary
that parallels the English dictionary to explain all of the obscure and
often arcane translations for a word commonly understood in English. Even
accomplished students of this language find that the definitions and
usage in this language are constantly shifting like the desert sands. At
times, the meanings of its words slip in and out of English, their use in
context may or may not determine whether the English or Legalese
definition applies, and the proper definition to infer seems to roughly
correlate to whether there is money or power at issue, although this is
not always the case. In addition to there being similarities with English
definitions, there is a bewildering array of levels of commonality or
priority of common usage and understanding which also seems to vary
depending on whether there is money or power at issue.

The Land of Legalese is also the only place on Earth where the word
being defined can be defined by the word being defined.

Unfortunately, while there are definitions to be found, there doesn't
seem to be any hard and fast rules regarding usage or construction. The
man or woman attempting to speak Legalese in the land where it is used is
often required to retain the services of a professional interpreter. This
practice carries considerable risk, in that as mentioned earlier, they
are by default placing themselves at the mercy of parasites,á con-men,
and extortionists.

As an example of this challenging and rewarding language, I'd like to
examine the word "person." The English dictionary defines the word this way:

_________________________________________________

person

1: human, individual - sometimes used in combination esp. by those who
prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes 'chairperson'
'spokesperson'

2: a character or part in or as if in a play: guise

3 a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as
understood by Christians
  b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human
natures

4 a: archaic: bodily appearance
  b: the body of a human being; also: the body and clothing 'unlawful
     search of the person'

5: the personality of a human being: self

6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is
recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to,
or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many
languages by verb inflection

per son hood \-'hud\ noun
in person: in one's bodily presence
_________________________________________________

Notice how in the English definition, six out of seven of definitions
relate to men and women. Note also the order of priority in the object
of the definition. Five definitions later we get to something that isn't
a man or a woman. It's not a stretch to presume that in common English
usage the definition of "person" means a man or woman to most people.

Now let's look at Legalese. Author's notes are in brackets ([ ].)
_________________________________________________

Person. In general usage,

[It is not clear whether the phrase "in general usage"
refers to general usage of Legalese or English]

a human being (i.e. natural person),

[It is not clear whether the term "natural person" must be
used to describe a human being]

though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships,
associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in
bankruptcy, or receivers See e.g. National Labor Relations Act, º 2(1),
29 U.S.C.A. º 152; Uniform Partnership Act. º 2. I Bankruptcy Code.

"Person" includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but
not governmental unit 11 U.S.C.A º 101.

Corporation. A corporation is a "person" within meaning of Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection and due process provisions of United States
Constitution. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, Ala., 470 G.S. 869,
105 S.Ct. 1676, 1685, 84 L.Ed.2d 751. The term "persons" in statute
relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to
defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation Alamo Fence
Co of Houston v U.S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181. In corporate law,
"person" includes individual and entity. Rev.Model Bus.Corp.Act, º 1.40.
_________________________________________________

It would appear that in Legalese, the term "person" means:

a) a "natural person" [the word "natural" is not defined in Legalese]
b) an "individual,"
c) labor organizations,
d) partnerships,
e) associations,
f) corporations,
g) legal representatives,
h) trustees,
i) trustees in bankruptcy,
j) receivers,
k) not necessarily governmental units,

or

l) an entity.

In English, only two of these terms might be construed to mean human
beings; i.e., "natural person" and "individual."
Since "natural" is not defined in Legalese, the reader must
draw his own conclusions. Let's look at the word "individual"
as defined in the Legalese dictionary.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Welcome once again!
Date: 16 Jul 1998 09:24:45 -0600

Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com
    ([206.53.160.3])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 06:17:35 -0600
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA05266;
    Thu, 16 Jul 1998 05:19:51 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [149.174.217.134])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA05263
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 05:19:51 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
    by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.12) id IAA25115
    for [e-mail]; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:15:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Thought the members of the list would be interested in today's (July 16)
Wall Street Journal.  The Marketplace Section has several front page
articles under the heading "Kids & Guns"

The first is one that deals with parents of Johnnie asking the parents of
Johnnie's friends if they have guns in the house before Johnnie can cross
the threshold.

The second deals with copy cat killings, the third with "Kid-proof Gun
Locks" and the forth with today's new toy guns - Laser Tag.

Check them out.  The interesting thing in the gun lock article is the
assertion that Gun-Control advocates aren't impressed with the "growing
array of locks on the market."  I find that statement odd because that is
one of Sarah Brady's, Chucky Schumer's and Bill Clinton's current pet
projects.

David Adams
[e-mail]
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/
The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
To subscribe of unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
[e-mail]
******* Victory 1998! ***************



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FEAR: Denver, Co.
Date: 16 Jul 1998 11:58:15 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:38:36 -0600
Received: from bmd2.baremetal.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA17401; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:27:50 -0600
Received: from localhost (mapinc@localhost)
    by bmd2.baremetal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA07013;
    Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:41 -0700
Received: by bmd2.baremetal.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:31 -0700
Received: (from mapinc@localhost)
    by bmd2.baremetal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA06957
    for [e-mail]; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:31 -0700
Message-ID: <006a01bdb073$437af0a0$3f868cd1@tim>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: "Tim Brooks" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights  http://www.fear.org/
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



The following was initially posted to the IDPA list by Michael Bane,
 who attended the Denver City Council meeting last night.=20
I obtained permission form Michael to forward it along.

Last night, the Denver City Council voted to make the "public nuisance
abatement" ordinance permanent, despite 100s of gun owners and other
critics
of the ordinance (including the ACLU) who filled the Chamber Council and
nearby rooms to overflowing.

To borrow a phrase from the Grateful Dead, "it's even worse than it
appears."

Briefly, for gunowners, what this means is that if you're caught in Denver
for
any reason (say, a minor traffic stop, an accident, a roadblock, a
seat-belt
check, drunk driving enforcement stops, etc.) and there is a gun in your
car,
your car WILL be confiscated, your weapons WILL be confiscated and you
WILL go
directly to jail.

According to the Denver PD, hunters, target shooters on the way to and =
from
the range, buyers and sellers of firearms and people "whose lives are
directly
threatened" will be able to make an "affirmative defense," that is, tell
the
police that you're legit, and MAYBE they'll let you go.However,  Assistant
Denver City Attorney Keith Steigelmeyer expressed repeatedly his plan to
"push" the affirmative defense arguments "up the line," that is, you still
get
the affirmative defense--in court. In the meantime, your car and
everything in
it is confiscated; your weapons are confiscated; you're booked, processed
and
have to make bail and the city charges you a towing fee of $80 and an $8 a
day
storage fee.

The average "storage time" right now for vehicles WHERE THE DRIVER WAS
FOUND
"NON-CULPABLE" (newspeak for "totally innocent") is 30 days.

Your guns? According to the Denver PD officer directly in charge of
administering the program, "IT IS THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF DENVER TO
NEVER
RETURN WEAPONS THAT HAVE BEEN SEIZED FOR CAUSE." You may get you car back,
but
you're going to have to go to court to get your guns back--even if you are
TOTALLY innocent.

And you may not get the car--if your car is leased, or has a loan or lien
on
it, Denver informs your leasor or lienholder. The small print in your loan
or
lease allows the car to be repossessed IMMEDIATELY if it is seized by a
governmental agency. According to the Denver PD, this is what is actually
happening.

Again, all this happens BEFORE your guilt or innocence is established.

Assistant City Attorney Steigelmeyer insists that hunters and shooters in
"complete compliance" with Denver ordinances have nothing to fear.
However,
Denver ordinances are complex (the city has its own "assault weapon" and
lookalike ban, for example), vague and apparently designed to trip up the
unwary. The ordinances provide that any weapon in a car either be unloaded
and
locked in the trunk or somewhere "out of the passenger compartment." If
the
weapon is in the passenger compartment, it must be TOTALLY UNCONCEALED,
unloaded and "incapacitated" (which, apparently, means a trigger lock). If
the
gun is not totally visible, it is CONCEALED, and you will be treated
accordingly. BTW, if the gun is totally visible, it is "probable cause"
for
you to be stopped by the Denver police.

According to the lawyer I spoke with, even a valid, statewide CCW is only
considered "affirmative defense." At the discression of the officer on the
scene, you may be arrested, your car and your legal gun confiscated, even
if
you have a valid CCW. Again, according to what was stated at last night's
council meeting, your gun will not be returned to you.

THE BOTTOM LINE: If you travel with guns in Denver, YOU ARE AT RISK. The
vehicle provisions of the "nuisance abatement act" are apparently
SPECIFICALLY
TARGETED AT LEGAL GUN OWNERS. The ordinance HAS BEEN USED AGAINST LEGAL
GUNOWNERS ALREADY, and, now that it's permanent, the Denver PD has already
said they will be stepping up enforcement.=20

My personal advice is avoid DENVER. Do not book hunts in Colorado; do not
attend matches that require to to fly into DIA or travel through Denver =
and
SKI
IN UTAH.

Tim Brooks =20
-T.& R. Brooks Construction, Chino Valley, Arizona  :-p
"Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional."
www.bslnet.com/accounts/trbconst/www



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: second amendment
Date: 16 Jul 1998 12:02:30 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 07:02:44 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id GAA17677; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 06:52:03 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA16567; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:01:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma016341; Thu Jul 16 08:56:43 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

An Open Letter To The Japanese Ambassador*

by L. Neil Smith
[e-mail]

Kunihiko Saito
Ambassador to the United States
Japanese Embassy
2520 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

Sir:

I'm writing to inform you that you and your government are in the process =
of
mortally offending more than a quarter of the people of this nation,
representing about half the households in America.

I refer to the 70 million decent and honorable men, women, and children =
who
choose to exercise their
unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain,
own, and carry weapons -- and to the dishonorable and despicable effort of
your United Nations delegates to pressure member nations into suppressing
that right.

Americans have fought many international conflicts over the past couple of
centuries.  In each, they've been convinced -- with whatever degree of
justification -- that they were fighting essentially to preserve the first
ten amendments to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the =
Bill
of Rights, one article of which directly addresses the right to own and
carry weapons.

Most Americans are unaware of what you and your government are up to so =
far,
but I want you to imagine what could happen once they learn how you're
trying to deprive them of their rights.  I want you to imagine even those
Americans who don't presently choose to own personal weapons, angrier at =
you
than at any time since World War II.

As one of my correspondents recently put it, during the Cold War, =
Americans
represented a sort of "thin khaki line" between your people and Soviet
domination, defending rights and values you're now attempting to deprive =
us
of.  Perhaps, he offers, we shouldn't have gone to all that effort.  =
Imagine
what would have happened if we hadn't.  Imagine what would happen now if =
we
just pulled out, sending you a bill for the entire 50-year period.

Imagine what could happen if Americans perceive this attempt to abrogate
their rights as the moral
equivalent to your attack on Pearl Harbor. Imagine thousands of angry
letters appearing in newspapers and thousands of calls to radio stations,
informing even more readers and listeners of your determination to destroy
the Bill of Rights. Imagine a flood of letters and calls to your embassy =
and
consulates. Imagine hordes of pickets marching back and forth in front of
every Japanese diplomatic and corporate estabaishment in America.

Another thing you need to imagine is the diplomatic repercussions. Most
Americans are fed up with the very idea of diplomatic immunity. Imagine
widespread demands to revoke yours, on the grounds that you're tampering
with the internal politics of a nation in which you have heretofore been a
honored guest?  Imagine being open to injunctions, civil suits, demands =
for
restitution, even criminal prosecution under a future administration more
amenable to the concept of Bill of Rights enforcement than the present one
happens to be?

Imagine the success of efforts presently underway to prevent the United
States from handing another penny to the United Nations, and to terminate
American membership in that organization altogether?

More to the point, in a country that's never been very comfortable about
purchasing expensive foreign goods -- and where feelings run so high that
Japanese cars used to be smashed and burned in Detroit parking lots --
imagine deferred purchases of Japanese products such as automobiles and
trucks, including those manufactured here. Imagine:  how many percentage
points must Japanese auto sales drop before you decide that your attempt =
to
disarm Americans is too expensive?   Two percent?  Five percent?  Ten
percent?  Imagine how many billions of dollars that represents, how many
trillions of yen.

Now imagine a boycott aimed at a single product-type like cars, trucks,
vans, and SUVs, spreading to others:  stereos, TVs, cameras, and computers.=

How many more billion dollars?  How many more trillion yen?   There are =
many
other countries you don't _have_ to imagine -- Germany, China, Taiwan, and
Korea come to mind -- eager to fill the gap created by such a boycott.  =
Even
once it ended, you'd have lost customers permanently to your international
competitors.

Wouldn't you say Japan is in enough economic trouble already? Imagine how
many Americans are angry over the billions our government is giving you
now.  Imagine how they'll feel when they learn what you're "giving" them =
in
return.  Why go looking for more trouble on the infantile whim of the
politically feeble-minded among you?

Your culture is infamous for demanding that others respect its customs and
traditions, however backward and oppressive.  In this century alone, your
nation butchered unarmed thousands in Manchuria, laid waste to most of =
Asia
and the Pacific, even let its soldiers eat their prisoners of war.  The
nation that raped Nanking, Manila, and Singapore, and enslaved then
hysterectomized "comfort women" to make them more available to the =
Emperor's
troops without the inconvenience of menstrual periods, has no right
criticizing our ownership of guns. Between 1935 and 1945 Japan killed =
almost
six million people, dwarfing American criminal violence, rivalling that of
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and exceeding that of Pol Pot.

Recently, you've been denying these crimes that millions were witness to,
but that only makes Japan look more ridiculous and guilty than it already
is.

Even today, you discriminate viciously against the Ainu, the Burakumin, =
and
non-Japanese living in Japan, especially Koreans and ethnically mixed
individuals.  Japan's culture is so intolerable to its own people  that =
they
kill themselves at a rate almost double that of the United States.  Your
police search people's homes whenever they wish; so many arrestees confess
that your interrogation methods must surely be of  interest to Amnesty
International.  Yet you have the nerve to try to take the moral high =
ground
with us.

Perhaps you should reflect carefully on whether the world should emulate
your ways, including your gun laws, or ours.

The fact is, your attempt to interfere with the more refined and libertaria=
n
traditions of our culture is,
at the least, hypocritical. And since you can hardly be unaware that guns =
in
private hands save between two and four million American lives every year, =
I
can only conclude that you're willing to sacrifice those millions to =
further
this evil, halfwitted, and thoroughly discredited scheme which we have
learned to call by its right name, "victim disarmament".

Americans are presently burdened, from the city to the national level, =
with
the most corrupt and brutal
government in our history -- a government that agrees with you that =
concepts
like the Bill of Rights are as disposable as used toilet paper.  But if =
you
understand anything about us, understand that this only means we'll work
harder to assure stringent enforcement of the Bill of Rights, not only in
our country, but (with the precedent of interference provided by your
government) to encourage the birth of a radical individualist movement in
Japan.  If you think that Levis and MacDonald's have captured the =
attention
of your youth, wait until they taste the idea of freedom.

Imagine:  informed by Americans like me that they, too, are the exclusive
owners of their own lives and all the products of their lives, your people
demanding that you recognize their unalienable individual, civil,
Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own and carry weapons.

Don't you imagine that it's time you gave up your attempt in the United
Nations to disarm everyone on the planet?

--

*Excerpted from The Libertarian Enterprise, June 19, 1998:
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe38-19980619.html

L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of _The Probability Broach_,
_Pallas_,  _Henry Martyn_,  and other novels,  as well as publisher of
_The Libertarian Enterprise_, available free by e-mail subscription or
at http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html.  More of Neil's essays can be
found on the "Webley Page", at
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html.

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author =
--
provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate
credit given.




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: A Bit of Good NewsGSL> Halbrook
Date: 17 Jul 1998 11:57:42 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:57:55 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id UAA18292; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:47:09 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA01278; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:56:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma001047; Thu Jul 16 22:55:20 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Delivered-To: [e-mail]
>From: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:24:37 EDT
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: GSL> Halbrook
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>
>----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
>
>
>MORE HALBROOK!
>July 15, 1998
>
>             "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN IN COLUMBUS, OHIO,
>                      RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
>     The "assault weapon" and high capacity magazine bans in
>Columbus, Ohio, have been declared unconstitutional by a federal
>appellate court.  This decision nullifies similar bans with
>identical language, such as that in Cleveland and other cities.
>
>     On July 15, 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
>Circuit, sitting in Cincinnati, Ohio, declared the Columbus
>"assault weapon" ban unconstitutionally vague and a violation of=20
>equal protection of the law.  Judge Suhrheinrich wrote the opinion.=20
>Peoples Rights Organization, Gerald Smolak, and Dennis Walker, who
>challenged the law, are represented by Stephen P. Halbrook, who
>argued the case.
>
>     The court held two grandfather clauses violative of equal
>protection.  Under these clauses, the only persons allowed to
>possess assault weapons and high capacity magazines were persons
>who registered assault weapons under the old ordinance previously
>declared by the Court of Appeals to be vague.  The court
>invalidated all five of the definitions of "assault weapon" to be
>unconstitutionally vague.
>
>     The court found that the controversy is justiciable and that
>the plaintiffs were threatened with prosecution under the
>ordinance.  Further, it noted that "the current law is not subject
>to any type of clarifying interpretation by a local administrative
>agency.  Rather, the words of the ordinance provide the sole source
>of guidance for firearms' owners."
>
>     On the merits, the court first treated the equal protection
>clause, which "keeps governmental decisionmakers from treating
>differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike."=20
>(Citing Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992)).  Section
>2323.31(B)(3) exempts from prosecution "any person who lawfully
>possessed an assault weapon and who registered that assault weapon
>pursuant to former Columbus City Codes Section 2323.05 in 1989."=20
>"Thus, the City's grandfather provision is predicated upon an
>ordinance that we previously invalidated, precisely because it
>failed to place firearms' owners on notice as to whether or not
>their firearms were 'assault weapons.'"  The court held that the =
grandfather
>provision fails the rational basis test.  "There simply
>exists no rational distinction between the individual plaintiffs in
>this case and those persons who registered their firearms during a
>thirty day window in 1989 on the basis of little more than a hunch
>that their firearms might constitute 'assault weapons' under the
>City's unconstitutionally vague ordinance."
>
>     The court also invalidated a grandfather clause for magazines
>held as part of registered assault weapons.  It upheld a clause
>exempting magazines owned by a person who has a firearm registered
>under the National Firearms Act.  However, the effect of the former
>is that the magazine ban violates equal protection and is void.=20
>The decision is not a model of clarity on this issue, but the
>invalidity of the magazine ban is the necessary consequence of
>finding its grandfather clause violative of equal protection.
>
>  The court then turned to the vagueness issue.  Noting that a
>strict test applies where criminal penalties are at stake, the
>court also enquired "whether the statute contains a scienter
>requirement or imposes strict liability. . . . Indeed, 'in the
>absence of a scienter requirement  .  .  .  a statute is little
>more than a trap for those who act in good faith.'"  (Quoting
>Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 395 (1979) (brackets and
>internal quotation marks deleted).  The ordinance here has no
>knowledge element and imposes strict liability.  Given the criminal
>penalties and lack of a scienter requirement, "a relatively
>stringent review of the City's assault weapons ban is necessary."=20
>Even if the ordinance required a showing of recklessness, the same
>strict test would apply, for mere possession of any firearm could
>arguably meet that standard.
>
>  The court proceeded to find all of the definitions of "assault
>weapon" vague.  The first definition is "any semiautomatic action,
>center fire rifle or carbine that accepts a detachable magazine
>with a capacity of 20 rounds or more."  The court explained:
>
>  the provision is little more than a trap for the unwary.  The
>  record indicates that any semiautomatic rifle that accepts a
>  detachable magazine will accept a detachable magazine of any
>  capacity which might exist, as it is the magazine, and not the
>  rifle, that determines capacity.  Therefore, anyone who
>  possesses a semiautomatic center fire rifle or carbine that
>  accepts a detachable magazine is subject to prosecution so
>  long as a magazine exists with a capacity of twenty rounds or
>  more.  Since the ordinance contains no scienter requirement,
>  an owner's complete lack of knowledge as to the magazine's
>  existence is of no consequence.
>
>  One plaintiff has a hunting rifle that has a detachable
>magazine with a capacity of four rounds.  He has never possessed or
>seen any other magazine which would fit his rifle.  However, his
>rifle would accept a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty
>rounds or more if one has ever been manufactured.  He "would face
>criminal penalties in the event such a magazine is discovered.  Due
>process demands more than this."
>
>  The second definition of "assault weapon" is "any
>semiautomatic shotgun with a magazine capacity of more than six
>rounds."  Reversing the district court, which upheld this
>provision, the court found it vague:
>
>     Shotgun rounds are available in different lengths.=20
>  Rounds of a short length may cause a shotgun's magazine
>  capacity to exceed six rounds.  Conversely, rounds of a longer
>  length (which may be all the owner possesses or is aware of)
>  will result in a capacity that is less than six rounds.  This
>  provision is a trap for the unwary.  It imposes criminal
>  liability regardless of whether a shotgun owner knows of the
>  existence of shorter length rounds.  Hence, we find this
>  definition unconstitutionally vague.
>
>  The third definition of "assault weapon" includes a
>semiautomatic handgun which is  a modification of a rifle defined
>as an assault weapon or a modification of an automatic firearm.  It
>also includes a semiautomatic handgun originally designed to accept
>a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than twenty rounds.=20
>The first and third of these are vague for the reasons stated above
>regarding a rifle or carbine defined as an assault weapon.  The
>second of these, with its reference to a "modification," is vague
>in that "ordinary consumers cannot be expected to know the
>developmental history of a particular weapon."  "The evidence in
>this case indicates that an average gun owner does not know whether
>or not his weapon is a modification of another weapon."
>
>  The fourth definition of "assault weapon" is any weapon that
>"may be restored" to one of the above.  This is vague not only
>because the above are vague, but also because "the phrase 'may be
>restored' fails to provide sufficient guidance to a person of
>average intelligence as to what is prohibited."  "No standard is
>provided for what  may be restored' means, such as may be restored
>by the person in possession, or may be restored by a master
>gunsmith using the facilities of a fully-equipped machine shop."=20
>(brackets omitted).
>
>  The fifth definition of "assault weapon" is "any part, or
>combination of parts, designed or intended to convert a firearm
>into an assault weapon as defined [above], or any combination of
>parts from which an assault weapon as defined [above] may be
>readily assembled."  This is vague not just because the above
>definitions are vague but also because "'may be readily assembled'
>does not provide sufficient information to enable a person of
>average intelligence to determine whether a particular combination
>of parts is within the ordinance's coverage."
>
>  The court next addressed the City's argument that Springfield
>Armory v. City of Columbus (6th Cir. 1994), which invalidated the
>first assault weapon ban passed by Columbus, suggested that generic
>definitions are appropriate instead of a listing of makes and
>models.  The court responded that such dictum was not meant to
>endorse any specific definitions.
>
>  Columbus also "points out that Cleveland's ordinance served as
>the model for the instant one and that the Ohio Supreme Court
>upheld the validity of Cleveland's ordinance in Arnold v. City of
>Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)."  However, "the Ohio Supreme
>Court in Arnold did not consider a vagueness challenge to the
>ordinance in question."
>
>  Although not raised by the plaintiffs or briefed by the
>parties, the court stated in dictum that the ordinance was not
>invalid under state and federal guarantees concerning the right to
>keep and bear arms.  "Nevertheless, it is well established that due
>process protects our citizens from vague legislation even when that
>legislation regulates conduct which otherwise does not enjoy
>constitutional protection."
>
>  In sum, the Columbus assault weapon ban is nullified by the
>decision based on the grandfather clause being violative of equal
>protection and all of the assault weapon definitions being vague.=20
>The high capacity magazine ban is nullified because its grandfather
>clause is violative of equal protection.
>
>
>--------------------------
>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.
>
>
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
********************



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: State Constitutions
Date: 17 Jul 1998 12:08:33 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:57:55 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id UAA18290; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:47:09 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA01280; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:56:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma001055; Thu Jul 16 22:55:24 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

ET phoned in with:

>If and when you get the chance, you might try a bit of historical
>research on the subject of firearms law of your State.

>What I'd really care to know is does your State Constitution have a
>firearms specific Right built in

>From [suppressed] on another (closed) list:

    I attach my tentative list of state constitutional provisions,=20
together with any earlier versions that I could find.  I've tried to=20
make it complete.

    The list has yet to be cite-checked, and that some of the dates=20
might be off -- I got a lot of the pre-1908 provisions from Thorpe,=20
and I've noticed that at times the date given in Thorpe is a year off=20
from the official effective date.

    If you find any errors, in the text, the citation, or in the=20
dates, *please* let me know.

    Many thanks to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a law student working=20
here at the Law Library, for his research help.  I intend to publish=20
the list as an appendix to my state constitutional right to keep and=20
bear arms article, once that's written . . . .  (I hope to have it=20
done and ready to send out to the law reviews by September, and=20
perhaps even a bit earlier.)



Alabama:  That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of

art. I, sec. 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling
changed 1901).

Alaska:  A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.  The individual right to keep and bear arms
shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political
subdivision of the State.  Alaska Const. art. I, sec. 19 (first
sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

Arizona:  The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing
in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Ariz. Const. art. II, sec. 26 (enacted 1912).

Arkansas:  The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep
and bear arms for their common defense.  Ark. Const. art. II, sec. 5
(enacted 1868, art. I, sec. 5).
     1836:  "That the free white men of this State shall have a
right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."  Art. II,
sec. 21.

California:  No provision.

Colorado:  The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense
of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when
thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question;  but nothing
herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of
carrying concealed weapons.  Colo. Const. art. II, sec. 13 (enacted
1876, art. II, sec. 13).

Connecticut:  Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of
himself and the state.  Conn. Const. art. I, sec. 15 (enacted 1818,
art. I, sec. 17).  The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi
Constitution of 1817.  See Wesley W. Horton, The Connecticut State
Constitution: A Reference Guide 73.

Delaware:  A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the
defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and
recreational use.  Del. Const. art. I, sec. 20 (enacted 1987).

Florida:  (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in
defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state
shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may
be regulated by law.
     (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding
weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at
retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase"
means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the
retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried
and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a
concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be
subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
     (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing
subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December
31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions
of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
     (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another
handgun.  Fla. Const. art. I, sec. 8 (sections (b)-(d) added in
1990).
     1838:  "That the free white men of this State shall have a
right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."  Art. I,
sec. 21.
     1865:  Clause omitted.
     1868:  "The people shall have the right to bear arms in
defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." =20
Art. I, sec. 22.
     1885:  "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of
themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be
infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which
they may be borne."  Art. I, sec. 20.
     1968:  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in
defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state
shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may
be regulated by law."

Georgia:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to
prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.  Ga. Const. art.
I, sec. 1, =B6 VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, sec. XXII).
     1865:  "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed."  Art. I, sec. 4.
     1868:  "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have
power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne."=20
Art. I, sec. 14.

Hawaii:  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.  Haw. Const. art. I, sec. 17 (enacted
1950).

Idaho:  The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which
right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent
the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on
the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum
sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm,
nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the
possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the
passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm.  No law
shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the
ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any
law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used
in the commission of a felony.  Idaho Const. art. I, sec. 11
(enacted 1978).
     1889:  "The people have the right to bear arms for their
security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the
exercise of this right by law."  Art. I, sec. 11.

Illinois:  Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.=20
Ill. Const. art. I, sec. 22 (enacted 1970).

Indiana:  The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the
defense of themselves and the State.  Ind. Const. art. I, sec. 32
(enacted 1851, art. I, sec. 32).
     1816:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the
defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be
kept in strict subordination to the civil power.  Art. I, sec. 20.

Iowa:  No provision.

Kansas:  The people have the right to bear arms for their defense
and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous
to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be
in strict subordination to the civil power.  Kan. Const. Bill of
Rights, sec. 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, sec. 4).

Kentucky:  All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain
inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:
     First:  The right of enjoying and defending their lives and
liberties. . . .
     Seventh:  The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and
of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact
laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.  Ky.
Const. sec. 1 (enacted 1891).
     1792:  "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense
of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."  Art. XII,
sec. 23.
     1799:  "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in
defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."  Art.
X, sec. 23.
     1850:  "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in
defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but
the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying
concealed arms."  Art. XIII, sec. 25.

Louisiana:  The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall
not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage
of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the
person.  La. Const. art. I, sec. 11 (enacted 1974).
     1879:  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be abridged.  This shall not prevent the passage of
laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed."  Art. 3.

Maine:  Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this
right shall never be questioned.  Maine Const. art. I, sec. 16
(enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the
original provision, see Marshall J. Tinkle, The Maine State
Constitution: A Reference Guide 48).
     1819:  "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for
the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned."=20
Art. I, sec. 16.

Maryland:  No provision.

Massachusetts:  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms
for the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, armies are
dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the
consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be
held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be
governed by it.  Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).

Michigan:  Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the
defense of himself and the state.  Mich. Const. art. I, sec. 6
(enacted 1835).

Minnesota:  No provision.

Mississippi:  The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in
defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil
power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in
question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying
concealed weapons.  Miss. Const. art. III, sec. 12 (enacted 1890,
art. 3, sec. 12).
     1817:  "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of
himself and the State."  Art. I, sec. 23.
     1832:  "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of
himself and of the State."  Art. I, sec. 23.
     1868:  "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms
for their defence."  Art. I, sec. 15.

Missouri:  That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in
defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned
in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall
not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.  Missouri Const. art.
I, sec. 23 (enacted 1945).
     1820:  "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble
for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers
of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance;=20
and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the=20
State cannot be questioned."  Art. XIII, sec. 3.
     1865:  Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the
State" instead of "the State."  Art. I, sec. 8.
     1875:  "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in
defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil
power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into
question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the
practice of wearing concealed weapons."  Art. II, sec. 17.

Montana:  The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense
of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power
when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but
nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of
concealed weapons.  Mont. Const. art. II, sec. 12 (enacted 1889).

Nebraska:  All persons are by nature free and independent, and have
certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life,
liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear
arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and
for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other
lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed
by the state or any subdivision thereof.  To secure these rights,
and the protection of property, governments are instituted among
people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.  Neb. Const. art. I, sec. 1 (right to keep and bear arms
enacted 1988).

Nevada:  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for
security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and
for other lawful purposes.  Nev. Const. art. I, sec. 11(1) (enacted
1982).

New Hampshire:  All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in
defense of themselves, their families, their property and the
state.  N.H. Const pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).

New Jersey:  No provision.

New Mexico:  No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep
and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and
recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein
shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.  No
municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of
the right to keep and bear arms.  N.M. Const. Art. II, sec. 6
(first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).
     1912:  "The people have the right to bear arms for their
security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit
the carrying of concealed weapons."

New York:  No provision.

North Carolina:  A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of
peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and
the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and
governed by, the civil power.  Nothing herein shall justify the
practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General
Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.  N.C.
Const. Art. 1, sec. 30 (enacted 1971).
     1776:  "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the
defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace,
are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that
the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and
governed by, the civil power."  Bill of Rights, sec. XVII.
     1868:  "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies, in time of
peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and
the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and
governed by, the civil power."  Art. I, sec. 24.
     1875:  Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall
justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the
Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."

North Dakota:  All individuals are by nature equally free and
independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are
those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring,
possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and
obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the
defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for
lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which
shall not be infringed.  N.D. Const. Art. I, sec. 1 (right to keep
and bear arms enacted 1984).

Ohio:  The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and
security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to
liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in
strict subordination to the civil power.  Ohio Const. Art. I, sec.
4 (enacted 1851).
     1802:  "That the people have a right to bear arms for the
defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in
time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up,
and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to
the civil power."  Art. VIII, sec. 20.

Oklahoma:  The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense
of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power,
when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but
nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from
regulating the carrying of weapons.  Okla. Const. art. II, sec. 26
(enacted 1907).

Oregon:  The people shall have the right to bear arms for the
defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be
kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]  Or. Const. Art.
I, sec. 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, sec. 28).

Pennsylvania:  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned.  Penn. Const.
Art. 1, sec. 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, sec. 21).
     1776:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the
defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the
time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept
up; And that the military should be kept under strict
subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.  Declaration
of Rights, cl. XIII.

Rhode Island:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed.  R.I. Const. art. I, sec. 22 (enacted 1842).

South Carolina:  A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.  As, in times of peace, armies are
dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the
consent of the General Assembly.  The military power of the State
shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be
governed by it.  S.C. Const. art. 1, sec. 20 (enacted 1895).
     1868:  "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the
common defence.  As, in times of peace . . . ."  Art. I, sec. 28.

South Dakota:  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the state shall not be denied.  S.D. Const. art. VI,
sec. 24 (enacted 1889).

Tennessee:  That the citizens of this State have a right to keep
and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature
shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a
view to prevent crime.  Tenn. Const. art. I, sec. 26 (enacted
1870).
     1796:  "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep
and bear arms for their common defence."  Art. XI, sec. 26.
     1834:  "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep
and bear arms for their common defence."  Art. I, sec. 26.

Texas:  Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in
the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature
shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a
view to prevent crime.  Tex. Const. art. I, sec. 23 (enacted 1876).
     1836:  "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in
defence of himself and the republic.  The military shall at all
times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power."=20
Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
     1845:  "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear
arms in lawful defence of himself or the State."  Art. I, sec. 13.
     1868:  "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear
arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such
regulations as the legislature may prescribe."  Art. I, sec. 13.

Utah:  The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for
security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the
state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed;
but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the
lawful use of arms.  Utah Const. art. I, sec. 6 (enacted 1984).
     1896:  "The people have the right to bear arms for their
security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise
of this right by law."

Vermont:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence
of themselves and the State"and as standing armies in time of peace
are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that
the military should be kept under strict subordination to and
governed by the civil power.  Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 16 (enacted
1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Virginia:  That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of
the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe
defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time
of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in
all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and
governed by, the civil power.  Va. Const. art. I, sec. 13 (enacted
1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the
right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).

Washington:  The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but
nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an
armed body of men.  Wash. Const. art. I, sec. 24 (enacted 1889).

West Virginia:  A person has the right to keep and bear arms for
the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting
and recreational use.  W. Va. Const. art. III, sec. 22 (enacted
1986).

Wisconsin:  No provision.

Wyoming:  The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and of the state shall not be denied.  Wyo. Const. art.
I, sec. 24 (enacted 1889).





-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Fwd: A Bit of Good NewsGSL> Halbrook
Date: 17 Jul 1998 12:21:12 -0600


IOW, had the city taken the time to write a nice clear ordinance, they
could have acomplished exactly what they wanted to with this
ordinance.

Next year they will simply write a more clear ordinance which will
stand unless someone comes up with the money and the energy to fight
it.

When will the NRA and other pro-gun groups realize that so long as the
courts do not recognize an individual right to own and carry guns, on
par with the individual right to speech or worship or the press, this
is a losing game.  Gun Control is unconstitutional no matter how
"fairly" it is applied or clearly it is worded.

Court battles need to be waged on the 2nd amendment and various State
Constitutional RKBA clauses, IMNSHO.

On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, "David Sagers" <[e-mail]> posted:

>>  Although not raised by the plaintiffs or briefed by the
>>parties, the court stated in dictum that the ordinance was not
>>invalid under state and federal guarantees concerning the right to
>>keep and bear arms.  "Nevertheless, it is well established that due
>>process protects our citizens from vague legislation even when that
>>legislation regulates conduct which otherwise does not enjoy
>>constitutional protection."
>>
>>  In sum, the Columbus assault weapon ban is nullified by the
>>decision based on the grandfather clause being violative of equal
>>protection and all of the assault weapon definitions being vague.=20
>>The high capacity magazine ban is nullified because its grandfather
>>clause is violative of equal protection.
--

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 difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not
 to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." -- Dwight
"Travels in New-England"

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Fwd: A Bit of Good NewsGSL> Halbrook
Date: 17 Jul 1998 12:59:10 -0600


On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, "David Sagers" <[e-mail]> posted:

>>             "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN IN COLUMBUS, OHIO,
>>                      RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
>>     The "assault weapon" and high capacity magazine bans in
>>Columbus, Ohio, have been declared unconstitutional by a federal
>>appellate court.  This decision nullifies similar bans with
>>identical language, such as that in Cleveland and other cities.
>>

[...]

>>  Although not raised by the plaintiffs or briefed by the
>>parties, the court stated in dictum that the ordinance was not
>>invalid under state and federal guarantees concerning the right to
>>keep and bear arms.  "Nevertheless, it is well established that due
>>process protects our citizens from vague legislation even when that
>>legislation regulates conduct which otherwise does not enjoy
>>constitutional protection."

Apprantly the Ohio State Constitution contains:

Ohio:  The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and
security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to
liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in
strict subordination to the civil power.  Ohio Const. Art. I, sec.
4 (enacted 1851).

What are judges smoking these days?  If I have a right to bear (carry)
guns for my defense and security in Ohio, then how can they say that
laws prohibiting the ownership of the guns best designed for providing
defense and security do not vioulate the State Constitution?

>>
>>  In sum, the Columbus assault weapon ban is nullified by the
>>decision based on the grandfather clause being violative of equal
>>protection and all of the assault weapon definitions being vague.=20
>>The high capacity magazine ban is nullified because its grandfather
>>clause is violative of equal protection.

--

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.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
 may attempt to tyrannize, ... the people are confirmed by the next
 article in their right to keep and bear arms." -- Tench Coxe in "Remarks
 on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution",
 Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: July 19 column - gun registration]
Date: 17 Jul 1998 13:09:17 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 19, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    They're 'shocked, shocked,' at the FBI's plans

    Nearly every day, it seems, my e-mailbox is flooded with emergency
dispatches from well-meaning but breathless defenders of the Second
Amendment, urging all their friends to write or e-mail the appropriate
congresscritter in opposition to whatever new piece of chicanery the
gun-grabbers have got up to (three-day waiting periods to buy long guns,
$16 background checks before a gunsmith can return your repaired weapon,
1000 percent ammunition taxes, jail sentences for gun owners whose guns are
(start ital)stolen(end ital) and used in teenage crimes, et bleeping
endless cetera.)

  Either that, or I'm supposed to frantically weigh in at the latest
on-line media poll asking "Do we need more gun control" ... with the
results thrown out and never publicized, of course, should the majority --
as usual -- answer "No."

  Last week, a pair of faithful correspondents advised:

  "Senator Smith,  R-New Hampshire, is apparently attempting to put the
brakes on the FBI shenanigans regarding the Brady Law. One of his proposals
is to defund the ability of the FBI to tax gun owners; another is to defund
any attempt by the FBI to use Brady 'instant check' as a mechanism to keep
gun owners' names, and requires 'immediate destruction of all (gun buyer)
information in any form whatsoever.' Another is to allow aggrieved citizens
to sue the agency and collect damages and attorneys' fees. He needs to hear
from lots of people that he is supported in his stand. Please take the time
to e-mail or fax a letter to him."

  I've actually been lobbied on the phone by some gun rights advocates I
respect, this week, ensuring me Sen. Smith is the closest thing to a friend
freedom-lovers have in the Senate, and insisting his proposal could indeed
strike a solid blow for the Second Amendment, by giving citizens some
standing to get into court and challenge the coming national background
checks (and resultant national gun registration -- precursor to
confiscation in Nazi Germany, in Australia, everywhere it's been tried.)

  Maybe Sen. Smith means well. I don't know.

  Regardless, I've had enough of this game. I replied to my well-meaning
correspondents:

    #   #   #

  Hi, guys --

  Pardon me, but I grow tired of running first one way, then another, on
treadmills erected by others.

  "Requiring immediate destruction of all (gun buyer) information in any
form whatsoever" is too ridiculous for even a child to fall for.

  Let's say these national background checks for ALL gun sales go into
effect Dec. 1, as scheduled. But the FBI is absolutely forbidden by law to
keep any such records, ironclad, cross our hearts and hope to die.

  Now, a weapon is found at a crime scene. (Notice the careful phrasing.
Most "weapons found at crime scenes" are stolen and thus untraceable. Few
were actually used in any crime, since shooters tend to carry their guns
away with them, rather than dropping these expensive tools like candy
wrappers. If your loser brother-in-law is rousted out of bed at 3 a.m. and
the cops find a bag of marijuana in his cereal box, then your grandfather's
First World War souvenir Mauser in the attic becomes a "weapon found at a
crime scene.")

  Using the national gun registration computer data bank which they have
illegally established in West Virginia, the FBI traces the owner -- you --
and you admit the weapon was "borrowed" by your loser brother-in-law. You
are then arrested along with him, on charges you "allowed a deadly weapon
to fall into unauthorized hands ..."

  What happens? The suspects are set free -- the evidence and all
subsequent confessions disallowed under the "exclusionary rule" -- because
the G-men violated the "no gun registration data-bank" law, while the G-men
(up to and including Louis Freeh) are indicted, tried, convicted, and
locked up in small cells with roommates named Butch. Right?

  Oh, sure. And if you believe this, I can also sell you an address where
you can send care packages at the federal penitentiary in Lewisburg, where
Lon Horiuchi and everyone up the 1992 FBI chain of command are now doing
their 30-year sentences for the murder of Vicki Weaver.

  No, I am not going to express any support for a suit who claims he is
"shocked, shocked to learn" that the FBI and BATF are proposing to violate
our Second Amendment rights ... while snickering behind his hand that any
attempt to DISBAND the FBI and BATF, and to REPEAL the Brady Bill (along
with the Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1968) would be "extreme,
counterproductive, and politically unfeasible."

  The simpering Tories. Let our GOP senators filibuster any bills that come
before the Senate, until they win a straight up-and-down recorded voice
vote on REPEAL OF THE BRADY ACT. Nothing else will draw any "fan letters"
from me.

  We're being played like a wheezing calliope, here. We're being set up to
"thank" our masters when they "reluctantly" agree that our gunsmiths won't
have to do a $16 background check on us when they return our repaired
hunting rifles ... THIS year. And this process has now been going on for 65
YEARS! My CAT can figure out there's no way to get the little bell out of
the cat toy faster than that.

  Next time: what to do.


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

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"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.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
 may attempt to tyrannize, ... the people are confirmed by the next
 article in their right to keep and bear arms." -- Tench Coxe in "Remarks
 on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution",
 Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: July 21 column - gun control]
Date: 17 Jul 1998 13:10:42 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 21, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Like a soccer team with only one player - the goalie

    Last time, I was detailing the way cynical "pro-gun-rights" Republican
congressmen play naive freedom-lovers for fools.

  The "bad cop" half of the Incumbent Republicrat Party propose 10 new
infringements on our Second Amendment rights, and pass three, and our
"heroes" get our campaign contributions and our votes for "fighting the
good fight" and "turning back the worst seven parts of that darned,
terrible gun-grabbers' package" ... which only turn up again next year, in
a NEW set of 10 insults to the Bill of Rights, of which only three MORE
will subsequently be endorsed by the lying GOP and their gun club
affiliate, the NRA, as "the best compromise we're likely to get this year
..."

  Meantime, folks on our side run themselves ragged until they finally lie,
motionless, stupefied, and resigned, in a fetal position, like the rat
who's been shocked the past 10 times he tried to eat the food.

  I'm already hearing it: "Don't bother fighting the Moynihan 1000 percent
ammo tax. I'm told that one's going nowhere." Just go to sleep, little
ones. The bogeyman will never REALLY come. They wouldn't dare add THAT as a
rider to some highway bill in the final hours of the session ...

  Duh.

  The "pro-gun-rights" Republican party has been in charge of both houses
of the United States Congress for three-and-a-half years. In the so-called
Contract with America, Newt Gingrich promised a straight up-or-down voice
vote on repeal of the Brady Bill. It's the only promise he never even
(start ital)tried(end ital) to keep. Why? Because he knows all gun owners
will reflexively vote Republican in 1998, regardless. So why endanger the
support of any marginal, socialist, pro-big-government, urban voters to
please us? We're not "in play." We can safely be ignored.


    #   #   #

  Haven't you ever wondered why the "good guys" never submit a bill which
would repeal 10 bad gun control laws, and then "settle for a compromise" in
which the Democrats and Handgun Control endorse three of the 10 as the
"least harmful," whereupon the next year the forces of freedom re-integrate
the seven remaining steps toward restored Secopnd Amendment freedom in a
NEW list of 10 bad gun laws to be repealed, making the OTHER side scramble
around trying to block seven out of 10?

  With all the money the National Rifle Association has raised, and all the
"B-plus and better" rated "pro-gun congressmen" we've elected, how come we
never see Handgun Control on the defensive, running around firing off
desperate e-mails to (start ital)their(end ital) members, going "Ohmygosh,
34 different bills have been introduced this session, attempting to close
down the BATF and effectively re-legalize the public carry of machine guns
without a permit ... even in federal courthouses and airports! Help! Help!
They keep slipping in funding for free distribution of surplus machine guns
as riders on farm bills! The DCM is now authorized to sell surplus
full-auto M-14s, BARs, and water-cooled 30-caliber Brownings for $100 to
anyone who sends in a postcard, with an automatic waiver of the $200
'transfer tax.' And we didn't even know about it; turns out it was buried
at page 666 of the Equal Rights for Blind Ambulance Drivers bill. Oh, what
ever shall we do?!"

  How come it never works THAT way?

  Unless, maybe, there AREN'T any good guys.

  Duh.

  Gun owners -- anyone who cherishes the Second Amendment and the Bill of
Rights -- have to stop running this treadmill, immediately. Just step off.
Stop donating to Republicans or to the NRA (sponsor of both the Brady Bill
and the Gun Control Act of 1968). Let them know your vote isn't "a given."
When you can, give your money and your votes to radically
pro-Bill-of-Rights Libertarians, and to the Milwaukee-based Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership (414-769-0760.)

  Failing that, fund and vote for a DEMOCRAT (at least they're reliably
pro-choice on ONE issue), while advising the GOP candidate (and the local
newspaper) in writing that you are doing so to punish the Republican party
for not repealing the Brady Bill, and the National Firearms Acts of 1968
and 1934, which they have the votes to do, TODAY.

  Tell them: "I'd rather vote for an honest gun-grabbing socialist, than
for a lying Nerf Republican who won't even stay bought."


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.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
 may attempt to tyrannize, ... the people are confirmed by the next
 article in their right to keep and bear arms." -- Tench Coxe in "Remarks
 on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution",
 Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: RE: Illinois Incident
Date: 17 Jul 1998 13:36:18 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:07:00 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id TAA18256; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:56:19 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA28620; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:05:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma028516; Thu Jul 16 22:04:58 1998
Message-Id: <A23F70F99FF9D011816A00805F196139018D23B7@ccl_exchange.carnival.com>
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

ET phoned in with:

>If and when you get the chance, you might try a bit of historical
research on the subject of firearms law of your State.
>What I'd really care to know is does your State Constitution have a
firearms specific Right built in

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/citizen/documents/constitution/const96.html#A
01S08

"SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.--(a) The right of the people to keep and
bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the
state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may
be regulated by law."

>and if not, when did the first firearms law first appear?
>And if so, the same question.

This was the earliest reference I could find.

>From http://www.nra.org/crimestrike/csrace.html

"1825 Florida - Slave and free black homes searched for guns for
confiscation. 'An Act to Govern Patrols,' 1825 Acts of Fla. 52, 55 -
Section 8 provided that white citizen patrols 'shall enter into all
negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and other
offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize and take away all
such arms, weapons, and ammunition....' Section 9 provided that a slave
might carry a firearm under this statute either by means of the weekly
renewable license or if 'in the presence of some white person.' (Id.)"

Racism at it's finest, if you will.

Ken Grubb
Miami, FL



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Utah Reps Fair Poorly
Date: 17 Jul 1998 16:35:33 -0600

www.gunowners.org
Jul 1998=20


Did Your Representative Support Your Gun Rights?

Those persons elected to Congress must be held accountable for their =
actions while in office. A major function of advocacy groups such as GOA =
is to make voting records available to members and supporters, because few =
people have the time to track down this information on their own.=20

Yet, it is imperative that individuals know how their rights are treated =
by those elected to represent them. This becomes particularly important =
when decisons must be made whether or not to continue to support a Member =
of Congress financially.=20

Actions truly speak louder than words. Below you will find descriptions of =
7 actions by the House of Representatives, 105th Congress, followed by =
every Member's record.=20



1.Get the U.S. out of the Anti-gun U.N. On June 4, 1997, the House =
defeated a pro- gun amendment, by a vote of 369-54, to pull the United =
States out of the anti-gun United Nations. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who =
introduced the amendment as a rider to the State Department authorization =
bill (H.R. 1757), stood up for gun owners' rights, stating that, "Our =
Constitution does not give us the authority to sell our sovereignty to an =
international government body . . . [and] does not allow us, for instance, =
to undermine the Bill of Rights." In recent years, the U.N. has been =
quietly moving to "harmonize" gun control laws worldwide and is seeking =
ways to lead member states (like the U.S.) down the road to stricter gun =
control laws. A vote in favor of the Paul amendment is rated as a "+".=20

2.Mandatory Jail Time for Self-Defense? On February 24, 1998, an overwhelmi=
ng majority of the House voted with anti-gun Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for =
legislation (H.R. 424) that could empower anti-gun prosecutors to punish =
gun owners who use a gun in self-defense. This bill is supposedly aimed at =
punishing so-called gun crimes with mandatory jail sentences. The problem =
is that under certain conditions, these "gun crimes" could easily send one =
who uses a gun in self-defense to prison for a MANDATORY MINIMUM sentence =
of 20 years. These types of laws have already become a problem at the =
state level. For example, The New Gun Week (in August of 1997) reported =
how one Arizona jury was outraged to find that their slap on the wrist for =
a woman who accidentally shot a crook in the back resulted in a mandatory =
minimum sentence of three years - for the woman! Under H.R. 424, this =
MANDATORY MINIMUM sentence would increase to 20 years if the federal =
authorities were at all able to assume jurisdiction over the case. GOA has =
argued that jurors - not legislators in Washington, D.C. - can best =
differentiate between the real thug that deserves 20 years in jail, and =
the nervous store clerk who is prosecuted because she fired her gun just =
as the attacker turned his body. The House voted 350-59 in favor of H.R. =
424. A vote against the bill is rated as a "+".=20

3."Seven Anti-gun Clones of Schumer" Act. On March 4, 1998, the House =
narrowly passed a bill that, if enacted, could easily send at least seven =
new anti-gun Congressmen to Washington, D.C. H.R. 856 would set the wheels =
in motion to make Puerto Rico the 51st state - a scenario that is a =
definite concern to gun owners since the island's gun laws mirror those of =
New Jersey and New York City. One must have a license to buy and own a =
firearm in Puerto Rico. And criminal penalties exist for all kinds of =
firearms - including pistols that only fire blanks! If New York City and =
New Jersey can elect anti-gunners like Rep. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Frank =
Lautenberg, then one can be pretty sure that an anti-gun state of Puerto =
Rico would send militant, anti-gun lawmakers to Washington. The House =
passed H.R. 856 by a razor-thin 209-208 vote. A vote against the bill is =
rated as a "+".=20

4.Citizen's Self-Defense Act (H.R. 27). Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) has =
introduced this bill to protect individuals who successfully defend =
themselves or others from a violent attack, only to find themselves in the =
clutches of anti-gun prosecutors. H.R. 27 would give gun owners recourse =
in court if they are wronged by anti-gun and perhaps politically motivated =
prosecutors. Cosponsors of this bill have been given a "+".=20

5.Repeal of the Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban (H.R. 1009). Representative =
Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) introduced this bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun =
ban that passed in 1996. This ban imposes a lifetime gun ban on those who =
have committed minor infractions in the home - "offenses" as slight as =
shoving a spouse or spanking a child. This gun ban, which applies =
retroactively, does not even require that a jury try a person before one =
loses his or her gun rights. Cosponsors of this bill have been given a =
"+".=20

6.Repeal of the 1994 Clinton Magazine and Semi-Auto Ban (H.R. 1147). This =
bill, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), would repeal the ban on more than =
180 types of firearms, the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, =
and the unprecedented restrictions upon gun dealers that have helped drive =
50% of the gun dealers out of business. Cosponsors of this bill have been =
given a "+".=20

7.Repeal of the Brady Registration Act (H.R. 2721). Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) =
also introduced this pro-gun bill, otherwise known as the "Second =
Amendment Protection Act." This bill repeals the Brady Law (with its =
waiting period and instant "registration" check); the Clinton 1994 ban on =
semi-automatics and gun magazines; and the "sporting purposes" test from =
federal law - a test which has been used by Presidents Bush and Clinton to =
ban the importation of many semi-automatic firearms. Cosponsors of this =
bill have been given a "+".=20


KEY: + Favorable,  - Unfavorable,  ? Not voting,  P Present,  O Not then a =
member.=20
                                              1    2    3    4    5    6   =
 7
---- Utah=20
 1 HANSEN (R-UT)                -    -     +     -     -    -     -
 2 COOK (R-UT)                     -    -     +     -     -    -     -
 3 CANNON (R-UT)                -    -     -     +    +    -     -

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Poll (fwd) - Should Clinton be impeached?
Date: 19 Jul 1998 15:44:33 -0600


Should Clinton be impeached?
Vote at http://www.palmettojournal.com=20




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FEAR: IRS Arming for WAR???
Date: 20 Jul 1998 18:53:37 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:26:23 -0600
Received: from bmd2.baremetal.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA21356; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:15:32 -0600
Received: from localhost (mapinc@localhost)
    by bmd2.baremetal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22480;
    Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:24:47 -0700
Received: by bmd2.baremetal.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:24:41 -0700
Received: (from mapinc@localhost)
    by bmd2.baremetal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA22452
    for [e-mail]; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:24:40 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1
Cc: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: "R. J. Tavel, JD" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights  http://www.fear.org/
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

[NOTE:  THIS IS SOMETHING TO WRITE=20
TO YOUR CONGRESSCRITTERS ABOUT!

Just ask them why this is being done, and if it is disinformation,=20
ask them why it is deemed necessary. =20

Below is an example of one such letter to the GA reprobates. =20

You can find your reps from any of the five sources for lists of same=20
located at UP YOURS CONGRESS!
http://freedomlaw.com/upyours.html   =20

I am sure that Lis-LEAFers will place this message next to the one
about the raid just made in LA on author Lynne Meredith.
SRJ]

**********************************************
>Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 10:05:16 -0700
>To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
>      [e-mail],=20
        [e-mail]
>From: Richard Bachert <[e-mail]>
>Subject: IRS Arming for WAR???
>
>Gentlemen, =20
>It has come to my attention that IRS agents have been instructed to arm
>themselves with semi-automtic weapons and that the IRS is contracted=20
with several vendors to obtain various specialized weapons and covert
>surveillance materials.
>
>Please see:
>http://www.treas.gov/sba/irssic.html
>
>For example, Remington Model 11-87 Shotguns (a $200,000 contract) are a
>special model made exclusively for the IRS, holding 8 cartridges=20
instead of
>the normal legal limit of 3.
>
>This page also documents contracts for equipment and services such as:
>
>* Clock/Radio Audio Video Transmitters; $200,000; General Microwave
>Service, Inc.
>* Semi-automatic Handguns; $1,000,000; Sigarms, Inc.
>* Subminiature Audio Recorders & Playback Units; $1,000,000; Nagra USA *
>Purchase and Support of Data Encryption Radios; $50,000,000;=20
Motorola, Inc.
>
>Why does Congress allow the IRS to arm so many of its agents so heavily
>against American citizens? Is it really necessary for the IRS to spy on
>American citizens? Is this part of the IRS reform legislation that was
>recently passed to make the IRS more responsive to taxpayers?
>
>Also, this listing of current IRS contracts is posted under the SBA=20
(Office
>of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization) section of the=20
Treasury's
>website. This implies to me that huge corporations such as Motorola,
>Unisys, AT&T, Pacific Bell, and Remington are being treated as small=20
and
>disadvantaged businesses. Is this correct? If so, why?
>
>And you can solve these IRS related problems and the increasing=20
pressure to
>squeeze Americans -- and their freedoms -- by moving to the National=20
Retail
>Sales Tax! Instead of attempting to intimidate and strong arm Americans=20=

with
>intrusive and abusive tactics -- all of which increase the growing gap
>between citizens and "their" (allegedly) government),  those 110,000=20
IRS
>employees could get REAL jobs.  Guarding our southern border springs =
to=20
mind. =20
>
>"Those who prevent PEACEFUL CHANGE invite violent revolution." =20
>
>Your words, Newt, during a recent speech!
>
>I will appreciate your inquiry into these matters as my U.S.=20
Representative.
>
>Sincerely,
>Dick Bachhert
>4053 Glen Meadow Dr.
>Norcross, GA 30092 (IN THE HEART OF THE 6TH DISTRICT)
>770-449-6690

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

EXISTING CONTRACTS
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE=20
National Office:=20
Jodie Paustian or Michelle James=20
[phone]

Northeast Region:=20
Deborah Paulin-Foster [phone]

Southeast Region:=20
Peggie Lynch [phone]

Midstates Region:=20
Marguerite Overs [phone]

Western Region:=20
Jim Gensler [phone]

Martinsburg Computing Center:=20
Linda Miller [phone]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,=20
this material is distributed without profit to those who have=20
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information=20
            for research and educational purposes.

         Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum=20
                   http://freedomlaw.com=20
promotes "action that raises the cost of State violence=20
for its perpetrators . . . lay(ing) the basis for institutional=20
                   change." [Noam Chomsky] =20

Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and Sovereign Law Library
             http://drtavel.com/selfhelp.htm
Not a high-tech law firm brochure, because  "a lawyer is=20
only as smart as you make him" [Max Katz]  and "the Law=20
. . . should be accessible to every man and at all times." =20
                              [Franz Kafka]

                For Liberty in Our Lifetime,=20
R.J. Tavel, JD, Tavel & Stewart, Public Interest Law Firm,=20
   Bringing you "a whole new boutique of wonderful First=20
   Amendment litigation."  http://freedomlaw.com/T&S/ =20


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Janalee on ACLU
Date: 20 Jul 1998 18:44:00 -0700


Forwarded by permission

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

Chauna,

I've been working with the ACLU for about a year now since the Waco: Terms
of Engagement movie. You can thank Jim Dexter for that connection. He
told the ACLU about me and since then we've been working very hard to come
together. I invited Carol Gnade, Exec. Director ACLU, to come and she
did. They are also supporting me in my SLAPP Suit. Carol has even been
shooting and has invited me to write a column about guns for their
newsletter. They also featured my friend and I on the front page of their
newsletter re: freedom of speech--getting more coverage than the
gay/straight alliance and Wendy Weaver. I'm pretty excited about this!
Thanks again to Jim Dexter for setting this up!

P.S.: If you can believe it, Rocky Anderson, who received an "F" rating
from the NRA, and who I campaigned against is my attorney--representing
me pro bono. He's probably spent $30,000 worth of free legal time on this
SLAPP Suit case. I literally owe him my life and my house right now. He
is changing his views on gun control. He is beginning to understand that
if he thinks people who are in power abuse it now...what about if we
didn't have guns?

Regards.

Janalee

----------
> From: Chauna Pierce <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Tom & Ruth Charges Dismissed
> Date: Saturday, July 18, 1998 6:26 AM

> I heard about the case being dismissed on KSL coming home from work.
> They had an interview with an ACLU atty. about the case. Were Draschil
> and Robinson represented by the ACLU? That will surprise a lot of persons
> in this valley. They would never believe the ACLU would defend "right
> wing extremists" such as these. I hope they sue the pants off the County
> GOP. They did say a law suit was being filed to do so.
> Chauna

> > Jim Kirkwood called me this PM to announce that the judge dismissed all
> > charges against Tom Draschil and Ruth Robinson. With any luck, a lawsuit
> > against the RP of SL County is in the works.

> > Then there's the alleged fight between Chris Cannon and Merrill Cook
> > (Congressional Sumos!) on the floor of the House.

> > The elephants are crumbling. :-)



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The M-16 in Viet Nam, Part II
Date: 20 Jul 1998 18:44:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Hi people -

For those of you that enjoyed reading Dick Culver's Part I about the
problems of the Matty Mattel Mouse Gun in Viet Nam, Part II is now on his
website.  It covers more of the technical reasons for the failures,
and it's another excellent read.

http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html

- Monte

                 Let the sea roar and its fulness,
               The world and those who dwell in it.
                 Let the rivers clap their hands;
      Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord.
               For He is coming to judge the earth;
            He will judge the world with righteousness,
                   And the peoples with equity.
                           - Psalm 98


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: COPS MAY HAVE HAD RIGHT TO SHOOT
Date: 20 Jul 1998 18:44:00 -0700


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

Newshawk: Tammera Halphen ([e-mail])
Pubdate: Fri. July 17, 1998
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Contact: [e-mail]
Website: http://www.chron.com/
Author: Rad Sallee and Jo Ann Zuniga

COPS MAY HAVE HAD RIGHT TO SHOOT

DA speaks about deadly home raid

Harris County District Attorney John B. Holmes Jr. said Thursday that
the six Houston police officers involved in a Sunday raid in which a man
was killed could have been within their rights to shoot him -- even if
they had no right to be in his home.

"I don't know of any authority at this point that gave them the right to
be in that residence," Holmes said. "But that doesn't make the shooting a
crime."

The six suspended officers, assigned to the gang task force at the
Southwest patrol division, reportedly fired about 30 shots after breaking
into Pedro Oregon Navarro's apartment at 6711 Atwell at 1:30 a.m. Sunday
in southwest Houston.

Relatives of Oregon, 23, who died from multiple bullet wounds, have
retained attorney Paul Nugent to investigate his death.

Nugent said family members told him that even after Oregon was shot,
the officers tried to bully them into saying he had been dealing drugs.
He said they had denied it.

Police acknowledged that no drugs were found in the apartment.

"Pedro was a father, soccer player and landscape worker," Nugent said.
"What we have here is a good kid from a good family."

Holmes said that because the law does not allow anyone to resist an
arrest, even an illegal one, officers had a right to use deadly force
against Oregon if he threatened them. A pistol was found at the scene,
but police have not yet said if it had been fired.

"They do not have to sit still for a citizen pointing a firearm at them,
even if they entered unlawfully," Holmes said.

"They were -- every one of them -- in uniform," he said. "There should
not be any reasonable idea in your mind that you are being the victim
of a kick burglary."

Investigators removed pieces of carpet to be tested to determine whether
bullets had struck the floor where Oregon's body lay.

"If they continued to fire when there was no need, it would be murder,"
Holmes said.

Holmes said Texas law at one time had recognized a person's right to
resist an unlawful arrest. But since the mid-1970s, the law had required
that everyone submit to arrest, even in their homes.

The only exception, Holmes said, is the right to defend yourself against
unreasonable force, such as being beaten.

Holmes said his investigation is continuing, along with those of the
Police Department's homicide and internal affairs divisions.

Holmes said the pistol had been traced to its initial purchaser, whom he
would not identify, except to say it was not Oregon.

"Further investigation has to be done," Holmes said. He said there is
no reason to think it was placed at the scene by police to justify the
shooting.

While the incident is being investigated, six of the nine officers
present at the incident have been suspended with pay: Lamont E. Tillery,
30, David R. Barrera, 28, Pete A. Herrada, 28, David Perkins, 30, James
R. Willis, 28, and Sgt. Darrell H. Strouse, 34.

A bullet fired by another officer hit Tillery in the shoulder, but his
safety vest prevented serious injury.

The officers, who had no search or arrest warrant, have told
investigators they raided the place after a confidential informant told
them he had witnessed a drug transaction there.

A source told the Chronicle that the tipster was not registered with
HPD, as is required of all police informants. Holmes said the tipster
had just been arrested and was trying to "make a deal" with officers.

Holmes said that violates the policy of his office, and any such deal
would not be honored by prosecutors and would not stand up in court.

Even if a reliable informant had seen drugs sold in the house, Holmes
said, officers would have to get a warrant from a judge before breaking
in.

Although there are some circumstances that justify warrantless entry --
hot pursuit, for instance -- Holmes said he knows of none that applies
in this case.

"There are damn few exceptions to searching someone's private
residence," he said.

"If the informant got in and was wired (with a recording device) and
the officers heard someone say `I'm gonna blow you away,' then they
could go in," Holmes said.

Oregon's mother, Claudia Navarro, and his sister, Susana, identified
his body Thursday at the Harris County Medical Examiner's office. It
will be on view at Claire Brothers Funeral Home and buried after a
Sunday service at St. Matthews Episcopal Church.

"It's been a disaster," Claudia Navarro said at the southwest apartment
where the raid took place. Oregon's blood stained the gray blanket in
his bedroom.

Nugent, sweeping his hand across the small living room, said, "Does this
look like the apartment of a drug dealer?"

Nugent said the family contacted his firm -- Foreman, DeGeurin, Gerger &
Nugent -- "because they were being besieged by police."

He added, "They thought they were being treated unfairly and were being
bullied," he said.

He conceded that Oregon may have had the weapon, for self-protection.

"But there is nothing wrong in having a gun in your home. There is a
legal process in America even for police officers. You don't just barge
in and start shooting people," Nugent said.

Six bullet holes are readily visible in Oregon's bedroom wall. The
bullets apparently entered the next-door apartment's bedroom, which
happened to be vacant.

"He had been working all week in Austin on a landscaping job and had
just come in on Friday. He was planning to attend a soccer game on
Sunday," Nugent said after speaking to Oregon's co-workers at Ryan
Landscaping.

Also in the apartment at the time of the raid, were Oregon's brother,
Rogelio, and a brother-in-law, Nugent said.

Mexican Consul General Manuel Perez Cardenas said he has discussed
the shooting with Police Chief C.O. Bradford because the family is
from Mexico. Perez said he is satisfied that the investigation will
be thorough.

Perez said his government probably will send a "diplomatic note" to
U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., noting the Mexican government's
interest in the case.

"In this type of incident, there are two sides," Cardenas said: "The
human, or family, side, and the legal -- not political -- legal, side."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gerald Doyle, a prosecutor in the Civil Rights
section, said the Department of Justice is not investigating the matter.

"Our normal practice is to monitor the state investigation civil rights,
if the state is proceeding -- and they are," said Doyle. "Based upon the
results of their investigation we will either proceed on our own, or
rely on what the state does."

Chronicle reporter S.K. Bardwell contributed to this story.



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: slick's gotta HATE this!
Date: 21 Jul 1998 08:26:21 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:58:24 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA21689; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:47:36 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA20833; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 03:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma020626; Tue Jul 21 03:51:37 1998
Message-Id: <v01530504b1d98ad6e536@[206.163.5.151]>
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>
>More guns -- legally -- in pockets, purses
>KRISTEN EVERETT
>ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
>
>
> Arkansas now has 16,564 people with licenses to carry
> concealed handguns.
> The greatest number -- 12,612 (76.1 percent) -- are issued
> to white men. However, they make up only 40 percent of the
> state population over the eligible age of 21.
> The second-largest group -- white women -- holds 3,132
> licenses (18.9 percent). White women constitute 44.7 percent
> of the eligible population.
> And licensees have mushroomed. About six months after
> Arkansas' concealed-handgun licensing law went into effect in
> July 1995, about 5,200 people had concealed-handgun
> licenses, 639 of them women and about 4,560 of them men.
> As of June 10, 3,257 women had licenses and 13,307 men
> had them.
> In the view of the Arkansas State Police, which issues the
> licenses under Act 419 of 1995, the growing number of
> people carrying concealed weapons should send a signal to
> criminals.
> "If I were a criminal, I'd be more careful, I know that," said
> Sgt. Larry H. Gentry, state police administrator for
> concealed-handgun licensing program.
> Others with licenses include 631 black men (3.8 percent)
> and less than 1 percent for other categories -- 111 black
> women, 14 other women, 64 other men.
> Overall, 80.3 percent of license holders are men and 19.7
> percent are women.
> The growing number of concealed-handgun licenses
> coincides with a decline in U.S. handgun production, a
> decrease in gun-related homicides and -- with more
> government regulation -- a drop in the number of gun dealers:
> In 1993, there were 2.2 million handguns manufactured in
> America. In 1996, there were 985,000 made.
> Five years ago, gun homicides hit an all-time annual high
> in the United States -- 18,334. In 1995, the most recent year
> for available data, there were 15,835 gun homicides -- the
> lowest this decade.
> Five years ago, there were 260,000 federally licensed gun
> dealers in the United States. Today, there are 106,000.
> To get an Arkansas concealed-handgun license, an
> applicant must be at least 21 years old and an Arkansas
> resident.
> State police check for criminal history statewide and
> nationwide and do a fingerprint check. In Arkansas, a person
> can be turned down for anything questionable in his
> background -- from a mental health problem to a
> drunken-driving conviction.
> A license applicant also must complete a class on laws and
> safety given by either the state police or the National Rifle
> Association. An applicant also must qualify on a shooting
> range.
> The mandatory classes, however, differ in approach,
> length and teaching methods -- and that raises a debate over
> whether the training is adequate.
> The Arkansas State Police class is five hours in the
> classroom and then time on the shooting range. The NRA
> class is about 15 hours over two days and emphasizes gun
> use for personal protection.
> Gary Lawrence, head of the NRA personal protection
> safety course in Arkansas, is approved to teach both classes
> but said he chooses not to teach the state police class.
> "If you've never been involved with handguns, I don't think
> that short five-hour course is adequate," he said.
> Another area instructor agreed. "The five-hour class is not
> really adequate if you've never fired a gun. You're putting the
> burden on an instructor if he has 10 people in the class. ...
> You're saying to the others, 'Now bear with me,' '' said Gary
> McWhorter, a retired firearms instructor for the FBI who is
> certified to teach both types of classes.
> "We do spend time with each individual on the range, and
> by the time the class is over, they are at least familiar with a
> weapon," he said.
> The state police offer their class as an alternative to an
> outright endorsement of the NRA, according to state police
> Capt. Bill Young.
> McWhorter said there just isn't the demand for the NRA
> class.
> "We offer the NRA class, but we don't get many
> participants. If you can pay $75 and only take up one day
> instead of two ..." he said, comparing the two courses.
> There are 350 certified instructors in Arkansas in either in
> the NRA or state police instruction. Instructors must pass a
> background check and take a written exam on laws, rules and
> procedures.
> But regardless of the class, Arkansas is rated below
> average by Handgun Control Inc. the nation's largest
> handgun-control lobby, based in Washington, D.C. The
> group rated all the states on their regulation of concealed
> weapons.
> Handgun Control gave Arkansas a C minus on an A-to-F
> scale. Reasons cited for the low rating were the lack of
> discretional authority by law enforcement officials in issuing
> licenses, and inadequate safety-training and background
> checks.
> Vermont received an F because it allows anyone to carry a
> concealed weapon without a criminal background check or
> safety training, the group said.
> The seven states with A ratings from Handgun Control,
> which led the push to get approval of the federal Brady Law
> with its five-day waiting period on purchases, do not allow
> concealed weapons.
> On Nov. 30, 1998, the last part of the Brady Bill will take
> effect, creating a national, instant criminal background check
> system for all firearms sales. This would eliminate the
> five-day waiting period for a handgun, but authorities could
> issue a three-day hold to get more information.
> In the past year, state police have turned down about 100
> applications, Gentry said. The police agency also has
> revoked about 10 instructors' licenses for such reasons as
> criminal offenses and misdemeanor probation violations and
> other reasons related to improper handling of weapons.
> McWhorter stresses that an instructor carries a lot of
> responsibility, since the instructor plays a key role in deciding
> whether a person can safely carry a concealed handgun.
> "We hold the paperwork until they complete the range
> work. If they don't shoot well enough, we have them shoot
> more," McWhorter said.
> Charlie Johnson, who moved to Little Rock from Texas
> last fall, was selling one of his weapons at the Blue Bead Gun
> Shop on University Avenue in Little Rock so he could get his
> wife a handgun.
> He was surprised Arkansas State Police classes did not
> require applicants to take a written test on the use of deadly
> force and on laws.
> "When you come out of there [Texas' class], you feel
> good about the people who were carrying guns," he said.
> Preston Buchner, co-owner of the Blue Bead who teaches
> state police classes, compared the classes.
> "There's more of a personal protection element in the NRA
> class than handling a gun. There's no more training on how to
> handle a gun. It's more how not to become a victim,"
> Buchner said. "I would recommend the NRA class for people
> who want more than the law explained to them and going over
> the gun information."
> Buchner said one way to ensure that all students are as able
> and ready to shoot as possible would be to require more than
> one test.
> "If anything, I think there should be requalifications
> required or maybe even an independent qualification where
> you say, go to the state police and shoot in front of someone
> other than your instructor," he said.
> "I don't think either class is complete preparation. Things
> are a bit different when the target is shooting back at you, and
> there's little you can do in a classroom to prepare for that
> situation," Buchner said.
> One Arkansas woman who took the NRA class said she
> believes women need more time in classes to become familiar
> with guns.
> "A lot of that stems from that women don't have as much
> knowledge [of guns] as men do. I just think men are around
> them more when they're taught how to hunt and shoot at a
> young age," said Phyllis Beck, 44, of North Little Rock. "We
> hardly ever come in contact with [guns]."
> Beck took the class in 1995 to learn to use her Smith &
> Wesson .38-caliber special.
> "I walked away confident on how to disarm it the proper
> way. I've never had to use the gun and I hope I never do, but
> I would not be afraid to use it," she said.
> Beck also does fingerprinting for some classes in Arkansas
> but is not affiliated with the NRA or state police.
> "I have seen some women in the classes literally afraid to
> touch the gun."
> Brian Simons, 26, who studies criminal justice at the
> University of Arkansas at Little Rock, said he chose to take
> the NRA class this year because it is a national organization.
> "It was very informative. It's a more in-depth course. I was
> familiar with guns before the class. If somebody is not
> familiar with guns, I highly recommend the NRA personal
> protection course," he said.
> Two Arkansas laws specify how licenses are granted and
> where handguns can be carried. Concealed guns are
> prohibited in any establishment where alcoholic beverages is
> consumed or sold. Violators can be charged with a
> misdemeanor and fined -- and action can be taken against the
> establishment's alcoholic-beverage license.
> Ken Holt, Arkansas assistant attorney general, said the
> laws, though worded differently, both can be enforced by
> enforcement officers.
> The Alcoholic Beverage Control Division bases its
> enforcement on both laws, according to beverage control
> staff attorney Milton Lueken.
> "The license holder can be fined or jailed if they know or
> have reason to know a weapon is there where alcohol is sold
> or consumed," he said.
> It would be up to police to take action against the
> weapon-carrier, he said.
> UALR student Simons, who works at Shooters Gallery
> Pistol Range in North Little Rock, said guns are part of many
> Arkansans' lifestyles and are much more than instruments of
> harm and crime.
> "It's truly a variety of people that carry weapons -- all ages,
> ethnic groups. It's not always necessarily for self-defense but
> some just enjoy the sport," he said. "The simple fact is that
> the police can't be everywhere at the same time."




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: U.N. Establishes War-Crimes Court
Date: 21 Jul 1998 08:39:39 -0600

Received: from mail.interjetnet.net
    ([208.231.136.27])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:45:45 -0600
Received: from default (ppp091.interjetnet.net [208.236.167.91])
          by mail.interjetnet.net (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP
      id VAA00486; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:39:50 -0600
Message-ID: <001e01bdb45a$27090200$5ba7ecd0@default>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1E4A925F.C3A2CE2D"

--=_1E4A925F.C3A2CE2D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Grrrreat!


Please Read this, it is very scary, especially the part about Forced =
Pregnancy !!!!!

                              Saturday, July 18, 1998=20

  U.N. Establishes War-Crimes Court
                                                                =20

  =20
          BY CRAIG TURNER
          LOS ANGELES TIMES=20

             =20
             =20
              ROME -- A U.N. conference on Friday approved by overwhelming
          vote -- and over American objections -- a long-sought treaty
creating a
          permanent international criminal court to punish those who =
commit
          genocide, war crimes, torture and other atrocities.=20
              Only six other nations joined the United States in opposing
the court,
          which 120 countries endorsed. Joining the United States in =
denouncing
          treaty provisos were nations like Libya, Algeria, China, Qatar =
and
          Yemen. Most Western and emerging democracies, America's =
traditional
          allies and three of the other four permanent members of the U.N.
          Security Council -- Britain, France and Russia -- voted for the
court and
          rejected the U.S. position; 21 nations abstained.=20
              Approval of the treaty, which still must be signed and
formally ratified
          by at least 60 countries before it takes force, a process that
could take
          years, was hailed by most delegates here and by human-rights
advocates.
          They saw it as a bold experiment in reaching across national
boundaries
          to bring to justice those who commit the world's worst abominatio=
ns.=20
              But David Scheffer, the chief U.S. representative here, =
warned
          conference delegates that they were creating a court that would =
be
          ``strong on paper but weak in reality.'' He said the United =
States
would
          not recognize the court's jurisdiction or authority in many =
cases.=20
              Scheffer also suggested the court treaty overreached =
existing
          international law, threatened to undermine the U.N. Security =
Council's
          responsibility to maintain international peace and grants too =
much
power
          to its prosecutor.=20
              Washington has not decided if it will try to block the court
by lobbying
          around the world against treaty ratification. A senior U.S.
official said
          American experts must review the tribunal's potential effect on
American
          troop commitments overseas.=20
              The American objections reflect concern that the treaty =
could
expose
          U.S. military personnel to politically motivated charges.=20
              When the American defeat was announced, the conference of
          diplomats became more akin to a rock concert as delegates and
          onlookers erupted into loud, rhythmic applause. During the =
cacophony,
          the American delegates sat silently, looking grim and stunned.
Countries
          that ratify the accord would agree to prosecute their citizens
guilty of war
          crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity under their own =
laws
or to
          surrender them to the international tribunal for trial.=20
              The international court, to be located in The Hague, =
Netherlands,
          would have 18 judges, a prosecutor's office and an administrator.=

          Funding would come from parties to the treaty and in some cases =
from
          the U.N. budget. Investigations leading to prosecutions could be
initiated
          by signatory nations, the U.N. Security Council or independently
by the
          prosecutor, subject to review by a pretrial panel of judges. =
Violence
          against women, including rape, sexual slavery, enforced
prostitution and
          forced pregnancy, has been codified as a war crime for the first
time.=20
              The maximum sentence facing defendants would be life
imprisonment.=20
             =20
             =20

          =20



--=_1E4A925F.C3A2CE2D
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Part.001"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Part.001"
Content-Description: HPGL Graphic
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--=_1E4A925F.C3A2CE2D--

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: VPC: Giant Assault Weapon Loophole
Date: 22 Jul 1998 07:48:00 -0700


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

Source: US Newswire
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0721-123.txt

VPC Releases Gun Industry Ads Exposing Assault Weapon Loophole
U.S. Newswire
21 Jul 16:06

VPC Releases Gun Industry Ads Exposing Giant Assault Weapon Loophole
Contact: Bill McGeveran of the Violence Policy Center, 202-822-8200, ext. 105

WASHINGTON, July 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Violence Policy Center
(VPC) today released a package of gun industry advertisements showing
how high-capacity magazines -- which were outlawed under the 1994
assault weapons ban -- are still being sold legally because of a
loophole in the law. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced
that she will offer an amendment on the Senate floor Wednesday to
close the loophole.

The ads expose 10 of the numerous companies that still sell
high-capacity "killer clips" by taking advantage of the 1994 law's
"grandfather clause," which allows the sale of millions of magazines
made before the ban took effect. These magazines are compatible with
many semiautomatic firearms designed both before and after 1994,
allowing them to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading.

"This grandfather clause is a high-capacity loophole," said VPC
Director of Federal Policy Kristen Rand. "Just put an old magazine on
a new gun and -- voila! -- you beat the ban. You can have an assault
weapon that is very lethal, but perfectly legal."

One company has even taken the sale of killer clips a step
further, the VPC ads demonstrate. Intratec, which once made the
banned TEC-9 assault pistol, now sells a very similar weapon called
the AB-10. The new gun is constructed with grandfathered TEC-9
magazines that can fire 32 shots without reloading.

Feinstein's amendment, which she plans to offer to the
Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill, would close the killer
clip loophole by amending the assault weapons ban to prohibit the
transfer or sale of grandfathered magazines.

------
Journalists who would like copies of the advertisements can call
Bill McGeveran at 202-822-8200, ext. 105, or Carolyn Puglia at
202-822-8200, ext. 106.

------
The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit educational
organization that examines the role of firearms in America, conducts
research on firearms violence, and works to decrease firearm-related
death and injury.

-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
07/21 16:06

Copyright 1998, U.S. Newswire
-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
-----------------------

******************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
[e-mail]
with the message:
(un)subscribe ignition-point email@address
******************************************
www.telepath.com/believer
******************************************




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: YOUR RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE
Date: 22 Jul 1998 07:48:00 -0700


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

Why do I feel like I'm posting something seditious?
Seems weird to have Supreme Court citations that back
our natural rights and common sense.

IANAL, but these seem very logical to me. -E.W.

YOUR RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE

"Citizens may resist UNLAWFUL arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary." PLUMMER V. STATE, 136 Ind. 306. This premise
was upheld by the SUPREME COURT of the United States in the case:

JOHN BAD ELK V. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer
is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an
attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes
upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest,
from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the
first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the
facts might show that no offense had been committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit,
or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who
is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting
officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no
more than an involuntary manslaughter." HOUSH V. PEOPLE, 75 111. 491;
reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason,
32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P.
2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force,
and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his
assailant is killed, he is justiciable." RUNYAN v. STATE, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1. "These principles apply as well to an
officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and
transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and
violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such
force and violence." JONES v. STATE, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State,
4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

Citizen Dei Gratia Sovereign Citizen Resource Center




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Long John Silver's Update
Date: 23 Jul 1998 11:47:57 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:15:38 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA23940; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:04:50 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA28351; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma028174; Thu Jul 23 12:10:40 1998
Message-Id: <A23F70F99FF9D011816A00805F196139018D23EC@ccl_exchange.carnival.com>
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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I received the following Email from Long John Silver's.  Either they
were spooked by my Email, a mass of Emails, I'm getting the bedbug
letter, or this is an honest reply from Long John Silver's.

If anyone lives in or around the Franklin, PA area, or will soon be
passing through, please check in with the Long John Silver's to see that
the offending sticker has been or will be removed.

Ken Grubb
Miami, FL

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    [e-mail] [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    Thursday, July 23, 1998 8:49 AM
> To:    [e-mail]
> Cc:    [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject:    Firearms
>=20
> Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments via our web
> site. At
> one time, Long John Silver's updated a sticker regarding security,
> fire,
> burglary and cash deposits and included a statement about concealed
> weapons. The concealed weapons statement was included without proper
> corporate authorization and subsequently we removed it from our
> policies
> and instructed our managers to replace the sticker with a new one.
> Perhaps
> our manager in Franklin did not follow our instruction. We have no
> such
> policy regarding concealed weapons and rely upon local laws to govern
> this
> issue. By copy of this email, I will instruct our management team to
> comply
> with our corporate direction, i.e. local laws govern the issue of
> concealed
> weapons. Again, thanks for your concern and consideration.
>=20


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Militia, is it the National Guard?
Date: 23 Jul 1998 13:15:32 -0600

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_AAFE25CB.ED8CE00C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


pa-rkba-digest        Thursday, July 23 1998        Volume 01 : Number =
1146






> From:     William M. Shadle[SMTP:[e-mail]]=20
> >ASBURY PARK PRESS Tuesday 7/21/98
> >'Militia' means National Guard
> >It never ceases to amaze me just how ignorant most of us are when it
> comes to
> >the U.S. Constitution, in general, and the Bill of Rights,=20
>=20
    I also sent a letter this morning.  I hope they get deluged with
similar letters.

    John Masly

> **********************************************************************
>=20
>=20
> To Whom it May Concern:  I offer the following response for
> publication.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> 23 July 1998
>=20
> It's too bad that Wm. C. Heyer ("Militia means National Guard", Asbury
> Park Press, 21 July 1998) slept through whatever history or civics
> classes he had in school, otherwise he might have learned something of
> real value.
>=20
> True, the state's National Guard are 'militia', but they are only a
> part of what the government defines as 'militia'.  According to 10 USC
> 311 (this is LAW, Mr. Heyer, not opinion), ALL males between the ages
> of 17 and 45 are part of the unorganized 'militia'; the state's
> National Guards are a subset of this population, called the 'organized
> militia'.=20
>=20
Then, after engaging in some childish name calling, Mr. Heyer wishes we
could 'dig up' the Founding fathers to find out what they really meant
by the Second Amendment.  Well, since we won't benefit from disinterring
their bodies, let us disinter what they wrote on the subject.

     "Arms in the hands of the Citizens may be used at individual
discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or
private self defense." - John Adams

     "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep
and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

     "Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves
and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee

     "The great object is that every man be armed.  Everyone who is able
may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

     "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the
sword, because the whole of the people are armed.." - Noah Webster

And finally, a somewhat long passage from THE Father of the country,

    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.
They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under
independence...From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day,
events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security
and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.  Every
corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent
of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands.
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
influence.  They deserve a place of honor with all that's good.  When
firearms go, all goes.  We need them every hour." - George Washington
(Address to the 2nd session of the First US Congress)


    I could go on in this manner for quite some time, but now is the
time for action on your part, Mr. Heyer.  Push yourself away from your
TV, where the media talking heads spoon feed you misinformation in neat
little sound bites, get some books, and actually learn the history of
your country and it's government.  I would suggest you start by reading
the Constitution itself, then The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist
Papers.

    But, since this course of action requires personal effort and
cognitive abilities, it is not likely to happen, is it?

John Masly
LTC EN USAR (Ret)
Saylorsburg, PA

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

======================================================================
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear
arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of
Citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not
be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message
to [e-mail] with the words:
unsubscribe pa-rkba in the body of the message.
H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the =
message as this is an
unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved***



Bill,

By an amazing coincedence, I just finished transcribing the statements
relative to the militia, standing army and right to keep and bear arms
from the states' ratification conventions.

Here's what I have (did you get your info from the two volume set
entitled "The Debate on the Constition" as well?):

Ratification of the Constituion by the Convention of the State of New
York=20
(adopted Fed 6 - Aug 2, 1788)

    That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well
regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
    That the militia should not be subject to martial law except in =
time of
war, rebellion or insurrection.
    That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, =
and
ought not be be kept up, except in cases of neccessity, and that at all
times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil
power.

New Hampshire
June 21, 1788

    That no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless =
with
the consent of three-quarters of the members of each branch of Congress
- -- nor shall soldiers in time of peace be quartered upon private houses,
without the consent of the owners.
    Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or =
have
been in actual rebellion.

Maryland
April 28, 1788

That no standing army shall  be kept up in time of peace, unless with
the consent of three-quarters of the members of each branch of Congress;
nor shall soldiers in time of peace be quartered upon private houses,
without the consent of the owners.
    Militia not to be subject to the rules of Congress, nor marched =
out of
the state, without consent of the legislature of such state.

South Carolina
May 23, 1788

    That the people have a right to keep and bear arms: that a well
regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is
the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state.  That standing
armies in time of peace are dangerous to libery, and therefore ought to
be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community
will admit; and that in all cases, the miltary should be under strict
subordination to and governed by the civil power.

North Carolina
August 2, 1788

    That the people have a right to keep and bear arms: that a well
regulated militia conposed of the bedy of the people trained to arms, is
the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state.  That standing
armies in time of peace are dangerous to libery, and therefore ought to
be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community
will admit; and that in all cases, the miltary  should be under strict
subordination to and governed by the civil power.


--=_AAFE25CB.ED8CE00C
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:17:55 -0600
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id MAA24068; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:07:06 -0600
Received: (qmail 32333 invoked by uid 516); 23 Jul 1998 18:16:44 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


pa-rkba-digest        Thursday, July 23 1998        Volume 01 : Number =
1146






> From:     William M. Shadle[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> >ASBURY PARK PRESS Tuesday 7/21/98
> >'Militia' means National Guard
> >It never ceases to amaze me just how ignorant most of us are when it
> comes to
> >the U.S. Constitution, in general, and the Bill of Rights,=20
>=20
    I also sent a letter this morning.  I hope they get deluged with
similar letters.

    John Masly

> **********************************************************************
>=20
>=20
> To Whom it May Concern:  I offer the following response for
> publication.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> 23 July 1998
>=20
> It's too bad that Wm. C. Heyer ("Militia means National Guard", Asbury
> Park Press, 21 July 1998) slept through whatever history or civics
> classes he had in school, otherwise he might have learned something of
> real value.
>=20
> True, the state's National Guard are 'militia', but they are only a
> part of what the government defines as 'militia'.  According to 10 USC
> 311 (this is LAW, Mr. Heyer, not opinion), ALL males between the ages
> of 17 and 45 are part of the unorganized 'militia'; the state's
> National Guards are a subset of this population, called the 'organized
> militia'.=20
>=20
Then, after engaging in some childish name calling, Mr. Heyer wishes we
could 'dig up' the Founding fathers to find out what they really meant
by the Second Amendment.  Well, since we won't benefit from disinterring
their bodies, let us disinter what they wrote on the subject.

     "Arms in the hands of the Citizens may be used at individual
discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or
private self defense." - John Adams

     "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep
and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

     "Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves
and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee

     "The great object is that every man be armed.  Everyone who is able
may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

     "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the
sword, because the whole of the people are armed.." - Noah Webster

And finally, a somewhat long passage from THE Father of the country,

    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.
They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under
independence...From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day,
events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security
and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.  Every
corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent
of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands.
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
influence.  They deserve a place of honor with all that's good.  When
firearms go, all goes.  We need them every hour." - George Washington
(Address to the 2nd session of the First US Congress)


    I could go on in this manner for quite some time, but now is the
time for action on your part, Mr. Heyer.  Push yourself away from your
TV, where the media talking heads spoon feed you misinformation in neat
little sound bites, get some books, and actually learn the history of
your country and it's government.  I would suggest you start by reading
the Constitution itself, then The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist
Papers.

    But, since this course of action requires personal effort and
cognitive abilities, it is not likely to happen, is it?

John Masly
LTC EN USAR (Ret)
Saylorsburg, PA

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

======================================================================
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear
arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of
Citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not
be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message
to [e-mail] with the words:
unsubscribe pa-rkba in the body of the message.
H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the =
message as this is an
unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved***



Bill,

By an amazing coincedence, I just finished transcribing the statements
relative to the militia, standing army and right to keep and bear arms
from the states' ratification conventions.

Here's what I have (did you get your info from the two volume set
entitled "The Debate on the Constition" as well?):

Ratification of the Constituion by the Convention of the State of New
York=20
(adopted Fed 6 - Aug 2, 1788)

    That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well
regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
    That the militia should not be subject to martial law except in =
time of
war, rebellion or insurrection.
    That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, =
and
ought not be be kept up, except in cases of neccessity, and that at all
times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil
power.

New Hampshire
June 21, 1788

    That no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless =
with
the consent of three-quarters of the members of each branch of Congress
- -- nor shall soldiers in time of peace be quartered upon private houses,
without the consent of the owners.
    Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or =
have
been in actual rebellion.

Maryland
April 28, 1788

That no standing army shall  be kept up in time of peace, unless with
the consent of three-quarters of the members of each branch of Congress;
nor shall soldiers in time of peace be quartered upon private houses,
without the consent of the owners.
    Militia not to be subject to the rules of Congress, nor marched =
out of
the state, without consent of the legislature of such state.

South Carolina
May 23, 1788

    That the people have a right to keep and bear arms: that a well
regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is
the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state.  That standing
armies in time of peace are dangerous to libery, and therefore ought to
be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community
will admit; and that in all cases, the miltary should be under strict
subordination to and governed by the civil power.

North Carolina
August 2, 1788

    That the people have a right to keep and bear arms: that a well
regulated militia conposed of the bedy of the people trained to arms, is
the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state.  That standing
armies in time of peace are dangerous to libery, and therefore ought to
be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community
will admit; and that in all cases, the miltary  should be under strict
subordination to and governed by the civil power.

- -Dave
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/

William M. Shadle wrote:
>=20
> >ASBURY PARK PRESS Tuesday 7/21/98
> >
> >'Militia' means National Guard
> >
> >It never ceases to amaze me just how ignorant most of us are when it =
comes to
> >the U.S. Constitution, in general, and the Bill of Rights,
>=20
> The following letter was sent this morning:
>=20
> **********************************************************************
>=20
> Dear Editor:
>=20
> Mr. Heyer, in his July 21 letter decries our ignorance of the Constitutio=
n
> and Bill of Rights.  He wishes we could "dig up" James Madison to ask =
him
> what he and the other founding fathers had in mind when creating the =
Bill
> of Rights.
>=20
> We don't need to "dig up" anyone.  All Mr. Heyer needs to do is "dig up"
> the reference books that already record the words of our founding =
fathers.
>=20
> During the ratification debate in Pennsylvania, and prior to the =
inclusion
> of the Bill of Rights, Robert  Whitehill offers the amendment, "That the
> people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their
> own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game;"
>=20
> The ratification by New York recommended inclusion of the provision, =
"That
> the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated
> militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is =
the
> proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state."
>=20
> Maryland's ratification resolution recommended, "Congress shall never
> disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."=

>=20
> Both Virginia's and North Carolina's resolutions stated, "That the =
people
> have a right to keep and bear arms:"
>=20
> James Madison himself criticized "the several kingdoms of Europe" where
> "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
>=20
> George Mason, the 'father of the Bill of Rights' was quoted as saying "I
> ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few
> public officials."
>=20
> None other than George Washington stated "[f]irearms are second only to =
the
> Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth."
>=20
> Thomas Jefferson, a towering figure in American history said "[n]o free =
man
> shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the =
people
> to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to =
protect
> themselves against tyranny in government."
>=20
> And that fiery orator, Patrick Henry shouted "[a]re we at last brought =
to
> such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with
> arms for our defense?   Where is the difference between having our arms =
in
> possession and under our direction, and having them under the management =
of
> Congress? If our
> defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they =
be
> trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own =
hands?"
>=20
> By asserting that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution refers =
only
> to the states' right to organize a militia, Mr. Heyer shows anyone =
familiar
> with history that he has not so much as cracked the spine of a history
> textbook.
>=20
> The only merit in his letter is when he states, "I have the feeling that
> what they wrought, and what most of us take for granted, are not the =
same
> thing."
> Oh how true.
>=20
> Sincerely,
>=20
> Bill Shadle
> Myerstown, PA

======================================================================
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear
arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of
Citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not
be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message
to [e-mail] with the words:
unsubscribe pa-rkba in the body of the message.
H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the =
message as this is an
unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved***



This unscientific poll is less horrendous than the rest.  But at this
early hour it appears that anti-gunners are getting spanked.  RV

http://www.openpoll.com/cgi/openpoll.pl?poll=3D0216&results=3Don

                                 07/23/98

    There were 98 respondents.

    Description=20

Question 1=20

The United States Senate just defeated a bill that would have required
handguns to be equipped with trigger locks. Do [you] support the idea of
requiring trigger locks on all handguns manufactured in the U.S.?=20

        Definitely Agree:           2%=20
        Probably of Agree:          0%=20
        Not Sure:                   1%=20
        Probably of Disagree:       2%=20
        Definitely Disagree:       95%

[my 2 cents:]

"A system of licensing and registration, is the perfect device to deny
gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." --V.I. Lenin=20

"Then Jesus said to them...the one who has no sword must sell his cloak
and buy one." -- Luke 22:35-38=20

Jesus wanted his disciples to be armed. Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol
Pot, Mussolini and others of their kind (such as in Red China, Rwanda
and Algeria) hated guns. Tyrants and criminals prefer unarmed victims.=20

This translates into hundreds slaughtered at Tianemin [phonetic] by a
government who had ALL the guns, thousands in Algeria and Rwanda have
had their throats slit or hacked to death because the people had NO
guns.=20
POINT: the Attackers were safe.=20

The Turks slaughtered about 1.5 Armenians, and Pol Pot about the same
number of Cambodians. American Indians were at a decided disadvantage
when only the cowboys and cavalry had guns. The Germans, 11 million,
Soviets at least 68 million and the same for the Red Chinese. Do
you start to see a trend? Does the author of this poll and others like
it realize that none of this is ancient history?

Have you pollsters looked into the historical after effects of banning
guns from the law-abiding, assuming the "law" comports to the=20
Constitution? I don't think we are getting through to you. I don't think
you have read any history, ancient or recent. Nor have you paid
attention
to the sharp declines in violent crime ACROSS THE BOARD wherever
Right-to-Carry reform has been enacted. Nor have you paid attention to
the glaring fact that of the top six murder capitals of the United
States, FIVE ALL HAVE HAD LONG-STANDING GUN BANS (NYC, DC, LA, Chicago &
Baltimore).

Congratulations. That effect may not be what you intended, but anyone
with common sense could have figured that out thousands of murders,
rapes and violent assaults ago. There is stupidity. And criminal
stupidity. If
you want to make society safer - keep arms in the hands of the citizen,
and let criminals and government fear them -- not the other way around.

======================================================================
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear
arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of
Citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not
be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message
to [e-mail] with the words:
unsubscribe pa-rkba in the body of the message.
H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the =
message as this is an
unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved***



On 23 Jul 98 at 10:20, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>=20
wrote:

> Is there a realistic chance the "smart gun" law will get anywhere in PA?

    Lord, I hope not.  The State Police don't want it, so that's a
BIG nail in the coffin, but we have to make sure that the idiots from =
the=20
cities don't amend the bill to make an exception just for them, then =
shove=20
it down the rest of our throats.

> that would be ironic with Metaksa campaigning for Ridge so hard.

    Wouldn't it, though?  Note that the first warning about this came
from GOA, not NRA-ILA.  I don't recall seeing a peep about it from ILA=20
within the last couple of days.

Regards,
Chris BeHanna
NJ-RKBA List Administrator                PGP 2.6.1 public key available
[e-mail]
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen.       http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna=

Lon Horiuchi, give yourself up!     Gun control is the rapist's greatest =
ally

                              GUNS SAVE LIVES

======================================================================
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear
arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of
Citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not
be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message
to [e-mail] with the words:
unsubscribe pa-rkba in the body of the message.
H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the =
message as this is an
unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved***



In a message dated 7/23/98 4:30:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, PUBLIUS69@aol.=
com
writes:

> BELOW IS AN ALERT CONCERNING "SMART GUNS" IN PA!  THIS IS THE SAME=20
> LEGISLATION
>  RECENTLY INTRODUCED IN NEW JERSEY BY SENATORS CODEY AND PALAIA FOR HCI, =
AND
>  KILLED BY CNJS!  DOES ANYONE KNOW, PRAY TELL, WHICH GUN MAKER IS =
WORKING ON
>  SUCH A GUN THAT WOULD BE LEGAL UNDER SUCH LEGISLATION?
> =20
Colts.

Look at the crap written by Mr. Stewart, Colts' owner.  I won't repeat the
stuff about the political campaigns to which he contributes.

Ward W. Fetrow, III

======================================================================
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear
arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of
Citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not
be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message
to [e-mail] with the words:
unsubscribe pa-rkba in the body of the message.
H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the =
message as this is an
unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved***



>By an amazing coincedence, I just finished transcribing the statements
>relative to the militia, standing army and right to keep and bear arms
>from the states' ratification conventions.
>
>Here's what I have (did you get your info from the two volume set
>entitled "The Debate on the Constition" as well?):


Yep...  The best money I ever spent.  Just wish it were available on =
CD/ROM
and fully searchable.  The index is good, but takes a while to pull
references.  I missed a couple you included in your list.


Bill Shadle
Myerstown, PA

"I fear for my country when I reflect that God is just."  T. Jefferson

======================================================================
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear
arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of
Citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not
be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message
to [e-mail] with the words:
unsubscribe pa-rkba in the body of the message.
H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the =
message as this is an
unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved***



William M. Shadle wrote:
>=20
> >By an amazing coincedence, I just finished transcribing the statements
> >relative to the militia, standing army and right to keep and bear arms
> >from the states' ratification conventions.
> >
> >Here's what I have (did you get your info from the two volume set
> >entitled "The Debate on the Constition" as well?):
>=20
> Yep...  The best money I ever spent. =20

Me, too (except for my $89 SKS).

>Just wish it were available on CD/ROM
> and fully searchable. =20

I absolutely agree.  Man, it would be great to be able to do a key word
search through that bad boy.  That would save tons of time. =20

> The index is good, but takes a while to pull
> references.  I missed a couple you included in your list.

http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/

======================================================================
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear
arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of
Citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not
be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message
to [e-mail] with the words:
unsubscribe pa-rkba in the body of the message.
H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the =
message as this is an
unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved***


End of pa-rkba-digest V1 #1146
******************************



--=_AAFE25CB.ED8CE00C--

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Gun poll
Date: 23 Jul 1998 13:16:04 -0600



This unscientific poll is less horrendous than the rest.  But at this
early hour it appears that anti-gunners are getting spanked.  RV

http://www.openpoll.com/cgi/openpoll.pl?poll=3D0216&results=3Don=20

                                 07/23/98

    There were 98 respondents.

    Description=20

Question 1=20

The United States Senate just defeated a bill that would have required
handguns to be equipped with trigger locks. Do [you] support the idea of
requiring trigger locks on all handguns manufactured in the U.S.?=20

        Definitely Agree:           2%=20
        Probably of Agree:          0%=20
        Not Sure:                   1%=20
        Probably of Disagree:       2%=20
        Definitely Disagree:       95%

[my 2 cents:]

"A system of licensing and registration, is the perfect device to deny
gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." --V.I. Lenin=20

"Then Jesus said to them...the one who has no sword must sell his cloak
and buy one." -- Luke 22:35-38=20

Jesus wanted his disciples to be armed. Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol
Pot, Mussolini and others of their kind (such as in Red China, Rwanda
and Algeria) hated guns. Tyrants and criminals prefer unarmed victims.=20

This translates into hundreds slaughtered at Tianemin [phonetic] by a
government who had ALL the guns, thousands in Algeria and Rwanda have
had their throats slit or hacked to death because the people had NO
guns.=20
POINT: the Attackers were safe.=20

The Turks slaughtered about 1.5 Armenians, and Pol Pot about the same
number of Cambodians. American Indians were at a decided disadvantage
when only the cowboys and cavalry had guns. The Germans, 11 million,
Soviets at least 68 million and the same for the Red Chinese. Do
you start to see a trend? Does the author of this poll and others like
it realize that none of this is ancient history?

Have you pollsters looked into the historical after effects of banning
guns from the law-abiding, assuming the "law" comports to the=20
Constitution? I don't think we are getting through to you. I don't think
you have read any history, ancient or recent. Nor have you paid
attention
to the sharp declines in violent crime ACROSS THE BOARD wherever
Right-to-Carry reform has been enacted. Nor have you paid attention to
the glaring fact that of the top six murder capitals of the United
States, FIVE ALL HAVE HAD LONG-STANDING GUN BANS (NYC, DC, LA, Chicago &
Baltimore).

Congratulations. That effect may not be what you intended, but anyone
with common sense could have figured that out thousands of murders,
rapes and violent assaults ago. There is stupidity. And criminal
stupidity. If
you want to make society safer - keep arms in the hands of the citizen,
and let criminals and government fear them -- not the other way around.

======================================================================
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear
arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of
Citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not
be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message
to [e-mail] with the words:
unsubscribe pa-rkba in the body of the message.
H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the =
message as this is an
unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved***






-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Welcome once again!
Date: 23 Jul 1998 14:38:15 -0600

Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com
    ([206.53.160.3])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:19:07 -0600
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10213;
    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:20:00 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from arl-img-9.compuserve.com (arl-img-9.compuserve.com [149.174.217.139])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10209
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:19:58 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
    by arl-img-9.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.12) id QAA02667
    for [e-mail]; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 16:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Did not know if you were aware that the Durbin Amendment  (S. Amdt. 3260)
to the State-Justice-Commerce Appropriations bill (S. 2260) was defeated
yesterday by a vote of 69 - 31 (Vote Number 224).  This is the amendment
that would have made the victim of a burglery, when the item stolen was a
firearm, criminally liable.

Instead, Senator Craig's amendment (S. Amdt. 3261) was approved on a voice
vote.  This amendment expands the test program to combat youth crime that
NRA President Charlton Heston proposed and was later agreed to by the City
of Philadelphia.

Add these victories to the repeal of the Gun Tax and insuring the FBI
destroys all records of gun sales associated with the National Instant
Check System (NICS) and we can celebrate what has been a great week for =
gun
owners.  But, we must keep up the presure to make sure our victories (
removal of the gun tax, and immediate distruction of records relating to
the NICS) are not removed when the bill goes to conference.


David Adams
NRA-ILA EVC Virginia 7th District
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Member
[e-mail]
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/

****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


-



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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: New AZ Proposed Non-Resident Permit Regulations
Date: 23 Jul 1998 17:41:33 EDT

Contact Governor Jane Hull

The Governor's office is located in the
Executive Tower at 1700 W. Washington in Phoenix.

The full mailing address is:

The Honorable Jane Hull
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]

Click here to send E-mail to Governor Hull.
[e-mail]

Due to the research required to answer your e-mail, please include your full
name and regular mailing address, and a reply will be sent to you by regular
mail

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

Here is my letter to Gov. Hull. Please feel free to write to her and pick
parts of my letter as a starting point. All that I ask is that it not be
copied and used as a form letter. That will only minimize the value of each
letter. I sent mine via both e-mail and fax.

It is important that we all write to the AZ Gov. ASAP so that these regs do
not get put into place. These regs will make it all, but impossible for most
nonresidents to get AZ CCW permits until after we get back from AZ.

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

Dear Gov. Hull,

I want to thank you for signing the bill that reforms the AZ Concealed Weapons
Law to allow nonresidents to obtain permits and for reciprocity of permits.

A new issue has now come up regarding that law.

It appears that in the new DPS regulations, they will be prohibiting the
mandated training from being conducted by nonresidents or from being conducted
outside of AZ.

I fully understand the DPS reasoning for this. They are understaffed (and
underpaid) and overworked. They lack the resources to monitor the existing
training programs to the degree that they feel that is necessary. They have a
desire to maintain the highest degree of integrity in the firearms training
program and believe that they will have even less control over programs
conducted out of state. Again, this is a legitimate concern. The DPS personnel
are of the highest integrity and are pure of heart in their motivations. As a
fellow police officer (I speak only for myself here and not in any official
capacity), I truly empathize with them.

However, the effect of this proposed implementing regulations is to almost
nullify the law as passed by the legislature and signed by you. I believe that
the unintended consequences are that the clear legislative intent is
subverted.

The only people who will be able to get AZ Concealed Weapons Permits will be
those who live near enough to AZ to travel there to receive the mandated
training. For those folks who live great distances, it makes no sense to
travel to AZ on a business trip or vacation and then to extend one's trip to
take the DPS certified training program. What sense does it make to receive
the AZ permit in the mail several months after visiting AZ? Clearly, a visitor
wants to obtain a permit before coming to AZ. Under the proposed rules that
cannot happen.

There is also an economic effect upon AZ. The State will lose out on the
direct revenues that would be paid to it by nonresident applicants for
instructor certifications and permits. Another economic effect is the indirect
loss of tax revenue to the State from all of those people who do not visit
your state because they traveled to another state, such as UT, that did not
discourage them from protecting themselves. There has been a campaign in both
the firearms and police communities to "vacation where you can carry." These
proposed regulations will not get AZ off of the "no-go" list for most people.

It may be argued that many people will be allowed to carry in AZ under the
reciprocity provision in the law. If history is any indicator, this will not
be the case. Other states with almost identical legislative language as yours
took years to establish any reciprocity at all. The discretionary nature
inherent in the subjective legal language "substantially similar" is all to
often interpreted as "identical or more restrictive." Additionally,
reciprocity takes time to implement and requires that it be a two-way street.
In the real world, this is one limitation, compounding another limitation,
compounded by another limitation. This is not a blanket recognition of out of
state permits and licenses as we do with driver licenses (and many states do
with Concealed Weapons Permits).

Other states, including your neighboring State of Utah, have no geographical
limitations on where the mandated firearms training occurs. There is no ill
effect. The standards that an instructor has to meet in order to be certified
are already high enough to meet the legitimate interests of the people of AZ.

Additionally, if DPS is not currently staffed adequately to monitor the
existing AZ firearms instructors, what difference does it then make if they
certify out-of-state firearms training? There will be no difference. Why then
make the regulation at all? Why then deny the AZ Treasury the added revenues
provided by many nonresident applicants when this revenue can then be used to
fund additional DPS jobs? Perhaps this revenue can then fund DPS so that they
can provide increased supervision over the firearms training program.

Nonresidents are the best permit holders. They provide the same per capita
revenue to the state, yet require less per capita expenditure of state
resources. Don't take my word for it. Just ask the FL Secretary of State (the
issuing authority for FL Concealed Weapons Licenses).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Godspeed,

J. R. Lynch

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: You Have the Right!
Date: 23 Jul 1998 18:27:54 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:45:08 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA24314; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:34:18 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA04640; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma004515; Thu Jul 23 19:42:12 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

When confronted by a criminal, you're back on U.S. frontier

By Charley Reese
Commentary=20

Published in The Orlando Sentinel, July 19, 1998=20

The easiest way to resolve, in your own mind, the gun-control debate is to
take this little test.=20

1. Do you believe that you have a right to live?=20

2. Do you believe that your spouse and children have a right to live?=20

3. If someone is threatening to kill you and your family, do you think
that you have a right to defend yourself?=20

That's the objective, yes-or-no part of the quiz. Now here is one final
essay question:=20

How will you defend yourself and your family if you are confronted by an
armed intruder or intruders?=20

You could call 911 unless, as often happens these days, the intruders have
taken the trouble to cut your telephone wires before they kick your door
down.  But if you did get the call off, you still have a problem:=20

The intruders are there in your house, and the police aren't.=20

The sad fact is that, because of logistics, police can't protect you. In
more than 99 percent of the cases, by the time the police even get called
-- and certainly by the time they arrive -- the crime has already been
committed.=20

The hard truth is that, when you are confronted by a criminal, you're in
the same situation today you would have been in if you had lived alone on
an isolated ranch on the American frontier. There's nobody at the dance =
but
you and the criminal. You have to fight. You win, you live; you lose, you
die.  Simple as that. No alternative unless you want to depend on your
begging and some thug's mercy. But in serious encounters, by the time the
cavalry gets there, there will be dead and wounded lying around. The
question you have to answer is: Do you want to be among the dead or among
the living?=20

Now you may suppose that you are a glib talker and when some crack-crazed
thug sticks a gun in your face, you can reason with him. That's a very
far-fetchedsupposition.  I would bet on the thug.  Any honest street cop
will tell you that the predators roaming today are far more dangerous than
even mob hit men of the past. The hit men would never kill without a
reason.  Today's thugs kill on a whim for no rational reason at all. And
many of them will kill everyone there, including babies and children.=20

The neo-totalitarians -- sometimes known as the gun-control crowd -- will
repeat the big lie that a gun kept for self-protection is more likely to
injure you or your family than a criminal. The flawed study that is based
on as discredited years ago.=20

If you take a gun to a gunfight, you may not win; if you don't, you will
surely lose. Credible studies by respected scholars with no bias show what
common sense tells you -- that thousands of Americans every day save
themselves from criminal harm by using a firearm, most of the time without
having to shoot.=20

To me, there is no more outrageous insult or bigger example of stupidity
than a government that is such a gross failure at preventing criminal,
armed attacks on the population that it would take the position that the
answer is to disarm the future victims. I take it as a given that any
politician who proposes to deny honest people the means to defend their
lives and the lives of their children is too evil or too stupid to =
tolerate
in public office.=20

Some guy once wrote that a characteristic of Southerners is that they take
things personally. I know that's true in my case. When I hear some
politician talk gun control, I think, ``You (expletive deleted), you're
endangering my children.''=20

You have a right to own a firearm. Don't let anyone take that right away
from you. Use it.





-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: July 24 column - White House bunker
Date: 24 Jul 1998 11:14:41 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:53:28 -0600
Received: from ez0.ezlink.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id VAA24469; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:42:32 -0600
Received: (from list@localhost)
    by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA00213;
    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:52:52 -0600
Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:52:52 -0600
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <v02130500b1ddb1c1c01b@[192.9.150.95]>
Resent-Message-ID: <"TtpUB.0.D1.LJ0kr"@ez0.ezlink.com>
Resent-From: [e-mail]
X-Mailing-List: <[e-mail]> archive/latest/522
X-Loop: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 29, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Defending the bunker

    President Clinton's spin team has spent most of the past year
whimpering that Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's probe of White House
wrongdoing has cost too much and gone on too long.

  As usual, truthseekers should pay close attention to the proverbial "dog
that doesn't bark." First, the president's apologists refrain from =
actually
contending he's innocent, preferring to concentrate on procedural smoke
grenades. Second, they neglect to mention that if the president really
wanted to save everyone time and money, he could simply stroll down to Mr.
Starr's office at 9 a.m. any weekday, volunteering to tell the whole truth
under oath, from his late nights with Monica to the Chinese and Indonesian
campaign cash, and publicly asking or ordering everyone else to do the
same.

  End of impasse.

  The fellow can't be re-elected. If he has done nothing impeachable, why
not 'fess up to whatever he (start ital)has(end ital) done -- however
unseemly -- and let everyone move on?

  On the bright side, up till now the courts have been admirably firm in
rebuffing every new doctrine of secrecy and obfuscation this desperate
White House has dreamed up.

  Unfortunately, that appeared to change this week.

  Chief U.S.. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson has now apparently
agreed to allow lawyers for the president and for First Paramour Monica
Lewinsky to question members of Mr. Starr's prosecution team, probing
whether the prosecutors improperly leaked confidential grand jury
information to the press.

  Note again: if the truth tended to confirm the president's story, why
would anyone object to said truth being "leaked"? (No one has claimed the
prosecutors spread any (start ital)mis(end ital)-information.) If the
recollections of the Secret Service men tended to bear out the president's
innocence, why would the president's own champions bemoan the bodyguards
being called to testify "against" him?

  The new pro-Clinton magazine Brill's Content last month reported that =
Mr.
Starr had acknowledged he and his top deputy sometimes briefed selected
reporters to "correct misinformation." In response, Mr. Starr replied that
his office does not release grand jury material "directly or indirectly, =
on
the record or off the record."

  This is yet another fishing expedition to find out what prosecutors =
have,
to turn the tables, to delay, delay, delay.

  Imagine any other federal defendant whimpering that prosecutors were
"leaking" bad things about him. Prosecutors frequently call press
conferences to brag about having arrested dangerous militia zealots bent =
on
poisoning the populace, or "organized crime bosses" responsible for =
endless
catalogs of felonies ... long before the accused has any chance to present
a defense.

  In most such cases, private defendants plead out -- because legal fees
are bankrupting their families. So prosecutors -- the kind who answer to
Mr. Clinton and his assistant Miss Janet, She-Wolf of the ATF -- rarely
have to prove the truth of all their dramatic press conference rhetoric.
And even if they do get to court and it turns out half their TV scare
stories were hot air ... so what? It's "all in the performance of his
lawful duty," you see.

  Perhaps Judge Johnson wants to show she will bend over backward to be
fair to the White House. Fine. But would she prove equally willing to =
allow
attorneys for the Viper Militia, or the survivors of the Branch Davidian
massacre, to cross-examine federal agents and prosecutors under oath about
how their cases may have been prejudiced when (start ital)those(end ital)
agents lied on search warrant affidavits, or when (start ital)those(end
ital) prosecutors spun tall tails to the newshounds, alleging child abuse
and clandestine methamphetamine labs and bomb plots and cellars full of
heavy machine guns which the government was never able to demonstrate at
trial?

  No. Today's delicate objections are given credence only because the
suspect is the president.

  Mr. Clinton thus further squanders the prestige of his office to bring
about the very expense and delay that his Peanut Gallery pretend to abhor.
The current goal? Keep the balls in the air past the November elections, =
of
course.

  Siege warfare is seldom exciting, but its results are highly predictable.=

It is the defense which always retains the option of negotiating terms,
before every loyal defender is slaughtered, every battlement toppled.

  Compassionate leaders, after putting up enough resistance to satisfy
appearances, will often spare their followers such horrors.

  In this case, it begins to look like we face another one of those
characters who's willing to toss his own friends into the breach, one by
one, to buy first one more day, and then another ... till nothing remains
but the bullet and the bunker.


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."




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Hysteria, or reasoned response?
Date: 25 Jul 1998 20:41:00 -0700


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

Re: Why is the IRS arming?

URGENT ALERT FOR THOSE FEW WHO WANT TO SAVE FREEDOM!
REPOST FAR AND WIDE

Americans MUST be ALARMED on this ARMING of IRS AGENTS and
E.O. 13083 which will suspend the 10th Amendment, by August 13th 1998!
"THEN TERROR SHALL TRULY REIGN"

Let's look at some facts as to what has them doing these EVIL DEEDS!
I will touch upon the Lopez Decision (Gun Free School Zones) 26 April 95.
In an Unanimous Decision, "The Supreme Court decided that CONGRESS
VIOLATED the 10th Amendment by passing such legislation (GUN FREE
ZONES) and further the Commerce Clause that the so-called FEDERAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES used to justify their authority to operate,
in FACT did not afford them any authority to operate"!

SO! THIS OUTRAGEOUS GUN FREE ZONE LAW WAS SQUASHED!
Then SLICK WILLIE in grand fashion while debating with Dole, on national
TV kept stating the Gun Free School Zones are established to protect the
children, all the while knowing THE SUPREME COURT had threw out the
law as Un-Constitutional. I waited and watched to see what he and his
groupies would do! They changed a few words then attached it to another
bill, which made it THE LAW AGAIN!

Again more research has uncovered the fact, that a person can use DEADLY
FORCE upon any person to include LAW ENFORCEMENT personnel, who are
violating the person's Constitutional and or Civil Rights. Many Court
Cases bring this out in the open, (I posted these court decisions with
SAFAN last year, if I remember correctly)! Today you millions if not
billions of dollars spent to hunt down and kill (by suicide in many cases)
people who are alleged to have killed Law Enforcement personnel. Mind you
these people who are hunted down, are not given their day in court, you
must ask yourself why? With the expenditure of the vast amounts of our
tax dollars going to this endeavor, you hear your local law enforcement
complain they do not have the funds needed to take care of all the other
real problems. "I am amazed that the people are so dumbed down by this
fraud"! One thing though LAW ENFORCEMENT has achieved, is bestowing FEAR
and TERROR upon the people, with the people paying the bill!!!!!!!!
Not a bad deal for L.E.!

This document is not intended to condemn all LAW ENFORCEMENT, as there
are still some (few in numbers) who even know what the Constitution is,
and know the CRIME of CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD DESIGNED TO DO AWAY WITH This
Once Great Nation of America!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now to the issue of arming IRS AGENCY PERSONNEL. First off, my belief is
all people have the right to arm themselves for protection! An IRS AGENT
in the performance of their duties, in most cases VIOLATE Constitutional
and Civil law and rights of the people. Now the fact that a person can
use deadly force upon an AGENT violating their Constitutional and or Civil
Rights, shows the AGENT (BY CHOICE) has chosen an unhealthy type of work!
"THE IRS, SHOULD BE DISSOLVED"!!!

The CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER 13083 will REVOKE The 10th Amendment
of The U.S. Constitution on August 13th 1998. ARE YOU GETTING THIS?

"CONGRESS (which no longer represents the people) VIOLATED the 10th
Amendment by implementing GUN FREE ZONES, and the "Commerce Clause"
which FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT claim gives them the AUTHORITY to operate,
IN FACT DOES NOT"!!!!

"Now what are you America, going to do about it, or has THE NEW
SELF-PROCLAIMED GOD OF EARTH, CLINTON put you into TOTAL COWARDICE"
?????????????????????

ALL of you people collecting PENSIONS, COMPENSATION, or other types of
funding, better think of investing in TANGIBLE GOODS for barter. Stock
up on, food, medical supplies, fuel, a good weapon, ammunition, reloading
components, before it is too late! My belief is,

"THE PEOPLE WILL RISE TO THE OCCASION, AND TAKE BACK THE FREEDOMS
THAT HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED BY THOSE WHO OPPRESS"

Andrew Stephen Colesanti
A real man, an American and
National of The New Republic of Florida

Subj: CONNECT THE DOTS.....

CONNECT THE DOTS.........
One Message NEVER tells the entire story - just remember what you
read yesterday....and DO something about it!!!!



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Time resets "gun poll"
Date: 26 Jul 1998 07:54:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    L & J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Richard Biondi <[e-mail]>

Heads Up

A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia

July 26, 1998 #95

by: Doug Fiedor [e-mail]

Previous Editions at:
http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm
and
http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html

<huge snip>

Time reset the "gun poll" they have been running for the past month.
Apparently, they were unhappy with the real view of the American
public. So, let's give it to them again. Vote early and vote often.
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html
---
 ■ SPEED 2.00 [NR] ■


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FBI Turns in False Report of Terrorism
Date: 27 Jul 1998 11:50:47 -0600

Received: from vader.thnet.com
    ([206.98.115.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 04:19:26 -0600
Received: from bruce9.thnet.com (bruce9.thnet.com [206.98.115.109]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA13233; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 05:09:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Vigo Examiner
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

                   FBI Turns in False Report of Terrorism

by NATHAN ANDERSON
[e-mail]
The Vigo Examiner

     Charging Mark Koernke with urging his radio listeners during a July
2nd broadcast to shoot federal prosecutor Lloyd Meyer, the FBI arrested =
him
for "Terrorism."
     But when a tape of that program is replayed, Koernke is heard instead
saying of Lloyd Meyer simply "this is a guy we should remember."
     Bond was lowered from $500,000 to $100,000 after the prosecutor in =
the
case admitted he had used a false report of grenades in Koernke's
possession to gain the higher bond.
     Koernke was subsequently arraigned without his attorney, Mr. Vincent,
who had not been notified of the arraignment.
     The FBI has a policy of never admitting to an error. This came to
light after the FBI framed Richard Jewell in the Olympic Park bombing in
Atlanta. But as in that case, there are questions as to whether it was in
fact an error, or simply a deliberate false report.  When the FBI sent the
Hostage Rescue Team to kill the Weaver family in Idaho in 1993, they =
issued
several deliberately false stories describing the plywood shack as a
hardened bunker surrounded by mine fields.

http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com
                                TEXT VERSION


Enjoy a free 90 day trial subscription to The Vigo Examiner.
You will receive one to three of our top articles each day. =20
Send your subscription request, and all other
communication to [e-mail].


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Rambo Uber Alles?
Date: 27 Jul 1998 12:53:31 -0600

Received: from vader.thnet.com
    ([206.98.115.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 05:43:45 -0600
Received: from bruce18.thnet.com (bruce18.thnet.com [206.98.115.118]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA01982; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 06:32:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Vigo Examiner
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

GUEST EDITORIAL

                             Rambo Uber Alles?

by TINA TERRY
[e-mail]

We recently received a true gem of sinister absurdity (that's a wonderful
combo of adjectives and nouns, isn't it?) from a libertarian organization
called the Advocates for Self Government. Here's what we were informed. It
seems that Sylvester Stallone, a.k.a. Rambo, a.k.a. Rocky, the star of
numerous tough-guy, big/bare pectoral and large-caliber gun-laden movies,
has called loudly and earnestly for an immediate rescinding of the Second
Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and has further urged the federal
government to send its agents door-to-door throughout the land of the free
and the home of the brave, forcefully confiscating all handguns in =
America.

Sig Heil! Herr Rambo

Here's where it gets really good, folks. Advocates for Self Government
informs us that a gentleman named Jim Ray from Miami has sent them "the
rest of the story." According to Mr. Ray, it seems that Stallone is =
selling
his Miami residence. (He's taken up residence in Merry Olde England, you
know.) Mr. Ray is quoted as saying, " "The house he (Stallone) wants to
sell -and in which he just feted President Lippo last night at $500.00 a
plate to benefit the Democrats - in Miami has on its grounds -- you =
guessed
it -- a gun range. I hear it's a nice one, underground even.

"Add this to the always-bulging gun-hypocrisy files."

This story is so outrageously hypocritical that in a strange way it's
almost laughable. (So I'm weird. But I found myself snickering nastily =
when
I read it, as I realized that this is yet another example of the glaring
fact that neither mammoth wads o' cash nor a Hollywood image with
guaranteed national and international box-office cachet can buy
intelligence or integrity if one is lacking either or both.)

Oh Rocky, oh Rambo, oh slimy Sly - how forked is thy tongue?

I hereby call upon all red-blooded and freedom-loving Americans to BOYCOTT
Stallone, the treacherous socialist hypocrite, and all his works, to shun
anything to do with him, to call for a revocation of his American
citizenship, to condemn him to eternal exile from these hallowed shores,
and to tell him to keep his dyed hair, (hey, you think we didn't notice?)
his pumped-up, oily pecs and his goose-stepping, Gestapo ego in jolly old
England, where Her Majesty's bobbies have already gone door to door and
seized the guns, as per the urgings of Herr Stallone.

What a consummate commie creep! Too bad the custom of clapping people like
him into the stocks isn't in vogue anymore. My sole comfort (aside from =
the
fact that the First Amendment permits me to freely vilify and scorn Mr.
Rambo Mega-Weenie publicly like this) is that I am sure there must be a
special place reserved for him in hell, right next to his obvious idols,
Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Pol Pot and other "great leaders," all of
whom so efficiently and forcefully implemented upon their people his
repulsive and repressive disarmament scheme.

Copyright (C) 1998, Tina Terry

http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com
                                TEXT VERSION


Enjoy a free 90 day trial subscription to The Vigo Examiner.
You will receive one to three of our top articles each day. =20
Send your subscription request, and all other
communication to [e-mail].


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Interesting Questions......(fwd)
Date: 27 Jul 1998 23:00:00 -0700


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

IS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEHIND CAPITOL SHOOTING?
by James Kelley ([e-mail])

The curious thing is that these shots were allegedly fired *inside* the
Capitol. How the hell did this guy get in there with a gun? ALL Federal
office buildings have metal detectors and paranoid gung-ho gaurds who
are just aching to arrest a "gun-wielding maniac."

SO - why didn't they stop him?

We all know Congress exempts itself from any law they don't like, but
I hardly think they would exempt themselves from this one - after all,
this is just the sort of thing those metal detectors are supposed to
prevent, and Congress critters are notorious for cowardice.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

It is entirely plausible that this dude was *PROGRAMMED* to commit
this insane act, and for obvious reasons: what better way to convince
the American People that guns should be totally banned? What more
justification does Clinton need for his declaration of Martial Law?

Nobody could be persuaded to do something like this for any kind of
material reward: it would be obvious to anyone that he would be locked
up forever or executed. Instead, the guy would have to have been given
a post-hypnotic suggestion. This is well within the abilities of the
secret American government - CIA, NSA, etc.

Also, consider that the NSA has a history of placing their personnel in
positions where they pretend to be just regular employees and *not* NSA
agents. I refer to the Pueblo Incident, when North Korea captured the USS
Pueblo and imprisoned its crew. Several officers aboard were actually NSA
agents, and their job was to *ENSURE* the capture so a secret coding
device could also be captured. The NSA *wanted* the Soviets to get this
device, so messages could be sent which the USSR would be sure to intercept.
Thus the NSA could "dis-inform" the USSR about all sorts of things.

They're *sneaky* bastards - sneakiness is their specialty.

Could the NSA have replaced the Capitol guards with their own men and
instructed them to let this guy through?

Sounds plausible to me. LOTS of crazy things do, these days.

Please spread this around to your e-mail lists for discussion.

Sadly,

Jim Kelley

JIM - I was on CNN (most of the time) watching the story as it unfolded.
I put out a message with all that I had around 4 P.M. All they said that
there was shooting in the rotunda. I am amazed at the number of different
stories they put out and are actually continuing to put out on the various
aspects of this story. Makes you wonder if the media just makes things
up - or if they are being fed the stories from various PR people in the
government. Whichever it is - not much probably matches the REAL true
story. IMHO.
Dot Bibee.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Letter to Charley Reese on Gun Control 1/2
Date: 27 Jul 1998 23:00:00 -0700


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

Letter to Charley Reese on Gun Control
Orlando Sentinel
by Tina Terry (c) 1998

Dear Mr. Reese,

Using the miracle of e-mail, a friend of mine forwarded to me your excellent
column regarding our needing to resist the idiot and corrupt politicians who
are trying to disarm us, and to thus render us and our families completely
defenseless. I am in the unique position of having already lived through such
a government-instigated disarmament of the general public, and its subsequent,
disastrous consequences: From 1961 to 1977 my father (who is American, as
are my mother, sister and I) was stationed with his family and business in
Kingston, Jamaica. Around 1972, the political situation in Jamaica had so
seriously deteriorated that there were constant shootings and gun battles
throughout the city of Kingston, and many of the outlying parrishes (ie.,
counties.) Whereas in years past no one had even had to lock their doors,
now one hardly dared venture out of one's home, especially if one was white,
and even more especially if one was an American, for fear of being gunned
down. My father took his life into his hands every morning simply driving
to work. Going to the market or to do a simple errand was a terrifying
prospect. The bald hatred and hostility which we had directed at us seemed
ready at any time to explode into violence.

The Jamaican government decided that the only solution to this volatile
situation was to declare martial law overnight, and to demand that all guns
and bullets owned by anyone but the police be immediately (within 24 hours)
turned into the police; anyone caught with as little as one bullet would
then be immediately, and without trial, incarcerated in what was essentially
a barbed-wire enclosed concentration camp (they called it "the gun court")
which had been speedily erected in the middle of Kingston. My father and
all of our American, British and European friends, as well as middle class
Jamaicans of all colors, knew that we were sitting ducks for this kind of
draconian government punishment (we white Americans knew that we in
particular were mightily hated by the average Jamaican-in-the-street, due
to the relentless anti-American propaganda spewed forth by the at-that-time
Jamaican Prime Minister, Michael Manley, whose stated goal was to emulate
Fidel Castro of Cuba, our nearest neighbor.) So obviously we dutifully and
immediately disarmed ourselves, and handed our weapons in at the nearest
police station. It was either that or be sent straight to the gun court...
and even after we had disarmed ourselves we lived in deathly fear that the
cops, not known for their integrity, and well-known for their hatred of
whites and Americans, would see fit to plant a gun or bullet on our property.

So there we all were - government-disarmed, sitting-duck, law-abiding citizens
and expatriates. I'm sure you can guess what happened next: the rampant
carnage began in earnest. Robberies, kidnappings, murders, burglaries, rapes
- all committed by still-armed criminals, who were positively ecstatic that
the government had been so helpful in creating all these juicy and utterly
defenseless victims. You've heard the phrase, "When guns are outlawed only
outlaws will have guns." I can tell you, that's exactly how this government
disarmament worked. I was, at the time, away at boarding school in the United
States. However, I remember vividly coming home for the summer. I remember
the terror which constantly permeated our household, including the loyal
black servants who worked for and lived with us, and whom we took care of.
I remember lying awake in bed at night, clutching the handle of an ice-pick
I had put under my pillow, and listening to the screaming of car-loads of
Jamaican gangs going by our house, praying that they wouldn't pick our home
to plunder. The favorite tactic was for them to roar up to the house, pile
out, batter down the door and rape, steal, kill, kidnap... whatever they
felt like. They knew the inhabitants had been disarmed, and that they would
be met with only terror and helplessness. My pathetic ice-pick seemed
incredibly puny, but it was all I could think of.

My family lost eleven friends within the space of about a year, and it
is a miracle that we are all still alive. I am convinced that many of
the people we knew who were murdered, raped, kidnapped and robbed would
not have been victims had they not been disarmed by the government,
which, incidentally, had presented this whole disarmament program to us
as: "We're here to help you, and this is for your own good and safety."
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Effectively Disarming America
Date: 27 Jul 1998 23:00:00 -0700


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

This is a scary thought that I excerpted from a post to
misc.survivalism. along with my reply. -Ed

jed martin wrote:

[snip]

> also, the government doesn't have to go house to house to collect
> guns either. All they have to do is start a "guns for food" program,
> and they will probably get most of them, and a few more with the
> "snitch for food" program.

Well, you just ruined some of my peace of mind. ;)

I've always wondered how the government might think it could fully
suppress a country with approximately 100 million gun owners and God
knows how many guns and rifles.

You just answered that question.

Any situation that stops food distribution to the masses can be used to
easily implement a gov't feeding program, supposing our gov't has enough
food for all the survivors.

In order to sign up for the emergency ration program to feed your
starving children, the cost is to turn over all of your weapons so the
gov't can move forward with their efforts to stabilize the country and
be assured that [fill in the blank] doesn't happen again so that we can
solve this problem of gun violence once and for all.

I guess that would work to get a lot of the guns in this country out of
the hands of Joe Sixpack leaving only the most "extreme" of us left with
our arms.

Greatly improves the government's odds of winning a civil war type
scenario, doesn't it?

Once they've unarmed the masses, that will leave only those who were
prepared ahead of time to survive and those that have always known how
to provide for themselves.

Now, someone do me a favor and convince me that this isn't the plan.

Ed



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Letter to Charley Reese on Gun Control 2/2
Date: 27 Jul 1998 23:00:00 -0700


Because of this horrid and indelible experience, and of my interest in and
undying loyalty to the American Bill of Rights, I have made it my business
to study the history of the Second Amendment, and of related topics, such
as police responsibility to citizens. It is my belief that many people
believe that disarmament is no big deal, because it is the job of the
police to protect us. Besides the excellent points you drove home in your
commentary, the following facts are also important:

1. The police have no compelled legal duty to protect individual citizens,
and cannot be held responsible if they fail to do so. Even if one does get
through with one's 911 telephone call, if the police simply choose not to
show up, one has no legal recourse against the police. The courts have
repeatedly ruled on this. (See Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F 2d 616 (7th Cir.
1982) in which the court stated: "There is no constitutional right to be
protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It
is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such
predators but does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The
Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to
let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the
state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining
law and order." See also South v. Maryland, U.S. Supreme Court 1856.)

2. The police carry guns primarily to defend THEMSELVES, not to protect us.

3. Because of items 1 and 2 above, we should all consider the police to be,
essentially, historians, e.g. they show up AFTER the crime has been committed
and attempt to reconstruct and document the history of the crime. Then, if
history is satisfactorily re-constructed, the perpetrator is apprehended (if
he can be found) and then (perhaps) prosecuted. This does little good to those
who are dead or wounded as a result of actions of the perpetrator of the crime.

I also believe in putting my money where my mouth is. I am a supporting
member of Gun Owners of America, which provides an excellent e-mail and fax
alert concerning Second Amendment legislation (see www.gunowners.org) and I
also support what I believe to be the most impeccable research organization
concerning the Second Amendment: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership (JPFO.) JPFO also has a web site which I encourage you to visit:
 http//:www.JPFO.org. JPFO's exhaustive research has clearly shown that
government registration of guns and disarmament of its citizens is almost
always a precursor to genocide, and they cite case after case in which this
has happened around the world, including of course, Nazi Germany. Not only
Hitler, but also Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, and Pol Pot all disarmed their
populations before committing mass murders upon their own people. See the
JPFO book "Lethal Laws." JPFO has also done historical research which reveals
that the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law was the foundation for the wording of our own
American Gun Control Act of 1968, and have even reprinted both laws side by
side so that one can compare the eerie similarities in wording in their
book "Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny." They have further documented that
Connecticut Senator Thomas Dodd (the father of Senator Chris Dodd) who wrote
the American Gun Control Act, requested and obtained a translated copy of
the 1938 Nazi Weapons Act before he held hearings on bills "To Require the
Registration of Firearms," "To Disarm Lawless Persons" and "To Provide for
the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry," (all factors of the
1938 Nazi law) among others, before being instumental in helping to write
and pass the American Gun Control Act of 1968. Now that's really something
for us Americans to be proud of, isn't it?

Although there are many issues of concern in today's roiling political and
social stew, I believe that the issue of the preservation and restoration
of the Bill of Rights in general and of the Second Amendment in particular
is the most pivotal and basic issue to all Americans, even if they don't
yet know it. I hope that your efforts, mine, and the efforts of others
will help to wake people up before it's too late, and we lose the last
remaining shreds of that precious Bill which the Founding Fathers gave us
to shield ourselves against government tyranny. Anyone who thinks the Bill
of Rights is either "out of date," "hokey" or "needs revising" - all of
which I've heard from well-meaning but tragically ignorant and complacent
Americans - should try living in a country which doesn't have one. Been
there, done that, don't want to go through it ever again - especially not
in my own native nation. Today's government nanny has too often in history
turned into tomorrow's government despot.

Tina Terry
405-C South Beeline Highway
Payson, Arizona  85541
[e-mail]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: CNN GUN POLL --- GO VOTE:
Date: 28 Jul 1998 06:13:00 -0700


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

CNN GUN POLL --- GO VOTE:

http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html

Gun Poll Results                          COVER: Still
                                          Under the Gun
1. Do you own a gun?
                                          CHARLTON HESTON:
60.11%    Yes                             No More Mister
                                          Nice Guy
39.88%    No
                                          CONCEALED
2. Should the U.S. have stricter gun      WEAPONS:
control laws?                             Should You

 2.33%    Yes                             Carry a Gun?

51.87%    No                              LITIGATION:
                                          How to Take
3. Do you believe that allowing people    Guns to Court
to carry concealed weapons reduces
crime?                                    KIDS WHO KILL:
                                          When Boys Go Bad
94.98%    Yes

 5.01%    No
                                          TIME/YAHOO!
4. Do you believe that U.S. cities should CHAT:
sue gun manufacturers to recoup money     Talk with John
spent dealing with gun-related crime?     Lott, Jr.,
                                          author of More
                                          Guns, Less
 0.50%    Yes                             Crime, and a
                                          representative
99.49%    No                              from Handgun

5. How would you rate the effectiveness   Control, Inc.
of the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons Wed., July 1,
ban in preventing the illegal use and     8pm ET/5pm PT
distribution of guns?
                                          BULLETIN BOARD:
 0.14%    Very effective                  Whether pro-NRA,

 1.13%    Somewhat effective              pro-gun control,

 2.83%    Somewhat ineffective            or somewhere in

94.21%    Not at all effective            between, here's
                                          the place to
 1.67%    Don't know                      express yourself
                                          about the role of
                                          guns in America.
Total Votes Cast: 6175

Results updated every few seconds.
Posted: June 29, 1998

THE REASON FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS TO PROTECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

UNITED NATIONS GUN CONTROL
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/Firstcom/SGreport52/a52298.html
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/Firstcom/SGreport52/a52229.html
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/Firstcom/SGreport52/a52264.html



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: ALL MUST READ!!!!!!!
Date: 28 Jul 1998 07:58:00 -0700


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


THE VIGILANT EXPRESS complies with the First Amendment of the Constitution
of the united States of America and Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the
United States.

However, THE VIGILANT EXPRESS complies first with the Word of God and
bows before no one else except the almighty.
Rev. 1:3, 1 Peter 4, Deut 7, Isaiah 53:5, Ps.20:6, Mark 11:24, Lam. 3:22,
Rom. 1:18, Rom.14:23, Joshua 24:15

--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
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]

07/25/98
--------

D.C. Shooting - Worthless "Gun Control" laws FAIL AGAIN

by Richard Stevens
JPFO Firearms Sentinel Editor

Charging through a metal detector and shooting two Capitol
police officers, a killer invaded the Capitol building on Friday
afternoon, July 24, 1998, with apparent intent to harm a political
leader in the building. As the killer used a firearm to kill the
officers, we can expect renewed calls for more "gun control."
Defenders of the right to keep and bear arms must be ready.

This particular murderous attack teaches some valuable lessons.
First, the attack demonstrated that "gun control" laws do not
prevent crime. The attacker carried a concealed firearm in a
federal building in Washington, D.C. and later discharged it
there. He therefore violated several federal and local (D.C.)
firearms laws, as well as laws against assault, battery, and
homicide. The laws did not stop a determined killer.

Second, the attack showed how important it is to have an armed
defense against aggressors. The Capitol attacker was able to
kill and injure far fewer persons than did the young teenage
school boys in Jonesboro. What was the difference? The Capitol
attacker charged into a building where the defenders were armed.
The Jonesboro killers fired on unarmed and undefended victims.
Go to http://www.jpfo.org/gckids.htm
Go to http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm

After killing several persons and injuring dozens more, the
Jonesboro killers escaped without injury to themselves. The
Capitol attacker, however, was injured when one of his victims
(before dying) shot back. The Jonesboro school victims died
undefended. The Capitol attacker's intended victim (as yet
unknown), was defended and suffered no injury whatsoever.

Third, the Capitol attack proved again that the mere presence
of armed police and metal detectors will not deter some
aggressors. Some particularly dedicated, fanatical, or
psychotic killers will attack innocent people, regardless of
the risks of criminal prosecution or death. These killers can
only be stopped by superior force, and sometimes even the
police cannot deploy sufficient force to prevent all injuries
and deaths.

If police officers cannot guarantee protection even to
themselves in a well-defended Capitol building, then they
surely cannot guarantee protection to ordinary citizens in
ordinary homes. The police owe no legal duty to protect
individual citizens; their job is only to protect society
in general. If you face a threat of attack by a deranged
and murderous aggressor, then trading your gun for a
telephone to dial "9-1-1" is to surrender to the killer.
Go to http://www.jpfo.org/Dial911.htm

JPFO mourns the deaths of the two Capitol police officers
who died in the line of duty. They gave up their lives to
defend innocent people against a murderous attacker. No more
noble sacrifice of life is possible. JPFO offers its heartfelt
condolences to the families of those officers, who themselves
will suffer their personal loss forever.

Words and feelings cannot reverse the officers' families' pain
and suffering. The "gun control" lobby, however, will likely
use this incident to launch a campaign to disarm and thereby
leave completely defenseless other innocent persons. Don't allow
the gun prohibition rhetoric to go unchallenged -- answer the
newspaper editorials in your town, and call into talk shows.
You could save a life -- possibly your own.

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

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."
"If you don't support JPFO, then WHY support ANYONE?"
****************************************************************
Copyright (c) 1998, JPFO
Republication permitted provided this article & attribution
is left intact in its original state.
****************************************************************



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Capitol Shooter:Govt agent or lone nut? 1/2
Date: 28 Jul 1998 18:05:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 2:26 AM
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Crimmins, Ken; [e-mail]; Callendar,
Al; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

Once again the mountain of dead bodies around Clinton grows larger.
Can all of them possibly be the ridiculous array of suicides and
accidental deaths the mainstream media newsfakers and white house
spin doctors claim? Let's look at some known facts and wander into
some wild supposition. What is known:

1. Several times during the Clinton years, news stories appear at
   very convenient times. Unabomber was arrested within two hours of the
   news of Ron Brown plane crash. OKC bombing was 48 hours after a
   secret indictment of Hillary had been handed down. It disappeared.
   Clinton gets a subpoena on the lewinsky oral office scandal and
   the capitol gets shot up. The OKC bombing has been compared to the
   burning of the Reichstag. If the assassination of De Lay had been
   successful, it would have been compared to the assassination of
   Archduke Ferdinand. Coincidence? You tell me.

2. Always pay careful attention to the first 15 minutes of reportage
   while the announcers are caught off guard and are preening for a
   pulitzer. They at first said perimeter security for the capitol
   had completely broken down and armed men were running amok in the
   halls. Why was  sergeant giving press conferences when Capitol
   police lts and capts with scrambled eggs on their caps remained
   silent in the background? If this was a confirmed lone nut, why then
   did we see a cop motioning children to leave while he was hunkered
   down with pistol drawn behind a car?

3. Gun-grabbing U>S><Senator Carol Moseley-Braunn(D-IL)arrives in
   Chicago shortly after the carnage and immediately calls for the
   confiscation of all 65 million guns in America. Do you remember
   the shooting of school children in New Zealand and Scotland?
   Shortly afterwards all guns were banned. The shooters conveniently
   died before trained psychotherapist could examine them for mind
   control (MK ULTRA) drugs or level 5 zombie sonnambulist hypnotic
   programming. Sirhan and Hinckley are in this category.

4. The rest of the country wouldn't have seen this, but here on our
   local affiliates we captured live the arrival of DeLay at IAH
   under unprecedented security for a member of the US Congress.
   There were 12 armed HPD at the gate area in addition to IAH security.
   Another 50 in the gate area which was closed to anyone without a
   ticket. ALL PRESS CREDENTIALS were called in for verification.
   Delay was jittery like a marine grunt point man running through
   the A Shau valley.

   On DeLay's return flight, all passengers were triple ID checked
   and run through NCIC. All carry-on bags, purses and briefcases
   were hand searched. All checked bags were x-rayed and hand searched
   and bomb sniffing dogs were run through all areas of the plane.
   the yellow signs and lights were activated denoting "Maximum FAA
   security levels in effect. NASA chase planes with missile-jamming
   (Wild weasel) left Ellington AFB and escorted the plane on climbout
   (Remember TWA 800) and out of Texas Airspace. Similar planes from
   Andrews AFB escorted it in. De Lay and his family were removed
   at Reagan airport onto the runway and left in a white US govt
   van under heavy escort to an undisclosed location(Not his residence)
   Again if this was the act of a lone nut, why the security measures
   1600 miles away?

5. Questions people should be asking:

 a. The shooter (Weston) entered De Lay's office through an unmarked
    door. How did he know about it?

 b. What did De Lay have in his office somebody would want that bad
    to do all that killing? <some say it was evidence of both Bush
    and Clinton giving Red China all our nuclear secrets> Do you
    suppose De Lay has been sufficiently warned not to reveal
    whatever it was?

 c. Weston used his dad's .38 revolver to commit all this carnage.
    Witnesses heard 20 shots. What's wrong with this picture? Who
    were the other shooters? Can mortally wounded men reload 3
    times? If Weston wanted to do the job right he would at least
    have had a silencer. Notice no detailed maps of his route on TV.

 d. US Govt is quoted as saying he was on the Secret Service watch
    list for writing threatening letters to Clinton and Gore. Who
    do you know who has done this that is not now currently in jail?
    He is not in the NCIC data base as a convicted felon. Where are
    they getting this stuff? Making it up? What's the real agenda?
    Who's pulling the strings? How can Weston's bullets kill while
    the cops guns only wound? Dum-Dums? Cop-Killers? Special loads
    supplied by the CIA or FBI. Remember, he was after somebody who
    had to be dropped.

 e. Now for the really good stuff.

    i. My sources tell me that Weston was recruited by the FBI
       to go to Montana and infiltrate Militia Groups. He was
       allegedly trained for this work at a secret FBI facility
       at Crete, IL. The mainstream media reported that Weston
       visited Washington DC and put in job applications at several
       federal agencies including the CIA.

   ii. If let's say the CIA wanted a Lee Harvey Oswald style patsy
       who would they choose. Perhaps a slightly retarded loser
       and malcontent who could be easily duped into believing
       he was only participating in a "Test of Security" at the
       capitol. Was he a manchurian candidate? When he triggered
       the metal detector, could a microchip in his butt or neck
       been coded to set him off? <and miles to go before I sleep>

  iii. Was this a failed attempted coup d'etat of the Governmentt
       of the United States? Wouldn't De Lay been one of a list
       of top ten govt officials who would have to be killed or
       jailed. What did Admiral Boorda, CIA Director Colby and the
       generals and NSA officials killed in Alabama on a lear
       jet crash know about Clinton's deals with Red China? Why
       is the media saying it is Russia leaking nuclear secrets and
       equipment to India, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran when in fact it
       is from Israeli Nuclear Command at Dimona selling devices
       we gave them.

Like all the other deaths around Clinton, there are more questions than
answers. I encourage discourse on the matter. Prove to me why I am
wandering down too many blind alleys.

Joe L. Jordan
Executive Director
National Vietnam POW Strike Force
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Capitol Shooter:Govt agent or lone nut? 2/2
Date: 28 Jul 1998 18:05:00 -0700


Forward via: [e-mail]

"Americans have an automatic responsibility to rebel against authority
 when that authority is mindless."
 Newt Gingrich, 23 July 1998, at the Young America Foundation Conference

"The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the
values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the
same as those which they...have always held, but which were not properly
understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to
this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits
of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the
superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual
climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning
of the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed."
-- F. A. Hayek

"We have this day restored the Sovereign, to whom alone men ought
to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the rising to the
setting sun, may His Kingdom come!" Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776


LETTER

RE: Capital Shooting Coverage

On Saturday you ran two reports on the shooting in the Capital Building,
one by Maureen Sielaff, and one by Jordan Miranda. It is a little unusual
to see two reports on the same day on the same subject, but it was very
enlightening. Both your reporters were reporting from the same set of
known facts, and yet the two were miles apart.

For shear professionalism, Maureen Sielaff wins hands down. Her main
purpose was unquestionably to provide accurate information on what
happened. Mr. Miranda, on the other hand, was clearly more interested
in taking advantage of a tragic situation to push his desire for gun
confiscation, which is so typical of mainstream journalists anymore.

If he had taken the time to first get his facts straight, and Maureen did,
he might have been a little less transparent. Maureen reported one tourist
hit by stray bullets. Jordan reported several. The correct answer was one.
Technically, yes, the .38 revolver was an assault pistol, because any weapon
used for assault is an assault weapon. The smoothbore Brown Besses with an
effective range of less than 50 yards that the British used to assault the
patriot militia at Lexington were assault rifles, though they were not fully
automatic. The Kentucky Long Rifles the patriot militia used to effectively
kill the British from 200 yards back were not assault rifles, because they
were being used to DEFEND, not assault. So technically he was correct on
that one. But the use of emotionally hyped terms like that is not meant to
inform, but to propagandize, and it is becoming so painfully obvious that
one would thing they would be too embarrassed to do it.

From the quality of Maureen Sielaff's writing it is easy to see why her
article make your Top Stories more often. I particularly enjoyed her
recent series on the Nation of Islam, especially part 5, where she
brought it all together in a way I just had not considered before.

Maureen you should promote immediately. Jordan, who obviously hopes to
make the big time by impressing the "Fourth Estate" with his liberal
credentials, should spend a little more time serving as an apprentice
to one such as her. He's just not quite ready for prime time. Maybe
her professionalism will rub off on him.

Timothy Schwartz
Rockford, Illinois


[NOTE: There is an old admonition: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out
of the kitchen." Those who request their work be published in The Vigo
Examiner accept that there may be heat, and they cannot expect that their
readers will be censored to protect their feelings. ED]

http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com

If police officers cannot guarantee protection even to
themselves in a well-defended Capitol building, then they
surely cannot guarantee protection to ordinary citizens in
ordinary homes. The police owe no legal duty to protect
individual citizens; their job is only to protect society
in general. If you face a threat of attack by a deranged
and murderous aggressor, then trading your gun for a
telephone to dial "9-1-1" is to surrender to the killer.
Go to http://www.jpfo.org/Dial911.htm

Real-To: Norman Olson <[e-mail]>

Here's a question for anti-gun people:

"Would you be willing to put a sticker on your car window
or the front door of your house saying 'I am an anti-gun
person--there are no guns in this [car/house]'"

If they are so proud of being anti-gun, why not publicize
it on their property?

Kind Regards,

Norm Olson

[e-mail] Email list send Subscribe in Subject line:
http://www.esotericworldnews.com/apfncont.htm

APFN ONELIST: http://www.onelist/subscribe.cgi/apfn

The "PATRIOT NEWS HOUR" - Mon./Tues. 9:00 PM (CST)
Shortwave 5.085 - Satellite GALAXY 7, Tr. 14, Audio 7.72



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Two web sites (fwd)
Date: 29 Jul 1998 08:59:42 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 01:10:21 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id AAA28635; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:59:26 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA17327; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 03:08:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma017284; Wed Jul 29 03:07:03 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Jul 28, [e-mail] wrote:

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


Both sites are very interesting. THe first is the Australian site.

This site is excellent. It's also alarming as all get out.
Some of the proposals regarding "microdisarmament" being
pushed in the UN by the Japanese, Canadian and Australian
governments are "supported" by text from Australia.

Persons who have been participants on talk.politics.guns
will recognize some of the usual international suspects
referenced by the Aussie government, such as Martin Killias.

The Aussie shooting sports association web page is located at:

http://www.ssaa.org.au

I happened to reach it from the Illinois State Rifle Association's
Champaign branch web page, which is located at:

http://www.cahmbana.com/~CCG/

and which has some rather interesting documents and photographs from
the UN (read, NATO) mission in the Balkans.

There really, genuinely, is an organized group of people in the=20
United Nations who want to essentially ban all small arms, right
down to the .22 rabbit rifle on farms from New South Wales to=20
New Mexico to Wales. This isn't a "blak helikopters are massing
on Catalina island to invade Pasadena" rumor, it's rather "UN
bureaucrats from Japan, Canada, India and other countries are
diligently drawing up detailed plans to ban all fireams, for what
they see as the good of mankind"...and for political goals, as well.

By the way, one of the more interesting documents from the Balkans
concerns what the NATO folks consider appropriate small arms for
a police station:

One handgun per officer, and one shotgun for every ten officers. Period.

Anything more is "excess" and likely to be confiscated by the peace-
keeping forces. Folks on this list who are peace officers might want
to contemplate that; I don't see any backup pieces, for example, nor
does it necessarily follow that officer's families have any firearms
at all.=20

We live in interesting times...

[------------------------- 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 =3D 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: Fwd: Clean thoughts on a dirty wall: Pvt. Ryan (fwd)
Date: 29 Jul 1998 09:38:53 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 09:34:02 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id JAA28900; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 09:23:05 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id LAA18612; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:23:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma018302; Wed Jul 29 11:20:46 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline





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

Posted to texas-gun-owners by [e-mail]
I just returned from the theater where I watched the latest Spielberg
movie. After carefully considering what I'd seen for quite a while, I've
come to the conclusion that Spielberg is one of the most cynical people of
the Century.

In "Schindler's List", he overlooked that Oskar Schindler's interests were
in his labor pool (Jews), war profiteering and money and not the interests
of the Third Reich. He also conveniently overlooked the fact (and
Schindler's one act of REAL concern for those Jewish labourers), that
before Schindler fled into Czechoslovakia, he ARMED the Jewish labourers =
he
left behind so they could defend themselves from roving SS units. Why did
he ignore that?  Israel never forgot it.

In "Ryan", he mercilessly exploits violence and carnage in an endless =
montage
as we follow Tom Hanks around in a story that is similar in design to "A
day in the life of Ivan Denisovich".

My father died in the Pacific theater in WWII, so did an Uncle and two
cousins who perished at Normandy. My wife's father served along with SEVEN
of his brothers, three of them dying at Normandy. There are hundreds of
thousands like we survivors. I also have a lot of friends on the Wall in
D.C., and more than a few of them aren't buried anywhere.

Spielberg, the pacifist and Clinton supporter and chum, owns one of the
largest gun collections in California. As you can see from "Ryan" he is
fascinated with war toys, I lost track of the number of times the MG42 and
other ordnance and small arms were lovingly mentioned.=20

Spielberg is throwing a fundraiser/promotion party for Clinton and "Pvt.
Ryan" at the same time and place. Are his firearms ownership, use and
possession rights at risk from the Clinton agenda? How can he justify a
film with such unspeakable and unneccesary violence, make billions on it,
then donate and arrange donations to a man who is a coward, shirked
national service except perhaps for service to Moscow, and whose character
is non existent, except for that which is bad? Does anyone remember the
cynicism of Clinton "arranging" some rocks into a cruciform at the =
Normandy
Beach?

An example of modern new age buzzspeak dialog was when Hank's character
tells Ryan that he'll "need some time with this", referring to the news of
his brother's deaths. Yeah, I just KNOW they spoke that way. I'm OK with
this, so let me get in touch with my feelings as soon as I work through =
it.
Blecchh!

And then, the final cynicism, the final insult, is this poor bastard, Pvt.
Ryan, 54 years later, asking his wife if he's lived a good life. If he
hadn't, he couldn't have approached that grave, unless he was as cynical =
as
is our Commander in Chief and his fan, wannabe Spielberg.

The use, by a movieland George Marshall, of Lincoln's words, twice,  in a
pat response to the loss of a son, husband or father, in this context made
me choke with rage.

I was in a little war, and the carnage was there, sure enough, along with
the B.S. that goes along with war. Men are shot or blown to pieces,
sometimes by our own side, and their buddies do try, heroically, to save
them, often to no avail and the eternal psychological and physical scars
that the survivors of war carry on into civilian life.=20

But our fathers, grandfathers and uncles and the women who served in WWII
saw real carnage and disaster, and that money is being made off their
backs, their great sacrifices, horrible deaths and honorable service, to =
be
given to the campaign funds and supporters of a lying coward and his ilk,
who would disarm and weaken us personally and Nationally to the point of
inviting attack, both from abroad and criminals at home, with the
complicity of a hollywood wannabe, neither of whom have ever been within
thousands of miles of conflict is just one of the most cynical and
repugnant acts if not THE most cynical and repugnant act I've seen.

Yeah, it's only a movie, but we live in an era when most young people have
not the education or critical and analytical thinking skills to figure =
this
out. Many youngsters LEARN history (or what they think is history) from
these movies purporting to be historical in origin.

It's propaganda, exploitation of violence to make an anti-war film while
simultaneously using graphic violence and decrying violence. Joseph
Goebbels would have been proud of this film. Our youngsters have to know
that there are some principles and events we simply must be willing to go
to war over, and it would help if they knew why all those fine young men
were in LSTs, sailing into a meatgrinder in the first place. A meatgrinder
that could have been avoided in the 1930s were it not for the COWARDICE of
the men in charge when it came time to call Hitler's bluff.

Spielberg has had me for the last time. I'll be damned before I'll ever
send another nickel his way again. He should be ashamed, but he isn't.
What's worse, the movie will make hundreds of millions and few but the
dinosaurs will question it. As Vonnegut said in "Slapstick", Hi-ho.=20

To all you WWII vets out there, someone should apologize to you, but all I
can do is thank you again for all you gave, all you did, and all you lost.
Thank you.

Joe Horn
(c)1998
--
For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.=
net
with the word help in the message body.



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re:  More on Capitol Shooting
Date: 29 Jul 1998 11:13:13 -0600

Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com
    ([206.53.160.3])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:09:24 -0600
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA09255;
    Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:08:54 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA09243
    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:08:51 -0700
Received: from [e-mail]
    by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id QNMJa17153
    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:04:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

And what if he had a knife or a basebal bat and was really intent on =
hurting
folks?  Exactly how, if we are all disarmed, do we stop him?   I used to =
fence
sabre, and I can assure you, an average fencer can cover so much ground so
quickly with a sword, that wading in to stop him barehanded is not a good
tactical choice.   I used to think having a knife on me would be sufficient=
 in
case of attack;  after all, I had studied blade combat all my adult life.  =
But
the reality is, against multiple attackers, or with someone with a longer
weapon, you are at a tremendous disadvantage.   I wouldn't turn a blade =
down,
but given a choice, I would rather have a gun.   Had these officers not =
been
armed, and had the courage to resist, even though surprised,  who knows =
how
many more would have died.  Compare the loss here, the loss to armed =
attacks
in Israel with armed response to the disasters in the UK and New Zealand =
where
the public has no such options.  Going up against a bat with a knife is =
one
thing;  going up against a nut with a gun with your barehands or your own =
club
is suicidal.   It is funny how no one asks what would have happened if the
officers weren't armed.

Scott HArmon

****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FLASH!: Hearthside Special (fwd)
Date: 29 Jul 1998 11:20:21 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:43:50 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id SAA28377; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:32:55 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id UAA06663; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:42:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma006417; Tue Jul 28 20:37:33 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Jul 28, Tom Cloyes wrote:

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

>From: "Hearthside Family Publications" <[e-mail]>
>To: "Our friends at Hearthside"[e-mail]
>Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:07:18 +0000
>X-Distribution: Moderate
>Subject: FLASH!: Hearthside Special
>Reply-to: [e-mail]
>Priority: normal
>
>
>EO13083 Still on the Fast Track
>
>The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee is wrapping up a =20
>meeting on EO13083, "Federalism," as I write.
>
>There is considerable bi-partisan resistance being expressed, and it=20
>was indicated by Congressman Bob Barr that in spite of the=20
>president's reported statements in the Washington Post that he was=20
>"postponing" implementation of EO13083, that is *not* in fact=20
>happening.
>
>Congressman Barr (and others) also discussed a Bill to reinstate the=20
>existing EO on Federalism, from Reagan's administration, as an act of=20
>Congress.
>
>In order for Clinton to "undo" or "postpone" an Executive Order, he=20
>must issue another Executive Order, and that has *not* been done.=20
>Once again, our sitting president has lied, and his plans for a=20
>Federal sovereignty are still under way.
>
>EO13083 is STILL ON THE FAST TRACK, folks. Call your State=20
>Legislators and Congressmen *NOW*. Unless something is done=20
>immediately, EO13083 becomes law on, or about, August 13.
>
>Dave Delany
>---
>   "Liberty Begins at Hearthside"
>Copyright: Hearthside Family Publications
>    PO Box 212  Conklin NY  13748
>   http://www.hancock.net/~freedom
>            * * * * *
>              Free!
> ><>   To Subscribe (or unsubscribe)
> Send request to [e-mail]
>    and ask about Hearth Tabs:
>regular doses of historical perspective!
>              Free!

[------------------------- 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 =3D 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: [Fwd: New Capitol 800 Number]
Date: 29 Jul 1998 14:39:28 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:44:18 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id SAA28383; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:33:23 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA07399; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:33:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma007236; Tue Jul 28 14:31:20 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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------8040306DADFD7B255930CF19
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



--------------8040306DADFD7B255930CF19
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from phoenix.phonet.com (phoenix.phonet.com [209.186.36.2])
    by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA25478
    for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 09:10:08 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [209.186.36.25] by phoenix.phonet.com (NTMail 3.03.0017/4c.a=
cm0) with ESMTP id wa157166 for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 =
09:10:53 -0500
Comments: Authenticated sender is <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>

For your info..

Bruce Simon


1-800-361-5222:

 In order to make this number work, you must punch in a zip=20
code from the district of the House Member you are calling or the area =
code=20
for the Senator you are calling.

 Then a computer will automatically connect you to the office. You do=20
NOT get connected to the Capitol Switchboard. HOWEVER, if the zip code=20
90001 is entered, the Capitol Switchboard will answer and one can then =
ask=20
for ANY Member's office. This number is brought to us compliments of =
the=20
AARP.


--------------8040306DADFD7B255930CF19--



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: New Witnesses Emerge In Oklahoma Grand Jury Investigation
Date: 30 Jul 1998 10:51:21 -0600

Received: from vader.thnet.com
    ([206.98.115.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 05:07:37 -0600
Received: from bruce8.thnet.com (bruce8.thnet.com [206.98.115.108]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA18406; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 05:59:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Vigo Examiner
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

         New Witnesses Emerge In Oklahoma Grand Jury Investigation

              Congress Ponders Inquiry into Bombing Conspiracy

by WESLEY PHELAN
The Washington Weekly

Last month several members of the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee
traveled to Washington D.C. to persuade members of Congress to hold
hearings on the events surrounding the April 19, 1995 bombing of the =
Alfred
P. Murrah Federal Building. Meanwhile, new witnesses have appeared before
the Oklahoma County grand jury. One recent witness, an Oklahoma County
Deputy Sheriff, testified that he discovered an unexploded bomb in the
building while trying to rescue victims of the bombing. Another new
witness, an employee of the Mid-western Elevator Company, provided an
affidavit on June 22 [1]. The affidavit states that immediately after the
bombing the witness saw agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms stepping over victims in the
rubble, in an effort to collect and secure certain files. The affidavit
also states that the witness assisted agents of the FBI and ATF as they
removed assault rifles, explosives, anti-tank weapons, and ammunition from
their offices in the building. In the following interview with The
Washington Weekly, Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key discusses
these and other recent developments in the investigation.

QUESTION: The last time I talked to you, back in May, you and some members
of the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee were preparing for a trip
to Washington, D.C. What was the purpose of that trip?

KEY: We wanted to talk with some members of Congress and their staff, whom
we had been in touch with for quite some time. We had appointments with
specific members and staff people. We also wanted to lobby and talk to
members of each house with whom we had not previously been in
communication.

QUESTION: Were you attempting to get congressional hearings on the bombing
of the Murrah Building?

KEY: Yes, our conversations were for that specific purpose.

QUESTION: How successful do you think you were?

KEY: I think we were very successful. I was there three times last year =
and
twice this year, along with other people. Others have also been there at
times when I did not go. All of these trips were for that same purpose. A
number of members and staffers from each house expressed strong sentiment
that there should be congressional hearings on the issue. It will take the
cooperation of several members of the Judiciary Committees in each house =
to
get that accomplished. Hearings might possibly be held in other committees
or subcommittees also. Representative Traficant has been the most vocal in
expressing interest in this area. He is the ranking Democratic member on
the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development.

QUESTION: When I last spoke to Cate McCauley [2], she said that one of the
ways you might get this before a congressional committee pertained to the
glass, which she thought was replaced in the building some time before the
bombing took place. Is that a method you are considering for getting this
before a committee?

KEY: Yes, Representative Traficant was looking at that issue because his
subcommittee would be interested in it. But frankly, we are not sure the
information is available to verify what we had originally been told - -
that the building was supposed to have safety glass, which was later
replaced with regular plate glass. Since we have not been able to verify
this, we are not sure at this time if it is accurate.

QUESTION: How could you find that information?

KEY: I think the GSA would have the documents. If I remember correctly, we
have talked to some engineers who recommended the building have safety
glass, but that it was not required. That is unofficially the last we have
been able to find out.

QUESTION: Did the legislators and staffers indicate to you that they =
wanted
to get to the bottom of what happened with the bombing, whether there were
other conspirators, for example?

KEY: Yes. That's what they are mainly interested in.

QUESTION: Did you get a sense that people on the Hill believe all those
responsible for this atrocity have not been brought to justice?

KEY: Absolutely, beyond any question at all. Many of them have the same
opinion and attitude about this that we do. They are convinced there are
other perpetrators. They also have strong suspicions - - I could probably
say belief - - there was prior knowledge by some in our government.

QUESTION: When you say 'prior knowledge,' do you mean there was evidence a
plot was being hatched to do something like this, or there was knowledge
that a bombing would likely take place at the Murrah Building? In the past
there has been some ambiguity about what exactly the term 'prior knowledge'=

means in this context.

KEY: Yes, there has, and I'm not sure we can give anything other than
opinions about that right now.

QUESTION: When you use the term, what do you mean by it?

KEY: I think there were those who had specific knowledge of a specific =
plan
by some to bomb that building on that day.

QUESTION: Those who had that knowledge, were they working to circumvent, =
to
stop this plan?

KEY: Yes, I believe so.

QUESTION: Why did they not, for example, go ahead and arrest the people
they thought were involved in this plot?

KEY: Well, that's a good question. The information with regard to that is
somewhat confusing. There are ATF documents showing information that was
being gathered and passed on to the agency by Carol Howe, for example [3].
Their own field reports show this information was being given to them.
Information also exists in field reports that the FBI had their own
surveillance of Elohim City and of the people there, similar to what Carol
Howe passed on to her ATF superiors. That information concerns people =
there
and their threats and their surveillance of buildings, including the =
Murrah
Building. The ATF documents also show that the FBI and ATF got together
about six weeks before, and had a meeting of the minds. The report is =
dated
approximately February 28, 1995, I believe. The heads of the FBI and the
ATF got together to find out who was doing what. This came out at the =
trial
of Carol Howe.

Carol Howe's subsequent trip to go back to Elohim City, which was being
scheduled in March, the month before the bombing, was called off. So it
seems very reasonable that when the ATF and FBI got together, when the ATF
discovered the FBI had their own surveillance, someone decided one agency
would prevail over the other with regard to the surveillance. Clearly, the
FBI prevailed. My understanding is Dave Roberts, the former head of the =
ATF
out of the Tulsa office, who was one of the persons mentioned in the
documents, told the grand jury here about two months ago that the FBI
called them off.

QUESTION: A person told me some time ago off the record that the ATF was
planning a raid on Elohim City, and they went to the Oklahoma State Police
for the use of a plane. The FBI was alerted by someone with the State
Police, and called off the ATF raid. Would you like to comment about this
on the record?

KEY: My understanding, and I believe it is the correct version, is that
after the fly over which included three ATF agents and the State Trooper
pilot, ATF agent Angela Finley- Graham was told by the Trooper, Ken
Stafford, that the FBI had their own surveillance operation of Elohim =
City.
She immediately went to her supervisor, Dave Roberts, and that caused the
meetings between the US Attorney, FBI heads and ATF heads.

Angela Finley-Graham had gone to the INS in Oklahoma City, and had talked
to the INS office in Houston, further preparing for this raid. What she
received from them was documents verifying that Strassmeir was an alien =
and
that his visa had expired. So he was at that point an illegal alien. She
also had information from Carol Howe that he was carrying weapons around,
which is another violation of law. So she was doing all those appropriate
things to prepare to raid the compound and arrest him.

QUESTION: Do you know at this point why agencies of the federal government
allowed Strassmeir to flee from the United States to Germany?

KEY: I don't know, but I would bet anything they had some kind of
arrangement with him, and were aware of his activities.

QUESTION: 'They' would be the FBI, or some covert government agency?

KEY: Some agency of the government. I think the FBI was probably aware of
it.

QUESTION: So you think the FBI stopped the ATF from apprehending Strassmeir=

because he was in fact working with some government agency?

KEY: I believe so.

QUESTION: Let's shift gears a bit. What is the update on the grand jury?

KEY: They have been meeting, but have not had many witnesses lately. They
had a deputy sheriff come in to testify a few days ago. This deputy had a
bomb sniffing dog that died about 30 days after the bombing. We believe he
testified about his knowledge related to his work as a rescue worker. He
found one of the other bombs, I think it was the second one. He saw that
bomb being taken out of the building.

QUESTION: Was the bomb strapped to a column in the building?

KEY: I'm not sure it was strapped to a column, but I know he discovered =
it.

QUESTION: What caused the dog to die?

KEY: I hope I get a chance to talk to the people who had dogs. There are =
so
many other aspects to this that I have not yet been able to do so. There
have been stories from the beginning that this is some kind of evidence of
chemicals or something else being present at the scene, which had an =
effect
on the dogs. I don't know if that is the case, and I would not speculate.

QUESTION: Is this the only dog you know of that has died?

KEY: I think there was another one.

QUESTION: Have any people who were victims of the bombing or were at the
scene later experienced anything of that sort?

KEY: There is at least one surviving family member who alleges such and
says that medical personnel have told her such but I don't want to allege
that. As I have said so many times, there is so much to this story, and we
have not been able to pursue many, many things. Also, it is difficult to
get some of the law enforcement people to talk to us

QUESTION: Are there other developments with the grand jury?

KEY: We presented information a few days ago about a new witness. This
fellow is one of the elevator employees, and was immediately on the scene.

QUESTION: Was he from the Mid-western Elevator Company?

KEY: Yes. This guy saw some very interesting things, to say the least. He
saw two bombs being taken out and put in the bomb disposal unit.

QUESTION: This was after the bombing?

KEY: Yes, after the initial explosions. He also saw ATF agents and other
federal employees coming into the building, to their offices. They were
stepping over wounded and or dead bodies lying on the floor, to pick up
files and look in file cabinets. They were not interested in trying to =
help
or save anybody. Rather, they had some real interest in securing some
documents. For the next three or four days he ran the elevator going up to
the ATF offices, because they got one of the elevators running immediately.=

DEA, Secret Service and Customs agents also went upstairs and brought
things out. He knows of various kinds of weapons they brought out,
including rocket launchers, boxes marked 'explosives,' dozens of handguns,
some grenades, and other items. He was one of a number of people who were
traumatized by what they saw. He stayed in the building during the two =
bomb
scares - - he did not leave the building, but continued to look for =
people.

QUESTION: Leaving aside whatever explosive devices might have been stored
in government offices, you clearly have evidence of other explosive =
devices
being planted in the building. This shoots a hole in the government's =
lone-
bomber, single bomb theory. What new evidence do you have of others who
might have been complicit in this?

KEY: I don't know that we have any new evidence on people's identities. =
But
the evidence clearly points to other perpetrators and a bigger conspiracy
to bomb the building than McVeigh and Nichols. There are many eyewitnesses
to other perpetrators. Scientific experts say it could not have happened
with an ammonium nitrate bomb. Other experts say there would have been
clear evidence of an ammonium nitrate bomb, which obviously was not found
at the site. There are people such as the person we just discussed, who
talk about other explosive devices they saw taken out of the building, or
say they talked to federal personnel about those devices being removed =
from
the building after the initial explosions. So I think the evidence is
overwhelming. You don't have a building there anymore so most evidence =
must
come from witness reports.

QUESTION: I have been asked this question by a lot of people: "Is it true
they demolished what was left of the building, then buried it somewhere =
and
covered it with concrete?"

KEY: They brought the building down and carted off the remains in trucks =
to
four different locations. They then dug holes and buried it, at least in
one of those locations. One of those locations is in my house district.
Then they guarded that site for a period of time.

QUESTION: Is it still being guarded?

KEY: No. But the debris is probably under a lot of dirt.

QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts on how long the grand jury will remain
in operation?

KEY: There is an Oklahoma statute about 35 years old that has been =
repealed
by a couple of amendments to the constitution. It says a grand jury must
terminate 30 days before an election, or can't begin until ten days after
an election. Many things pointed toward the statute being unconstitutional,=

including the two constitutional amendments. We, along with the district
attorneys, had brought this to the attention of the grand jury. Several
days ago the grand jury asked the judge to address the issue in open =
court.
He responded that it was his opinion it was unconstitutional, but he gave
any interested party a week to submit briefs. That time limit expired on
Tuesday, June 23. On June 24 the judge issued his opinion that in fact the
statute is unconstitutional, and the grand jury will not be affected by =
it.

QUESTION: Let's return to your trip to Washington D.C. Did you get a sense
that members of Congress were outraged by what they had seen regarding the
investigation of this tragedy?

KEY: Congressmen are like anybody else. Some clearly were outraged. Some,
unfortunately, did not seem to like what they were hearing. Some knew how
this case had been handled, but were not really surprised. Many did not
want to deal with it, like a lot of other people who have been confronted
with these issues.

QUESTION: Did these reactions cut along partisan lines, or was it pretty
much nonpartisan?

KEY: We probably talked to more Republicans than Democrats, but I think it
does not go down party lines.

QUESTION: Do you have any idea of a timeline by which the issue may come
before Congress?

KEY: I doubt that we'll see congressional hearings before the first part =
of
next year, simply because Congress is about to recess for a month then =
come
back for about a month before the elections. So there is not enough time
this year.

QUESTION: Are you concerned about what effect the outcome of the elections
might have on the possibility of hearings?

KEY: No, I'm not even thinking about that.

QUESTION: Did you meet with Congressman Istook while you were in
Washington?

KEY: No. We met with him after we got back.

QUESTION: Is he supportive of having congressional hearings?

KEY: He's not very happy with what happened back in January.

QUESTION: You are referring to the Oklahoma County Reserve Deputy Sheriffs
who went before the grand jury [4]?

KEY: Yes. You are the first media person I've talked to about this. He and
his staff are understandably not very happy about what took place. My
position is that he, along with everyone else, is going to be faced with a
decision about how to deal with this issue. As time goes by, we will all =
be
judged by the decision we make. A lot of people have asked us, "Why have
our Representatives and Senators in Washington been silent about this?" As
this continues to unfold, whether there are congressional hearings or not,
what our Congressmen do is going to say a lot. When you look at the facts
of this case, you cannot justify non-action or silence. It screams for
questions to be asked and answers found. I have gained a lot of respect =
for
a number of people, such as Representative Traficant and his chief of
staff, Paul Marcone, who are very concerned about getting to the truth. As
we inform these people of the facts, I believe they will want to do what =
is
right and have hearings.

QUESTION: What is the biggest problem you currently face on a day to day
basis?

KEY: Just raising money on a day to day basis is our biggest problem. It
costs money to get the manpower necessary to carry out our functions, such
as investigating. We also have legal and administrative costs. If one
considers what we're trying to do here with three or four people, which is
act as a watchdog on what the feds have done and what they are now doing =
on
this case, one can understand the difficulty and magnitude of the job. We
really have needed and still need to hire other investigators. We need
several.

QUESTION: Would you like to inform interested readers about how they can
help your effort?

KEY: We are a 505(c) organization, which is nonprofit. That means a
contribution is tax deductible for the contributor. Interested citizens =
may
send a contribution to our organization at:

     Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee P.O. Box 75697 Oklahoma =
City,
     OK 73147

We have also received quite a number of very good leads about the bombing
from people who have read the articles in the Washington Weekly, or have
gone to our website [5]. If anyone has information that can help us, we
would appreciate their contacting us through the email function at our
website, or by regular mail.

NOTES

[1] The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee provided a signed,
notarized copy of the affidavit to The Washington Weekly.

[2] Cathleen McCauley is Executive Director of the Oklahoma Bombing
Investigation Committee. A previous Washington Weekly interview with
McCauley is available at: http://www.mtco.com/~wphlen/page112.html

[3] The ATF reports of Carol Howe may be viewed at
http://www.okcbombing.org/html/howe.htm

[4] For a discussion of the evidence provided to the grand jury by these
witnesses, see the previous Washington Weekly interview with Representative=

Key at http://www.federal.com/jan19- 98/Oklahoma

[5] The Committee's website is located at http://www.okcbombing.org/

Wesley Phelan may be reached at [e-mail]

Published in the Jun. 29, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright
1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal. com) Copyright 1997 =
Company
Name, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com
                                TEXT VERSION


Enjoy a free 90 day trial subscription to The Vigo Examiner.
You will receive one to three of our top articles each day. =20
Send your subscription request, and all other
communication to [e-mail].


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: How important are volunteers to NRA?
Date: 30 Jul 1998 17:34:49 -0600

Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com
    ([206.53.160.3])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 22:00:07 -0600
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA22031;
    Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:01:36 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from starnine.com (starnine.com [198.211.93.1])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA22027
    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:01:34 -0700
Received: from qdmail.starnine.com (qdmail.starnine.com [198.211.93.74])
    by starnine.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA08412;
    Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
        "Anthony Roulette" <[e-mail]>,
        "Bill Maggiora" <[e-mail]>,
        "Bill MAXFIELD" <[e-mail]>,
        "Bruce" <[e-mail]>,
        "C.P. Morrissey" <[e-mail]>,
        "Carl A. Overmyer" <[e-mail]>,
        "David Bundesen" <[e-mail]>,
        "David Golden" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
        "Don Baldwin" <[e-mail]>, "Doug Owen" <[e-mail]>,
        "Ed Thiele" <[e-mail]>, "Eric Williams" <[e-mail]>,
        "G.H. Dreher" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
        "Hayden Heal" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
        "James Nicholson" <[e-mail]>,
        "Jay Printz" <[e-mail]>,
        "Jerry Avalos" <[e-mail]>, "Jim Manown" <[e-mail]>,
        [e-mail], "Joe Chew" <[e-mail]>,
        "Joel Friedman" <[e-mail]>,
        "John Drennan" <[e-mail]>,
        "John L. Cushman" <[e-mail]>, "John Sigler" <[e-mail]>,
        [e-mail], "Ken Hamblin" <[e-mail]>,
        "KURT E SCHULMEYER" <[e-mail]>,
        "Larry W. Kauble" <[e-mail]>,
        "Mark C Nicely" <[e-mail]>,
        "Michael Marks" <[e-mail]>,
        "Mike Varner" <[e-mail]>,
        "MS BONNIE L MCCLORY" <[e-mail]>,
        "NRA-ILA-EVC List" <[e-mail]>,
        "Paul Vallandigham" <[e-mail]>,
        "Peter D. Nesbitt" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
        [e-mail], "Rk908" <[e-mail]>,
        "Tanya Metaksa" <[e-mail]>, "TJJOHNSTN" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

              How important are volunteers to NRA?

                        One word: VITAL!=20

           Gun-control advocates and *your Backyard*

Since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the face of the=20
battle has changed.

NRA and NRA Grassroots have been very effective, insulating Sarah=20
Brady and her friends from great federal and state victories.=20
Establishing and re-electing a Congress that halted her federal=20
agenda, the recent Washington State **Victory** (emphasis=20
added and deserved) and relaxing CCW laws in 34 states are=20
but a few examples.

But groups like HCI have adjusted, moving their fight to local city=20
and county councils as never before. This is why we, the Grassroots,=20
must work together as we have never before.

Probably the largest example of grassroots organization is the 50=20
or so California Members' Councils that operate under ILA charter.=20
This network has successfully stopped anti-gun proposals before=20
city and county councils, as well as assisting NRA staff at the=20
state legislature. In 1997, the group halted an unprecedented=20
number of bills that comprised an anti-gunners "blitzkrieg" on=20
Sacramento with its own flood of pro-gun letters, faxes and emails.=20

It is California, actually, that is being flooded with a rash
of "Saturday Night Special" Bans, the antis name for their
inherently discriminatory policy keeping affordable self-defense=20
tools out of low-income hands.  The state is having a terrible
time with anti-gunners prodding localities to pass these, as well as
trigger lock bills, tax increases, just about any anti-gun idea
they've dreamed up.  Thank heaven for the California NRA Members'
Councils... they take the fight to the local politicians offices
and other places outside the scope of NRA HQ!

NOTE: it is almost GUARRENTEED that the antis are trying to plant
the seeds for the same kinds of actions in your own state, if they
don't have a full-scale garden blooming there already!  THIS IS AN
EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY TO ORGANIZE WITH OTHER ACTIVE NRA MEMBERS
IN YOUR AREA TO *DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT*!!!!
                                                                     =20
Since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the face of the=20
battle has changed.  Sign-up as an NRA-ILA Volunteer and help direct=20
those changes.  After all, they may be in *your backyard* soon!=20

You can sign-up as an NRA-ILA Grassroots Volunteer right from your
web browser at...

             http://www.NRAWinningTeam.com/volunteer/

You can even print the form and distribute it to your non-Internet-
browsing friends, since NRA Grassroots Divisions US Mail address is =20
on the form.  Please help by signing up, and spreading the word.

Please distribute far and wide!  Pass on to any electronic services
you are subscribed to.


  **************************************************************
                  http://www.nrawinningteam.com/
              http://www.calweb.com/~haas/ammoguide/
  **************************************************************


****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Notice:
Date: 31 Jul 1998 08:19:05 -0600

Received: from mail.interjetnet.net
    ([208.231.136.27])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:56:46 -0600
Received: from default (ppp085.interjetnet.net [208.236.167.85])
          by mail.interjetnet.net (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP
      id XAA00581; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:50:24 -0600
Message-ID: <001f01bdbc48$18222500$55a7ecd0@default>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_2D79D463.157418ED"

--=_2D79D463.157418ED
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Senator Bob Bennett, Congressman Merrill Cook and Congressman Chris
Cannon and some other candidates running for office will be hosting a
BBQ on Saturday Aug.. 1, 1998 at 12: PM - 2: PM at Eastridge Park, 12000
South 10th East in Sandy.  Cost of $2.50 or $15 per family. Jerry said
that she has food for 300 and needs bodies. She said she didn't care
even if people paid, she just needs bodies.  I think that it might be a
good opportunity to quiz these people to see what they have done in
office or plan to.  I think it would be nice to know if Bennett is on
any UN Committees, or Why he voted to expand NATO, etc.  It would be nice
to know if Cook voted to finance any UN and NATO bills, or support of
such in any way.


Please Have Fun=20

Yours Truly,

Don Corleone



--=_2D79D463.157418ED
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Part.001"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Part.001"
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==

--=_2D79D463.157418ED--

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Cars, Guns & Summer Vac
Date: 31 Jul 1998 09:34:07 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:59:52 -0600
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id XAA00504; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:48:54 -0600
Received: (qmail 2198 invoked by uid 516); 31 Jul 1998 05:58:40 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 2183 invoked from network); 31 Jul 1998 05:58:36 -0000
Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 1998 05:58:36 -0000
Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2])
    by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA12351
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 01:58:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 166-93-76-234.rmi.net (166-93-76-234.rmi.net [166.93.76.234])
    by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA04910;
    Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:25:28 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:50:02 -0400
>From: Paul Gallant/NY <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Cars, Guns & Summer Vac
>Sender: Paul Gallant/NY <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>                   GUNS, CARS, & SUMMER VACATION
>
>by Dr. Paul Gallant & David B. Kopel
>
>Packing the family in your automobile, to set out across the country for
>summer vacation?  In America, your driver's license issued in one state =
is
>valid in all the other 49.  But what if a license issued in your home =
state
>could only be used there?  To travel from Pennsylvania to Florida, you'd =
need
>a separate license from each state that you'd pass through.  Ridiculous, =
huh?
>But that's exactly the problem faced by vacationers and other travelers =
who
>want to protect their family.  You see, many states refuse to accept the
>validity of handgun licenses issued by other states.
>
>Thus, the father who wants to protect his vacationing family from =
two-legged
>or four-legged predators is caught between a rock and a hard place.  In =
many
>states, the penalties for even the simple possession of an "unlicensed"
>handgun - regardless of the fact that it's never been used in the =
commission
>of a crime - subject its possessor to prison terms which would make Rip =
Van
>Winkle cringe!
>
>While firearm-prohibitionists are always claiming that they want to =
"treat
>guns like cars," they don't really mean it.  If the anti-gun lobbyists =
were
>true to their word, they would encourage every state to recognize every =
other
>state's gun licenses--just like states currently treat driver's licenses.
>
>The real point of the "treat guns like cars" line from the gun banners is =
to
>promote gun registration; we register cars, so why not register guns?  Of
>course the antis always forget that the only cars which have to be =
registered
>on those used on public streets. A car kept only on your own property =
(such as
>for driving around your farm) does not need to be registered.
>
>Inexplicably, the anti-gun groups who want to treat cars like guns never
>criticize the current schizoid treatment of firearm "violators", as =
compared
>to our treatment of traffic violators!
>
>Have you heard of an outcry for legislation banning the sale, manufacture,=
 and
>possession of Jaguars, after some poor unfortunate soul was run down by a
>drunk driver, seated behind the wheel of one of these killing machines?  =
Or,
>how about a call to ban Corvettes, after one of them was used by a pair =
of
>bank-robbers making good their getaway?
>
>Punishing the offender, instead of banning the objects used to facilitate =
the
>crime, is the logical thing to do.  We crack down on drunk drivers, not =
on
>automobiles.
>
>So, then, why not use the same reasoning when dealing with firearm
>"violators"?  Perhaps it's because what the firearm-prohibitionists =
really
>have their sights on isn't reducing criminal or negligent behavior!  =
While
>Mothers Against Drunk Driving is opposed only to drunk driving, not to =
all
>kinds of driving, the anti-gun lobbies not only oppose gun crime, they =
oppose
>gun possession by law-abiding people.  (Especially if those law-abiding =
people
>possess the gun for defense, rather than for sports.)
>
>Thus, the comparison between cars and guns is a phony pretext for more =
gun
>controls--even though honestly treating guns like cars would result in
>removing many irrational gun controls.
>
>Because we don't treat guns like cars, America has a bunch of crazy laws =
-
>laws that say the ability to defend oneself from the vicious criminals =
who
>prey upon society stops at the state line!  While driver license =
reciprocity
>is a reality throughout all of the 50 states, honest citizens who choose =
to
>obey the law are prevented from exercising the most fundamental of all
>rights--the right to protect one's family--simply because of a geographica=
l
>boundary. Yet the right of self-defense may be most urgently needed when =
a
>person is in an unfamiliar area, caught very suddenly and very unexpectedl=
y,
>right smack dab in the middle of one of a vacationland's unfamiliar "hot-
>spots"!
>
>"Don't leave home without it!"  It's not just the catchy ending to a =
once-
>familiar credit card commercial.  To many honest, responsible Americans, =
those
>five little words are the embodiment of a painful moral dilemma.
>
>The Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to interstate travel =
is one
>of the rights of American citizenship.  Just as Congress in 1964 =
prevented
>bigoted state governments from discriminating against interstate =
travelers
>because of their race, Congress should now act to prevent discrimination
>against travelers who exercise their constitutional right to self-defense.=

>
>
>Optometrist Paul Gallant is a Research Associate with the Independence
>Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, Colorado, http://i2i.org.
>
>Attorney David B. Kopel is the research director of the Independence =
Institute
>and award-winning author of several books on firearm issues.
>
>
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
********************


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


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: It's Reagan's Fault
Date: 31 Jul 1998 13:33:56 -0600

Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com
    ([206.53.160.3])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:39:37 -0600
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA13370;
    Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:39:06 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from hil-img-10.compuserve.com (hil-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.177.140])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA13367
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:39:02 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
    by hil-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.12) id OAA11601
    for [e-mail]; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:35:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by kendaco.telebyte.com id LAA13370
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

In the media's attempt to blame everyone but the man who pulled the
trigger, I thought you would be interested in this peice from today's =
Media
Research Center Cyber Alert.

On the Today show,  Kati Couric blamed Reagan for mental health cuts that
could have provide vital services to individuals like Weston.

 Friday July 31, 1998 (Vol. Three; No. 123)=20
          =20
  3) The Capitol shooting: It*s Reagan*s fault. NBC*s Katie Couric=20
     tied it to mental health budget cuts begun in the Reagan years.
        =20
        Capitol shooting: It*s Reagan*s fault. As sure as sunrise=20
     follows sunset, whenever anything bad happens that someone can=20
     tie to federal spending eventually a member of the media will=20
     blame it on Ronald Reagan. Now that Bryant Gumbel is no longer o=20
     TV everyday and the CBS brass has reigned him in on his CBS show=20
     it took a bit longer than usual this time, but five days after=20
     the shooting NBC*s Today and Katie Couric came through.
    =20
         In the second half hour on Wednesday, July 29, Kelly=20
     O*Donnell provided a set-up piece on schizophrenia and how=20
     "Russell Weston Jr. is among an estimated two and a half million=20
     Americans who have this chronic mental disorder which often=20
     involves delusions and in extreme cases can lead to violence."=20
     Observing that John Hinkley and the Unabomber were=20
     schizophrenic, O*Donnell wondered: "Could any of it have been=20
     prevented? Did the mental health system do enough?"
    =20
          Dr. Dave Davis, forensic psychiatrist: "The problem is with=20
     monitoring these people that there*s no way to monitor them or=20
     keep up with them because they*re free to not be treated."
      O*Donnell: "Free of the forced commitment to institutions=20
     that was common a generation ago. During the Reagan era federal=20
     spending for mental health dropped about 25 percent. Funding has=20
     continued to go down ever since. Today as many as half of the=20
     homeless are believed to be the untreated mentally ill."
    =20
          In the segment O*Donnell set up Katie Couric questioned two=20
     psychologists. Her final inquiry, as transcribed by MRC analyst=20
     Geoffrey Dickens:
     "Quickly, we*re almost out of time, but it seems to me that=20
     money is an issue. That funding was cut 25 percent during the=20
     Reagan administration. It*s gone down ever since. Don*t we need=20
     to funnel more money into helping these people? The fact that=20
     half of the homeless population may be untreated mentally ill is=20
     a real tragedy don*t you think Dr. Bernstein?"
     =20
          Of course, it was really liberals who pushed through laws=20
     in the late *70s making it much harder for states to=20
     involuntarily commit the mental ill. With fewer patients to care=20
     for funding naturally fell. But the shooting is the=20
     responsibility of the one man who pulled the trigger.
     -- Brent Baker


David Adams
NRA-ILA-EVC, VA 7th
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Member
[e-mail]
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/

****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


-