ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9808

Internet Message Format | 1998-08-30 | 248KB

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: School House Hype
Date: 03 Aug 1998 17:24:48 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:30:04 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id UAA00325; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:18:49 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA03619; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:28:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma003445; Thu Jul 30 22:26:58 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

Tanya:

Surf to <http://www.cjcj.org/shoolpress.html> and follow the links.=20

The "Justice Policy Institute," a part of the "Center for Juvenile and=20
Criminal Justice," just released a report on "School House Hype: School=20
Shootings and the Real Risks Kids Face in America."

The report might not be so bad, but they have a page on "School House=20
Hope" that's full of links to gun control programs.  They also have a=20
<mailto: [e-mail]> with the offer:

"Send us the best prevention program link you know of, and we'll make=20
part of our hope page."

May I suggest that you (and anyone cc'd on this message that might be =
so=20
inclined) send them *lots* of information on Eddie Eagle?  (Note to=20
cc's:  be respectful, not vengeful, or we'll achieve the wrong purpose.)

Respectfully,

Mike
Life Member, NRA





-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Reno urges lawyers to fight guns
Date: 04 Aug 1998 06:51:00 -0700


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

A note to Ms. Reno,

If American citizens did not feel the need to protect themselves from
your thugs, perhaps we would not so urgently feel the need to posses and
know how to use guns? But, as you have already shown us, we must continue
to be prepared to protect ourselves against violence perpetrated on us by
"our own" government. As long as this continues, all efforts to restrict
sale and possession of firearms will meet with very heavy resistance.
Perhaps you folks are the ones who should disarm?

Liberty Belle

*******************************************************
Politics              Updated 7:35 PM ET August 3, 1998

Reno urges lawyers to fight gun violence
By Gail Appleson, Law Correspondent

TORONTO (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said Monday that
reducing gun-related injuries and deaths must become a priority in the
United States and that lawyers should play a key role in fighting such
violence.

"The bottom line is that lawyers can change our country's attitude
about guns. We can do so much to end gun violence and if we really work
hard at it ... we can end the culture of violence in this nation," she
said in a speech to the American Bar Association annual meeting here.

The ABA occasionally meets in Toronto because U.S. and Canadian lawyers
have overlapping legal interests.

"In the five years from 1992 through 1996, the city in which we are
meeting, Toronto, experienced exactly 100 gun homicides. Chicago, an
American city of comparable size, had 3,063 gun homicides," she said.

Reno said that about 100 people die every day in the United States due
to guns, roughly about the same mortality rate as Americans with AIDS.

"We do not have to be the most violent nation in the world," she said.

Following Reno's speech, the ABA's policy-making body, its House of
Delegates, passed a resolution supporting a comprehensive approach to
address gun violence by young people.

This would include supporting school-based peer mediation programs,
prevention and education programs; increased efforts to enforce laws
to prevent unauthorized or illegal access to firearms by minors and
enactment of laws that emphasize adult responsibility.

Reno said that lawyers have been on the forefront in the fight against
domestic violence and they can do the same when it comes to guns.

"Let us create a new frontier for lawyers to show again what they can
do," she said, praising the ABA resolution. "We've got to cut through
the rhetoric that clouds this issue day after day. Lawyers can lead the
way in doing that."

She suggested lawyers urge their governors and state legislators to pass
laws that impose criminal penalties on adults who store guns in ways
that are accessible to children.

Lawyers can also work with mayors and city councils to pass local gun
ordinances to reduce the availability and accessibility of guns, Reno said.

Bar associations can also work with local schools to teach peer mediation
or conflict resolution programs for children so that they will learn how
to resolve their problems without resorting to violence, she suggested.

She said lawyers have to help teach children that guns really do kill people.

"They are not status symbols, they are not glamorous and they are not
the right way to resolve conflicts," Reno said.
--
*******************************************************
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: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Heads Up on Clinton's Troubles
Date: 04 Aug 1998 13:05:37 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 04 Aug 1998 11:00:42 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA03949; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:49:28 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA15394; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:58:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma015153; Tue Aug  4 12:56:01 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Just to let you know, but .............

The Democratic National Committee is making the rounds, calling radio =
stations
all over the country trying to put together a media blitz for this =
Thursday
with spokespeople talking about the "economy."

My station is just a 1000 watter in the Massachusetts boonies and my news
director recieved a 'personal call' from Steve Grossman, the Chairman of =
the
DNC, looking to book an AM Drive time appearance. Massachusetts was =
Clinton's
biggest state in the last election (beating Dole 2-1.)=20

When my newsie called back to confirm, he mentioned to a DNC gofer that =
"you
must be in deep shit to be pressing on this bullshit." The gofer replied, =
"if
you only knew" and hung up.

Hope springs eternal.

Regards,
TSB


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: World views U.S. as foolish for lack of gun ban
Date: 05 Aug 1998 08:02:00 -0700


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

http://www.azstarnet.com/public/dnews/0804cv3.html
World views U.S. as foolish for lack of gun ban

By Bonnie Erbe

It's fascinating to watch an American crisis from an international
perspective. It's particularly fascinating when the topic is yet another
murder spree by an American madman with a weapon.

I was in London recently when a British TV network aired a report from
Washington on Russell Weston Jr.'s alleged murder of two Capitol police
officers and wounding of a bystander. The first minute or so of the report
outlined the facts as known at that early stage of the event. Then the
reporter cut to a statement by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.,
and then to a teary-eyed House Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, paying
homage to the dead officers.

When the reporter appeared on-camera, he said: ``Remarkably, since
this event took place there has been no talk of gun control by any
high-level United States official.'' He went on to chronicle the now-long
list of shooting sprees Americans have endured in recent times, including
four major shootings at public schools in the past year and countless
more ``minor'' ones where only one or two children have been murdered.

And he reflected the view of his incredulous audience that American
society would tolerate so much violence - to the point where ``going
postal'' has become a universally understood addition to American jargon
- without widespread calls for some sort of regulatory action.

In England, national gun control has been a reality since the turn of the
century. Strict national controls banning most gun ownership later took
effect in 1920. Even today in central London bobbies patrol with sticks
and handcuffs but no firearms - an inconceivable thought to Americans
whose officers must be armed to kill.

The U.S. gun lobby spends huge sums of money trying to persuade the
public and Congress that gun ownership and crime rates are unrelated.
They champion the claim that controlling (or, perish the thought, banning)
gun ownership on the national level would have no impact on our crime
rate, nor on the doings of Russell Weston Jr. and his ilk.

But statistics simply do not bear that out. No one knows for sure what
impact strict national gun control would have on the American crime rate,
since it's never been in effect. Banning ownership might not eliminate
homicide or murder sprees. But it would certainly cause a remarkable
drop in homicide and violent crime rates.

According to World Health Organization figures, between 1982-88, the
U.S. homicide rate (8.8 per 100,000) was roughly 12 times that of
England and Wales (0.7). Those figures (the 12-to-1 ratio) correlate
quite closely with gun ownership rates in the respective countries. An
international victimization survey cited in ``Experiences of Crime Across
the World'' (1991) showed weapons ownership at 48.9 percent among
Americans and 4.7 percent in England and Wales.

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a pro-gun lobby group with
offices in Washington, D.C., and Dallas, Texas, boasts on its Web site
that gun ownership and homicide rates are unrelated. It touts, for
example, an extremely high murder rate in Northern Ireland (7 in 1989,
compared with the American rate of 8.8 I cite above in the previous
year). But let's remember that Northern Ireland was until last month in the
middle of a civil sectarian war. And its murder rate was still lower than
ours. These are not statistics a rational person would cite seriously.

The center also argues that America has had federal gun controls in effect
since 1968. But every informed American knows gun control is primarily
a matter of state law. In my home state of Virginia, lawmakers debated a
law limiting weapons purchases to ``one a month'' not too long ago. Until
we have real federal gun laws, state regulations are so patchwork they
are largely useless.

It's depressing, but not surprising, that even the shooting spree at the
Capitol will not prompt a serious dialogue on major, national gun control.
It should be noted, however, that in the eyes of most Western nations we
look like fools who suffer our own ignorance gladly.

Bonnie Erbe, host of the PBS program ``To the Contrary,'' writes
this column for Scripps Howard News Service.


A robber driving down the street looking for a house to rob, he drives
by the first house that has a sitcker in the window that says;
"I don't dial 911" - under is a Colt 45. The next house has a sticker
and it says; "Support Gun Control" - under is a Colt 45 with an X.
Which house got robbed?

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

UN - DISARM AMERICA STATE DEPT 7277
http://harvest-trust.org/7277.htm

+++ GUN CONTROL - 2ND AMENDMENT +++
JPFO
http://www.jpfo.org
Dial 911 and DIE !
http://www.jpfo.org/Dial911.htm
GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA
http://www.gunowners.org

American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)
APFN EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBE/UNSCBSCRIBE IN SUBJECT LINE TO [e-mail]
APFN ONELIST: http://www.onelist/subscribe.cgi/apfn
http://www.esotericworldnews.com/apfncont.htm
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/apfn/


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: White House Death Threats
Date: 05 Aug 1998 11:08:42 -0600

Received: from vader.thnet.com
    ([206.98.115.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 05 Aug 1998 06:11:32 -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 GAA01804; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 06:59:45 -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

                         White House Death Threats

               Linda Tripp Goes Where Reporters Fear to Tread

By Carl Limbacher
The Washington Weekly

OYSTER BAY -- On Wednesday, a visibly shaken Linda Tripp took to the
microphones to speak out after seven long months of being portrayed in the
press as a betrayer, manipulator and all around bad person. Fresh from her
final appearance before Ken Starr's Washington grand jury, Tripp talked
about herself, her motives and most importantly, the dirty little secret
the national media has kept from the American public for six years:

"As a result of trying to earn a living, I became aware between 1993 and
1997 of actions by high government officials that may have been against =
the
law. For that period of nearly five years, the things I witnessed
concerning several different subjects made me increasingly fearful that
this information was dangerous, very dangerous, to possess."

Just what kind of danger was Ms. Tripp talking about? As a political
appointee, no doubt her honest testimony about "several different =
subjects"
could be hazardous to her career. But Tripp had other reasons to be
concerned - as the press has known for months. Still, journalists have
refused to report on the subject in any way that might cause appropriate
alarm.

During a May 26 appearance on Larry King Live, Tripp's lawyer, Anthony
Zaccagnini, was asked why Tripp was sequestered in an FBI "safe house"
early on in the Lewinsky investigation. Zaccagnini replied: "Linda Tripp
was the subject of a lot of press scrutiny and there were some threats =
made
against her life."

For that reason, he said, the FBI in conjunction with Starr's office
"decided to move her to a secure location." Later on in the King interview,=

Zaccagnini said that Tripp feared losing her job and felt threatened by
another "danger" that he was not at liberty to discuss.

The day after Tripp's attorney revealed the stunning news that Ken Starr's
key cooperating witness had been the target of death threats, not a single
American news outlet dared report the story. Only the British wire service
Reuters carried the news.

Their headline, "Linda Tripp faced death threats, lawyer says" made it =
hard
to miss this bombshell, but somehow our media managed the trick.

What's worse, this wasn't the first indication that Tripp may have been =
the
target of a White House campaign to intimidate her through threats of
physical violence. In their March 23 issue, Newsweek buried this little
tidbit:

According to a source familiar with Tripp's account, the president would =
be
"extremely upset" if Tripp were to contradict him about (Clinton gropee
Kathleen) Willey, (Monica) Lewinsky told Tripp. Lewinsky said that the
president expected Tripp to be a team player. "He feels you screwed him in
the (previous) Newsweek article," Lewinsky allegedly said. Tripp should
know, Lewinsky warned, that both Linda and her children were "in danger" =
if
she didn't testify the right way about the Willey episode.

There's the "D" word again, this time emanating, allegedly, from the
president himself via Monica Lewinsky.

In a column that began causing a stir on the internet and talk radio on
Friday (though not slated to appear till Monday) Fox newsman Tony Snow
reports this White House shocker under the headline "The Threat to Linda
Tripp." But this bombshell only seems new because the story failed to set
off media smoke alarms when they first got wind of it. Newsweek headlined
their March 23 report, "What Made Linda Do it?" -- as if somehow she was
the one who had issued a death threat.

The same Newsweek story said Tripp has told co-workers that her problems =
at
the White House began because, "I knew too much about Whitewater."
Whitewater for Tripp was Vincent Foster's death, and what she'd witnessed
inside the White House as aides mounted a cover-up. Tripp's confidante,
Lucianne Goldberg told a New York radio audience last week that Tripp =
knows
more about the Foster case than she's told so far, because, says Goldberg,
investigators "didn't ask Linda the right questions."

Rather than inquire as to just what it is that Ms. Tripp knows, and why
that knowledge has put her in danger, journalists prefer to raise =
questions
about her motives for taping Lewinsky -- an alleged sin now elevated by
pundits to the status of a war crime.

But if the press really thinks the burning questions here have to do with
Tripp's motivation, then they might consult another witness with her own
famous tapes, who minces no words about why she made them. Gennifer =
Flowers
was grilled by Fox newswoman Penny Crone on New York radio over a year =
ago.
Like Newsweek, Crone was perturbed by the surreptitious recording of
presidents and their paramours:

CRONE: Isn't it kind of crummy to make tapes when you're having an affair
with the guy?

FLOWERS: I made the tapes to protect myself because some very scary things
were going on. I was getting threats on the telephone.

CRONE: What kind of threats? Were they saying they were going to kill you?

FLOWERS: Yes, I had some saying I was going to get beaten up. I had some
saying I was going to be killed.

When asked to name names, Flowers implied that these threats were
anonymous. But she did reveal that "Democratic operatives intimated that
there would be some problems and that I would not be in a secure
situation."

CRONE: Do you think President Clinton was behind this?

FLOWERS: What I thought was -- after my home was ransacked, that he was
behind that. (WABC Talk Radio, 7/3/97)

This blockbuster news received no coverage, though the New York Post did
report Flowers' response to Crone's query about whether Clinton was well
endowed. Though perhaps relevant at the time to Paula Jones'
"distinguishing characteristic" claim, this news pales in importance next
to information suggesting that someone had engineered a campaign of
violence to intimidate witnesses on Clinton's behalf. Still, even when
Flowers repeated her version of the threats she faced to Larry King, no =
one
in the press reported it.

Tripp's experience mirrors that of Flowers' in another important way.
Flowers, like Tripp, was urged to lie to protect Bill Clinton -- not =
merely
to the press, but under oath. Flowers was worried about her state job. She
was about to be grilled by the Arkansas State Labor Grievance Committee
over a complaint filed by Charlette Perry, a qualified African American in
line for a promotion, whom Clinton ordered bumped to open a slot for his
unqualified girlfriend. Flowers' famous tapes catch Clinton blatantly
suborning perjury:

FLOWERS: The only thing that concerns me, where I'm concerned at this
point, is the state job.

CLINTON: Yeah, I never thought about that. But as long as you say you'd
just been looking for one -- if they ever ask you if you talked to me =
about
it, you can say no.

In the midst of Monica-mania, the press behaves as if they don't know =
about
Clinton's pattern of obstructing justice -- proven six years ago by
Gennifer Flowers' smoking gun tapes.

But it's Clinton's pattern of witness intimidation that should scare the
daylights out of every American. And that pattern would no doubt put a
severe crimp in those sky-high presidential approval ratings if the media
began calling attention to the terrorist tactics employed against so many
who cross this president.

Just a month before Linda Tripp went public about her own "dangerous"
predicament, Kathleen Willey reported that her property had been vandalized=

- after which a stranger approached her, invoked the names of her children
and then said, "I hope you're getting the message?" No doubt this was a
bone chilling experience for the widowed Ms. Willey, especially after she
had exposed the president on "60 Minutes" as a crude sexual predator.

There were a handful of reports about the threat against Willey, but the
press decided it wasn't worth raising a fuss over.

The media did a similar tap dance around the case of Juanita Broaddrick, a
woman uncovered by detectives working for Paula Jones. Reportedly Jones'
investigators tape recorded Broaddrick as she unburdened herself about a
traumatic encounter with Clinton when he was Arkansas State Attorney
General, an experience that she said turned her life upside down and =
caused
her to flee to California. Broaddrick would not go into detail, saying she
did not want to "re-live" the episode. But two network news divisions, ABC
and NBC, spoke to witnesses who recounted Broaddrick's story, as told to
them years ago by Broaddrick herself. Back then, according to these
witnesses, Broaddrick had claimed Bill Clinton had brutally raped her.

NBC's Lisa Myers actually interviewed the nurse who had treated
Broaddrick's swollen lips after the attack. ABC identified that nurse as
Norma Rogers, and named another witness to whom Broaddrick had confided.
Broaddrick hastily issued an affidavit recanting her allegation. But
questions remain as to why she changed her story.

Nevertheless, the media played dumb. Instead of running down an obviously
substantial story, the press blamed attorneys for Paula Jones for leaking
such a scurrilous charge. According to the London Telegraph (3/30/98), Ken
Starr has subpoenaed all relevant evidence gathered by investigators on =
the
Broaddrick case, in an effort to determine if Juanita Broaddrick has been
silenced by the Clinton attack machine.

The list of Clinton scandal witnesses who claim to have been approached by
operatives bearing bribes and/or threats is astonishingly long, and
promises to grow longer as journalists ignore the phenomenon. Dolly Kyle
Browning, a Dallas lawyer who claims a thirty year on-and-off sexual
relationship with Clinton, says word was sent via her brother from Clinton
consigliere Bruce Lindsey, who warned that the White House would "destroy"
her if she didn't keep quiet. Columnist Snow reports in his upcoming piece
that Lindsey told Linda Tripp he'd do the same thing to her.

Former Clinton girlfriend Sally Perdue says a Clinton operative threatened
to break her legs if she didn't lay low during Clinton's first bid for the
presidency.

Arkansas State Trooper Roger Perry has claimed that he was threatened with
physical harm by Trooper Chief Raymond "Buddy" Young unless he kept quiet
about what he knew. (In Dec. 1993, Young was captured on an ABC News video
taking orders on Troopergate damage control from none other than Bruce
Lindsey.)

The late James McDougal, who first revealed the Clintons' Whitewater
shenanigans to the New York Times, was tape recorded as he told a local
Arkansas politico that he could sink the Clintons on Whitewater - "if I
could get into a position where I wouldn't get my head beaten off." =
Despite
McDougal's quote, the mainstream press refuses to report allegations by
eyewitnesses that suggest his death earlier this year in a federal prison
was a result of mistreatment.

Like Tripp, key Whitewater witness David Hale has been threatened by state
Democrats with prosecution after cooperating with Ken Starr. Hale told the
Associated Press last year that attempts had been made to both bribe and
threaten him into silence. And like Tripp, federal prosecutors decided =
that
Hale needed the protection of an FBI "safe house" while preparing to
testify.

Another trooper, L.D. Brown, says someone approached him during a recent
business trip to England and offered $100,000 to tailor his Whitewater
story.

Gennifer Flowers' onetime neighbor, Gary Johnson has alleged that he was
beaten and left for dead after goons he suspected were sent by Clinton
stole videotaped evidence of Clinton's relationship with Flowers. New
Republic writer L. J. Davis says he was knocked unconscious in a Little
Rock hotel room while researching a story on the Rose Law Firm, after =
which
he discovered a portion of his notes were missing.

All these folks have two things in common. They are still, with the
exception of McDougal, very much alive and available to be debriefed by
reporters who should be desperately curious about all this. The second
similarity they share is that the prestige

American press refuses to put their stories in context; to connect the
dots, for fear the public will draw the obvious conclusion.

As Linda Tripp trembled before the microphones last week, she conjured up
visions of another traumatized witness who testified before Starr's grand
jury last winter. Betty Currie, the president's personal secretary, looked
like a freight train had just hit her, as she cowered amidst a throng of
reporters after emerging from her first day of testimony. And in the
context of all of the above, common sense suggests that she may have been
leaned on like so many witnesses trampled by the Clinton machine before
her.

Currie had lost a brother in a bizarre car accident that left even local
investigators puzzled. Theodore Williams had survived the initial crash,
only to dart back onto a Virginia highway on foot -- into the path of an =
18
wheeler (The Richmond Times Dispatch, 12/17/97). The death came around the
same time Monica Lewinsky was advised by Clinton to return the gifts he
gave her (incriminating evidence of their relationship) to Mrs. Currie.
Lewinsky has already informed Starr about this episode of Clinton evidence
tampering. If Currie corroborates her account, the Clinton presidency is
toast.

That wasn't the first time in recent months tragedy had struck the Currie
family. Another brother had been severely beaten and hospitalized on the
eve of Mrs. Currie's August 1997 testimony before the Thompson Committee.
After the beating, White House lawyers advised Currie to postpone her
testimony (The Oregonian, 1/28/98).

Neither the car accident nor the beating seems connected in any way to
Currie's role as a crucial witness -- except through the incredibly
coincidental timing.

But this much is clear. If there is any connection between Betty Currie's
twin tragedies and testimony that the White House knows could be legally
fatal for the president, America's mainstream media won't uncover it.
Because, as with the death threats against Linda Tripp, our journalists =
are
loathe to expose their own role as accomplices who stood by silently as
Bill Clinton wreaked havoc on the American justice system.

A Representative of the People Interview With Rep. James Traficant, D-OH.
"We need to tone down our governments, against Linda Tripp, our journalists=

are loathe to expose their own role as accomplices who stood by silently =
as
Bill Clinton wreaked havoc on the American justice system.

[LISTEN TO "CARL OF OYSTER BAY" LIVE ON THE INTERNET this Thursday,
6:00-8:00 PM EDT. Carl Limbacher is co-hosting on John Sipos', My Town
Tampa Bay, heard daily along Florida's Gulf Coast. Listen in RealAudio at:
http://www.broadcast.com/radio/news/whnz/ ]

Published in the Aug. 3, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright =
1998
The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with
this message intact


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: Head's Up - Intellectual Ammo
Date: 05 Aug 1998 14:12:54 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 05 Aug 1998 13:22:16 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA05007; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:11:12 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA25035; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:20:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024787; Wed Aug  5 15:18:23 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

Heads Up Shooters.  This just in. =20

Without a doubt, anti-RKBA types are going to stroke this school and
Capitol Hill thing, as they have for any incident they wished to exploit
to get rid of that pesky Second Amendment.  Nestled within the newsprint
is the name Lois Fingerhut, the author of a series of studies on youth
violence.  I have not read her reports in depth, but a quick MetaSearch
pulled up some references. =20

At first blush, it appears that she is a favorite of the Anti-gunners.
Please take a look at the stuff below and get ready for some LTE's.

Note:  the two last citations are Must Reads -> Great Intellectual Ammo!
[Re: Original Intent and Anti-RKBA methods of attacking the RKBA]

Semper Fi,

Rick V.


Yahoo! News -  Top Stories Headlines=20

Tuesday August 4 6:41 PM EDT=20

Experts issue mixed report card on violence in U.S.
By Michael Conlon=20

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Experts issued a mixed report card on violence in
the United States Tuesday: Fewer young people are being murdered but
domestic violence involving attacks on women may be worse than
recognized.=20

"Homicide rates have recently begun declining among persons 15 through
24 years old, the age group where rates have been the highest and in
which the most rapid increase ... from 1987 through 1991 was
experienced," said one report from the National Center for Health
Statistics.=20

The drops involve both firearm and non-firearm homicides, are taking
place in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas among white and
black males and females, it added.=20

"While the data shows a decline in homicide rates for young adults and
adolescents in every subgroup studied, there is a significant decline
for 15- to 24-year-old black males, a group for which homicide continues
to be the No. 1 leading cause of death," the report said.=20

[article snipped for brevity]

The study was one of several published in this week's Journal of the
American Medical Association, an issue devoted to various forms of
violence.=20

Lois Fingerhut, a lead author of the study, said that while the research
focused on statistics and not causes, law enforcement officials and
others have cited a number of reasons for the dropping homicide rates.=20

"They've credited changes in the judicial system, higher incarceration
rates, changing drug markets and the stabilization of them and a lot of
community activism with people getting tired of violence and working to
take back their neighborhoods," she told Reuters.=20

[What? No credit for Right-to-Carry reform?]

Asked if those opposed to further gun control efforts would cite the
report and others showing crime declines in some major cities as proving
that no additional restrictions are needed, she said "that is a danger."=20=


"But one of the key messages I want people to take home is that this is
no time for complacency. Our efforts need to be redoubled. The
(homicide) rates are not nearly as low as they were in 1987," she said.=20

The study found that between 1993 and 1995 firearm homicide rates in the
15 to 24 age group declined an average of 8 percent per year in the
biggest metropolitan areas and by more than 15 percent in medium
metropolitan areas.=20

"Provisional data for 1996 and 1997 indicate that the national declines
in homicide are continuing," it said. "Firearms continue to be the
mechanism with which most homicides are committed, with the proportion
of homicides resulting from the use of firearms increasing from 66
percent in 1985 to 84 percent of all homicides in 1995."=20
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/top_stories/story.html?s=3Dz/reuters/9=
80804/news/stories/violence_2.html


> University of Toronto holdings:=20

[Say..wasn't Reno just talking about Toronto?]

Fingerhut, Lois A. "International and Interstate Comparisons of Homicide
Among Young Males." JAMA 263 (June 1990): 3292-5. BMES

Fingerhut, Lois A. "Homicide Among Adolescents in the United States."
JAMA 266 (Oct 1991): 2223. BMES
http://library.utoronto.ca/www/libraries_crim/juvhom.htm

Violence Policy Center [Anti-RKBA] Favorites:

Fingerhut, Lois, MA and Joel C. Kleinman, PhD,
"International and Interstate Comparisons of Homicide Among Young
Males," JAMA, June 27, 1990, Vol. 263, No. 24.

Fingerhut, Lois, MA, et al, "Firearm and Nonfirearm homicide Among
Persons 15 Through 19 Years of Age: Differences by Level of
Urbanization, United States, 1979 Through 1989," JAMA, June 10, 1992,
Vol. 267, No. 22.

[...and our old buddy Kellermann...]

Kellermann, Arthur L. and Roberta K. Lee et al, "The Epidemiological
Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries," Annual Review of Public
Health, Vol. 12, 1991, pp. 17-40.
http://www.vpc.org/ytopic.htm


Beacons of Hope: New York City's School-Based Community Centers.
Series: NIJ Program Focus Published: January 1996=20
- Daniel McGillis (cites to Fingerhut study)
http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/beacons.txt


ACHTUNG!!  [THESE ARE MUST READ(S)!!!]
UNDER FIRE: THE NEW CONSENSUS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT=20
Randy E. Barnett, Don B. Kates         =20
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/bk-ufire.html

THE FEDERAL FACTOID FACTORY ON FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: A Review of CDC
Research and Politics, Blackman, NRA-ILA 1994
"From proving that firearms exist and are sometimes misused, the CDC=20
regularly presumes that any and all restrictions on firearms -- self- or
government-imposed -- would benefit individuals and society.  To enhance
that conclusion, the CDC produces research showing bad things associated
with firearms, based on a fairly open anti-gun bias (Blackman,
1990:2-4):  "The Public Health Service [parent agency of the CDC] has
targeted
violence as a priority concern....There is a separate objective to
reduce the number of handguns in private ownership...." (Fingerhut and
Kleinman, 1989:6)=20
http://www.nra.org/pub/ila/95-09-23_federal_factoid_factory_on_firearms_and=
_violence


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Janet, part of "the most ethical administration in histroy"
Date: 06 Aug 1998 13:43:30 -0600

From UPI....

The House panel probing campaign fund raising has voted to hold Attorney
General Janet Reno in contempt of Congress.The vote was 24-19, along
party lines.

Reno has refused to give Burton memos including one from FBI Director
Louis Freeh that urge her to recommend an independent counsel
investigate alleged fund-raising abuses.

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Or was that "parts of the constitution"?
Date: 06 Aug 1998 15:05:32 -0600

After swearing to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United
States.....

Thursday August 6 1:50 PM EDT

Clinton: Gun waiting period should stay

WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 (UPI) - President Clinton is warning Congress he will
oppose ``any legislation that would gut the Brady law,'' the anti-
handgun law named for former press secretary James Brady.

In the Rose Garden today, with Brady once again at his side, Clinton
called for making permanent the waiting period, which expires at the end
of November, and vowed, ``I will oppose any legislation that would gut
the Brady law and put guns back into the hands of felons and fugitives
when we can prevent it.''

Clinton is supporting legislation that would require a minimum three-
day waiting period for all handgun purchases and add up to two
additional days if needed.

With Vice President Al Gore, Attorney General Janet Reno and Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin also on hand, Clinton said the law has obviously
worked since taking effect in 1994, preventing some 250,000 handgun
purchases.

But he said: ``We should resolve to do better. No serious person
believes this country is as safe as it ought to be.''

``We cannot retreat,'' Clinton said. ``Yet...that is precisely what the
gun lobby and its allies on Capitol Hill have asked us to do _ to
retreat from a law that is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.''

He was referring to a recent amendment to the Senate Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill that the White House says would
undermine nationwide background checks.

Officials say it would prohibit the FBI from charging gun dealers a fee
for background checks, without which the bureau would have to skip
processing millions of such checks.

Clinton has often summoned Brady, and his wife, Sarah, to the White
House for appearances on behalf of the legislation, which passed after
many attempts following the 1981 assassination attempt on President
Reagan in which Brady was seriously wounded.

Rubin said the administration would soon move to expand the law to cover
so-called long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, and require background
checks for pawn shop customers who redeem their own firearms.

Copyright 1998 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Counterterrorism Fund 1/3
Date: 07 Aug 1998 06:32:00 -0700


Search down to 2002 Winter Olympics. Do they have a chemical or
biological attack scheduled for the 2002 Olympics, or is this a
bribe to the University of Utah?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Cc: David Rydel <[e-mail]>

5 August 1998
Excerpted from Senate Report 105-235  July 2, 1998
105th Congress
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1999


                     TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

*****

                         Counterterrorism Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $52,700,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      61,703,000
Committee recommendation................................     193,999,000

    The Committee recommends $193,999,000 for the
``Counterterrorism fund'' account which was established in
Public Law 104-19, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Additional Disaster Assistance, for Anti-Terrorism
Initiatives, for Assistance in the Recovery from the Tragedy
that Occurred at Oklahoma City, and Rescissions Act, 1995. The
recommendation provides $132,296,000 more than the request and
$141,299,000 above the 1998 appropriation. This fund is under
the control and direction of the Attorney General to: (1) cover
the costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability
of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed as
a result of any domestic or international terrorist incident;
(2) the costs of providing support to counter, investigate, or
prosecute domestic or international terrorism, including
payment of rewards in connection with these activities; (3) the
costs of conducting a terrorism threat assessment of Federal
agencies and their facilities; (4) the costs associated with
ensuring the continuance of essential Government functions
during a time of emergency; and (5) the costs for activities
related to the protection of the Nation's critical
infrastructure.
    Counterterrorism initiative.--The administration is
starting to realize the threat of terrorists using considerable
destructive power on individuals, institutions, and facilities.
The Committee is especially concerned with the threat of
chemical and biological weapons. The requirements placed upon
officials from Federal, State, city, and community agencies are
complicated and in many cases unfunded. Most Federal, State,
city, and community agencies do not have civil response assets
needed to address such a threat or event. These assets include
the equipment and training needed to address the demands of
terrorist threats or events.
    The Committee also recognizes that domestic disaster relief
is part of each State's responsibility for public safety. The
Committee's goals include providing States with an improved
ability to respond to terrorist threats or events. This
includes training and equipping the first responder who will
respond within 1 hour of a threat or event. The Committee is
also aware of the State's rapid assessment and initial
detection [RAID] elements that are expected to arrive within 6
to 8 hours after an event has occurred. They will assist in
confirming the nature of an attack. However, the use of weapons
of mass destruction [WMD] could create a situation which is
outside the response capabilities of local law enforcement. The
role of the Department of Justice is to manage crises that are
caused by domestic terrorists. This includes the ability to
prevent or resolve an act of terrorism.
    The fiscal year 1998 conference report directed the
Attorney General to develop a 5-year interdepartmental
counterterrorism and technology crime plan. The plan covers a
broad range of topics encompassing the Nation's efforts to
prevent and deter terrorist attacks, as well as manage a crisis
created by a terrorist incident. It is to serve as a baseline
strategy for coordination of national policy and operational
capabilities to combat terrorism. This effort is in accord with
Presidential Decision Directive 62. The final plan is due no
later than December 31, 1998. Last year, the conferees provided
$1,000,000 for the preparation of this plan.
    On March 3, 1998, the Department provided an initial
prospectus outlining the basic topics to be considered in the
course of developing the plan with estimated time lines and
major milestones for completion of the plan. The prospectus
outlines a comprehensive strategy which covers the prevention
of, and the reaction to, terrorist events both inside and
outside the United States. It also addresses the safeguarding
of our information infrastructure and the research and
development of critical technologies used in combating
terrorism. The goal of the Committee is to create a coordinated
posture with respect to our national efforts to combat
terrorism.
    The Committee understands that working groups have been
developing specific 5-year objectives to be included in a draft
plan. The subject area of these recommendations include:
prevention and deterrence; crisis management; consequence
management; cyberterrorism; critical technologies; and research
and development. The Committee expects field meetings be held
to refine the draft plan. The purpose of these meetings is to
consult with State and local authorities and interested members
of the academic community to obtain input for the plan. The
Committee continues to emphasize the importance of input and
consultation from State and local authorities, and the academic
and private sectors. In consultation with the Office of
Management and Budget [OMB], the Coordinating Subgroup on
Counterterrorism and key agencies, a final plan should be
completed by November 31, 1998. The plan should be presented to
the Attorney General for approval and submitted to the
appropriate committees no later than December 31, 1998. The
Committee looks forward to submission of a comprehensive final
product that will serve as a baseline strategy and budget
document for coordination of national policy and operational
capabilities to combat terrorism.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Counterterrorism Fund 2/3
Date: 07 Aug 1998 06:32:00 -0700


    The Committee commends the Attorney General for her efforts
in this process. However, the Committee is concerned with the
burdensome process that has been created. The Department has
given direct roles to the following agencies: Federal Emergency
Management Agency, National Security Agency, Public Health
Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation
Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, General Services
Administration, U.S. Information Agency, Department of
Transportation, and Department of Commerce. While many of these
agencies have a significant role to play, others do not. It has
been estimated that 20 different agencies are involved. As a
result, information has been leaked to the media and the
process has become burdensome. The Committee urges the Attorney
General to conduct an immediate review of the process and in
consultation with the Appropriations Committees make
appropriate changes.
    Also, the Committee expects the final plan will contain
budget data appropriate for inclusion in the fiscal year 2000
appropriations bills.
    To advance this effort the Committee recommendation
includes language which allows the Attorney General to better
manage and coordinate the funding requirements needed for
crisis management.
    Improving State and local response capabilities.--The
Committee recommendation includes $197,000,000 within the
counterterrorism fund to enable the Office of Justice Programs
[OJP] to expand first responder training and equipment program
activities. The grant funds available in this program will be
targeted to the 157 largest cities and localities in the United
States, as well as States. These first responders will be
designated by the appropriate local governments. The Committee
notes the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium was
designed to address and sustain comprehensive and coordinated
efforts to respond to incidents of terrorism. This will be done
through certification programs, technical assistance, distance
learning, test and evaluation, and realistic confidence
building exercises based on threat-driven scenarios. The goal
of the consortium is to provide a threat responsive, long-term
national capability. This capability will be attained through
weapons of mass destruction [WMD] emergency first responder
training, test, and exercise programs. The consortium should
concentrate on using its existing training facilities and
staff. This collaborative effort is intended to achieve the
most immediate enhancement of local, State, and Federal
emergency first responders and emergency management agencies
nationwide.
    The consortium members include the National Energetic
Materials Research and Testing Center, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology; the National Center for Bio-Med Research
and Training, Louisiana State University; the Center for
Domestic Preparedness, Fort McClellan, AL; the National
Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center, Texas A&M
University; and the National Exercise, Test, and Training
Center, Nevada test site.
    The Committee is aware of and supportive of OJP's
administration of this program. This program includes an
equipment purchasing program and two training programs. It will
address the unmet needs of our Nation's first responders by
providing equipment and training to efficiently and safely
respond to incidents of terrorism, including those involving
nuclear, biological, and chemical agents; explosive devices;
and other weapons of mass destruction.
    OJP expects to accomplish the following activities by the
close of fiscal year 1998: (1) offer the first responder basic
concepts course to over 74,000 firefighters and emergency
medical services personnel in 120 jurisdictions nationwide; (2)
award equipment grants, totaling $12,000,000, to 46 State and
local first responder agencies for the purpose of outfitting
these agencies with basic protective gear and equipment; (3)
establish the State and local training center for first
responders at Fort McClellan, AL; and (4) award a $2,000,000
grant to the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology for
the development of a curriculum to train local law enforcement
personnel to respond to incidents of terrorism.
    The Committee recommends the following program increases
for fiscal year 1999:

                                                                    1998
1999 budget        Committee
                                                               appropriation
estimate      recommendation
Metropolitan medical strike teams training and equipment....  ...............
$9,000,000       $5,000,000
Establishment of a Local Law Enforcement Training Program...  ...............
7,000,000        7,000,000
Expansion of the equipment acquisition program..............      $12,000,000
73,500,000       95,000,000
    Administration..........................................  ...............
...............       (2,000,000)
Implementation of situational exercises.....................  ...............
...............       10,000,000
Technical assistance/national needs assessment..............  ...............
10,000,000       10,000,000
For consortium members:
    Center for Domestic Preparedness, Fort McClellan, AL....        2,000,000
5,000,000       12,000,000
    National Energetic Materials Research and Testing
     Center, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology..        2,000,000
...............        2,500,000
    National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center,
     Texas A&M University...................................  ...............
...............        2,500,000
    National Exercise, Test and Training Center, Nevada test
     site...................................................  ...............
...............        2,500,000
    National Center for Bio-Med Research and Training,
     Louisiana State University.............................  ...............
...............        2,500,000
State and local detection/bomb technician equipment.........  ...............
49,000,000       23,000,000
Municipal fire and emergency services.......................  ...............
...............       25,000,000



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Counterterrorism Fund 3/3
Date: 07 Aug 1998 06:32:00 -0700


    Should the funds be available in the Department of Justice
working capital fund, the Committee directs the Attorney
General to provide $23,000,000 for State and local detection/
bomb technician equipment.
    The Committee finds that the Department of Justice's Office
of Justice Programs [OJP] currently does not have a plan to
develop simulations of complex, nonlinear phenomena, such as
dispersion and deposition of chemical or biological aerosols
for the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Committee directs the
Department to explore this possibility, employing the services
of the University of Utah which is the Nation's lead
institution in the National Science Foundation Science and
Technology Center for Computer Graphics.
    The Committee also notes that the Department of Defense is
expected to commit additional funding for this counterterrism
effort in fiscal year 1999 pursuant to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici
Program authorized in Public Law 104-201.
    Improving municipal fire and emergency services.--The
Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 to improve
municipal fire and emergency services. This new program will
ensure municipal fire and emergency services departments are
provided with appropriate equipment necessary to respond to
incidents of terrorism involving the release of chemical,
biological, and radiological agents, as well as improvised or
manufactured explosive devices. The Committee recommendation
includes $17,000,000 for grants of equipment directly to local
fire departments, hazardous materials response teams, and
emergency medical service agencies, and $8,000,000 for grants
for interoperable radio equipment to local emergency response
agencies. The Committee's recommendation also includes
$7,000,000 for grants to firefighters and emergency service
personnel within the ``Justice assistance'' account.
    Topoff exercise.--The Committee commends the administration
for its efforts to enhance our ability to prevent and respond
to chemical, biological, and cyberweapon attacks. The Committee
is aware that numerous exercises are conducted each year to
practice operations in the event of a terrorist incident. The
Committee understands that few of the top officials of agencies
have ever fully participated in these exercises. The Committee
directs that an exercise be conducted in fiscal year 1999 with
the participation of all key personnel who would participate in
the consequence management of such an actual terrorist event.
The decision on what type of simulated attack should be based
upon the ability to best address one of these three threats.
This exercise should be cochaired and administered without
notice by the Attorney General and the Administrator of FEMA
and coordinated with the National Security Council.
    Cyberterrorism.--The Committee understands that today our
U.S. economy and even our continuing national security is
heavily reliant on a vast array of interdependent and critical
infrastructures. The Report of the President's Commission on
Critical Infrastructure Protection in October 1997 and
Presidential Decision Directive No. 63, released in May 1998,
call for an unprecedented level of cooperation among U.S.
Federal law enforcement agencies, national security entities
and the private sector owners and operators to reduce the
threat of information age crime, terrorism and possibility of a
cyber attack. The Committee strongly encourages and expects all
Federal agencies to cooperate to the full extent of their
authorities and expertise in the response planning, prevention,
detection, deterrence, and elimination of vulnerabilities to
these critical infrastructures. The Committee further
encourages all Federal entities to ensure that resources
required to protect critical infrastructures and pursue
information age criminals and terrorists are given a high
priority within respective programs and initiatives.
    Today, the potential for an Internet crime wave is
staggering. Programs are available which provide marginally
skilled people with the tools to threaten national security.
These efforts can be contained by simple methods. The Committee
urges the FBI to provide guidelines for all agencies within the
Department. These guidelines should include the enforcement of
strict password policies, employment of firewalls between
agency networks and the outside world, the use of encryption,
and the reporting of break-ins.
    Presidential Decision Directive 63 [PDD-63].--The Committee
supports PDD-63 in its efforts to address threats to physical
and cyberbased critical infrastructure. The Committee notes the
requirement by PDD-63 that the Department develop a plan for
protecting its own critical infrastructure, including but not
limited to its cyberbased systems. This plan should be provided
to the Committee no later than August 31, 1998. In addition to
this plan the Committee directs the Department to include the
necessary legislative authorities and fiscal year 2000
budgetary priorities necessary to begin implementing this plan.
    National Infrastructure Protection Center [NIPC].--The
Committee recommendation includes $26,984,000 for the National
Infrastructure Protection Center. The recommendation does not
include $6,619,000 for other infrastructure protection
projects. Should the funds be available in the Department of
Justice working capital fund, the Committee directs the
Attorney General to provide $7,985,000 for the National
Infrastructure Protection Center [NIPC].
    Continuation of operations [COOP]/continuity of government
[COG].--The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for
the continuation of operations/continuity of government for an
alternate crisis management/relocation facility to carry on
essential Department of Justice functions in the event the
Department, or one of its components, is denied access to its
facility for various reasons, such as a terrorist act. The
recommendation is $2,100,000 less than the fiscal year 1999
request due to updated funding requirements.
    The Committee is aware that there are carryover balances
from fiscal years 1997 and 1998 in excess of $50,000,000. This
amount is adequate to fund the statutory provisions provided in
fiscal years 1997-98 counterterrorism fund. The Committee
directs the Department of Justice to continue to notify the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees prior to obligations
of funds.

*****

    Cybercrime.--Traffic on the Internet continues to rise, yet
security controls remain totally inadequate. As a result, the
information superhighway has become an avenue for embezzlement,
fraud, theft, sabotage, espionage, hate crimes, and
pornography. Within available resources and manpower ceilings,
the Committee recommendation provides $3,630,000 (and 18 full-
time equivalents) for cybercrime prosecutions.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: "Anti-Brady" amendment
Date: 07 Aug 1998 19:27:00 -0700


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

The Michigan Militia Corps'
WEEKLY UPDATE **Internet Edition**
Volume 5 Issue 25
Week of July 20, 1998

[Other articles snipped]

Hats off to GOA members and activists for their tremendous efforts!
By Gun Owners of America
http://www.gunowners.org
(Wednesday, July 22, 1998)

As we told you to expect, Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced his
"Anti-Brady" amendment as a rider to the StateJustice-Commerce
Appropriations bill (S. 2260) yesterday. The amendment passed
overwhelmingly, and, unless it's stripped out in a conference committee,
the amendment should become law later this year!

The Smith amendment would do three things. As explained by Smith himself
yesterday:

Stated simply, my legislation will put a stop to the FBI's plan to keep
records of private identifying information on law-abiding citizens who buy
guns. . . . Why would we want the FBI to maintain a file on a law-abiding
gun owner who did nothing [except] exercise his constitutional right to own
a gun? They want 18 months to keep these files. I don't want 18 seconds. I
want these files destroyed immediately. That is point one in my amendment.
. . . Secondly, the amendment prevents the FBI from imposing a tax on these
people. Thirdly, it allows a person to go to court if the FBI does that. We
have seen abuses by the FBI. We have seen files held in the White House. Do
you want this to go on? That is what this issue is about. That is what my
amendment is about.

Members and activists of Gun Owners of America deserve a lot of credit for
this victory. Smith's staff has told GOA that during the past month, they
have seen boxes of postcards come in to the Senate in favor of his
amendment. Your other contacts were also helpful in overcoming some
institutional opposition in the Senate.

High-level Senate sources reported that NRA lobbyists were "camped out" in
the Senate cloakroom, pushing an alternative to the Smith amendment. They
were concerned that Smith's amendment was too tough and that it didn't have
enough votes to pass. But despite these objections, your grassroots
efforts prevailed!

Indeed, Senator Smith's amendment is tougher than other bills that try to
stop the FBI from registering gun owners. Smith's proviso actually allows
individuals to "punish" the FBI by suing them for any infringement of
privacy (i.e., gun owner registration), and then recover all the attorney's
fees that one spends on the lawsuit.

Strange coalition forms to back Smith amendment

Sen. Smith's amendment would, obviously, benefit gun owners first and
foremost. But Sen. Smith also appealed to those Democrats who were
interested in the issue of privacy. "This is more than a gun issue," he
told his colleagues. "This is a privacy issue [as well]."

The privacy issue can often cut across party lines. Some liberal,
Democratic Senators voted with Smith purely because of the privacy
implications. And thus, Smith was able to garner a filibuster-proof and
veto-proof majority. To make matters simpler, we have listed the 31 "bad"
Senators who voted AGAINST Smith:

Akaka (HI), Kohl (WI) Biden (DE), Landrieu (LA), Boxer (CA), Lautenberg
(NJ) Bryan (NV), Levin (MI), Bumpers (AR), Lieberman (CT), Byrd (WV),
Mikulski (MD), Cleland (GA), Moseley-Braun (IL), Dodd (CT), Moynihan (NY)
Durbin (IL), Reed (RI), Feinstein (CA), Robb (VA), Ford (KY), Sarbanes
(MD), Glenn (OH), Torricelli (NJ), Graham (FL), Wellstone (MN), Harkin
(IA), Wyden (OR), Inouye (HI), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA)

Fight moves to the House

The House version of the Commerce-State-Justice appropriation bill will be
coming up for a vote soon. GOA will keep you updated on our efforts to
attach a Smith-type amendment on the House bill. Doing so would help
guarantee that a HouseSenate conference committee will not strip the
amendment from the bill.

***

If you would like to submit an editorial, commentary, or news story from
your perspective on something you have been keeping an eye on, please
e-mail it to [e-mail] and it will be evaluated for
entrance. Thanks.

To subscribe to the Weekly Update, put out weekly by Michigan Militia Corps
5th Division command, simply send a message to [e-mail] with
the phrase "subscribe militia" in the BODY of the message. The Weekly
Update is archived at the Michigan Militia Corps web page at:
http://militia.gen.mi.us

Jeff S.
15th Brigade: Kent county
5th Division
Michigan Militia Corps



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Projections on Y2K
Date: 08 Aug 1998 08:16:00 -0700


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

Had to pass this post along to you'all.
The last paragraph is quite amusing.

Best, Mike Lamb
=========================================

Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism

Compadres,

Another very good post from AR-15 mailing list with
good Y2K technical info and an amusing last line.

Ed Hill,
Atlanta


First off, I am a senior software engineer in Silicon Valley and am
very familiar with these issues.

There are a lot of aspects of Y2K that a lot of people on this list
don't seem to be comprehending. First is that the primary effects
of a Y2K failure are *not* the most destructive. The problem is the
secondary effects. By secondary effects, I am talking about the impact
on the systems that depend on the smaller number of systems that fail.

Here is an example: All checks in the U.S. banking system go through
one of seven automated clearing houses that run 24/7. If any one of
these mainframes goes down for more than a single hour, the entire
bank checking system will be unrecoverable due to the volume. Now
imagine what it would do to the banks if the entire check clearinghouse
systems collapsed in an unrecoverable manner. But not to worry, the U.S.
banking software will most likely be Y2K compliant, I am told by my
friends who happen to be working on the problem. Unfortunately, most
of the European systems and the majority of Asian banking systems will
*not* be ready. The reason this is especially bad is that a Y2K failure
at a European or Asian bank will very likely cause a secondary failure
in the U.S. banking software because all the banks are interconnected
and interdependent on each other's data. The U.S. banks are extremely
concerned about this but there is little they can do.

Now apply this example to your industry of choice. A very small number
of failures will topple the house of cards. And because this is a data
and software issue, it can affect *all* computers, not just mainframes.
Remember earlier this year when a software bug in two Cisco routers
killed 40% of the U.S. data network capacity for a day? ATMs stopped
working, banks lost their computer capability, and businesses were
unable to conduct transactions. And it only required a software failure
on two machines.

For the record, the so-called "Great Geek Migration" is a real
phenomenon. Based on my personal experience, I would estimate that 10%
of the software engineers in Silicon Valley are looking at serious
bugout/survival preparation. It is considered no joke here. While no
one knows what will happen (many system failures *will* occur but the
amount of damage is pure speculation), enough people here are risk
averse enough to make preparations. And don't even get me started on
the possibility of "work camp internment" by FEMA as allowed by EO.
At best things will be uncomfortable for a while.

It does warm the heart, though, to have left-wing, grass-eating, gun
hating co-workers asking me for advice on the purchase of their first
gun in preparation for Y2K. I guess the RKBA wasn't important to them
until it was their ass on the line...

 -James Rogers
[e-mail]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Forbidden Words
Date: 10 Aug 1998 07:44:00 -0700


Forbidden Words
http://www.fatalblindness.com

August 9, 1998 Fulton Huxtable

Here is something you may not know. If you don't, you
are not alone, since most Americans appear to be
completely unaware of it. And the reason most do not
know it is that the media hasn't provided the details.

What is "it"? The fact that legislation recently passed the
House that would forbid you to use certain words, during
the 60-day period prior to a general election, in any "type
of general public communication." It would be illegal for
you to engage in "a communication that advocates the
election or defeat of a candidate by-(i) containing a
phrase such as `vote for', `re-elect', `support', `cast your
ballot for', `(name of candidate) for Congress', (name of
candidate) in 1997', `vote against', `defeat', `reject' or a
campaign slogan or words that in context can have no
reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election
or defeat of 1 or more clearly identified candidates;"
(Title II, Sec. 201 (b) (20) (A).

Welcome to the hoped-for, totalitarian world of the
Shays-Meehan bill, pleasingly touted to the public as the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

This Act does not stop with merely banning the use of
certain words in any public forum, during the 60 days
before a general election, it makes a sweeping ban of "...a
communication that advocates the election or defeat of a
candidate by-(iii) expressing unmistakable or
unambiguous support for or opposition to 1 or more
clearly identified candidates when taken as a whole and
with limited reference to external events, such as
proximity to an election." (Title II, Sec. 201 (b) (20) (A)
(iii)).

If this legislation is signed into law it will bring
widespread, forcible suppression of freedom of
expression, suddenly putting into high gear what has, so
far, been a slow-motion death march toward totalitarian
rule in America.

Even though statists claim that these restrictions would
only apply to ads coming from such groups as the Sierra
Club or the NRA, consider the possibilities which will
be offered to statists and the power they will have against
anyone who opposes them.

With the power to ban any
"...communication.expressing unmistakable and
unambiguous support...," logic, as logic always does,
will drive statists to take this to its ultimate conclusion.
Just what might be the target of statist regulators?
Anything and everything: every means of communication
would eventually become subject to regulation. How
about your web site? It certainly is a means of
communication. How about your postings to an online
discussion forum or newsgroup? Yep, this would qualify
as communication. What if you have a list of individuals
to whom you e-mail political messages? This, too, would
be a communication. In fact, virtually any form of public
expression, anything you might say for the purpose of
influencing the outcome of an election-a letter to the
editor of a newspaper, a telephone call to a talk radio
show or a speech given to a group of individuals-would
be banned during the 60 days prior to a general election.

This legislation would also mean that for the 60 days
prior to a general election, no newspaper, magazine or
any other publication could issue an editorial either for
or against a candidate. Talk radio show hosts, such as
Rush Limbaugh, would effectively be silenced for 60
days.

There would essentially be no public utterances for or
against candidates during 60 days of suppression,
except, of course, for the candidates themselves, their
political parties and their representatives.

According to news reports, the Shays-Meehan bill is
given little chance of passing the Senate, but there are
only a half-a-dozen or so Senators standing in the way of
its passage-that is how close America is to taking one,
gigantic step closer to full-blown totalitarianism.

What if there are a few changes in the makeup of the
Senate in the coming, November elections, changes that
alter the philosophic mix of the Senate, making it even
more statist than it is now? What if those now standing
in the way of the passage of Shays-Meehan are no longer
in office? Given the penchant of most Americans to only
judge legislation by its cover and the unconscionable
editorial support it has received from most newspapers,
most will rally around this Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act and will only discover the meaning of their act of
support after it is too late.

Once statists succeed in establishing censorship for 60
days prior to elections, the collapse of freedom will
accelerate with startling swiftness. Statists will soon
claim that 60 days isn't long enough, that these
restrictions on speech need to be extended and they will
call for these extensions during the 60 days of silence,
when no one can effectively speak out against them,
when only statist politicians can speak and run their ads
to influence opinion-and they will get that extension,
one that will go to 120 days, then to a year before any
election, then to a total ban on public expression for or
against a candidate.

I have repeatedly warned that America will quickly
collapse into complete totalitarian rule shortly after
freedom of speech is sharply restricted-and we are now
within sight of such restrictions on speech being
imposed in the very near future. It could only be a year or
two away, or it could be longer-or, if enough act now,
it will never happen. (If you are relying on the Supreme
Court to save the First Amendment, don't bet your life
on it. For decades, the Supreme Court has been
sanctioning the nibbling away of the First Amendment.)

The passage in the House of the Shays-Meehan bill
should be a wake-up call to anyone who values his
freedom. The alarm bells should be ringing. There should
be a storm of protests. Alarmingly, there are no alarms
and no storms of protest-at least, not yet. While you
still have the freedom to do so, you had better act now,
speak out while you still have the freedom to do so. If
you don't, statists will eventually see to it that your
voluntary silence now will become involuntary silence in
the future.

Fulton Huxtable

August 9, 1998
Rose Bowen <[e-mail]>
Prophetic Secrets and the New World Order
Will they affect your life???
http://www.sayhello.com/secrets




-



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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Forbidden Words
Date: 10 Aug 1998 09:34:32 -0700 (PDT)



On Mon, 10 Aug 98, [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) wrote:
>
>Forbidden Words
>http://www.fatalblindness.com
>
>August 9, 1998 Fulton Huxtable
>
>Here is something you may not know. If you don't, you
>are not alone, since most Americans appear to be
>completely unaware of it. And the reason most do not
>know it is that the media hasn't provided the details.
>
>What is "it"? The fact that legislation recently passed the
>House that would forbid you to use certain words, during
>the 60-day period prior to a general election, in any "type
>of general public communication." It would be illegal for
>you to engage in "a communication that advocates the
>election or defeat of a candidate by-(i) containing a
>phrase such as `vote for', `re-elect', `support', `cast your
>ballot for', `(name of candidate) for Congress', (name of
>candidate) in 1997', `vote against', `defeat', `reject' or a
>campaign slogan or words that in context can have no
>reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election
>or defeat of 1 or more clearly identified candidates;"
>(Title II, Sec. 201 (b) (20) (A).


This is such a gross violation of exactly the kind of speech the First
Amendment was written to protect that I'll go out on a limb and state
up front that it will never pass constitutional muster.  (Then again,
according to "Miller," the assault weapon ban should be clearly
unconstitutional, as well, as that is exactly the class of "arms"
protected by the Second.)

Joe W


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Call your congresscritter SVP
Date: 10 Aug 1998 14:14:29 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 09 Aug 1998 21:13:12 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id VAA08339; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:02:03 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA25533; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 23:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma025463; Sun Aug  9 23:09:12 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

Some of us have talked about this on Noban.  My initial thoughts were =
tha=3D
t
the NRA got blind sided, but I think not.  The only two things they are
resisting in this act is the Tax and the Registration.  They do not care
about the long guns; be they shotguns or rifles.

Is it time again to ask the NRA - Are you adrift?  or are you trying to =
t=3D
ake
us to the same place HCI wishes us to go?

Larry Ball
[e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:

> Brady Handgun Law To Control All Long Gun Sales
>
> Industry and Public Basically Unaware of Total Overhaul
>
> [excerpted]
>
> "One thing noted by BATF senior counsel Stephen R. Rubenstein, and
> clearly stated in the first sentence of the Brady law, is that the
> temporary requirements do expire 60 months after enactment (on Nov.
> 30, 1998). If the insta-check isn=3D92t up by that time, as Rubenstein
> noted,
> there will be no Brady requirements in effect at all.
>
> Whether Congress would allow Brady to lapse is a crucial issue, and
> attempts at change are likely.  White House spokesperson Rahm Emanuel
> has already indicated that Clinton will seek some form of extension to
> the expiring first part of the Brady law.  The expiration date provides
> a leverage point for interested parties.
>
> Once the new system (dubbed NICS by the FBI) is up, an instant national
> accounting of gun-sale volume will flow through FBI hands.  Based on
> mandatory direct contact, every single purchase, city by city, will be
> tabulated.  If Cleveland has a big gun show this weekend, it will show.
> Maybe Nebraska is slow right now, and those numbers, like election
> returns, will be available to law enforcement and others privileged to
> view the data.  Manufacturers who would love to track real-time =
nationa=3D
l
> sales activity could conceivably do so=3D97though who will have access =
to
> the information (besides the FBI) is unclear.  Daily and summary =
report=3D
s
> will spew out with digital efficiency. It will be like no other sales
> data collection system in existence. All this commercial data is being
> collected, oddly enough, in the name of stopping crime.
>
> As sales information comes flooding in, the FBI will move into a new
> arena as the largest, most sophisticated warehouse of point-of-sale
> records for any product in the world.
>
> The law requires the Bureau to obtain complete ID on gun buyers, but
> then to destroy this information.  Collecting and maintaining a file on
> the 70 million legitimate gun owners in America has never been done,
> has been prohibited by statute since 1986, and is also prohibited
> under Brady itself.  However, in proposed regs, the FBI has indicated
> that they will in fact record every retail gun buyer in America, once
> the
> system is running, in apparent violation of those laws."
>
> http://www.usajournal.com/brady_law_about_to_affect_long_g.htm
>
> PS: Instructions on joining your listserv would be appreciated.
>
> RV





-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Date: 10 Aug 1998 14:17:47 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 08 Aug 1998 14:12:33 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA07598; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 14:01:20 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id QAA27030; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 16:10:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026982; Sat Aug  8 16:10:12 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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5BDCCA46E27A76B30171EF55
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This is in conjunction with the guys who were harrassed in Omaha the
other day for carrying "openly" with a permit.  Bob Taylor and the
others, including the mother and kids of the house they were visiting,
were ordered face down on the ground at gun point.

We may start something against the police and the city of Omaha over
this.  You all out there might be asked to contribute some of your "hard
earned" and help raise some of the same  from others.  If the attorney
decides to proceed with this we should make this an internet campaign
and beat down the forces of tyranny.

Getting Hotter,

Larry Ball
[e-mail]

--------------5BDCCA46E27A76B30171EF55
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
    by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA27971
    for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 01:53:57 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [e-mail]
    by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id XSQYa20769;
    Sat, 8 Aug 1998 02:52:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
    boundary=3D"part0_902559173_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_902559173_boundary
Content-ID: <0_902559173@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII

hey people.....check this out ......this happened to a friend of mine......=
.


bob

--part0_902559173_boundary
Content-ID: <0_902559173@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from  relay22.mx.aol.com (relay22.mail.aol.com [172.31.106.68]) =
by
    air16.mail.aol.com (v47.2) with SMTP; Fri, 07 Aug 1998 06:14:15 =
-0400
Received: from oasis.novia.net (oasis.novia.net [204.248.24.1])
      by relay22.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
      with ESMTP id DAA22277 for <[e-mail]>;
      Fri, 7 Aug 1998 03:22:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mbrain (208-149-120-31.novia.net [208.149.120.31])
        by oasis.novia.net (8.9.1/Novia) with ESMTP id CAA12268
        for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 02:22:45 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Bob, your story Is familiar to what happened to our Paintball team 2
years ago. We were at Humble Park here in Omaha. Our team had just gone =
o=3D
ut
on ambush and the opposing team was giving us about five minutes before
they came hunting for us. All of a sudden we heard brakes screaching, =
doo=3D
rs
closing and alot of yelling, "Get down on the ground!" We came out of the
brush and took a look from far away. We saw about four cruisers, cops
everywhere with their guns drawn and the other paintball team, which were
just kids still In high school, laying on their stomachs with handcuffs =
o=3D
n!
At first we were just going to stay hidden because there's no way they
would find us. However, we weren't sure If the other team would say that =
=3D
we
were out there or not. So instead of the cops coming out there looking =
fo=3D
r
us and being PARANOID, which we all know they are and causing an =
accident=3D
,
we decided to come out. It was actually funny because they didn't see us
walking toward them. There were 12 of us and we all had paintguns that If
they were equivalent to real weapons they would have had firepower of an
M-16. My gun shoots 26 paintballs per second at a range of 300 feet per
second. Anyway, they were acting all tough like they we SO IN CHARGE and
"aware" that It startled them when we spoke. We said stuff like, "Hey?" =
"=3D
We
don't have real guns." "These are paintguns." "Didn't mean to startle =
you=3D
."
The look on most of there faces was funny because we seemed to just come
out of nowhere and we were just 20 feet from them. Then It got REAL. One
cop pulled his gun out and yelled at all of us to drop down on the =
ground=3D


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: "Post Your Opinion"
Date: 10 Aug 1998 15:46:15 -0600

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with =
sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."
    --Galileo Galilei



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Janet Reno
Date: 10 Aug 1998 18:07:48 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 06 Aug 1998 01:59:20 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA05544; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 01:48:16 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA04847; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 03:57:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma004643; Thu Aug  6 03:53:25 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

In a message dated 98-08-05 16:21:39 EDT, [e-mail] writes:

<< This is great material.  Can you give me the cite to either download =
this
 report or to be able to go to the library and get a copy?
=20
 This stuff flies directly into the face of what we have been told.<<

    I have made some minimal effort to investigate this.
Evidently, the ICVS report is available from Statistics
Canada for a significant charge. The report received=20
somewhat more attention in England.=20

    Here is the cite that brought it to my attention. I verified
the article last spring. "The Edmonton Journal" does have a web
site as does Statistics Canada.
                                 *******
Canadians suffer as much crime as Americans

by LORNE GUNTER
appeared in the Edmonton Journal 31.3.98

Lost last week by Canadian newspapers and networks, amid their
sanctimonious tut-tutting about the mass killing in a Jonesboro, Ark.
schoolyard, was the release of The Third International Crime
Victimization Survey (ICVS).

In part, this is justifiable. Five simultaneous murders is a bigger
story than the release of yet another dry statistical report,
especially when four of the victims are children and the fifth their
pregnant teacher.

The shortcoming lies in the Canadian moral clucking surrounding the
Jonesboro shootings versus the silence over the implications of the
ICVS.

The CBC English television network directly blamed the National Rifle
Association for the five deaths in Arkansas. To hear its report, one
would think NRA vice-president Charlton Heston had had his finger on
the trigger.

John Bierman of the Financial Post shrieked "It's the gun culture,
stupid," which is true in a way, but not the way Bierman means. Then
he called on the Americans to emulate Canada or Britain and implement
strict controls on guns.

Bierman, and several other Canadian commentators who mimicked his
knee-jerk reaction, ignore at least three significant points. Canada's
gun laws were already quite strict when a madman killed 14 female
students at the Universite du Montreal in 1989, and yet the laws did
not save them (nor will the even stricter laws being implemented this
fall prevent future madmen from committing similar mass killings).
Mass killings are committed with machetes, bombs and other weapons,
too, and their cause perplexes psychologists and sociologists. And, if
the cause of a crime is cultural, a change to gun laws will be
virtually powerless to alter it.

Which is why it was unforgivable that Canadian journalists should have
overlooked the ICVS.

Canadians have smug attitudes towards the United States on a number of
subjects; health care, welfare and crime among them. While in each
case our smugness is undeserved, it is especially undeserved on crime.
Like several studies before it, the ICVS shows that except for murder,
Canadians suffer as much violent crime as Americans, and more
non-violent crime. Our view of all America as the final shootout from
a John Wayne movie and all Canada as an idyllic scene from Anne of
Green Gables is simplistic, arrogant and wrong; it borders on outright
prejudice.

According to the ICVS, which is conducted here by Statistics Canada,
25 percent of Canadians were the victim of a crime in 1996 versus 24
per cent of Americans. Six per cent of Canucks suffered a violent
crime `a robbery, armed robbery, sexual assault or common assault'
versus seven percent of Americans.

The highest incidence of violent crime in the industrialized world was
in England and Wales, where eight per cent of residents were
victimized in 1996 (and total victimization is 40 per cent higher than
in the U.S.) and where gun laws are even stricter than in Canada.

Household burglaries and car thefts were as high in Canada as in the
U.S (in England and France they were 50 per cent higher than in North
America), with the added proviso that burglaries in Canada are more
than four times as likely to occur when the residents are home as they
are in the U.S. Theft of other personal property was 50 per cent
higher north of the 49th parallel, than south.

The vastly higher murder rate in the U.S. is an important difference.
But it certainly does not justify our gun laws, nor discredit theirs.

For more than a century, American murder rates have been three to 10
times higher than those of other western nations. And the differences
in rates have remained reasonably constant before and after the
introduction of strict gun laws in Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan,
New Zealand and elsewhere. Indeed, the murder rates in other
industrialized nations have inched closer to those in the U.S. despite
various attempts to register all guns or license all gun owners, or
even ban guns altogether.

For some reason, Americans see murder as a solution to their problems,
murder with guns, murder with knives, murder with fists, much more
often than do the citizens of other western nations.

The difference lies in their culture, not just their `gun culture'.
Crimes of all sorts, including murder, are lowest in those states with
the highest rates of gun ownership. States such as Vermont, New
Hampshire, North Dakota and Montana, where gun ownership is at least
twice what it is in Canada, have murder rates as low as one-half that
in the provinces which are their immediate neighbours.

The ICVS points out what Interpol and others have also pointed out,
Canadians have no reason to be smug about crime, or about gun laws.
                                      **********

Regards,
Dennis Baron


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: July 19 column - gun registration
Date: 11 Aug 1998 18:20:25 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:42:49 -0600
Received: from ez0.ezlink.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA18502; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:32:08 -0600
Received: (from list@localhost)
    by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25544;
    Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:40:17 -0600
Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:40:17 -0600
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <v02130502b1d47629c143@[192.9.150.95]>
Resent-Message-ID: <"NxnU-2.0.YA6.eTihr"@ez0.ezlink.com>
Resent-From: [e-mail]
X-Mailing-List: <[e-mail]> archive/latest/519
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 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."




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: July 21 column - gun control
Date: 11 Aug 1998 18:20:41 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:52:37 -0600
Received: from ez0.ezlink.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA18512; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:41:54 -0600
Received: (from list@localhost)
    by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25597;
    Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:40:46 -0600
Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:40:46 -0600
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <v02130503b1d476fef36e@[192.9.150.95]>
Resent-Message-ID: <"KtORr.0.HF6.ZUihr"@ez0.ezlink.com>
Resent-From: [e-mail]
X-Mailing-List: <[e-mail]> archive/latest/520
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 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."




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Rep. Cook voted for the anti-freedom Shays-Meehan bill
Date: 11 Aug 1998 23:45:00 -0700


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

Proof from the House of Representative's website that Representative
Cook joined 60 Republicans plus Rep. Charles Schumer and Rep. Bernie
Sanders to vote in favor of the anti-freedom Shays-Meehan Campaign
Finance Reform bill.

Scooter!

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 405

H R 2183 RECORDED VOTE 6-AUG-1998
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Campaign Finance Reform

        AYES    NOES    PRES-NV
REPUBLICAN    61    164    2
DEMOCRATIC    190    15    1
INDEPENDENT    1
TOTALS        252    179    3


--- AYES 252 ---
Ackerman    Gillmor     Oberstar
Allen       Gilman      Obey
Andrews     Gordon      Olver
Bachus      Graham      Ortiz
Baesler     Green       Owens
Baldacci    Greenwood    Packard
Barcia      Gutierrez    Pallone
Barrett (NE)    Hall (OH)    Parker
Barrett (WI)    Hamilton    Pascrell
Bass        Harman      Pastor
Becerra     Hefner      Payne
Bentsen     Hill        Pelosi
Bereuter    Hilliard    Petri
Berman      Hinchey     Pickett
Berry       Hinojosa    Pomeroy
Bilbray     Holden      Porter
Blagojevich    Hooley      Poshard
Blumenauer    Horn        Price (NC)
Boehlert    Houghton    Quinn
Bonior      Hoyer       Ramstad
Borski      Hulshof     Rangel
Boswell     Jackson (IL)    Regula
Boucher     Jackson-Lee(TX)    Reyes
Boyd        Jefferson    Riggs
Brady (PA)    Johnson (CT)    Rivers
Brown (CA)    Johnson (WI)    Rodriguez
Brown (FL)    Johnson, E. B.    Roemer
Brown (OH)    Kanjorski    Rothman
Campbell    Kaptur      Roukema
Capps       Kelly       Roybal-Allard
Cardin      Kennedy (MA)    Rush
Carson      Kennedy (RI)    Sabo
Castle      Kennelly    Sanchez
Clay        Kildee      Sanders
Clayton     Kilpatrick    Sandlin
Clement     Kim         Sanford
Clyburn     Kind (WI)    Sawyer
Condit      Kleczka     Saxton
Conyers     Klink       Schumer
Cook . . .



-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: But....it's against the law, it was against the law.....
Date: 12 Aug 1998 14:19:52 -0600

CELEBRATION, Fla., August 12 (UPI S) _ Osceola County, Fla.,
authorities are searching (Wednesday) for a man responsible for the
first violent crime ever reported in Celebration, Disney Co.'s
two-year- old planned community west of Walt Disney World. Police say
the suspect threatened to shoot a family in their home before making
off with an undisclosed amount of cash.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Colt's CEO likes gun control 1/2
Date: 13 Aug 1998 07:00:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Organization: nomotax
CC: PRJ <[e-mail]>

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Organization: Cajun Clickers Computer Club

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. COLT'S CHIEF STANDS UP FOR FEDERAL GUN CONTROL
By Henry Goldman, _Philadelphia Inquirer_ staff writer*

======================================================================
**********************************************************************
Declare your own website a BILL OF RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT site today!! The
vile reign of state terrorism is drawing to a close at long last. A new
day is dawning for _liberty_. You can share in making history. Go to
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html and click on the scroll.
**********************************************************************

COLT'S CHIEF STANDS UP FOR FEDERAL GUN CONTROL

By Henry Goldman, _Philadelphia Inquirer_ staff writer*

Special to _The Libertarian Enterprise_

WEST HARTFORD, Conn. -- Ronald L. Stewart is unique among the nation's gun
manufacturers. He favors a form of national gun control.

Stewart, the chief executive officer of Colt's Manufacturing Co.,
advocates a comprehensive federal firearms law, including the creation of
a federal gun permit. And he wants gun owners to be licensed, tested and
subjected to mandatory safety training.

These views have made him a pariah in the gun community.

On gun-friendly web sites, there have been calls for a boycott of
Colt's handguns and rifles. "The actions of Colt's officials are
detrimental to American-style freedoms and liberties!" wrote one recent
contributor to the GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List.

In an interview at the headquarters of the 162-year-old company,
Stewart said his views were based on the assumption that increased
government regulation was inevitable. "I'm just searching for a
middle-of-the-road position, and that's why I've taken such a beating from
others in the industry," he said. "They want me to just go along with
something that the public increasingly sees as an extreme view."

For gun manufacturers and distributors, he said, federal regulation
would be far easier to live with than separate laws for each state.
And licensing and testing of gun users, he said, is no more onerous,
and no less reasonable, than licensing and testing of those who drive
automobiles.

"I'm trying to address the question of how do you operate the gun safely
so that you don't injure somebody," he said. "It doesn't make sense to
stake out a position that is perceived by the public to be anti-safety...

"I'm not a gun nut," Stewart said. "I'm not even a member of the NRA."

More often than not, Stewart said, he supports the National Rifle
Association's positions on issues. But the NRA, according to chief
executive officer Wayne LaPierre, has "never been in favor of a federal
permit and never will be."

Some of Stewart's critics say his gun-control proposals are
motivated more to promote Colt than to enhance public safety.

"I think there are many who feel, rightly or wrongly, he has staked
out these positions to curry favor with police departments and with
those in the federal government, who would [be able to] influence the
success of their product," said Dave Tinker, publisher of _Firearms
Business_, a trade publication. Stewart denies such accusations, which
were also made by the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen in a flyer
distributed widely at the NRA convention in Philadelphia last month.

But there is no question that Stewart has developed a business strategy
intended more for insulating Colt from government regulations than
fighting them.

In a highly fragmented and competitive market that has been stagnant for
five years, he hopes to capture an increased share of the law-enforcement
market -- and ultimately the home-user market -- through so-called
smart-gun technology while expanding military sales overseas.

While Stewart sees himself as eminently reasonable, others in the gun
industry depict him as a heretic.

"He's definitely espousing views about our industry that are out of
step with opinions held by manufacturers and gun owners, and it is a
matter of great concern to us," said Georgia Nichols, vice president and
general counsel of Connecticut-based O.F. Mossberg & Sons, which makes
shotguns and other firearms.

In May, Stewart resigned from the board of the American Shooting Sports
Council, an Atlanta-based trade group, after the council attacked the
Clinton administration's ban on imported assault weapons.

What upset Stewart was that the council, in launching its attack, said
that one reason to permit such imports was that they are no different from
domestic products such as the AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle Colt makes.

Stewart's declaration of independence from the rest of the industry came
in December when he wrote a guest editorial in _American Firearms Industry_
magazine. While he attacked the antigun lobby, he also endorsed federal
regulation.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Trunk Tragedy Reflections
Date: 13 Aug 1998 07:00:00 -0700


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

Regarding the terrible deaths of five little girls in West Valley,
the chief of the West Valley Police department says, don't blame
families for trunk tragedy. This case is not about blame or fault.
Nordfelt asked people not to judge the parents of the girls,
stressing that the community needs to help the families heal.

No shit Sherlock, but what if the tragedy had been from a handgun
stored in one of the families' home or what if it was a family of
immigrants living on welfare in a poorly kept house or a situation
where family members were known crack smokers or just out back
having a cigarette on the porch? Would it still remain a case
removed from blame and fault or would the police be seeking some
kind of charges against the parent Dixie Smith for child abuse
and/or child neglect?

Yes, life is a dangerous place to be and even more so when parents
and caregivers fail to keep a vigilante eye out for those in their
charge. In many ways this is typical in and of large LDS families
where children are allowed to run wild ... up and down the streets
in their diapers, drinking out of gutters, causing problems, etc.
This tragedy and similar incidents can be prevented by parents
paying closer attention to their children and those in their care.
Whether one's reading the Bible in a living room or out back having
a smoke, neglect still equals neglect which sometimes equals death
and tragedy for young and old alike.

At any rate, do I believe the parent Dixie Smith should be punished?
I believe she already has been, by her own failure to supervise the
little ones in her care properly and by the personal pain and guilt
she's likely to carry to her own grave. Should Dixie Smith be punished
by the government? No, I think not. Her suffering is great enough
already -- as any person in her position would be.

Certainly, anyone who has ever taken charge of little kids know how
demanding it can be to keep a constant watch on them, as it only takes
one minute (if even that) for the little ones to scamper off and into
harm's way. Yes, this was a tragic accident and even more tragic by
calls for big government to mandate trunk release switches to prevent
this kind of rare occurrence from happening again. Yes, create a public
crisis and impose some more government regulations on big business
because some people are negligent in their duties and actions.

Still, I wonder how the little girls were able to get into the trunk
and close it without anybody helping them, showing them, seeing them
or hearing them? This is the one part missing from this sad and sorry
story that I'd like to know more about.

Don W. Johnstun



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Colt's CEO likes gun control 2/2
Date: 14 Aug 1998 06:38:00 -0700


Strangely enough, his alienation from the rest of the industry had
its first public manifestation two months earlier, when he appeared
to be taking an anti-safety stance.

There was a ceremony at the White House at which 10 gun executives
told President Clinton they would voluntarily ship child-safe locks
with their products. Since then, 16 more gun-makers have signed on.
But Stewart was not at the White House and has not signed on.

"Why is it that everyone else feels that it's a good idea and he doesn't?"
asked Richard Feldman, director of the American Shooting Sports Council,
which organized the event. "We've given people what they need to help
prevent someone, particularly a child, from negligently using the gun."

Stewart, who called the White House announcement "a dog-and-pony show,"
said such locks are unreliable and give a false sense of security when
used on a loaded gun. He said he expects lawsuits when locked guns
accidentally fire.

The real way to prevent accidents, Stewart said, is the "smart gun,"
designed to prevent a gun from being fired by anyone but the intended
operator.

Stewart claims his company is ahead in developing such a gun, using a
microchip worn on the shooter that will transmit a signal to a receiving
chip inside the gun.

One prototype has been tested with mixed results; a second will be
available by the end of August, Stewart said. If all goes well, the
company will be ready to make the guns available to police departments
for testing within two years, he said.

Colt sees a big market in law enforcement; 16 percent of all shootings
of police officers occur when their guns are grabbed out of their hands
or holsters by criminals. Currently, Colt has almost no share of the
police market.

"It's a technology that you can't ignore, and it has the potential not
just to save a lot of police lives, but to safeguard weapons purchased
for home use, keep them out of the hands of thieves or kids, people who
shouldn't have them," said Paul Bolton, who heads the International
Association of Chiefs of Police.

Gun sales to police departments, usually at cost, do not create profits,
but the prestige of being chosen as a law-enforcement weapon creates
profitable sales in the commercial market, Stewart said.

Why are others in the industry so distrustful of Stewart and so quick
to question his motives?

One reason is that Stewart, 56, is an outsider, according to Tinker,
the publisher of _Firearms Business_. Stewart became Colt's president
in 1996, after 22 years at Chrysler and a working lifetime in the
automobile industry. He was brought in after the company had been in
bankruptcy and had been purchased by a limited partnership headed by
Donald Zilkha, a New York financier.

Since then, Stewart said, a series of management reforms and cost controls
have produced a profit of about $10 million on about $100 million in sales.

The key to sustained profitability, Stewart said, "will be whether we
can insulate ourselves from the turmoil that will exist in the commercial
gun market in the years to come."

He said the fact that he's an outsider had helped him see gun-control
issues more clearly than his competitors do.

"I'm not dealing with the emotions of it," he said. "I can sit back and
see where it's going. The gun industry is where the automobile industry
was in the 1960s -- the same clamor for safety regulations. Seat belts.
Air bags. We are going to go through a period of reform and legislation.
All I'm trying to do is survive and prosper in whatever direction this
thing takes."

======================================================================
* This article appeared in the _Philadelphia Inquirer on July 13, 1998
and was forwarded to _TLE_ from the GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion
List by Bob Phipps <[e-mail]>.

Hungry dingoes near the central Queensland [Australia] coast are
stalking neigborhoods in their hunt for food.

Rockhampton Deputy Mayor Jom Rundel said the wild dogs from the Mount
Archer National Park on the city's eastern boundary were causing
alarm in nearby suburbs. The packs of dingoes are wandering through
neighborhoods in search of food, but the people living there are
powerless to do anything.

"You can't bait within two kilometers of a residence ... you can't
shoot in a residential area," Rundel told the country's ABC radio.

"Plus with the gun laws, no one has a gun anyway."

======================================================================
This item first appeared in the "Earthweek" section of the _Portland
Oregonian_ science page, 15 July 1998. It was sent to us by attorney and
raconteur Tom Creasing, who reminds us, "All animals are created equal --
some just take longer to cook."

===
 _ RM 1.31 3226 _ Windows Error 010 - Reserved for future mistakes

Patrick <[e-mail]>
"In its larger and juster meaning, property embraces everything to which
a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone
else a like advantage..." - James Madison


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] Your turn to play Big Brother (fwd)
Date: 14 Aug 1998 11:43:59 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:32:15 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA12305; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:20:53 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA26685; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026532; Fri Aug 14 13:26:47 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Aug 14, Terry Walker wrote:

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

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


>Tuesday, August 11, 1998
>
>INTERSCOPE
>
>Lisa Ronthal's
>Exclusive commentary
>
>Your turn to play Big Brother
>Audit your representatives through the Web
>
>[The complete article is at WorldNetDaily:]
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ronthal/980811.comlr.html
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
-
>----
>
>Audit your representatives' finances online
>
>They do it to you -- now you can do it to them. Thanks to the nonprofit
>Center for Responsive Politics, you have quick, easy Web access, right =
now,
>to detailed information about your elected representatives' finances. =
Here
>are just a few of the things you can find out via the CRP site: Examine =
any
>member of Congress' personal financial disclosure forms
>(http://www.crp.org/pfds/) Look up representatives' campaign money =
profiles
>(http://www.crp.org/candidates/index.htm) Find individual contributors to
>federal candidates, PACs, or party committees -- the site lets you look
them
>up by name, ZIP code, employer, or candidate
>(http://www.crp.org/indivs/public/htdocs/) Profile the money breakdown of
>any 1998 House or Senate race (http://www.crp.org/1998elect/index.htm) =
The
>CRP maintains databases on everything from White House coffees to
>Congressional travel to tobacco money -- and it's all online.
>
>All this information is technically available through other channels; the
>difference is that now it's practically and simply available, for the
>taking, to anyone with access to an Internet connection. And that is the
>information revolution in a nutshell. This Web site isn't just an =
important
>political resource in itself: it's also a superb example of the
>still-too-infrequently-realized potential of the Internet for altering =
the
>balance of power in favor of the individual.
>
>If you thought the government's tendency to try to place controls on
>Internet use was really all about child pornography, think again. It's
>certainly not about controlling child porn; I would imagine that it's not =
a
>question of controlling cultural-political content at all -- I've no =
doubt
>the state is perfectly happy to be able to monitor its opponents of all
>sorts through their activity online. No. It's all about the flow of
>information itself.
>
>[snop]
>
>The balance of the article is at:
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ronthal/980811.comlr.html

[------------------------- 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: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Beware the USSC
Date: 14 Aug 1998 21:49:00 -0700


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

The Libertarians are going to have a booth at the Golden Spoke gun show.
Kitty Burton is coordinating. Her number is 1-800-777-3834-access code 21.

Are you aware that the Utah Shooting Sports Council (chaired by Rob Bishop)
and the NRA both supported the measure to increase the requirements for
petitions? Their reason? In Washington State, some anti-gun people got
an anti-gun measure on the ballot by petition. (It was soundly defeated.)
They seem to overlook the fact that when you restrict someone else's
rights, you restrict your own. (It's doubtful we could have had the
individual right to bear arms amendment on the ballot if we had the
tougher standards.)

Beware the USSC. Rob Bishop has replaced the dynamic Scott Engen, and it
appears that Rob's job is to act as a neutralizer. Under Scott, the USSC
was very effective in turning aside criminal protection legislation (gun
control laws). Now the USSC appears to be dead in the water (their web site
is two years out of date, and I get no response to membership inquiries).

Dick Partridge, Libertarian Candidate
Utah State Senate District 24

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:21:13 -0600 Bill Barton <[e-mail]>
writes:

Derailers:

If you are tired of fighting legislators who vote the way of the education
and public employee lobby you will want to help get signatures on the
initiative petition that would put a stop to withholding money from their
paychecks that go to their Political Action Funds to give to candidates
who will vote with them.

Next week we are planning to visit the S L County Fair (in MUrray) on
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday evenings. If you can even come over for
an hour it would help a great deal.

This initiative is key to combating the problems we have been plagued
with for years in electing and reelecting people who will represent good
government. Many get elected but then get defeated by education and public
employee supported candidates because of the money and organization.

Again, we are asking you help. Please E-mail to me or call 968-6964
if you can help.

Bill Barton
===========================================================
William T. Barton
http://www.xmission.com/~bbarton/
[e-mail]



-



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

From: Joseph Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Beware the USSC
Date: 15 Aug 1998 06:00:30 -0700



SCOTT BERGESON wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:34:13 -0700
> From: "Richard L. Partridge" <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: PAC petitions
>
> The Libertarians are going to have a booth at the Golden Spoke gun show.
> Kitty Burton is coordinating. Her number is 1-800-777-3834-access code 21.
>
> Are you aware that the Utah Shooting Sports Council (chaired by Rob Bishop)
> and the NRA both supported the measure to increase the requirements for
> petitions? Their reason? In Washington State, some anti-gun people got
> an anti-gun measure on the ballot by petition. (It was soundly defeated.)
> They seem to overlook the fact that when you restrict someone else's
> rights, you restrict your own. (It's doubtful we could have had the
> individual right to bear arms amendment on the ballot if we had the
> tougher standards.)

I don't know what number of signatures are required in Utah.  In Washington, it
is 7% of the people who voted in the last gubernatorial election, which
means--with a state population of 5.4 million and about 3 million registered
voters--you need 180,000 or so valid signatures.  Figure a 12-15% invalid rate,
and to be comfortable, you need to turn in 220,000-225,000 petition signatures.

In almost every case in recent history, the only way to make that number is by
paid signature gathering.  Doesn't matter what the issue is--if you want to get
on the ballot, figure on paying to get signatures.  "Three strike you're out"
bought about half, as did "Hard time for armed crime"--AND I-676, the gun
control initiative.

Interestingly, no one with the NRA here in Washington has complained about the
number/percentage of signatures required to place a measure on the ballot.  We
have two directors resident in the state, one field services rep, and a
lobbyist working out of ILA-Sacramento (the same one that covers Utah).  I
speak with each of them on a weekly basis, if not more frequently.

I don't know what's driving the issue there in Utah.  Just thought I'd offer
some background.

Joe Waldron
Chairman, WeCARE (the "No on 676" campaign)


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Metaksa on the way out?
Date: 17 Aug 1998 08:17:46 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 01:05:09 -0600
Received: from lists1.best.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id AAA12875; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:53:56 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
    by lists1.best.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/best.ls) id XAA23733;
    Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:21:25 -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



I have a lot going on right at the moment and hope to get an FCO out
this weekend, however I wanted to alert you to a developing story and
point you to the Firearms Coalition home page (http://www.nealknox.com).
Follow the "NRA Controversy" link from the main page to read what's
going on behind the rumors and anonymous reports.

Chris


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Executive Orders
Date: 17 Aug 1998 08:26:14 -0600

Received: from mail.interjetnet.net
    ([208.231.136.27])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 22:09:01 -0600
Received: from default (ppp075.interjetnet.net [208.236.167.75])
          by mail.interjetnet.net (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP
      id WAA00507; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 22:01:54 -0600
Message-ID: <005801bdc802$83f80040$62a7ecd0@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="=_0155E1B9.147519DC"

--=_0155E1B9.147519DC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I'm sorry for the redundancy of this message for some of you , but this is =
very important Print  Copies for your friends. =20
The misuse of Executive Orders is the greatest threat to Constitutional =
Government .

H.CON.RES.236


During most of this century, Executive Orders from the President
have been the chief means of by-passing the legislative process of
Congressional approval.  These Orders have been a blatant attempt to =
circumvent the
Separation of Powers, which protect our Freedoms.  If we allow the
President to continue to legislate through Executive Orders, Congress then
becomes a  rubber stamp' for an out of control Chief Executive.

  Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states:

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of=20
the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives." The people of the United States granted certain powers =
to the
Federal Government.  One of these is the lawmaking power which resides =
only in=20
Congress, not with the President.  This lawmaking power has been usurped
by the Presidency through Executive Orders for over 60 years.


Jack Metcalf from Washington has sponsored H.Con.RES.236 which
addresses the problem of Presidential legislation, (copy enclosed).  When =
this
passes, most of the Executive Orders in recent years will be changed =
from=20
being law to being advisory only, meaning they have no function as law.=20
This will resolve EO#13083 which would have put most State functions
under Federal control.  This Executive Order, EO#13083, created such a
public furor that the President postponed implementation, but did not =
rescind
the order.

EO#12919 combines a number of President John Kennedy's Executive
Orders into one.  Under a =3Dnational  emergency', EO#12919 puts all power =
into =3D
the presidency and in effect does away with the Constitution, the Bill =3D
of Rights, and the Separation of Powers.  Metcalf's bill will handle
this travesty as well.

Write, e-mail, or phone your member of Congress and your
Senators.  Ask them to co-sponsor this bill, support it, and vote for it.  =
It will go=20
a long way to restoring the Separation of Powers.  If you need the
e-mail address of your Congressman, e-mail us for it.  Please send this to =
as=20
many people as you can!   If this was forwarded to you and you wish to=20
get future posts directly, e-mail your address to [e-mail].

H.CON.RES.236
SPONSOR: Rep Metcalf (introduced 03/05/98)
TITLE(S):

OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
A concurrent resolution to express the sense of the Congress that any
Executive order that infringes on the powers and duties of the Congress
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, or that would require the
expenditure of Federal funds not specifically appropriated for the =
purpose=20
of the Executive order, is advisory only unless enacted as law.
STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status
House Actions
Mar 5, 98:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
COMMITTEE(S):
COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:
House Judiciary
11 COSPONSORS:
Rep Hyde - 03/05/98 Rep Bunning - 03/05/98
Rep Lucas - 03/05/98 Rep Neumann - 03/05/98
Rep Hilleary - 03/05/98 Rep Smith, N. - 03/05/98
Rep Herger - 03/05/98 Rep Gilman - 03/05/98
Rep Traficant - 03/05/98 Rep Chabot - 03/05/98
Rep Scarborough - 07/15/98
SUMMARY:
(AS INTRODUCED)
Provides that any executive order issued by the President that infringes
on the powers and duties of the Congress under the Constitution, or that
would require the expenditure of Federal funds not specifically
appropriated for the purpose of the executive order, shall be advisory =
only
unless enacted as law.






--=_0155E1B9.147519DC
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Part.001"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#e0e0d0>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>I'm sorry for the redundancy of this message for some
of you , but this is very important Print  Copies for your friends.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><STRONG>The misuse of Executive Orders is the greatest
threat to Constitutional Government </STRONG>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>H.CON.RES.236<BR><BR><BR>During most of this century, Executive Orders from
the President<BR>have been the chief means of by-passing the legislative process
of<BR>Congressional approval.  These Orders have been a blatant attempt to
circumvent the<BR>Separation of Powers, which protect our Freedoms.  If we
allow the<BR>President to continue to legislate through Executive Orders,
Congress then<BR>becomes a  rubber stamp' for an out of control Chief
Executive.<BR><BR>  Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution
states:<BR><BR>"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of <BR>the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
of<BR>Representatives." The people of the United States granted certain
powers to the<BR>Federal Government.  One of these is the lawmaking power
which resides only in <BR>Congress, not with the President.  This lawmaking
power has been usurped<BR>by the Presidency through Executive Orders for over 60
years.<BR><BR><BR>Jack Metcalf from Washington has sponsored H.Con.RES.236
which<BR>addresses the problem of Presidential legislation, (copy
enclosed).  When this<BR>passes, most of the Executive Orders in recent
years will be changed from <BR>being law to being advisory only, meaning they
have no function as law. <BR>This will resolve EO#13083 which would have put
most State functions<BR>under Federal control.  This Executive Order,
EO#13083, created such a<BR>public furor that the President postponed
implementation, but did not rescind<BR>the order.<BR><BR>EO#12919 combines a
number of President John Kennedy's Executive<BR>Orders into one.  Under a
=national  emergency', EO#12919 puts all power into =<BR>the presidency and
in effect does away with the Constitution, the Bill =<BR>of Rights, and the
Separation of Powers.  Metcalf's bill will handle<BR>this travesty as
well.<BR><BR>Write, e-mail, or phone your member of Congress and
your<BR>Senators.  Ask them to co-sponsor this bill, support it, and vote
for it.  It will go <BR>a long way to restoring the Separation of
Powers.  If you need the<BR>e-mail address of your Congressman, e-mail us
for it.  Please send this to as <BR>many people as you can!   If
this was forwarded to you and you wish to <BR>get future posts directly, e-mail
your address to <A
href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</A>.<BR><BR>H.CON.RES.236<BR>SPONSOR:
Rep Metcalf (introduced 03/05/98)<BR>TITLE(S):<BR><BR>OFFICIAL TITLE AS
INTRODUCED:<BR>A concurrent resolution to express the sense of the Congress that
any<BR>Executive order that infringes on the powers and duties of the
Congress<BR>under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, or that would
require the<BR>expenditure of Federal funds not specifically appropriated for
the purpose <BR>of the Executive order, is advisory only unless enacted as
law.<BR>STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status<BR>House Actions<BR>Mar 5,
98:<BR>Referred to the House Committee on the
Judiciary.<BR>COMMITTEE(S):<BR>COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:<BR>House
Judiciary</DIV>
<DIV>11 COSPONSORS:<BR>Rep Hyde - 03/05/98 Rep Bunning - 03/05/98<BR>Rep Lucas -
03/05/98 Rep Neumann - 03/05/98<BR>Rep Hilleary - 03/05/98 Rep Smith, N. -
03/05/98<BR>Rep Herger - 03/05/98 Rep Gilman - 03/05/98<BR>Rep Traficant -
03/05/98 Rep Chabot - 03/05/98<BR>Rep Scarborough - 07/15/98<BR>SUMMARY:<BR>(AS
INTRODUCED)<BR>Provides that any executive order issued by the President that
infringes<BR>on the powers and duties of the Congress under the Constitution, or
that<BR>would require the expenditure of Federal funds not
specifically<BR>appropriated for the purpose of the executive order, shall be
advisory only<BR>unless enacted as law.<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>

--=_0155E1B9.147519DC--

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The reason for the Second Amendment 1/2
Date: 17 Aug 1998 08:17:00 -0700


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

The reason for the Second Amendment

by Alan Keyes

Sen. Bob Smith has succeeded in amending an upcoming appropriations
bill to beat back the latest wave of Clinton administration disrespect
for two key elements of a free citizenry -- privacy and the right to
keep and bear arms. Smith's amendment to the Justice-State-Commerce
appropriations bill would foil FBI plans to keep records of private
identifying information on law-abiding citizens who buy guns. The
amendment also forbids a proposed tax on gun purchases, and authorizes
citizens to sue if the FBI doesn't observe these restrictions.

Senator Smith is to be praised for keeping his eye on some balls that
might have been lost in the smoke of scandal and misinformation that the
Clinton Administration seems endlessly to emit. Actually, few things
could make the need for vigorous defense of 2nd Amendment rights clearer
than the ongoing spectacle of Clinton contempt for the citizens he is
supposed to serve. For the 2nd Amendment is really in the Constitution
to give men like Bill Clinton something to think about when their
ambition gets particularly over-inflated.

The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders
merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our
hearts' content. This is not to say that hunting game for the family
dinner, or defending against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses
for firearms, particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the
real purpose of the Amendment.

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train
of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural
rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That
is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically
violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and
overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always
maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary,
something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the
weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental
DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

In our time there have been many folks who don't like to be reminded of
all this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word
"people" in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn't mean
in any one of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say
that, for some odd reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of
putting in "states" they put in "people." And so it refers to a right
inherent in the state government.

This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of
legitimate historical evidence. At one point in Jefferson's letters, for
example, he is talking about the militia, and he writes, "militia --
every able-bodied man in the state. ..." The militia was every able-bodied
man in the state. It had nothing to do with the state government. The
words "well-regulated" had to do with organizing that militia and
drilling it in the style of the 19th century, but "militia" itself
referred to the able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth --
not to the state government.

It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and
bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our polity
is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government,
at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be
prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses.

But the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to
our capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also
part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human
beings are capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper
reason that the defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense
of liberty.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The reason for the Second Amendment 2/2
Date: 17 Aug 1998 08:17:00 -0700


Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for
human self-control, but this approach won't wash. It is the human moral
will that saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons.
We should reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause
of violence.

Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should
be banned because "they have no purpose except to kill people." It is
people that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to
do so, if killing is in their hearts where love of justice should be.
This week a 7-year old boy in Chicago apparently used a pair of
underwear to commit murder, because he wanted a bike.

So let's get down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we
moral children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control
our will even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the
exercise of our natural rights. If we are only children, then all the
particularly dangerous toys must be controlled by the government. But
this "solution" implies that we can trust government with a monopoly
on guns, even though we cannot trust ourselves with them. This is not
a "solution" I trust.

Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that
it can only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That's
why I don't understand those who say "save us from guns," even while
they cling to the coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth
except what they "choose" to assign to it.

If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of all
Americans with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all
human beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of
moral responsibility and self-restraint -- of assuming responsibility
for governing himself. This is the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment,
and indeed of the entire American project of ordered liberty.

It is the business of every citizen to preserve justice in his heart,
and the material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These
things constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty
to maintain. And to fulfill our duty to be such a people we shall have
to return to the humble subjection to the authority of true moral
principle that characterized our Founders, and that characterized every
generation of Americans, until now. We must regain control of ourselves.

Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the assertion
that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral order that
God has decreed must govern our lives. And just as we have no right to
shirk our duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no right to shirk
our duty to preserve unto ourselves the material means to discipline our
government, if necessary, so that it remains a fit instrument for the
self-government of a free people. The preservation of 2nd Amendment rights,
for the right reasons, is a moral and public duty of every citizen.

The Clinton Administration's flirtations with executive tyranny should
remind us that we have a duty to remain capable of disciplining our
government if necessary. Bill Clinton's comprehensive avoidance of
personal responsibility for his own actions, and our revulsion at the
kind of character which that avoidance has produced in him, should be
a kind of horrific preview of the kind of people we will all become if
we continue to let our government treat us as though we were incapable
of moral self-control. And Senator Smith's successful effort to defeat
several policies that treat us that way is precisely the kind of
principled defense of our liberty -- and of the premises of our liberty
-- that make him so worthy to be a representative of a free people.

Alan Keyes Web Site is http://www.AlanKeyes.com
--
***************************************************
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: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: CNN Impeachment Poll
Date: 17 Aug 1998 17:02:48 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:58:58 -0600
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA14833; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:47:40 -0600
Received: (qmail 21867 invoked by uid 516); 17 Aug 1998 22:57:40 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 21426 invoked from network); 17 Aug 1998 22:57:01 -0000
Received: from ns2.rockymtn.net (HELO mail2.rockymtn.net) (166.93.8.2)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 17 Aug 1998 22:57:00 -0000
Received: from helmetfish (166-93-57-135.rmi.net [166.93.57.135])
    by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA05877;
    Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:49:50 -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]>
-----------------------
There is an impeachment poll at CNN's web site:

http://www.cnn.com/


Question: If Ken Starr reports to
               Congress that evidence shows
               President Clinton encouraged
               Monica Lewinsky to lie, should
               impeachment hearings be
               opened?=20


--=20
                      Charles 'Chuck' Inston

"American patriotism is unique in history; it consists of devotion to=20
the rule of law, rather than personal allegiance to a ruler,
institutional=20
loyalty to a ruling party, or blind support of a government. America's=20
Founding Fathers understood that a free society would require that=20
government be bound by "the chains of the Constitution"; Americans were
to=20
be ruled by law and not by the transitory whims of men." -Uncertain


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: HCI Alarm bells going off - National Reciprocity CCW Bill
Date: 18 Aug 1998 08:14:58 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:17 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id DAA15262; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:48:57 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id FAA26537; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 05:52:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026304; Tue Aug 18 05:49:32 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=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

"Have Gun, Will Travel"

Hey, I kinda' like the sound of that.  Giddyup.

Rick V.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:=20
August 14, 1998

CONCEALED DANGER: Evaluating the Potential Impact of the "Have Gun, Will
Travel" Amendment. =20

Nearly 3,000,000 people will be able to carry concealed handguns across
state lines and into most states if Congress passes the "Have Gun, Will
Travel" Amendment to H.R. 218, according to data released today by
Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). The amendment, introduced by Rep. Bill
McCollum (R-FL), was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on August
5, 1998; the full House of Representatives is expected to vote on the
entire bill when Congress reconvenes in September.

The passage of this Amendment is particularly ironic, coming as it does
only a few weeks after an Illinois resident -- who had been
involuntarily committed to a mental institution in Montana -- allegedly
brought his gun halfway across the country, ultimately to murder two
Capitol Hill police officers. Despite Congress=C6 demands for more
expensive security installations to protect their own lives and safety,
the members of the
Judiciary Committee found it expedient to make interstate gun carrying
even easier for thousands of potential security risks.

[You hear that guys and gals? - You CITIZENS are 'security risks!']

In an effort to evaluate the potential impact of the "Have Gun, Will
Travel" Amendment, Handgun Control, Inc. collected data about the number
of licenses to carry concealed weapons that have been issued in 40
states. (These are the states that allow the carrying of concealed
weapons and for which statistical data was reasonably accessible.
Because statewide data was not available for Georgia, New Hampshire and
Vermont, which all allow the carrying of concealed weapons, it can be
assumed that
the actual number of license holders nationwide is larger than this
report estimates.) HCI researchers found that an estimated total of
2,903,502 licenses to carry concealed handguns have been issued in the
40 states for which data was available. =20

With few exceptions, it is currently illegal for licensees to carry
concealed handguns out of the state that issued the license. If this
amendment becomes law, however, it would allow all licensees to carry
concealed handguns in at least 29 other states across the country. The
legislation would mandate unrestricted reciprocity between 28 states
that
allow anyone who does not fall into a prohibited category (such as a
convicted felon) to get a license to carry a concealed handgun1.
Reciprocity would also apply to Vermont, where it is not necessary to
obtain a license to carry a concealed gun.=20

The "Have Gun, Will Travel" Amendment could also supersede state laws in
14 states that have strict standards and police discretion in issuing
concealed-carry licenses to residents2. These states give local law
enforcement discretion in issuing licenses and usually require
applicants to demonstrate a specific need to carry a concealed handgun.=20
This amendment would allow the Governors of each of these 14 states to
sign a waiver to allow out-of-state licensees to carry a concealed gun
in the state, even if the standards for granting licenses are weaker in
the licensees=C6 home state than in the states with much stricter
standards.

The "Have Gun, Will Travel" Amendment could potentially impact all
states except the seven that prohibit the carrying of concealed
handguns.3

http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/august14-98.htm


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Current Federal Legislation?
Date: 18 Aug 1998 14:09:28 -0600


Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name,
number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out
of State  concealed weapons permits?

Thanks.

--

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

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

-



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

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Current Federal Legislation?
Date: 18 Aug 1998 14:30:08 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name,
> number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out
> of State  concealed weapons permits?

H.R. 218 would allow both active and retired peace officers to carry
nationwide.  It would also require "right to carry" states to recognize
licenses from all other R-T-C states.  It passed out of the House
Judiciary Committee late last month and is awaiting floor action.

H.R. 339 would have mandated recognition of all CCWs by all states and
established minumum carry restrictions for those states who do not
currently have CCW statutes.  It also has the police carry provisions.
It is (probably) dead in the House Judiciary Committee.

H.R. 2722 is similar to the "civilian" portion of H.R. 339.  Dead in
committee?

S. 816 is a Senate counterpart to H.R. 339.  Dead in committee?

S. 2175 would "safegiard the privacy" of certain identification records
and name checks for ther purchase of a firearm.  Dead in committee?

 There are a couple of bills that would repeal all or part of Brady.  I
don't have the numbers in front of me.

At this point, with less than 30 "work days" left in the 105th Congress,
very few bills will come out of committee, much less pass both
chambers.  Our best bet is to have pro-gun legislation attached as
"riders" to fast moving bills such as appropriations bills.

A good example of this is the amended version of S. 2260, the Commerce,
State, Justive et al Appropriation Act.  Before this bill passed the
Senate last month, it was amended (the "Smith Amendment") to include
language that would prohibit the FBI from charging a feww for Brady
instant checks, would require the FBI to "immediately destroy" any
identification data on approved instant checks, and would allow a
citizen whose rights were violated in this regard to sue in the nearest
federal district court.

The House passed a similar Commerce-State-Justice appropriation, but
without the amended language.  We have to ensure that the amendment
stays IN the final version of the bill.

Joe Waldron

-



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

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Current Federal Legislation?
Date: 18 Aug 1998 14:30:08 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name,
> number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out
> of State  concealed weapons permits?

H.R. 218 would allow both active and retired peace officers to carry
nationwide.  It would also require "right to carry" states to recognize
licenses from all other R-T-C states.  It passed out of the House
Judiciary Committee late last month and is awaiting floor action.

H.R. 339 would have mandated recognition of all CCWs by all states and
established minumum carry restrictions for those states who do not
currently have CCW statutes.  It also has the police carry provisions.
It is (probably) dead in the House Judiciary Committee.

H.R. 2722 is similar to the "civilian" portion of H.R. 339.  Dead in
committee?

S. 816 is a Senate counterpart to H.R. 339.  Dead in committee?

S. 2175 would "safegiard the privacy" of certain identification records
and name checks for ther purchase of a firearm.  Dead in committee?

 There are a couple of bills that would repeal all or part of Brady.  I
don't have the numbers in front of me.

At this point, with less than 30 "work days" left in the 105th Congress,
very few bills will come out of committee, much less pass both
chambers.  Our best bet is to have pro-gun legislation attached as
"riders" to fast moving bills such as appropriations bills.

A good example of this is the amended version of S. 2260, the Commerce,
State, Justive et al Appropriation Act.  Before this bill passed the
Senate last month, it was amended (the "Smith Amendment") to include
language that would prohibit the FBI from charging a feww for Brady
instant checks, would require the FBI to "immediately destroy" any
identification data on approved instant checks, and would allow a
citizen whose rights were violated in this regard to sue in the nearest
federal district court.

The House passed a similar Commerce-State-Justice appropriation, but
without the amended language.  We have to ensure that the amendment
stays IN the final version of the bill.

Joe Waldron

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Current Federal Legislation?
Date: 18 Aug 1998 15:29:03 -0600


Thank you Joe.

On Tue, 18 Aug 1998,  Joe Waldron <[e-mail]> posted:

>Charles Hardy wrote:
>>
>> Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name,
>> number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out
>> of State  concealed weapons permits?
>
>H.R. 218 would allow both active and retired peace officers to carry
>nationwide.  It would also require "right to carry" states to recognize
>licenses from all other R-T-C states.  It passed out of the House
>Judiciary Committee late last month and is awaiting floor action.
>

--

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

"To avoid domestic tyranny, the people must be armed to stand upon
 [their] own Defence; which if [they] are enabled to do, [they] shall
 never be put upon it, but [their] Swords may grow rusty in [their]
 hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable
 of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least
 occasion to make use of it." -- John Trenchard & Walter Moyle, "An
 Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army is Inconsistent With a Free
 Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the
 English Monarchy" [London, 1697] ("An Argument")

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Texas CHL Holders Arrested
Date: 19 Aug 1998 09:08:25 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:54:06 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA17050; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:42:46 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA15326; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma015025; Wed Aug 19 10:48:20 1998
Message-Id: <A23F70F99FF9D011816A00805F19613902AAC413@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

The extremist AGF Violence Policy Center had been bemoaning arrest rates =
of
Texas CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders.  Here's a clip to dispel =
the
nonsense.

http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=3D370798002&CONTEXT=3D903534686.1022885=
917&h
itnum=3D17

>Arrest statistics fuel fears over gun laws.
>Cases involve 1,600 Texans with permits to carry concealed arms.
>by John W. Gonzalez
>Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
>
>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.

An issue was made of this previously by the Violence Police Center. Note
that these numbers give permit holders an arrest rate of 8/1,000 permit
holders. The arrest rate for Texas as a whole is 59.5/1,000 (17,993,000 =
pop.
1,071,300 arrests, FBI UCR 1995) ... and 1,600 is for two years, not one.

Ken Grubb
Miami, FL



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Jim Brady Op/Ed
Date: 20 Aug 1998 15:50:43 -0600

Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com
    ([206.53.160.3])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:33:32 -0600
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA10916;
    Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:34:07 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from hil-img-4.compuserve.com (hil-img-4.compuserve.com [149.174.177.134])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA10913
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:34:06 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
    by hil-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.12) id JAA18177
    for [e-mail]; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:31:43 -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 GAA10916
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

For those of you who do not have ready access to the Washington Post, I
thought you would be interested in this article.  I would like to know
where he got the figure of "5000 children killed every year with guns" =
came
from.  I sure looks like a number pulled out of the air to me.

David Adams
NRA-ILA-EVC, Virginia 7th
NRA Second Amendmement Task Force Member
[e-mail]
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8358/

___________________________________________________________________________=

_____

Still Hostage to the Gun Lobby
Shouldn't schoolchildren be as safe as Congressmen?
By Jim Brady

Monday, August 10, 1998; Page A17=20

I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of an assassin's bullet. =
I
know the importance of providing protection for public officials and those
around them, and I grieve for the families of the two Capitol Police
officers who were slain in the heroic performance of their duty.

Should we take additional steps to protect "the People's House" and those
who serve in it? Absolutely. And if it takes $120 million to build an
underground visitors' center to afford that protection, let's do it.

But what about the children of America? If the "People's House" deserves
protection, what about the schoolhouses of America? Are we going to
construct underground playgrounds to protect our children? I think not.

Building fortresses may protect our government from gun violence, but it's
not going to save children like Britthney Varner, one of four young girls
shot to death on the school lawn by two of her classmates in Jonesboro,
Ark.

So what is Congress doing to protect America's children from gun
violence?The answer is nothing. A few days before the shooting on Capitol
Hill, the Senate voted against an amendment that would have required the
sale of a child safety lock with every handgun and rejected a "safe
storage" proposal that would have imposed criminal sanctions on gun owners
who allow children to gain access to a loaded firearm. As if that was not
enough, the Senate also passed an amendment by Sen. Bob Smith of New
Hampshire that substantially will weaken the new background check system
that is to go into effect this fall when the Brady waiting period expires.

Then, a few days after the Capitol shooting, the Senate voted to allow the
continued importation of "grandfathered" large-capacity ammunition clips =
--
manufactured before the federal ban on assault weapons took effect -- that
are designed to hold 15, 20, 30 or even 50 bullets. God forbid that the
school assassins and drive-by shooters of America should run out of
ammunition. And now the House is considering a bill that would make it
legal and easy for millions of Americans to carry concealed pistols from
state to state.

None of this comes as a surprise. Earlier this year, Senate Majority =
Leader
Trent Lott told the National Rifle Association that the answer to gun
violence in America is "a well-armed public." But isn't there something
terribly wrong here? If the shooting of two Capitol police officers
deserves a response, what about the more than 5,000 children killed every
year with firearms? Can't we do something?

This is not, as kids say, rocket science. Many of the guns that harm our
children come from private homes. An estimated one out of four children
between the ages of 10 and 17 have access to a loaded, unlocked gun in the
home. One report estimates that nearly 1 million children carried a gun to
school at some point in the past school year. And more than 5,000 children
were expelled from school for carrying a gun.

Responsible gun owners, and there are many, are ready to accept
responsibility for the safe storage of their firearms, but Congress =
doesn't
see it that way. It might, it is argued, interfere with "the right to keep
and bear arms."

If we can't do the decent thing and require gun owners to keep loaded
pistols out of the hands of young children, can't we at least give gun
owners some assistance in locking up their guns? Yes, $120 million will
build a fine visitors' center. But at a wholesale cost of less than $6
each, it also could be used to buy and distribute about 20 million child
safety locks to gun-owning households, with instructions about the proper
storage of firearms. But that, of course, would offend the gun lobby, =
which
insists that guns kept for self-defense should be kept loaded and ready at
all times.

The answer, it seems, comes down to this. The representatives who serve in
"the People's House," already protected by one of the best-trained =
security
forces in the world, deserve an additional measure of security. Good for
them. But as for the young children who get on a school bus every day and
walk into the classroom carrying an armful of books, they should be
satisfied with the occasional metal detector and what some school
administrators now call "bullet drills."

My sympathies and prayers are with the families of Jacob Chestnut and John
Gibson. And with America's children.


The writer was White House press secretary under President Ronald Reagan;
he was shot during the attempt on Reagan's life in 1981.=20


=A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company


****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] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Jim Brady Op/Ed
Date: 21 Aug 1998 18:12:00 -0700


On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 David Adams <[e-mail]> asked:

>For those of you who do not have ready access to the Washington Post, I
>thought you would be interested in this article.  I would like to know
>where he got the figure of "5000 children killed every year with guns"
>came from.  I sure looks like a number pulled out of the air to me.

Apparently it came from the Children's Defense Fund Website or their
sources for American children and teens from birth to age 19 who died
from gunfire in 1995. Their number is 5,254.

>Still Hostage to the Gun Lobby
>Shouldn't schoolchildren be as safe as Congressmen?
>By Jim Brady

>Monday, August 10, 1998; Page A17

<snip>

>If the shooting of two Capitol police officers deserves a response,
>what about the more than 5,000 children killed every year with firearms?


-



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

From: Joseph Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Jim Brady Op/Ed
Date: 22 Aug 1998 06:24:45 -0700



SCOTT BERGESON wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 David Adams <[e-mail]> asked:
>
> >For those of you who do not have ready access to the Washington Post, I
> >thought you would be interested in this article.  I would like to know
> >where he got the figure of "5000 children killed every year with guns"
> >came from.  I sure looks like a number pulled out of the air to me.
>
> Apparently it came from the Children's Defense Fund Website or their
> sources for American children and teens from birth to age 19 who died
> from gunfire in 1995. Their number is 5,254.
>
> >Still Hostage to the Gun Lobby
> >Shouldn't schoolchildren be as safe as Congressmen?
> >By Jim Brady
>
> >Monday, August 10, 1998; Page A17
>
> <snip>
>
> >If the shooting of two Capitol police officers deserves a response,
> >what about the more than 5,000 children killed every year with firearms?
>

Scott is correct.  The 5,000+ figure was lifted from a "study"  by the
Children's Defense Fund published in the Spring of 1996.  The "study" used
raw numbers from the Center for Health Statistics, the highest possible
number available.  It included all "children" through age 19. I wrote an
op-ed piece in rebuttal to the CDF piece that was published in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer.

I don't have it at home with me, but as I recall, the number is cut by about
1/3 when you remove the 18-19 year old young adults.  A significant
percentage were suicides--and there are several studies available showing the
instrument used is NOT a factor in overall suicide rates.  Most of the
homicides included (muchof the remainder) were of individuals themselves
involved in criminal activity.

The same age breakdown is true of accidental shootings:  take away 18-19 year
olds and the figure is cut by nearly half; half again without 16-17 y/o's.
The other dynamic to remember in accidental shootings is the horseplay
factor.  From age 2-10, the number of accidental shooting deaths in the U.S.
annually is about 60-80 (7-9 per year for each year of that age group).  At
11 we see a jump to 30-35, at 12 to 40 or so, and up into the 50s for 13-15
y/o's--the ages where young teenagers want to apply all the lessons they've
learned watching garbage gun handling on TV and the silver screen.

They continue to use the 1995 figures, even though more current (and lower)
figures are available,  because 1995 represents the high point for the
decade. That 5,000+ plus figure is also the one divided by 365 when they talk
about "15 children per day killed," etc, etc.

Hope this helps put things in perspective.

Joe W


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA Action Alert: "No Gun Tax"!!!
Date: 22 Aug 1998 07:25:00 -0700


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

FYI:

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

Vol. 5, No. 33
8/21/98

TELL THEM "NO GUN TAX!"

The official comment period is underway for the FBI's proposed
$16.00 federal tax on gun purchasers. Gun owners are urged to
take action now to stop the FBI from levying this tax. Before
September 16, 1998, write a letter stating your opposition to
the federal gun tax and recommending that the necessary funds to
operate the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS) be appropriated by Congress. Send your letter to: Mr.
Emmet A. Rathbun, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
CJIS Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia
26306. For a copy of the proposed gun tax regulations call
[phone] or visit the Government Printing Office web site at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html and do a
search for NICS. NOW is also the time to call your U.S.
Representative and Senators while Congress is recessed and they
are home in their local offices. Urge them to co-sponsor Rep. Bob
Barr's "No Gun Tax Act of 1998" -- H.R. 3949 -- and to send their
own comments against the tax to the FBI at the address above.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act" -George Orwell
**********************************************************
Michael Moxley        The Patriot Resource Center:
[e-mail] http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6627/
**********************Live Free or Die!**********************<><


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Jim Brady Op/Ed
Date: 22 Aug 1998 23:45:00 -0700


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

> Apparently it came from the Children's Defense Fund Website or their
> sources for American children and teens from birth to age 19 who died
> from gunfire in 1995. Their number is 5,254.

Thanks Scott.  I sent an email yesterday regarding an article that
appeared in "School Board News", August 18, that used the figure of
approx. 3000 kids each year die from gunfire.

Rush Limbaugh is right, these guys pull numbers out of thin air and the
general public are either not interested enough to question them or are
simply too lazy.

David Adams
NRA-ILA-EVC, Va 7th
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Member
[e-mail]
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Men Biting Dogs
Date: 23 Aug 1998 08:07:00 -0700


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

It's the "Man Bites Dog" factor.

Remember the old anecdote? A reporter comes to his editor with a story
about a dog biting a man. The editor says, "When a dog bites a man,
that's not news. When a man bites a dog, _that's_ news."

Now, a newspaper reader living in a city where nobody's even allowed to
_own_ a dog wouldn't know much about dogs from personal experience. All
he'd know about dogs is what he reads in the newspaper and sees on TV.
And the _only_ stories he'd read in the newspaper or see on TV are about
men biting dogs. He would never know that dogs bite men. His perception
of reality is reversed by the editor's filtering out all "dog bites men"
stories.

If you said to him, "Dogs bite men 2.5 million times each year" he'd
respond, "Well, I've never even seen a dog, and all I know about dogs is
that men bite them."

News editors decide what's news and what's not.

When guns are used to kill and hurt innocent people, news editors decide
it's news.

When guns are used to defend innocent people, editors decide it's _not_
news.

When a couple of kids in Jonesboro, Arkansas used guns to shoot up their
school and murder their classmates, it was news.

When, on September 16, 1993, at 8:30 PM in Palmdale, California, Jeffrey
Storm, Jr. got his dad's gun out of his bedroom and chased away a
burglar who had just shot his mom and dad, it wasn't news. Jeff's mom
and dad, and the rest of Jeff's family, are alive today because Jeffrey
Storm, Sr. believed in the Second Amendment, and taught his two sons,
Jeff and Matthew, how to use a gun properly.

And until either the news editors are convinced to change that policy --
or until we can get around the establishment news filters with the truth
-- we will never win the battle for the Second Amendment.

J. Neil Schulman, Webmaster
The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock
http://pulpless.com/gunclock/
http://www,netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html

> On 10 Jul 98 at 9:20, [e-mail] wrote:

> > Larry Pratt said, "Guns save lives."

> > Sara Brady responded, "If guns saved lives, this would be the safest
> > country on earth."

> > What would be a witty riposte to Sara Brady's soundbite?

> How about, "It is." We haven't been invaded since 1812 and our
> violent crime figures compare favorably with those of most countries.
> The only hotspots are prohibition related gang warfare in cities with
> strict victim disarmament laws.

> I saw figures the other day to the effect that violent crime is
> dropping year by year but REPORTING of it is up. The fuss is all
> over a mistaken perception generated by the media.

> In Liberty,

> Rich
>         Guns save lives - maybe yours.

> --------------------
> Rich Loether            University of Pittsburgh
> EMail: [e-mail]    Computing & Info Services
> Voice: [phone]   600 Epsilon Drive
> FAX:   [phone]   Pittsburgh, PA 15238
> Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
> finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
> Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14  D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0

> ---------------------------
> 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."

--
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, THE SIGN OF
FOUR

J. Neil Schulman / Pulpless.Com
Voice & Fax:       (500) 44-JNEIL
Internet:          [e-mail]
Personal Web Page: http://pulpless.com/jneil/

Browse sample chapters of new books by bestselling authors, pay
online with a credit card, then download books in HTML or Adobe
Acrobat format from the web at http://pulpless.com/



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [LPUtah Press Release]
Date: 24 Aug 1998 10:33:22 -0600


FYI,

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Libertarian Party of Utah
Salt Lake City, Ut

For Immediate Release:

The Libertarian Party of Utah today commended Utah Representative Jim
Hansen (R) for his candid and honest remarks made last Tuesday (11 August,
98) at the Logan Lions Club expressing his personal desire to have a gun
in his possession while in Washington D.C. They also praised him for
admitting the so-called Brady law is an abject failure and called on him
to put legislation where his mouth is and work to protect citizens'
right to armed self-defense.

"Rep. Hansen seems to be right in touch with the majority of Utah's
electorate on this issue," said Libertarian Party state chair Jim
Dexter.   "Utahns have always rejected waiting periods as
unconstitutional infringements of our most basic right to effective,
armed defense.  We also require the state to issue concealed weapons
permits to any competent, law-abiding adult who can show basic
proficiency with a firearm."

The Libertarian Party called on Rep. Hansen to sponsor legislation to
repeal the Brady law and to guarantee that a person legally allowed to
carry a gun for self defense in any State could legally do so in the
District of Columbia and federal territories.

"While we are pleased with Rep. Hansen's comments," said Dexter, "it is,
frankly, time for elected politicians to start walking the walk rather
than just talking the talk.  The federal government must honor all the
rights of all citizens, including the right to armed self-defense.
While certain buildings may require limited access--and weapons to be
secured with security personnel before entering--it is unconscionable for
the federal government to provide vast areas including Washington D.C.,
National Parks, and federal territories which are really safe zones for
criminals where they know their intended victims have been disarmed.
We implore Congressman Hansen to now introduce and vigorously support
legislation to allow citizens to take the common sense measures he,
himself, has said he would like to take.  If a Congressman, entitled to
federal police protection, doesn't feel safe in our nation's capital,
how does he think common citizens must feel? "

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

"To avoid domestic tyranny, the people must be armed to stand upon
 [their] own Defence; which if [they] are enabled to do, [they] shall
 never be put upon it, but [their] Swords may grow rusty in [their]
 hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable
 of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least
 occasion to make use of it." -- John Trenchard & Walter Moyle, "An
 Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army is Inconsistent With a Free
 Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the
 English Monarchy" [London, 1697] ("An Argument")



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Mrs. Clintons 1974 report on impeachment of Nixon
Date: 24 Aug 1998 11:01:13 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 07:00:41 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id GAA20878; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 06:49:15 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA21052; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma020844; Mon Aug 24 08:57:12 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

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

               An open letter to Hillary=20
              =20

               Dear Mrs. Clinton:=20

               In February 1974 the staff of the
               Nixon impeachment inquiry issued a
               report produced by a group of
               lawyers and researchers assigned
               with developing a scholar
               memorandum setting forth the
               "constitutional grounds for
               presidential impeachment."=20

               You were a member of that group of
               lawyers and researchers, barely, I am
               sure, able to conceal your dislike for
               President Nixon. Within the year,
               Nixon would leave office disgraced ,
               having witnessed articles of
               impeachment voted against him by
               the House Judiciary Committee,
               based in part on your report.=20

               Relevant Today

               I must give you and your colleagues
               credit. You did not appear to have let
               personal animus influence your work
               product, at least not the final,
               published report. In fact, the report
               you and your colleagues produced
               appears objective, fair, well
               researched and consistent with other
               materials reflecting and commenting
               on impeachment. And it is every bit
               as relevant today as it was 23 years
               ago.=20

               I presume -- but I must ask whether
               -- you stand by your research and
               analysis today. You said in 1974 that
               impeachment, as understood by the
               framers of our constitution, reflected
               the long history of the term used at
               least since late-14th-century England:
               "one of the tools used by the English"
               to make government "more
               responsive and responsible" (page 4
               of your report). You also noted then
               -- clearly in response to those who
               mistakenly claimed impeachment as
               a tool to correct "corruption in office"
               that "alleged damage to the state,"
               was "not necessarily limited to
               common law or statutory ... Crimes"
               (page 7)=20

               You quoted James Wilson, who at the
               Pennsylvania ratification convention
               described the executive (that is, the
               president) as not being above the
               law, but rather "in his public
               character" subject to it "by
               impeachment" (page 9)=20

               You also -- quite correctly -- noted
               then that the constitutional
               draftsmen chose the terms describing
               the circumstances under which a
               president could be impeached very
               carefully and deliberately. You noted
               that "high crimes and misdemeanors"
               did not denote criminal offenses in
               the sense that prosecutors employ
               such terms in modern trials. Rather,
               in your well-researched
               memorandum, you correctly noted
               that the phrase "high crimes and
               misdemeanors" was substituted for
               George Mason's less precise term in
               an earlier draft of the Constitution:
               "Maladministration" (page 12 of your
               report). Not only that, but your
               further research led you to quote
               Blackstone's "Commentaries on the
               Laws of England" in support of your
               conclusion that "high crimes and
               misdemeanors" meant not a criminal
               offense but an injury to the state or
               system of government (page 12). I
               applaud the extent and clarity of
               your research. You even note that the
               U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding
               questions of intent, must construe
               phrases such as "high crimes and
               misdemeanors" not according to
               modern usage, but according to what
               the framers meant when they
               adopted them (page 12 once again).=20

               Magnificent research!=20

               Even Alexander Hamilton finds a
               place in your research. You quote
               from his Federalist No. 65 that
               impeachment relates to "misconduct
               of public men, or in other words,
               from the abuse or violation of public
               trust" that is "of a nature ...
               POLITICAL [emphasis in original]"
               (page 13 of your report).=20

               Finally, in bringing your research
               forward from the constitutional
               drafting documents themselves, you
               find support for your properly broad
               interpretation of "high crimes and
               misdemeanors" in no less a legal
               scholar than Justice Joseph Story. I
               was in awe of your use of Justice
               Story's "Commentaries on the
               Constitution" (1833) supporting your
               proposition that "impeachment ...
               applies to offenses of a political
               character ... [that] must be examined
               upon very broad and comprehensive
               principles of public policy and duty"
               (pages 16 and 17 of your report). I
               could not have said it better.=20

               You even note that the specific
               instances on which impeachment has
               been employed in our country's
               history "placed little emphasis on
               criminal conduct" and were used to
               remove public officials who had
               "seriously undermined public
               confidence" through their "course of
               conduct" (page 21).=20

               Clear Basis=20

               Mrs. Clinton, when I first raised the
               notion last month that the House
               should take but the first step in
               determining whether impeachment
               might lie against President Clinton
               for a pattern of abuse of office and
               improper administration of his
               duties, little did I realize your
               scholarly work 23 years ago would
               provide clear historical and legal
               basis and precedent for my
               proposition.=20

               Amazingly, the words you used in
               your report are virtually identical to
               those I use today. For example, you
               said in 1974, much as I did in my
               March 11, 1997, letter to Judiciary
               Chairman Hyde, that
               "[i]mpeachment is the first step in a
               remedial process" (page 24 of your
               report) to correct "serious offenses"
               that "subvert" our government and
               "undermine the integrity of office"
               (page 26).=20

               Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for giving
               Congress a road map for beginning
               our inquiry.=20

               Sincerely,=20
               Bob Barr (R., GA.)=20
               Member of Congress=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=3D=3D=3D=3D
This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If
you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to
[e-mail].  In the message body put: unsubscribe cas




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Armed agents without accountability
Date: 24 Aug 1998 19:16:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.media,alt.news-media,alt.politics.usa.misc,
 talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal.atl.law-enforcement,
 alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy

>*Armed agents without accountability

>"[The high number of armed federal agents] is not being blown out of
>proportion. For one thing, the number of 75,000 is probably already
>outdated. It's very likely to be about 85,000, and growing at that rate
>each year at least. There's a real question I think, even apart from
>whether it's constitutionally permissible to have federal law
>enforcement agencies, outside a very narrow range of activity, and that
>is: where is the accountability for the ones we already have? We hear
>from the gun control proponents, people who want to restrict our right
>to keep and bear arms, that if you and I have a gun and we're out where
>some jerk cuts us off in traffic, or we're going to go into a bar and
>get into a volatile situation, somehow that's going to lead to violence.

Blame us in the religious right. If our grandparents had not
pushed the issue of prohibition, there would not have been
a break down in society in the 1920s. This caused the formation
of the Federal law enforcement due to local government decay.

>Not only does that not happen, but the fact of the matter is, we have
>federal agents committing outrages. Whether it's Waco, or at Ruby Ridge
>against the Weaver family, where the FBI had to pay over three million
>dollars to end the judicial process, or else they really get washed. Or
>a lot of other 'oops, sorry, we got the wrong place. Sorry, we tore
>your house up. Sorry you died of a heart attack.' That sort of thing
>just doesn't result in any accountability," said Larry Pratt, President
>of Gun Owners of America, on "Endangered Liberties". Marc Morano, an
>investigative reporter for "American Investigator", who last week
>reported on the armed agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service, echoed
>Pratt's concerns for accountability. Morano explained, "We found a
>common trait among all the stories. All the agents were armed, they all
>wore flak jackets, and they all had bad attitudes. And what would
>happen, is, they would raid these people's private homes, and
>essentially violate all these people's rights in their own home, and
>there's no retribution. There's no accountability. And I think that's
>what is most disturbing-there's no one doing anything about it - no one
>knows about it."

Federal Law Enforcement officers are quiting in record numbers.
It is the same with the military. While everyone at the Federal level
likes passing laws and regulations, enforcement is too "working
class". College boys do not like getting their hands dirty.

Most law enforcement is still at the local level. Over 550,000 officers.
In fact half of that number is in departments with less than 17 LEOs
on staff. If you notice, the Feds are trying to get state and local
government to do their dirty work. The Feds want to pass the laws
then make local government pay to do the clean up. All government
is still local.

>Contact: Producer, Joe Starrs @ 202.546.3000

>Editor's Note: The author of the Direct Line Commentary appearing in the
>August 9th issue of Notable News Now, should have been identified as J.
>Bradley Keena.

>Watch all Free Congress Programming in RealVideo on the Internet:
>http://www.freecongress.org/



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: CIA created HCI?
Date: 24 Aug 1998 19:16:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,
 alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.libertarian,
 alt.politics.usa.republican

Drgwarwhr wrote in message
<[e-mail]>...
>For the record:

>The CIA is the largest and best funded terrorist onganization on the
>planet. It is a rogue institution that is capible of anything but the
>right thing. This organization is not citizen friendly and has the
>attitude of a paranoid coke-head that is armed to the teeth. As far as I
>am concerned, the CIA started smuggling Cocaine for their own consumption.
>(DARE to drug test the CIA) They sure act like a bunch of tweakers. Being
>SPUN is part of their job.

The Right wing militias have the ATF; the Left wing extremists have
always had the CIA.

>This government seems determined to turn this country into a police state.
>What better excuse for tanks in the streets than terrorists with nukes and
>Biological weapons. The way I see it, this government would have the most
>to gain in a domestic terror campaign. If that was not the case, the
>government would not be fighting this drug war and supplying the drugs at
>the same time.

>When the drug war goes sour, the threat of domestic terrorism with nukes
>and biological weapons is the next logical step. So don't be surprised
>when it happens.

Now, since the HCI and other anti-gun groups were started by a
bunch of folks retired from the CIA, where does that leave us?

>Sincerely,
>Jay Lindberg

>PS. Our chances of being shot in the back by a cop are a lot better
>than being on the recieving end of a Nuke.
>[e-mail]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: PA background check database 1/2
Date: 24 Aug 1998 19:16:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
X-Web-Site: http://www.efga.org/
X-Mail-List-Info: http://efga.org/about/maillist/
X-SCAN: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml

http://www.post-gazette.com:80/regionstate/19980823bchecks2.asp

Pennsylvania Instant Background Checks are being used to create a
database of gun owners.

Quoting from the article -

"The state is building a database to eliminate the problem, but it will
not be in place for a few months, Lewis said."

"When dealers call PICS with a buyer's driver's license or state
identification number, the system automatically checks four state
databases -- criminal history, warrants, protection from abuse
orders and mental health -- and a pool of eight federal databases,
including the National Crime Information Clearinghouse."


Critics take aim at instant checks
Pa.'s new gun application process gets mixed reviews

Sunday, August 23, 1998

By Mike Bucsko, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

On Monday afternoon, Anthony Jackson went into a Wilkinsburg gun shop and
asked its employees to process an application for him so he could buy a
handgun from another dealer.

The application went through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System, the
state's 8-week-old electronic background check system. PICS turned up an
outstanding warrant on Jackson for jumping bail.

State police in suburban Harrisburg, where the PICS system is located,
notified Wilkinsburg police within minutes, and they arrested Jackson,
42, of East Liberty.

Jackson's arrest during a handgun purchase is one of four in Allegheny
County and a dozen statewide since the PICS system began July 1. It is
an example of why Gov. Ridge pushed for the new background check system
-- to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

But some local gun dealers said the PICS system also was keeping handguns
out of the hands of citizens entitled to possess them.

Before July 1, people who wanted to buy handguns in Pennsylvania had to
wait five days under federal law until the local county sheriff's office
completed a background check.

The $3.5 million PICS system replaced the five-day waiting period with what
were supposed to be immediate background checks. Prospective handgun buyers
could receive approval within minutes if they had no prior history of
certain criminal convictions, such as crimes that involved violence and
drugs; protection from abuse orders; or mental illness that resulted in an
involuntary hospital commitment. PICS has a $3.7 million budget this year.

Some of the "instant" checks occurred within two or three minutes, but
others took 15 or 20 minutes, tying up gun shop employees on telephones.
Each time a dealer requests a background check, it costs $2, so dealers can
hang up and pay another $2 for a new call, or, they can remain on the phone
until they are told the application is approved, denied or will take longer
for review.

And the "instant" checks only occur in two-thirds of the cases.

The remaining third of handgun purchase applications are put on "pending"
status while PICS workers check details in the buyers' backgrounds that
delay approval. For buyers with clean records, a conviction that was never
expunged, a clerical error on a birth date or a mix-up over a name might
cause the delay.

The delays can take anywhere from a few hours to several weeks. Some
customers have become impatient and decided they don't want the guns after
all.

"When it works purely automated, it's fine," said George Romanoff, owner of
Ace Sporting Goods Inc. in South Strabane, one of Western Pennsylvania's
largest weapons dealers. "We don't want people who aren't supposed to have
firearms to have firearms. But the way this is operating, it's really
putting a severe damper on our business."

Dealers expect the problem with the delays to get worse later this year when
background checks will be required for the purchase of rifles and shotguns
in addition to handguns, which will about double the amount of applications
that will go through PICS.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: PA background check database 2/2
Date: 24 Aug 1998 19:16:00 -0700


"I think it will have a long-term detrimental effect (on business)," said
J.R. Moore, manager of Braverman Arms Co. Inc. in Wilkinsburg, the store
where Jackson was arrested.

But not all dealers are dissatisfied with PICS. Smaller gun shops have not
had the problems with delays that larger businesses, such as Braverman and
Ace, have experienced.

"We have no problems with the system," said Mike Rapino Sr., owner of
Sharpsburg Gun and Tackle. "There are delays, but they're not presenting
a problem. We're comfortable with them. We'd rather make sure the right
people get the guns, even if it takes a week."

PICS, which operates out of the state police headquarters building near
Harrisburg, is prepared to handle the estimated 1 million requests it will
receive in its first year of operation, state police spokesman Jack Lewis
said.

But Lewis acknowledged that PICS has had some problems and will probably
continue to have problems while kinks are being worked out during its
initial operation.

For instance, dealers complain that errors such as inaccurate birth dates
are not corrected once a buyer's application is approved. So the next time
the same person tries to buy a handgun, the application approval will be
delayed while PICS workers check for the same problem. And the burden is
on the buyer to prove that the problem is due to an error.

The state is building a database to eliminate the problem, but it will not
be in place for a few months, Lewis said.

PICS also might have to hire additional workers or add telephone lines to
keep up with demand.

PICS now employs 52 people with 29 cubicles, where operators can take
calls for background checks on 36 telephone lines from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.

When dealers call PICS with a buyer's driver's license or state
identification number, the system automatically checks four state
databases -- criminal history, warrants, protection from abuse orders
and mental health -- and a pool of eight federal databases, including
the National Crime Information Clearinghouse.

The FBI is hiring dozens of additional workers at its Clarksburg, W.Va.,
records center to handle demand from Pennsylvania and other states for the
background checks.

On its first day of operation, PICS was unable to process any applications
for five hours because the federal system was not available. Dealers have
complained that they have gotten recorded messages at PICS advising them
to call back because the system is not available.

There is no backup system if PICS is not working.

If there is a question about a record, the automated PICS system bounces to
an operator, who will try to resolve the problem. If it cannot be resolved
within what Lewis called a "reasonable" time, the application will be placed
on pending status.

The dealer is to be notified within five days whether the application
is approved, denied or will take longer for review. However, Romanoff
and other dealers said they had not received notification after the
five-day period on several occasions.

If the application is denied, the buyer can appeal to the state. If the
appeal is turned down, a further appeal can go to the state attorney
general's office and then to Commonwealth Court.

But the system doesn't always operate smoothly, and notification is not
guaranteed, either of the application status or of the appeal.

Romanoff and his business operations manager, Pam Gayarski, have compiled
a four-page list of 15 separate instances in which PICS had problems. The
problems range from one buyer whose paperwork apparently was misplaced and
therefore unnecessarily delayed to instances in which the PICS system did
not operate at all because of problems with its databases.

One problem the dealers cited concerns people who have licenses to carry
a firearm. Before July 1, these people could walk into a gun shop and
walk out with a handgun without a background check.

But they can no longer do that.

Buyers with so-called "carry" licenses have to undergo background checks
with everyone else, though they were subjected to background checks when
they received their licenses.

This has caused many complaints to Harrisburg, Lewis said.




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Impeachment Blitz
Date: 25 Aug 1998 13:01:33 -0600

Received: from vader.thnet.com
    ([206.98.115.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 06:08:46 -0600
Received: from bruce17.thnet.com (bruce28.thnet.com [206.98.115.128]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA05956; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 07:00:07 -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

LETTER

                             Impeachment Blitz

*** Time for postcard blitz with phone follow up. ***

KISS - Keep It Short and Simple. Very important. Simply say 2 things in
BIG, plain letters:

Impeach Clinton NOW. Post the Starr Report on the Internet AS SOON as it =
is
received.

That's all you need to say. Send them to your 2 Senators and 1
Representative plus all supporters in Congress. Congress likes to play =
show
and tell and can take stacks of post cards to the floor. C-SPAN will see
your cards. The media will notice your cards. That could be the influence
we need. Cards, letters, e-mail, and telephone calls will all help for any
issue. But, this time, we need postcards. They are easy to stack up and
take to the floor of Congress.

Please distribute this letter widely before sending your own cards.  =
Please
keep your groups organized so we can get this very necessary chore done.

For more information, please read Heads Up #99. Simply click the headline
at the top of page at my website at http://www.uhuh.com

You can find your Congress Critters addresses at
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Let's each of us get 100 more people to send postcards. Let's really blitz
Congress!

This letter will be posted in Blitz Central at http://www.uhuh.com Click =
on
Blitz.

     Yours in liberty,

     Forest
     [e-mail]


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: First Computer Chip Implant
Date: 26 Aug 1998 07:49:00 -0700


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

From the AP
Mike P

Professor claims to receive first chip implant
12.08 p.m. ET (1609 GMT) August 25, 1998

READING, England -- Professor Kevin Warwick claimed on Tuesday to
be the first person in the world to have a computer chip surgically
implanted into his body.

Warwick told a news conference that a glass capsule about one inch
long and one-tenth of an inch wide containing an electromagnetic
coil and a silicon chip was inserted into his arm on Monday.

"It is a research experiment. I don't know how long we will leave
the implant in but it's looking at what's possible now in terms of
communicating between a computer and myself,'' Warwick said.

Warwick is head of the Cybernetics Department at the University of
Reading. He demonstrated the chip in action by walking through the
front door of his department.

"Good morning, Professor Warwick. You have five new E mails,''
said a computerized voice activated by the inserted chip.

The human as computer had many applications, but also dangers,
Warwick said.

"Possibilities could be that anyone who wanted access to a gun could
do so only if they had one of these implants,'' he said. "Then if they
actually try and enter a school or building that doesn't want them in
there, the school computer would sound alarms and warn people inside
or even prevent them having access.

"The same could be true at work where employees could be tracked in and
out of the building to see when they are there.

"This is a technology where there are big positives but there are also
big negatives. Do we want to hand over control to machinery or to have
buildings telling us what we can do or can't do?''

"I'm really looking at what's technically possible. I'm excited about
the future prospects, particularly the human body communicating and
interacting with a computer. There are a lot of exciting possibilities.''

Warwick said the chip was implanted by his own doctor, who advised him
to have it removed within 10 days.

There was a danger of infection, although Warwick was taking antibiotics.

Reading University said in a statement that this was the first chip
to be surgically inserted into a human.

"It is therefore not known what effects it will have, how well it will
operate and how robust it will be. Professor Warwick is therefore taking
an enormous risk -- for the transponder to leak or shatter within his
body could be catastrophic,'' the statement said.

Warwick shrugged off the dangers.

"It doesn't hurt any. I took some Nurofen just before the operation.
It feels uncomfortable; it feels as though there's something in my arm,
but it doesn't feel unpleasant.''

"Cybernetics is all about humans and technology interacting. For a
professor of cybernetics to become a true Cyborg -- part man, part
machine -- is therefore rather appropriate,'' Warwick said.

[e-mail]
=============================================
To unsubscribe, write to [e-mail] with "unsubscribe"
in the body of the message. (Without the quote marks.)



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: CNN Has More Than Hurricane Bonnie To Contend With
Date: 26 Aug 1998 14:33:23 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:19:02 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA23024; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:07:34 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA03543; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 13:17:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma003176; Wed Aug 26 13:12:25 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>From: [e-mail]
>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 15:48:52 -0600
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>Subject: CNN Has More Than Hurricane Bonnie To Contend With Wednesday=3D20=

>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
mail1.rcsntx.swbell.net id SAA06613
>
>CNN Has More Than Hurricane Bonnie To Contend With Wednesday=3D20
>
>    Atlanta, GA, Aug, 26th=3D85 CNN executives and staffers minds may =
be on the
>pending hurricane, but on Wednesday, August 26th, they are going to come
>face-to-face with some of the Vietnam War veterans which they had earlier
>this year branded as "War Criminals".=3D20
>
>    The veterans, most of whom represent the now-famous MACVSOG and =
other
>Special Forces units in Vietnam, their friends and families promise an
>entirely peaceful demonstration of their dissatisfaction of CNN and
>Time-Warner=3D92s handling of their erroneous, patently false, and=3D
 subsequently
>totally discredited, production of "Tailwind - Valley of Death" story.
>
>    The veterans' charge that CNN & Time-Warner have not acted =
responsibly,
>fairly nor in any good faith whatsoever in correcting their Tailwind =
story
>errors and omissions.
>
>    The issues are essentially those which CNN had promised the =
Special Forces
>and Special Operations Associations they would do. Standard things that a
>media organization must do when they have wronged and defamed an =
honorable
>and honest group of people.
>
>    The veterans' demands are very straightforward --
>
>    * An apology for the wanton defamation of their character, =
integrity and
>conduct during their service in the Vietnam War. A genuine and sincere
>public apology for CNN=3D92s egregious errors in this story. Ted Turner =
has
>stated that he owes them a public apology, but he has not gotten around =
to
>making it. The group will visit his headquarters Wednesday, fully =
expecting
>to collect on this debt. And to see it broadcast in the same manner as =
the
>original story.=3D20
>
>    * A REAL retraction to the reckless disregard for the truth they
>demonstrated in the original Operation Tailwind story. Not a wimpy, lame
>"We can=3D92t prove it at this time=3D85" statement. That is not a =
retraction,
>that's further insult. A front page retraction that starts with "We were
>wrong and we=3D92re sorry" retraction is what the vets are demanding.=3D20=

>
>    * The removal of ALL offending and conspiratorial staff involved =
in the
>production of this libelous program. Minimally this must include Rick
>Kaplan and Peter Arnett. Continuation of their retention at CNN is
>absolutely intolerable to the veteran community. This is certainly not =
the
>first offense for either of them.=3D20
>
>    * Equal Air Time to correct the damages which CNN has done to all =
Vietnam
>War veterans. To show the real Operation Tailwind story and correct the
>misnomers about all veterans which this kind of story perpetuates. =
=3D91Equal
>air time=3D92 means prime time Sunday night=3D85 just as the original =
lies were
>broadcast and not once, but twice.=3D20
>
>    * Compensation to those directly damaged by this malicious =
campaign.
>Including both the American GI=3D92s and the Montagnard communities here =
in
>this country.=3D20
>
>Vets' Message To CNN Is Simple --=3D20
>
>    The Issue Is Not Going To Go Away & Neither Are American =
Veterans!=3D20
>Until such point as CNN addresses these grievances sincerely, honestly =
and
>in straightforward fashion, it will not be forgotten and will not go =
away.
>Plain and simple.=3D20
>=3D20
>You Are Invited --=3D20
>
>    To the peaceful gathering at CNN headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, =
on
>Wednesday, August 26 from 11 AM until 3 PM to witness firsthand how CNN
>executives and staff answer to these grievances face-to-face with the
>community they wrongly accuse of being war criminals.=3D20
>
>Media Contact =3D97=3D20
>J.R. Tobin=3D20
>[phone] Office=3D20
>(704)  564-2224 Mobile=3D20
>
>
>
>    By all means send to your members.  Ask them to further distribute,=
 too.
>
>    Regarding attendees, inform them that this is to be a first rate
>professional protest and that they should go to the Tailwind Info Center
>referenced on the Press Release and read the Op Ord listed under "Join Us
>In Atlanta" and be prepared to conform to the instructions.  Tell them =
that
>anyone attending must adhere to the op order.
>
>    The links, if you want to mail directly from the html pages as I =
did are
>http://www.GreenBeret.Net/Tailwind/PressInfo/Announcements/8-26%20Press%20=

>Release.htm
>for the press release and
>http://www.GreenBeret.Net/Tailwind/Misc/OpOrd-10-26-98-Atlanta.html
>
>    I would just caution them about showing up to participate without =
being
>thoroughly familiar with the op ord and being in proper and professional
>accordance with the dress code outlined therein.  This will be STRICTLY
>enforced.  Absolutely no camo.
>
>    Other than that, fling as far and wide as you can.=3D20
>
>    Thanks a lot,
>
>-- Bob Golden
>
>


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Gunsmiths & Brady (fwd)
Date: 27 Aug 1998 10:14:31 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:48:19 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id HAA23875; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:36:48 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA04195; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:45:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma003978; Thu Aug 27 09:42:34 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 ----------

Surprise!  Surprise!  Surpise!

Ken Rineer wrote ...

> When the permanent provisions of Brady go into effect on Nov 30th, if > =
you take a firearm to have any repairs made to it, when you pick it=20
> up, you will have to fill out the new form the ATF has designed.

    Had enough, yet?  It's even "better" than that.  You'll have to
pass an FBI background check -- on a gun you may have owned for _decades_
-- and if you don't pass, the gunsmith confiscates your weapon.=20

    Had enough, yet?  Even if you do pass, you'll have to pay a $16.00
charge for the "service" of having had your metaphorical rectum probed by
the government.=20

    Had enough, yet?  The same transparently unconstitutional
strictures apply to pawnshops.=20

     Had enough, yet?  Friends, the most important thing to know about =
this
mess right now is that the _Republicans_ and the _NRA_ did it to us. The
Democrats would never have been able to accomplish it without them.=20

    Had enough, yet?  The best thing you can do is write whatever
squamous, fetid, pile of cretinous dung calls himself your Republican
representative or Senator and inform him that if this blantantly illegal
garbage isn't repealed, _right now_ -- along with the Ugly Gun and
Magazine ban attributed to Clinton, but actually the brainchild of Jack
Kemp and William Bennett -- then it's going to be the end of the
Republican Party.=20

    Had enough, yet?  If you're interested in learning how (or sending
the Elephant Boys another message), feel free to read, download, and pass
along what you find at:=20

    http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/le970601-01.html

and:=20

    http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/le970701-02.html

    Had enough, yet?  I guarantee that this is the _only_ effective
tactic left to us.  But it is a good one, and it will succeed if you're
willing to do the minimum work of getting it to Republican incumbents and
candidates, and apssing it along to people on our side who will do the
same.=20

    If you aren't willing, give up any idea that we're better and
stronger that the Brits, the Australians, or the Canadians.  We ourselves
will have been the major culprits in the destruction of American =
liberty.=20

    Had enough, yet?  What's it gonna be, friends?  A future of
freedom or a future in chains?  It's up to you.=20

L. Neil Smith Author, _The Probability Broach_, _Pallas_, et al.  --
**********************************************************************
Declare your own website a BILL OF RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT site today!! The
vile reign of state terrorism is drawing to a close at long last.  A new
day is dawning for _liberty_.  You can share in making history. Go to
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html and click on the scroll.=20
**********************************************************************




-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LPUtah Press Release]
Date: 27 Aug 1998 11:44:42 -0600

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> FYI,
>
> ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
>
> Libertarian Party of Utah
> Salt Lake City, Ut
>
[...snip...]
>
> "Rep. Hansen seems to be right in touch with the majority of Utah's
> electorate on this issue," said Libertarian Party state chair Jim
> Dexter.   "Utahns have always rejected waiting periods as
> unconstitutional infringements of our most basic right to effective,
> armed defense.  We also require the state to issue concealed weapons
> permits to any competent, law-abiding adult who can show basic
> proficiency with a firearm."
>
> The Libertarian Party called on Rep. Hansen to sponsor legislation to
> repeal the Brady law and to guarantee that a person legally allowed to
> carry a gun for self defense in any State could legally do so in the
> District of Columbia and federal territories.
>
[...snip...]
>
Thanks and Kudos to the LPU and Jim for making the statement!  Welcome!

But....

Is it really the position of the LPU that "our most basic right to
effective, armed defense." can be given or taken away by "the state"
which issues "concealed weapons permits to any competent, law-abiding
adult who can show basic proficiency with a firearm." and that the
state may "allow" ... "a person"..." to carry a gun for self defense"?

Will

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: GSL> cnjs/colt's
Date: 27 Aug 1998 12:50:48 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 22:31:44 -0600
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA23574; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 22:20:14 -0600
Received: (qmail 14030 invoked by uid 516); 27 Aug 1998 04:30:27 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 14016 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1998 04:30:22 -0000
Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 1998 04:30:22 -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 AAA29236
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:30:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 166-93-76-1.rmi.net (166-93-76-1.rmi.net [166.93.76.1])
    by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA28901;
    Wed, 26 Aug 1998 22:23:48 -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]>
>Delivered-To: [e-mail]
>From: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 01:24:36 EDT
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: GSL> cnjs/colt's
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>
>----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
>                           Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen
>                               Richard Miller - Chairman
>        2316 Lyde Place - Scotch Plains, NJ 07076 - Fax [phone]
>
>
>August 14, 1998
>
>                             OPEN LETTER TO THE PUBLIC
>
>Re: CNJS Calling off Boycott against Colt's and Full Retraction of Claims =
Made
>against Colt's
>
>The Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen made accusatory statements against
>Colt's
>Manufacturing Company, Inc., its President Ron Stewart, and its Chairman
>Donald
>Zilkha. These statements were broadly disseminated and made several weeks =
ago,
>during and around the time of NRA Show in Philadelphia.
>
>We said that Colt's, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Zilkha took actions that =
threatened
>Second
>Amendment Rights and other actions that were contrary to our interest. =
Among
>the
>charges, we accused Colt's of seeking the passage of legislation that =
would
>outlaw
>guns that did not use smart gun technology. We accused Mr. Stewart of
>mismanagement and placing Colt's in dire financial condition. We also =
accused
>Colt's,
>and later Mr. Zilkha, of contributing to Charles Schumer's campaign*. =
Finally,
>we
>called for a boycott against Colt's.
>
>We now realize that we were given erroneous and false information and =
drew the
>wrong conclusions. Therefore, we unconditionally retract everything we =
said
>negative
>about Colt's, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Zilkha. We are very sorry for what we =
did
>and only
>wish that we had made this retraction sooner. In light of our serious =
mistakes
>of fact
>and judgement, we ask everyone to please immediately disregard the =
Coalition
>of New
>Jersey Sportsmen's call for a boycott against Colt's. Again, we are very =
sorry
>and
>sincerely apologize for our actions.
>
>Very truly yours,
>(Signed)
>Richard Miller, Chairman
>
>*Mr. Zilkha as an individual, not Colt's, contributed to Mr. Schumer's
>campaign. However, taken
>in perspective, the amount contributed was small; Mr. Zilkha has a =
multitude
>of interests beyond
>firearms; and he has contributed on a bipartisan basis, making contributio=
n to
>a number of
>Republicans including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and George =
Bush.=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.
>
******************
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: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: [LPUtah Press Release]
Date: 27 Aug 1998 13:37:18 -0600


Will,

You're most welcome.

However, either you protest too much, or you are simply playing
devil's advocate here.  :) Certainly with your past association with
the LPUtah you are fully aware that we regard permits to carry weapons
as infringments of basic rights.  Anyone curious about the LPUtah's
positions on this or other issues is invited to check out the web page
at <http;//www.inconnect.com/~LPUtah> or to attend one of the many
county or other meetings held on a regular basis.

Re-read the press release carefully.  It does not state any LPUtah
support for permits or for the notion of a state "allowing" one to
carry.  It merely uses Utah's permit system as evidence that the
majority of Utahn's believe it is **appropriate** (admittedly most do
not yet fully understand the difference between a privledge and a
right) to carry a gun for self defense.

It also recognizes current realities and casts those realities in what
I think is the best possible light in support of our position of
expanding the statutory ability to exercise a constitutional right.
Vermont is the only State in the Union to currently recognize the
RIGHT to KBA.  Utah's permit system is one of the less restrictive
among the remaining 49 States.  That fact indicates, in my mind, that
Utahn's are friendly to RKBA even if they don't understand it fully.
That is the point.  It is deliberately worded so as to not express
support where we do not wish to express it while still not coming off
as so radical as to be automatically dismissed by too many people.

Last time I heard, even you, yourself, had recognized the prudence of
working within current confines of law.  The State of Utah currently
"allows" you to legally carry a concealed weapon.  I would certainly
not stoop so low as to suggest that your voluntary acquisition of a
State issued CCW should be interpreted as support of any kind for
restricting Constitutional rights by requiring permits.  Please try to
give the LPUtah the same consideration and benfit of the doubt in this
area I try to give you.

In Liberty

Charles
[for myself only]

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Charles Hardy wrote:
>>
>> FYI,
>>
>> ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
>>
>> Libertarian Party of Utah
>> Salt Lake City, Ut
>>
>[...snip...]
>>
>> "Rep. Hansen seems to be right in touch with the majority of Utah's
>> electorate on this issue," said Libertarian Party state chair Jim
>> Dexter.   "Utahns have always rejected waiting periods as
>> unconstitutional infringements of our most basic right to effective,
>> armed defense.  We also require the state to issue concealed weapons
>> permits to any competent, law-abiding adult who can show basic
>> proficiency with a firearm."
>>
>> The Libertarian Party called on Rep. Hansen to sponsor legislation to
>> repeal the Brady law and to guarantee that a person legally allowed to
>> carry a gun for self defense in any State could legally do so in the
>> District of Columbia and federal territories.
>>
>[...snip...]
>>
>Thanks and Kudos to the LPU and Jim for making the statement!  Welcome!
>
>But....
>
>Is it really the position of the LPU that "our most basic right to
>effective, armed defense." can be given or taken away by "the state"
>which issues "concealed weapons permits to any competent, law-abiding
>adult who can show basic proficiency with a firearm." and that the
>state may "allow" ... "a person"..." to carry a gun for self defense"?
>
>Will
>
>-
>
>


--

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

"A cardinal rule of bureaucracy is that it is better to extend an error
 than to admit a mistake." -- Colin Greenwood

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: [LPUtah Press Release]
Date: 27 Aug 1998 14:02:49 -0600



Will,

Having re-read the press release a few times, I believe I see where
your concern lies.  If I were able to re-write this I would omit "a
person legally allowed to carry a gun for self defense in any State"
and replace it with simply "law-abiding citizens" or something
similar.  Clearly the federal government should respect constitutional
rights regardless of whether or not State governments do.

I aplogize that the wording of the release left any room to doubt on
the LPUtah's position regarding the RKBA.  Thank you for your input.
I will try to be even more careful in press release wording in the
future.

In Liberty
Charles.

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Charles Hardy wrote:
>>
>> FYI,
>>
>> ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
>>
>> Libertarian Party of Utah
>> Salt Lake City, Ut
>>
>[...snip...]
>>
>> "Rep. Hansen seems to be right in touch with the majority of Utah's
>> electorate on this issue," said Libertarian Party state chair Jim
>> Dexter.   "Utahns have always rejected waiting periods as
>> unconstitutional infringements of our most basic right to effective,
>> armed defense.  We also require the state to issue concealed weapons
>> permits to any competent, law-abiding adult who can show basic
>> proficiency with a firearm."
>>
>> The Libertarian Party called on Rep. Hansen to sponsor legislation to
>> repeal the Brady law and to guarantee that a person legally allowed to
>> carry a gun for self defense in any State could legally do so in the
>> District of Columbia and federal territories.
>>
>[...snip...]
>>
>Thanks and Kudos to the LPU and Jim for making the statement!  Welcome!
>
>But....
>
>Is it really the position of the LPU that "our most basic right to
>effective, armed defense." can be given or taken away by "the state"
>which issues "concealed weapons permits to any competent, law-abiding
>adult who can show basic proficiency with a firearm." and that the
>state may "allow" ... "a person"..." to carry a gun for self defense"?
>
>Will
>
>-
>
>


--

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 people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in
 their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of
 arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of
 taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads of
 provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all the
 weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government." --
 Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 29, 1558, Japan.

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Impeachment Blitz 2
Date: 28 Aug 1998 08:14:55 -0600

Received: from vader.thnet.com
    ([206.98.115.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 04:47:15 -0600
Received: from bruce2.thnet.com (bruce2.thnet.com [206.98.115.102]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA09922; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 05:40:54 -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

LETTER

                            Impeachment Blitz 2

*** Time for PHONE FOLLOW UP of your impeachment post card BLITZ. ***

You sent them post cards. Now give them a phone call to remind them about
them. Ask them, politely, but firmly, "You did receive my post card, =
didn't
you?" "The post card that said Impeach Clinton." "It also said to post
Starr's Report on the Internet."

That will get them hustling. That will tell them you are serious. Please
distribute this letter widely before sending your own cards. Please keep
your groups organized so we can get this very necessary chore done.

For more information, please read Heads Up #99. Simply click the headline
at the top of page at my website at http://www.uhuh.com You can find your
Congress Critters addresses at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Let's
each of us get 100 more people to send postcards. Let's really blitz
Congress! This letter will be posted in Blitz Central at
http://www.uhuh.com Click on Blitz.

     Yours in liberty,
     Forest


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: (fwd) AB2560 passed (fwd)
Date: 28 Aug 1998 09:26:31 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:42:04 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA24955; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:30:32 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA15080; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma014851; Fri Aug 28 10:37:36 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

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware =
tools.
  Send mail to [e-mail] for more info.

---559023410-1804928587-904312567=3D:7195
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=3Dus-ascii
Content-ID: <[e-mail]>





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

Our friends in California need our assistance.  Call Gov. Wilson and
urge him to veto AB2560.  I don't know if Pete Wilson is still
considering running for President, but we need to watch his actions on
this.

---559023410-1804928587-904312567=3D:7195
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-ID: <[e-mail]>
Content-Description:=20

Received: by mailhost (mbox bubba)
 (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Thu Aug 27 23:11:29 1998)
X-From_: [e-mail]  Thu Aug 27 23:09:57 1998
X-Envelope-To: <[e-mail]>
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from prefer.net (prefer.net [192.41.7.162])
    by mailhost.cyberramp.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1/ler-980825-0832-PM) with =
ESMTP id XAA04923
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:09:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from geocities.com (mail9.geocities.com [209.1.224.44]) by =
prefer.net (8.8.5) id WAA00272; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 22:09:48 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from dal-tsa16-6.cyberramp.net (dal-tsa16-6.cyberramp.net =
[207.158.87.70])
    by geocities.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA03191
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 21:09:40 -0700 =
(PDT)
Organization: *
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

By a vote of 41 yes,  31 no,      8 abstained
AB2560 has passed and now goes to Governor Pete Wilson's desk for a =
signature
or veto.

This law will unfairly burden law abiding owners of most magazine fed =
firearms.
Requiring us to submit to fingerprinting, registration and user fees on =
items we
legally purchased.=20

Contact Gov Wilson and ask him to VETO AB2560.
I recommend you write an actual letter but followup with Email and phone
calls.   Everyone please get involved in this.

You can contact Gov Pete Wilson at the following.

Governor Pete Wilson
State Capital Building
Sacramento Ca 95814

916/445-2841 (phone)
916/445-4633  (fax)
[e-mail]  (Email)

Remember, he is not running for reelection, so don't bother referring to =
votes
in your letters. We have to appeal to his sense of fairness and common =
sense. We
have to point out what a bureaucratic nightmare this bill will be to =
lawful
owners of these firearms.  Everyone please join the fight against AB2560 =
and
please forward this info to other firearms list.


---559023410-1804928587-904312567=3D:7195--


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Polls, Polls, Polls
Date: 31 Aug 1998 14:59:31 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:29:16 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA27388; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:17:40 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA16272; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma016013; Mon Aug 31 12:25:00 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Sharon,

  First of all, nice grill of the pollster.  Kudos to you...


IMHO, polls work on the same principles as the following sentence:

        Did you steal it?


By changing the emphasis from word to word, the meaning of the sentence =
can
be changed.  For example, the questions

    DID you steal it?
        (As in, "Someone says you did.")
    Did YOU steal it?
        (Going around the room and asking everyone.)
    Did you STEAL it?
        (Versus "Or did you buy it?")
    Did you steal IT?
        (as in "That, too?")

are asking four different questions with four different answers.


This is why I don't value polls, don't reference their data, and don't
respond to political based polls...

Most of them are a crock of sh*t and the entire intention is to give us a
false confidence in the state of our government or a false belief in the
"thinking (for lack of a better term) of the majority of the population.

If you believe in the reults of polls, then according to most of them,
those of us who support and believe in the 2nd Amendment are gun toting
militia wackos...

..and my apologies if you really are one... :-)  just a joke...



At 09:34 AM 8/29/98 -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
>Three years ago, I attended a "candidate development seminar".  Our guest
>speaker was a real live (and somewhat famous) Florida pollster.  During =
the
>"Q&A" section of his talk, I raised my hand.
>
>Me:  What do the telephone pollsters do when they get an answering =
machine?
>
>Pollster:  They are instructed to hang up and go on to the next number.  =
We
>don't have time to leave messages, etc.
>
>Me:  So polling data routinely excludes people who have enough disposable
>income and enough education to buy, set up, and use a telephone answering
>machine to screen their calls and take messages.  Is that what you're =
telling
>me?
>
>Pollster:  Well, no.  We use a formula to extrapolate their responses.
>
>Me:  A formula???  Sir, I'm a PhD candidate in physics and as such have a
>passing=20
>familiarity with statistical methods.  What, precisely, is this formula??
>
>Pollster:  I can't spend all my alloted time on one person.  Next =
questioner?
>
>Munch on this awhile. =20
>
>Sharon Zane
>
>


-