ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9812

Internet Message Format | 1998-12-29 | 195KB

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Local gun poll needs some help
Date: 01 Dec 1998 12:51:21 -0700


All,

There is a "quick poll" on the DesNew's front page today
<http:/www.desnews.com> asking,

"Should the legislature pass a law enabling adminstrators to ban guns
in:

Schools only
Churches only
Both
Neither"


Current vote totals are

Schools only 116  (11%)
churches only 10 (1%)
both 709 (68%)
neither 201 (19%)


Please take a few moments to log in and register an
opinion--espectially in the neither catagory. Let's make sure there
isn't one more poll that can be used as justification for more laws
limiting our RKBA.

FWIW, every proposed bill last year and this year which purports to
"allow" churches and/or schools to ban guns actually bans all (non
governmental) guns from those locations (and usually include colleges
and universities in their definition of schools) and requires the
church or school, via some officer, to grant permission to carry on an
individual basis.



--

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: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [" Fun with statistics"]
Date: 01 Dec 1998 12:51:52 -0700


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
"Top 10 List of Bread Statistics

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming
households score below average on standardized tests.
3. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been
proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to
suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than
that in one month!
4. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
5. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of
bread and given only water begged for bread after as little as two days.
6. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to
"harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even
cold cuts.
7. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in
the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years;
infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died
in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and
influenza ravaged whole nations.
8. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within
24 hours of eating bread.
9. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit!
That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
10. Many bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish
between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical
babbling."



----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

"The 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: John Lott on "Bogus Gun Lawsuits" (fwd)
Date: 01 Dec 1998 16:00:10 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 01 Dec 1998 14:51:10 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA05682; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:38:09 -0700
Received: from  (server@localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA20190;
    Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:49:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline





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

Posted to texas-gun-owners by [e-mail] (John Johnson)
 ---- Begin Forwarded Article ----

 Cities Target Gun Makers in Bogus Lawsuits

 More people are killed by cars; more children drown or die in fires.

 As Printed in the LA Times 12/1/98

 By John R. Lott Jr., a fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.
 He is author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun
 Control Laws" (University of Chicago Press, 1998).

 Every product has illegitimate uses and undesirable consequences. In
 1996 in the U.S., car accidents killed 43,000 people and injured
 another 3.4 million; 950 children under the age of 15 drowned in pools
 and while boating; 500 children died in bicycle accidents, and more
 than 1,000 children died from residential fires. No one is yet
 proposing that state or city governments should recoup medical costs
 or police salaries by suing automobile or bicycle companies, pool
 builders or makers of home heaters. Such suits make as little sense as
 pool builders suing the government to recoup the health benefits from
 exercise.=20

 But suing manufacturers for any costs cities incur from gun injuries
 and deaths is exactly the theory behind the lawsuits by Chicago and
 New Orleans against gun makers. Gun control groups, which are helping
 organize the litigation, claim that as many as 60 cities will
 eventually sue. With so many simultaneous suits, the goal is not to
 win these weak cases in court but to bankrupt legitimate small
 companies through massive legal costs.=20

 Obviously, bad things happen with guns. But the suits ignore that guns
 also prevent bad things by making it easier for victims to defend
 themselves. With fewer than 1% of all guns ever used in crimes or
 causing death or injury, many other products have much higher
 probabilities of causing harm. Unlike the tobacco suits, gun makers
 have powerful arguments about the benefits of gun ownership.=20

 More than 450,000 crimes, including 10,744 murders, are committed with
 guns each year. But Americans also use guns defensively about 2.5
 million times a year, and 98% of the time merely brandishing the
 weapon is sufficient to stop an attack.=20

 Police are important in reducing crime rates, but they virtually
 always arrive after a crime has been committed. When criminals
 confront people, resistance with a gun is by far the safest course
 of action. Guns help offset the strength differential between male
 criminals and female victims. The chances of serious injury from an
 attack are 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than
 for those resisting with guns.=20

 My own research has found that increased gun ownership rates are
 associated with lower crime rates. Poor people in the highest crime
 areas benefit the most from owning guns. Lawsuits against gun makers
 will raise the price of firearms, which will most severely reduce gun
 ownership among the law-abiding, much-victimized poor.=20

 A 1996 survey by the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police found that
 93% of 15,000 chiefs and sheriffs questioned thought that law-abiding
 citizens should be able to buy guns for self-defense. If mayors really
 believe that guns produce no benefits, there is one simple way they
 can demonstrate this: Disarm their bodyguards. It is hypocritical for
 mayors to demand that poor people live in high crime areas without
 being able to own guns, while the mayors would never enter these areas
 without armed guards.=20

 Chicago claims that the gun makers made their weapons attractive to
 gang members through low price, easy concealability, corrosion
 resistance, accurate firing and high firepower. Lightweight,
 concealable guns may help criminals, but they also have helped protect
 law-abiding citizens and lower crime rates in the 43 states that allow
 concealed handguns. Women benefit most and also find it easier to use
 smaller, lightweight guns.=20

 The New Orleans suit seeks to hold gun makers liable because
 accidental deaths are "foreseeable" and not enough was done to make
 guns safe. It is particularly concerned with accidental deaths
 involving children and cites three cases in New Orleans since 1992.
 Nationally, 30 children under 5 and 200 under 15 died from accidental
 gun deaths in 1996. Yet with 80 million people owning 200 million to
 240 million guns, accidental deaths from guns are far less
 "foreseeable" than from many other products. Gun owners must
 be very responsible, or such gun accidents would be much more
 frequent.=20

 Allowing the court system to ignore a product's benefits to society is
 bad enough. Yet even worse is the cynical attempt to file bogus
 lawsuits and use taxpayers' dollars to impose massive legal costs that
 render it infeasible for defendants to defend themselves. - - -=20

 John R. Lott Jr., a Law and Economics Fellow at the University of
 Chicago School of Law, Is the Author of "More Guns, Less Crime:
 Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" (University of Chicago
 Press, 1998)
                             -30-
                <http://www.tsra.com/Lott9.htm>

 "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the
 guns away from the people who didn't do it.  I sure as
 hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only
 people allowed guns are the police and the military."
 --William Burroughs

 "Gun Control: the political AIDS of a free society"
 --Ian Underwood, 13Sep98

 "As Professor Lott discovered, gun ownership deters crime.
 But what will deter liberals? Certainly not the facts.
 They have too much invested in their vision of themselves
 as the saviors of us all."
 --Thomas Sowell, June 29, 1998
--=20
 John Johnson
 [e-mail]

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



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Shut the gun registration machine down!!
Date: 01 Dec 1998 19:11:00 -0700


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

To All,

Today, 11/30/98 is the first day of the new long gun registration scheme.

We can shut it down by tying up their phone lines.

Call *67 1-877-FBI-NICS or (*67 (877-324-6427) and ask for a press
release for your community newspaper.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Hypothetical incidents? Try real ...
Date: 01 Dec 1998 19:11:00 -0700


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

It is "overwhelmingly clear" that disarming potential victims will not
deter a criminal intent on harming others in a church, a school, or
anyplace else. Those who claim that victim disarmament laws will protect
us are either woefully ignorant or have ulterior motives. There exists
an abundant number of instances of unarmed victims being killed, injured,
or taken hostage by criminals who quite obviously care nothing about the
law. (The Cody, Wyoming school incident comes immediately to mind.)

Politicians who think they can change criminal human nature with a wave
of their legislative hand are dangerous. The best deterrent to armed
criminals is the knowledge that their victim/s may be armed. I recently
lived in Maryland for a year and, as I wrote my Maryland state senator,
I felt much safer in Utah where all my neighbors were armed.

Richard L. (Dick) Partridge, 1998 Libertarian Candidate
Utah State Senate District 24
4480 N. Hwy 38, Brigham City, Ut 84302
435-734-2678

On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 17:40:51 EST [e-mail] writes:

Limits on guns may pass in 1999
By Bob Bernick Jr.
<http://deseretnews.com/staff/card/1,1228,9,00.html
Deseret News political editor

Another attempt will be made during the Legislature's 1999 general
session to give church congregations and public school administrators
the power to ban all weapons - permitted or not - from their property.

House Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake, will make the latest
run at changing Utah's concealed-weapons permit laws. Current law
says people who get concealed-weapons permits can carry them without
restriction except for several specific areas - such as prisons,
courtrooms and airports. He's optimistic that a change in House
leadership will give his gun-banning side a better shot at success.

"So what else is new?" says Elwood Powell, chairman of the Utah
Shooting Sports Council, which has battled this issue for several
years. Such banning of weapons to law-abiding, permit-carrying
citizens "is a violation of the Utah Constitution's guarantee of
the right to defend ourselves," says Powell.

Jones says it is "overwhelmingly clear" from any number of public
opinion polls that most Utahns want guns banned from churches and
schools. A Deseret News poll conducted earlier this year shows that
93 percent favor concealed weapons being banned from public schools,
90 percent want them banned from churches.

"It has been a lack of political will - not public support" that has
doomed the concealed-weapons changes before, says Jones.

House Speaker Mel Brown, R-Mivale, is stepping down from that
leadership role in the 1999 Legislature. While Brown denies it - and
Senate President Lane Beattie won't say it either - it is generally
believed that Brown's opposition to a similar bill drafted by Beattie
in the 1998 general session was the reason Beattie pulled his bill
before it was even given a public hearing.

Beattie, R-West Bountiful, said at the time only that the bill had
little chance of passage in the House, so why waste time on the
controversial measure.

A speaker has the power to hold a bill or send it to a standing
committee where it may have little chance of passage.

"I'm encouraged" that the new House GOP leaders will judge his bill
on a reasonable basis, Jones said.

To give "these two exemptions to the (concealed) weapons law is just
plain common sense," says Jones. Why should the place where "we take
care of the most vulnerable among us - our children - and the house
of the Creator" not be protected from handguns? Jones asks.

But Powell looks at it differently.

If a constitutional right is denied, someone must step up to ensure
that the right is not needed. And someone must pay the costs if that
right is denied.

He asks who is going to pay the cost of a life-long suffering if
persons threatened by others can't defend themselves and are harmed?
"Who is going to pick up the social cost" of someone paralyzed for
life when they could have fought off an aggressor? "Will it be the
state, the taxpayers? I believe people should think about that one."

A number of school districts have already issued personnel rules that
ban all weapons from schools. Exceptions are usually made for law
enforcement officers, and Jones says his bill will allow officers to
carry guns on school grounds.

Gov. Mike Leavitt - through his personnel department - has also
issued regulations banning state employees from carrying weapons,
including properly permitted concealed weapons, from state buildings,
grounds and vehicles. Again, state law-enforcement officers are exempt.
And the State Hospital, where mentally ill people are confined and
treated, this year issued new rules and guidelines on carrying weapons
there. No one has challenged churches that may want to ban weapons from
their buildings.

Some legislators are saying nothing really has to be done - that
offended citizens who don't like state personnel guidelines, school
policies or actions by churches can go to court.

But Jones believes the matter should be clearly outlined in state law.
"Anyone can create a hypothetical incident for any situation - a woman
teacher is attacked by an abusive husband in school or whatever. But
why in the world do we need guns in schools and churches? It makes no
sense at all to say that guns should be allowed to be taken anywhere."


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: DesNews Poll
Date: 02 Dec 1998 16:37:10 -0700


Thanks to all those who have taken the time to register your opinion
with the on line poll.  It looked pretty grim yesterday when I first
saw it with well over 60% of those responding favoring limiting CCW.
By this morning the numbers had taken a nice shift in our favor with
52% of respondants opposing laws restricting CCW.  Currently, 6% favor
banning CCW from schools only, 0% (13 votes) favor banning guns from
churches only, and 42% favor banning guns from both churches and
schools.

If you or any gun friendly folks you know haven't taken the time to
register your opinion yet, please take just a moment and do so at
<http://www.desnews.com>.  The poll is on the right side of the page
about 1/2 to 3/4 of the way down.  I don't think it will let you vote
more than once, but if you haven't voted yet, please do.

Obviously, if the numbers stay in our favor, they'll never report
them, but if any less than 51% of the total respondants vote for no
restrictions, you can bet they'll spin it against us like "The
majority of respondants favor restricting guns from schools or
churches."  Please make sure the numbers stay in our favor.  It will
be one less poll they can goad legislators with and I can pass along
good numbers to a friendly legislator to diminish support for futher
restrictions.

--

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: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: From today's DesNews' OpEd page
Date: 02 Dec 1998 17:28:25 -0700


            Wednesday, December 02, 1998



            Comparing guns, cars is inaccurate
            By Mark Johnson
            Media General News Service
                  WASHINGTON ù In the national debate over firearms, supporters
            of tighter gun laws frequently draw the comparison between guns and
            cars.
                  "Like cars, guns are dangerous," said Handgun Control Inc.
            officials in a 1994 proposal for a new gun law titled "Brady II."
            "Cars are not designed to kill and yet are heavily regulated: You
            must be of a minimum age, take a training course, pass a proficiency
            test, get a license, obtain insurance, and the car must be
            registered. And automobile manufacturers are subject to stringent
            safety regulations.
                  "Guns carry none of these restrictions. In the interest of
            saving lives, Brady II would require gun owners and manufacturers to
            adopt safety measures similar to those required of car owners and
            manufacturers."
                  At a conference of the American Society of Criminology in
            Washington this month, a college professor raised his hand and told
            a panel of experts he had never heard a good answer to the question
            of why guns are not regulated like cars, with registration and
            licensing.
                  The contention here is that the government regulates cars more
            heavily than guns and that firearms, given their lethality, should
            be raised to at least the same level of restrictions.
                  It's a point that is inaccurate and one that gun control
            supporters may find thrown right back at them.
                  National Rifle Association members and other gun enthusiasts
            likely would be eager to embrace a plan that puts pistols and
            shotguns on the same regulatory plane as minivans and sport utility
            vehicles. Consider some of the effects:
                  A customer with a felony conviction unrelated to firearms
            could still get a gun license, just as, for example, a conviction
            for bank robbery does not prohibit anyone from getting a driver's
            license.
                  A 16-year-old could buy a gun in most states.
                  Since car owners can drive any vehicle they want on their
            private property in any manner they wish (including while stone cold
            drunk with un-seat belted small children in the car), a gun owner
            could keep any type of firearm they wanted on their private property
            and handle it as recklessly as they like.
                  A Virginia driver's license allows a driver to operate a car
            in any state. So a gun license would allow a firearms owner to take
            his Glock .9mm pistol on that trip to Florida.
                  "Treating guns like cars would be massive gun decontrol," said
            Dave Kopel, an adjunct professor at New York University Law School
            who has written for NRA publications. "The day they start treating
            guns like cars, every Second Amendment supporter in this country is
            going to throw a party."
                  The theory that what's good for cars is good for firearms
            falls apart when pushed beyond the sloganeering. Driving and owning
            a car is more loosely regulated and owning a gun is more strictly
            regulated than the comparison suggests.
                  Handgun Control's Robin Terry said the "Brady II" proposal is
            not an argument for equal treatment among guns and cars but an
            effort to familiarize the public with the ideas of licensing and
            registration.
                  Like so many disputes in the persistent national debate over
            guns, this one demonstrates that the simple approaches sound
            reasonable but turn out fairly complex.



            Mark Johnson covers the Justice Department and Supreme Court for
            Media General News Service.






World & Nation + Utah + Sports + Business + Opinion + Front page




--

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

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
 citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
 people with arms." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-
 244

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: WW in DN--War Between the States
Date: 02 Dec 1998 17:29:39 -0700


            Wednesday, December 02, 1998


            Civil War was about controls, not slavery
            By Walter Williams

                  The problems that led to the Civil War are the same problems
            today ù big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the
            specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have
            yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and
            political statesmanship is in short supply.
                  Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is
            a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a
            government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no
            more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was
            interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis
            was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be
            called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern
            Independence."
                  History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war
            was fought to free slaves. Statements from the time suggest
            otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said,
            "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
            institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I
            have no lawful right to do so."
                  During the war, in an 1862 letter to New York Daily Tribune
            editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this
            struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or
            destroy slavery."
                  Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many Northern
            politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the
            presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose
            on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a
            moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at
            defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was
            right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished
            beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.
                  A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when
            South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828
            and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise
            lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly
            war.
                  The North favored protective tariffs for its manufacturing
            industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and
            imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was
            hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a Northern-dominated Congress enacted
            laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect Northern
            shipping interests.
                  Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly
            protectionist Morrill tariffs. That's when the South seceded,
            setting up a new government. Its constitution was nearly identical
            to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist
            tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote
            for all spending measures.
                  States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional
            acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find
            leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like
            Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.
            Creators Syndicate Inc.






World & Nation + Utah + Sports + Business + Opinion + Front page





--

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

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
 citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
 people with arms." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-
 244

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: LEGAL THEORY OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 1/3
Date: 02 Dec 1998 23:31:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    L & J <[e-mail]>

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.txt

LEGAL THEORY OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Copyright (c) 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to
copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.

There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying
the "right to keep and bear arms". This is a brief outline for a
clarification of the discussion of this issue.

(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not
establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions
of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize
such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such
rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as
obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing
republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of
Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which
discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at
least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of
Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding
of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That
has turned out to have been a good idea.

(2) The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals
under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the
understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and
was a long-established principle of English common law at the time
the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of
constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution.

(3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right,
power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now
females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It
effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police
powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have
military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized
manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of
art established by English common law at the time the Constitution
was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on
what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern
terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is
also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might
be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were
mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes
self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are,
after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of
the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to
risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus
a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is
considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is
not called for.

(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When
it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols,
swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common-law
definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and
used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally
equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare."
That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto
machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares,
smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not
heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line.
The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would
enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the
precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally.
The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons
that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that
personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental
powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead
of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

(5) The right to keep and bear arms does indeed extend to the
states. As do the other rights recognized by other Amendments,
and as reinforced by the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not just a
restriction on the powers of the central government. On the other
hand, the citizens of a state can adopt a constitution that might
restrict the exercise of such rights by delegating the power to
do so to the state government. However, if the restriction of
natural rights is unduly burdensome on those rights, then such a
provision would be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, its
guarantee of the rights, and its guarantee that all states have a
"republican" form of government - which such restrictions would
compromise.

(6) The legal basis for a government not infringing on the right
to keep and bear arms is not constitutional provisions like the
Second Amendment, but that the power to do so is not one of the
enumerated powers delegated to the government, whether Union or
State. That delegation must be explicit as pertains to arms. They
can't be regulated on the basis of general powers to tax or to
regulate commerce. Arms have a special status under constitutional
law. Some State constitutions may delegate such powers to the
State government. The U.S. Constitution does not delegate such
powers to the Union government. No powers are delegated to
government by the preamble to a constitution, which is only a
statement of purpose, only by provisions in the body of the
document and its amendments.

(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in
those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It
is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of
real property have the power to regulate who may enter their
premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes
public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms --
on their own property or property they control -- but not on
someone else's property without his permission.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: LEGAL THEORY OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 2/3
Date: 02 Dec 1998 23:31:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
(8) In other words, citizens have a right to keep and bear arms
in those places and situations where they have a right to be,
unless such rights are disabled by due process of law.
Fundamental natural rights can never be lost, as contractual
rights can be, only the exercise of those rights restricted or
"disabled", to use the legal term. The distinction is very
important. Natural rights are those which the individual brings
with him when he enters into the social contract, and reclaims if
the social contract is broken. The right to keep and bear arms is
such a natural right, as is the right of free speech, religious
belief, and privacy. The alternative is a contractual right
created by a contract, such as the social contract. The right to
vote or to be judged by a jury of one's peers are examples of
rights created by the social contract, albeit important ones that
are also constitutionally protected. Because they are constitutionally
protected, it is only proper to speak of them as disabled, rather
than lost, so long as the subject remains a citizen or natural person,
depending on whether it is a right of citizenship or personhood.

(9) It is unconstitutional to "disable" any rights by statute
except one set: the rights of majority. The disabilities of
minority do not need to be established by a court trial or
hearing. However, they can be removed sooner than they would be
removed by constitution or statute, by reaching a certain age.
This means it is unconstitutional to disable the right to keep
and bear arms to a class of persons by statute, including those,
such as felons, who have been the subject of due process on
another issue, except through a proceeding in which the court is
explicitly petitioned to disable them, the subject has an
opportunity to argue to the contrary, the petitioner has the
burden of proof that the subject if armed would be a threat to
himself or others, and the court grants that petition. Merely
being convicted of a crime, or declared mentally incompetent, is
not sufficient if the language of the judgment does not also
explicitly disable the right to keep and bear arms, or set
restrictions on such right.

(10) "General police powers" is not a constitutional basis for
states or localities to regulate arms. "General police powers"
are the powers to use the means necessary and sufficient to stop
someone who threatens to commit a major crime, or to arrest
someone who has done so. All citizens have such power. They
differ from regular, professional police only in that the regular
police also have "special police powers" in matters such as minor
offenses, and in that they outrank civilians. Since citizens have
general police powers, they also have the right to such means as
they require to exercise such powers in situations in which they
may be called upon to do so. That includes arms.

(11) To be constitutional, state laws restricting the bearing of
arms must distinguish between public property, private commercial
property which serves the public and which therefore confers
certain rights to the public, and other private property with no
public access rights. It is reasonable and constitutional to
prohibit persons from bearing arms onto purely private property
without notifying the owner or manager and obtaining his or her
permission, except over public easements, such as sidewalks or
the walkway from the street to the front door. On the other hand,
it would be an undue burden on the right to bear arms to forbid
persons from traveling between places where they have a right to
be, and to bear arms while they do so, along public pathways or
private easements, and using their own or a public means of
transportation. It may not, however, be an undue burden to
prohibit the bearing of arms onto certain public property where
persons do not have unrestricted access, such as office buildings
and auditoriums, provided that authorities guarantee the safety
of persons who enter unarmed. Owners of commercial property
serving the public which confers some rights of access to the
public may prohibit the bearing of arms by posting or giving a
notice to that effect, but lacking such notice, bearing arms onto
the premises would be permitted. The rule must be that laws must
not burden the right to bear arms except to the extent that they
would impose a greater burden on the right of property owners to
exclude persons bearing arms.

(12) The law must presume that places of business that cater to
arms, such as gun shops and shooting ranges, and events such as
gun shows, offer presumptive permission to bear arms and that
therefore it is not illegal to bear them there or to travel to
and from them.

(13) A carry permit system essentially is a removal of restrictions
against bearing arms on public and private property unless there
is an express prohibition against doing so, either in the form
of a posted sign or a directive from the owner or his agent. The
rationale for issuing such permits is to equip persons of good
character to more effectively function as militiamen or police
in situations in which regular police are not available or
insufficient. That also includes self-protection, but the key
factor is the duty to perform police duties as necessary. There
also needs to be explicit statutory protection of the state or
other permit issuing authority against criminal or civil
liability for any acts done by the permit holder. One kind of
carry permit is that which is one of the "special police powers"
of regular law-enforcement officers, which allows them to carry
anywhere, even against the express wishes of a property owner.

(14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only
effective way to extend police protection to a level that might
deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public
to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police
training, and organizing them into a network of militia units
closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is
likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in
this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional
basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a
significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might
even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police
duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in
law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the
social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular
police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of
authority that police have sometimes fallen into.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: LEGAL THEORY OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 2/3
Date: 02 Dec 1998 23:31:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
(15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for
restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally
meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state
or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia
members may be required to carry certain standard arms during
formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional
arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia
operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and
in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform
their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own.

(16) The Union government has the power, under the U.S.
Constitution, to regulate imports and interstate commerce in
arms, but the Framers would not agree with how the "interstate
commerce" clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8) of the Constitution has been
broadly interpreted to include regulation of manufacture,
possession, and local sales and use of items. A strict constitutional
interpretation requires that the Union government has authority
only over transactions that cross state lines, and not over actions
or transactions that occur within state borders, even if they
involve items that may someday cross state borders or may have once
done so. If we want the Union government to have such authority,
and a good case can be made for that, then the U.S. Constitution
needs to be amended to delegate that authority to it.

(17) The Union government also has excise taxing power, but since
arms have special status under the Constitution, no tax may be
levied that imposes an undue burden on the right to keep and bear
arms. Rights are more fundamental than taxing powers, particularly
since the right to keep and bear arms is recognized in an amendment
which supersedes any prior provisions that conflict with it, which
includes all taxing powers except the income tax (which does not
provide a basis for taxing arms). Arms may be taxed as general
merchandise is, such as with a sales tax, but any tax law which
specifies arms for special taxes, other than reasonable use
fees for public services related to them, must be considered
unconstitutional. That would include taxes on ammunition and
the ingredients to make it. The analogy is to taxes on newsprint,
which may be taxed like other merchandise, but not in a way that
would impose an undue burden on the right of a free press.

(18) This means that no government has the power, unless that
power is specifically granted to it under its constitution, to
prohibit any person from manufacturing or possessing any gun or
ammunition for it on his own premises or where he has a right to
be, or against using it in a safe and responsible manner, or
against selling or giving it to another person within the borders
of a state.

(19) Since the common law prevailing at the time the Constitution
was adopted defined "militia" to consist of "able-bodied" citizens,
including persons younger than the usual age of majority, any law
restricting the possession, sale or gift of guns or ammunition to
persons under the age of majority or any other particular age, or
to minors (since persons under the age of majority may have their
disabilities of minority removed by a court), is also unconstitutional,
unless the constitution explicitly includes a disability of the
right to keep and bear arms among the disabilities of minority.
The proper test for being "able-bodied" must involve meeting certain
standards that are independent of age, such as skill, judgement, and
level of maturity. It is possible for persons to be "able-bodied" at
quite a young age, and the law must recognize that competence where
it exists. All citizens above the age of majority would have to be
presumed able-bodied unless they or the state petitioned a court to
rule otherwise and it granted the petition. However, it would be
constitutional to require a reasonable test of competence to citizens
below the age of majority, and to issue credentials to those
qualifying which they would be required to show when answering calls
of the militia or, if the right to keep and bear arms were included
among the rights disabled by minority, when bearing arms. Early
removal of the disabilities of minority would then also remove the
disabilities of the right to keep and bear arms.

(20) The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution
requires that persons issued a carry permit by one state must
have that permit recognized in other states. This suggests a
uniform standard for qualifying persons for issuance.

REFERENCE: Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man be Armed, available
from The Independent Institute, 134 98th Av, Oakland, CA 94603,
510/568-6047.

Constitution Society, 6900 San Pedro #147-230, San Antonio, TX
78216, 210/224-2868


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Gun poll in DesNews Update
Date: 03 Dec 1998 11:06:23 -0700


The "Quick Poll" in the DesNews has now been changed.  The results
from the previous poll are not available like they used to be.  The
last time I was able to check, the numbers were slightly in favor on
not banning guns in either schools or churchers.

I placed a call to Mark Reece, the Web edition Associate editor at
801-237-2156 to ask how to see the final results.  His voice mail
asked for a message and gave the name of Stewart (missed the last
name) at 801-236-6097.

I called Stewart and asked about how to see the results.  Seems they
are currently debating over whether or not to make the results of past
polls available.  He is personally in favor of doing so and said my
call requesting it would help him support his point of view that they
should be available.

Without disclosing my own feelings, I casually asked if he knew how
the poll had turned out.  He said it had started with most people
wanting to ban guns in both places, but had then shifted dramatically
and he thought perhaps someone had gotten organized (who would do
that?)  :) and maybe even figured out how to vote multiple times.  He
indicated he'd try to get the results up on the web page and then I
could judge the validity of the numbers for myself (a truely novel
concept in today's media IMO).  He was very friendly.

It might not be a bad idea to make a call to Mark and/or Stewart,
asking how to see the results.  If you don't all let on your personal
feelings, it may not even appear to be an "organized" effort by us. :)

I'd love to see these results reported in both the web and paper
additions, but doubt they'd do that.  I wonder if they've every
considered or worried about multiple votes on any other polls they've
taken or if they'd have worried about it on this one had the numbers
gone the other way.  I also wonder if there would be any question
about making past polls' results available if the numbers had gone as
they wanted.

Assuming the numbers did influence anyone in not wanting to put
previous polls' results on the web, Stewart's expressed desire to make
them available would speak well of his intergity vs anyone who is
lobbying otherwise in an effort to surpress.

One lesson here is to try to get info on these types of polls out as
quickly as possible and to then take a moment to vote as soon as
possible, BEFORE the numbers skew too far against us and anyone can
claim it was an "organized effort" (like "random" phone polls with
loaded questions made during the day when most people are at work
yield trustworthy results) that resulted in a sudden turn around.

Regardless, they can now try to minimize the validity of their online
poll, (admittedly unscientific) but at least they can't include in
their reporting that the majority of on-line readers (more affluent?,
better educated?) favor banning guns.  Perhaps a few letters to the
editor citing the results once they are available would be in order.
While such polls are not scientific or random, one could make the case
that those who are educated enough to use the internet and care enough
about the issue to log an opinion, really don't want to see guns
banned or something similar.

Thanks to everyone who voted.

Let us know if you have any contact with the DesNews on this issue and
how it goes.

--

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

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
 Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
 conscience; or to prevent *the people* of the United States who are
 peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..." -- Samuel Adams in
 arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published
 by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: LPU: LP RELEASE: Instant Check]
Date: 03 Dec 1998 11:07:55 -0700


From the LPUtah.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Abolish the instant check gun system
 before innocent Americans are killed
 >
 >        WASHINGTON, DC -- The government's so-called "instant background
 >checks" for gun buyers should be abolished immediately before any innocent
 >Americans are robbed, raped, or murdered while waiting to buy a firearm, the
 >Libertarian Party said today.
 >
 >        The party's demand follows an admission by the FBI that because of
 >telephone and computer glitches, 34% of all gun buyers -- or 1,688 people on
 >Monday alone -- were unable to buy a gun.
 >
 >        Meanwhile, just one-quarter of one percent of would-be gun-buyers were
 >rejected because of a criminal record -- meaning that 135 law-abiding citizens
 >were denied a gun for every criminal rejected during the first day of the new
 >program.
 >
 >        "How many Americans have just been sentenced to death by bureaucracy
 >as a result of the government's failed instant check system?" asked Steve
 >Dasbach, national chairman of the Libertarian Party.
 >
 >        "If even one American is harmed while waiting for government approval
 >to defend themselves, it's one too many -- which is why these background
 >checks should be abolished immediately."
 >
 >        The national "instant check" system, which replaces the five-day
 >waiting period mandated by the 1994 Brady Bill, requires each of the nation's
 >105,000 gun dealers to call the FBI to run an instant criminal background
 >check on anyone trying to buy a handgun, rifle, or shotgun.
 >
 >        "The problem is that criminals are the only Americans who benefit from
 >such background checks, because they don't take them," Dasbach said. "Real
 >criminals have no problem getting guns. In fact, a recent Justice Department
 >survey of convicted criminals found that 93% had acquired their guns
 >illegally.
 >
 >        "But by forcing law-abiding citizens to wait for days and weeks to buy
 >a firearm, the government has painted a target on their backs."
 >
 >        Forcing Americans to undergo background checks is not only unsafe --
 >it's un-American and unconstitutional, too, Dasbach said.
 >
 >        "An instant check of the Constitution reminds us that the government
 >doesn't have the authority to restrict gun ownership -- period. It's
 >outrageous for politicians to require a background check as a condition of
 >exercising any Constitutional right," he said.
 >
 >        "The government has no more right to demand that you submit to a
 >background check before exercising your Second Amendment right to buy a gun
 >than it does to require a background check before exercising your First
 >Amendment right to publish a newspaper or go to church."
 >
 >        However, Dasbach acknowledged one practical difference between the
 >First and Second Amendment rights in this case: "No lives are immediately
 >jeopardized by failure to publish a newspaper, but innumerable lives have been
 >put in danger this week by the government's refusal to allow Americans to buy
 >a gun to defend themselves."
 >
 >        And if you run an "instant check" on the behavior of Congress, you'll
 >see that it can't be trusted when it meddles with the Constitution -- or our
 >safety, said Dasbach.
 >
 >        "If you supported the Brady Bill, you trusted the politicians when
 >they said this law would just keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
 >Instead, innocent Americans have been unfairly denied a fundamental right --
 >the right to protect themselves and their families.
 >
 >        "In other words, Americans have once again had their liberty
 >sacrificed for the promise of safety. Unfortunately, the failure of the
 >instant-check system guarantees that many Americans will have neither."
 >
 >        #       #       #







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

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
 Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
 conscience; or to prevent *the people* of the United States who are
 peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..." -- Samuel Adams in
 arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published
 by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87.

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: *Impeachment Vote Will Be Closer Than Predicted
Date: 04 Dec 1998 08:17:54 -0700

> RKBA Defenders
>=20
> It's time to call Washington!=20
>=20
>=20
> Two topics:
>=20
> 1) Don't let Clinton get away with treason.
>=20
> 2) Don't put up with Brady II - Repeal it!
>=20
>=20
> PLEASE - YOUR INPUT IS NEEDED RIGHT AWAY - timing is crucial
>=20
>=20
> 1) NY Times: Impeachment May Pass [or FAIL] Full House by a Narrow
> Margin
>=20
> "By day's end, Republicans said there were up to 12 Republican votes
> against impeachment and another small core group of moderates still
> unwilling to commit. Democratic leaders say they believe that only 3 to
> 5
> of their members will turn against Clinton. If the Republicans lose only
> 12 votes, and if several Democrats break ranks, impeachment could pass
> by
> a narrow margin."  http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm=20
>=20
> We could also *lose* by a very narrow margin, and then the Clinton-
> Reno-ATF-Brady axis would push their gun registration / confiscation
> operation into full gear.=20
>=20
> As we have all seen and been frustrated to no end: squishy Republicans
> shake in their boots, and fail time and again to face down wrong, but
> determined, Democrats.
>=20
> We are close to exposing their corruption through an inquiry into
> campaign finance crimes (selling votes for Chinese Communist money).=20
> The Dems have gone into high scream level because they know how
> vulnerable they are. =20
>=20
> The votes are being tallied on next weeks' decision to impeach or not to
> impeach and the crucial swing voters are teetering on the edge of
> betraying us, the Constitution and the Second Amendment.  A vote for
> impeachment prevents a Gore presidential pardon, which means mouths
> closed in anticipation of pardon may suddenly start to speak.
>=20
> Please take a moment out of your busy life and contact Congress.
>=20
> 1) In person is best
> 2) then letters or faxes
> 3) then telephone calls
> 4) e-mails are better than nothing
> 5) If don't do anything?  You can't complain.
>=20
> Contacting Congress=20
> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/  - has Fax numbers! Best! If not,
> then at least call.
>=20
> THE ELECTRONIC ACTIVIST An email address directory of congress, state
> governments, and media entities.
> http://www.berkshire.net/~ifas/activist/=20
>=20
> Mr. Smith E-Mails Washington(sm): Mr. Smith E-Mails The Media(sm)=20
> http://www.mrsmith.com/=20
>=20
> To do it cheap, but takes time...
> 1(800)361-5222 (ext. 90001) for any Representative or via the links:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20
>=20
> 2) REPEAL BRADY - DON'T RELY ON OTHERS TO DO ALL THE DIRTY WORK
>=20
> PLEASE TAKE ACTION
>=20
> ..and once you have contacted your CongressCritters and demanded that
> Clinton be impeached, swing by and send an e-mail to every member of
> Congress who has not yet signed on the legislation repealing the Brady
> Bill GunOwners of America at:
>=20
> http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html=20
>=20
> This handy device is all configured to auto-mail all the footdraggers.=20=

> You only need to fill in a couple of boxes and this great device does
> the rest of the work.
>=20
> Thank you for your time, attention, and patience.
>=20
> It's freedom you are leaving to your grandkids.
>=20
>=20
> In Liberty,
>=20
> Rick V.
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA
>=20




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Jan. 1999 Hot Rod Magazine
Date: 07 Dec 1998 14:31:49 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 07 Dec 1998 14:19:37 -0700
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA12160; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:06:28 -0700
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA25723;
    Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:13:52 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from x15.boston.juno.com (x15.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.28])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA25719
    for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:13:49 -0800
Received: (from [e-mail])
 by x15.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id DVV5QYK3; Mon, 07 Dec 1998 16:10:37 EST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Below is a letter that I am sending to Hot Rod Magazine regarding a
letter on page 10.

"My wife is an elementary-school librarian and a car girl.  She is also
smart enough to realize that it's safer for her and her pubescent,
hormonally charged youngsters to ogle the cars and (sometimes) cleavage
in Hot Rod than for them to be getting ideas from say, Guns & Ammo! Duh!

Ignorance like that burns me up.

This is a prime example of why we need to get our message out to the
uninformed public.  HCI loves people like this.

Royce Hayes
4th Tx.

HOT ROD
6420 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90048-5515

Gentlemen: =20

I resent the slur and the "Duh" remark by Mr. Steve Kirkpatrick, Clio,
AL, regarding the merits of  semi-nudity versus "Guns & Ammo".

I have enjoyed "Hot Rod" many years, following one of my favorite=20
pastimes.  My other favorite pastime is shooting and reloading.  I have
subscribed to "Guns & Ammo" for many years.  They also sponsor my
favorite radio program "Gun Talk".

I find nothing derogatory between the pages of "Guns & Ammo", and
certainly nothing that would make me ashamed to let the smallest children
look at or read. =20

We defenders of 2nd amendment  rights are not a bunch of loose cannons.=20
We love our country.  I have served in the military to defend Mr.
Kirkpatrick's right to read whichever magazine he chooses.  Please do not
put me down or take away my rights because you are uninformed  as to what
is between the pages of my magazine.

I believe in being responsible and trained with cars or with firearms.=20
Either one can be lethal in the hands of the wrong person.  Should I say
that you should never teach a child about a car?  I think not.  The same
goes with firearms.  Proper training is the key.  Children must learn to
the respect the inherent dangers of both. =20

Sincerely,



___________________
Royce C. Hayes
10433 CR 1292
Flint, Texas 75762

E-mail: [e-mail]

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

****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Clinton and gun shows
Date: 07 Dec 1998 14:32:19 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:28:52 -0700
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA04125; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:15:51 -0700
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA06041;
    Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:20:45 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [149.174.217.136])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA06037
    for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:20:44 -0800
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
    by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.16) id MAA07329;
    Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:20:21 -0500 (EST)
        "INTERNET:[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
        "INTERNET:[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
        Warren B Jones <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

The following alert was forwarded to me from another list.  As you are =
well
aware, the Clinton Administration wants to strangle gun shows using the
federal agencies.=20
BATF is seeking public comment on gun shows.  Please take a moment to =
write
a well-thought, concerned letter to the BATF.  The address and other
information is listed below.

David Adams
NRA-ILA-EVC, VA 7th
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/
[e-mail]
___________________________________________________________________________=

_________

The Clinton-Gore administration has set its sights on gun shows, and they
will use every means at their disposal to eliminate the rights of gun
owners in America. The BATF has recently issued an open letter requesting
comments from "interested parties concerning gun shows." It reads as
follows:
"On November 7, 1998, the President expressed his concern about the =
numbers
of firearms sold at gun shows and elsewhere without Brady background =
checks
being conducted or the ability to trace the firearms being sold...The
President has asked that the secretary and the Attorney General provide =
him
with recommendations by January 6, 1999.
"The BATF would like your comments and suggestions concerning this matter.
For your input to be considered please include your name and address. We
request that your reply be returned to this office by December 7, 1998. We
appreciate your time and input. Please mail comments to:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Attn: Gun Shows
        '       650 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 7400
                Washington, DC,  20226"


Of course, BATF's expansion of the President's statements to include
regulating gun sales "elsewhere" raises more questions about the ultimate
goals of the Administration. Time is short, so please be sure to submit
your comments as soon as possible if you would like to have them considered=

by the December 7 deadline. If you would like more information on how
protect your Second Amendment Rights, please contact the NRA member =
Council
of King County, WAshington, at [phone], or come to one of our
meetings, The second Friday of every month, 7:00PM at Weapons Safety =
Indoor
Range in Bellevue, 13215 SE 30th St., Bellevue.

Please forward this message to any interested parties-
Ken Houghton

****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: For your amusement: "Pistol Envy"]
Date: 10 Dec 1998 08:44:32 -0700

Go to the referenced site and read the story, it is hilarious


See:
http://www.realmensch.com/articles2/pistol.html=20



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Smart Card Licenses one step at a time
Date: 10 Dec 1998 14:21:59 -0700


We managed to keep them from doing smart cards two years ago, so
they'll just give it to us one piece at a time now--starting with bar
codes and digitized pictures.  All in the name of security, stopping
forgers, and such, of course.  And of course, they have no plans to
add anything else *at this time*.  Just like SS numbers would *never*
be used for ID purposes.  Once anything is digitized, it can be copied
any number of times onto any number of systems quickly and perfectly.
Any ideas on how to stop this.


From today's Trib:




            Thursday, December 10, 1998


            New Utah Licenses Will Thwart Counterfeiters




                        BY LISA CARRICABURU
                        THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE


                            Utah's Driver License Division is about to merge
                        onto the Information Superhighway.
                            The agency has awarded Polaroid Corp. a five-year,
                        $4.5 million contract for a new digital-imaging and
                        database system that by next fall will begin producing
                        driver licenses with built-in security features designed
                        to prevent duplication and fraud.
                            ``Our existing system is so antiquated, documents
                        can easily be reproduced with commercially available
                        software and equipment,'' said Bart Blackstock, Driver
                        Services Bureau chief.
                            The new system, in contrast, will have safeguards
                        guaranteed to drive counterfeiters crazy.
                            Their crimes and those committed by forgers last
                        year led to nearly 1,200 arrests, according to Crime in
                        Utah 1997, published by the Utah Department of Public
                        Safety.
                            Once the system is in place in November 1999,
                        drivers and state ID card holders will convert to the
                        new documents on their renewal dates.
                            For that reason, it may take up to five years to
                        build the computer database with digital photographs of
                        all Utah's licensed drivers and ID card holders.
                            Once that database is in place, however, it also
                        will serve as a valuable law-enforcement tool,
                        Blackstock said.
                            Police officers, for example, will be able to
                        quickly access the database from laptop computers in
                        their patrol cars, he said.
                            ``They have access to similar information now; it
                        just takes longer.''
                            The 500,000 driver licenses, learner permits and
                        identification cards Utah awards each year to the
                        state's 1.3 million motorists and other residents will
                        originate at special computer workstations Polaroid will
                        install in Utah's 25 driver license offices, said Kent
                        Sharp, Polaroid program manager.
                            Pictures captured by digital cameras will be stored
                        as computer files. They will be sent to a central
                        location where all documents will be produced, he said.
                            The new licenses will resemble credit cards.
                            A plastic laminate will be impossible to remove
                        without damaging the document, unlike existing
                        documents, which can be peeled apart fairly easily,
                        Blackstock said.
                            In addition, each license issued will have a bar
                        code programmed with some of the information printed on
                        the document, such as the holder's name, address and
                        license number, he said. Even if counterfeiters are able
                        to alter documents' outward appearances, they will be
                        unable to change the information encrypted on the bar
                        code.
                            And because all documents will be produced at a
                        single location, it will be easier to control materials
                        used to make them, preventing thefts that lead to
                        duplication or production of fraudulent documents.
                            ``The process overall will be much more secure,''
                        Blackstock said.
                            He stressed the new licenses will not be ``smart
                        cards,'' as once discussed by lawmakers. While it will
                        be possible one day to add microchips to the cards
                        capable of storing bank account numbers and other
                        information, ``We have no plans whatsoever to add such
                        capabilities now.''
                            Legislators two years ago scrapped plans to add
                        smart-card capabilities to Utah driver licenses after
                        some residents complained, saying they feared the
                        feature may give government access to personal
                        information.
                            For Utah drivers, the new system means they will not
                        receive their licenses the same day their photographs
                        are taken. Instead, they will receive temporary permits
                        they may use for the five to seven days it takes for
                        licenses to be made at the central facility and mailed
                        out.
                            The change also means driver license renewal fees
                        may increase, Blackstock said.
                            Each new license will cost the state about $2.75 to
                        make, as opposed to the $1 cost for existing licenses.
                            The Driver License Division in January will ask the
                        Legislature for permission to slightly raise the
                        driver-license renewal fee, which currently is $10, he
                        said.
                            Utah is one of several states converting to digital
                        driver license systems, Sharp said.
                            Polaroid already has installed systems in Colorado,
                        Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas,
                        Virginia and West Virginia.






            ⌐ Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune
            All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake
            Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced
            or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.


            Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.



--

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

"If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian
 control of the military." -- President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972)

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Pol-Now the UN is after ammo as well
Date: 11 Dec 1998 09:53:04 -0700

Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com
    ([206.53.160.3])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:36:14 -0700
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA11476;
    Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:33:46 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from mail1.javanet.com (mail1.javanet.com [205.219.162.10])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA11472
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:33:45 -0800
Received: from eadsent (ct-hartford-hiper1295.javanet.com [209.150.38.93]) by mail1.javanet.com (8.8.8/8.7) with SMTP id JAA21199; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:31:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <008401be2513$426d7ab0$[e-mail]>
        "Ralph Sherman" <[e-mail]>,
        "Joel Partridge" <[e-mail]>,
        "Paul Payne" <[e-mail]>,
        "ILA EVC NRA" <[e-mail]>,
        "Scott Hoffman" <[e-mail]>,
        "Fairfield Cty Second Amend" <[e-mail]>,
        "Robert Crook" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


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


BACKGROUND INFORMATION

STUDY GROUP ON AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES IN ALL THEIR ASPECTS

Deriving from a recommendation of the Report of the Secretary-General on
Small
Arms submitted in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 50/70 B
(A/52/298),
the Study Group on Ammunition and Explosives in all their aspects has been
established in pursuance of operative paragraph 3 of General Assembly
resolution 52/38 J on "Small Arms". This paragraph asks the
Secretary-General
to "initiate a study on the problems of ammunition and explosives in all
their
aspects, as early as possible, within available financial resources, and =
in
cooperation with appropriate international and regional organizations =
where
necessary".

The first working session of the Study Group took place from 27 April to 1
May
1998 at United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Study Group is =
composed
by eight experts, participating in their individual capacity, representing
different regions of the world and different realities (Argentina, South
Africa, Switzerland, Finland, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament
Research, USA, Ireland and Slovakia).

The Study Group has been entrusted with the challenging task of preparing
the
first-ever UN report on the issue, and as a part of the global strategy to
curb the excessive and destabilizing accumulation of small arms.

In this sense, the Study Group defined his own task as: carrying out a =
study
that, without prejudice to the legitimate possession, trade and use of
ammunition and explosives, seeks to assess whether and how enhanced =
controls
of ammunition and explosives can contribute to preventing and reducing the
excessive and destabilizing accumulation and proliferation, as well as the
abuse of small arms.

The Study Group established a framework for the study and divided the work
among its members according to specialization and regions of origin. The
first
draft framework included different sections such as the definition of the
mandate and authority of the Study Group, identification of the problem of
ammunition and explosives; providers, consumers, transfers, stocks,
surpluses,
regional characteristics, existing forms of control and options for
improving
control.

The Study Group has also drafted a questionnaire which was transmitted to
governments, producers, trade associations and other actors involved in =
the
production or traffic of ammunition and explosives. This questionnaire
includes inquiries related to capacity of production, exports and imports,
illegal trafficking, transfers of technology, destruction of stocks and
surpluses, transport legislation and international exchange of information.=

Moreover, there is also a technical section including inquiries on the =
types
of ammunition and explosives used or identified in a given country.

Based on the information received from this questionnaire, as well as from
other sources of information, the Study Group will consider a set of
recommendations and proposals to enhance control over ammunition and
explosives, as a part of the overall strategy to control the excessive
proliferation, accumulation and use of small arms and light weapons. A =
close
connection between the Study Group and the Group of Governmental Experts =
on
Small Arms is envisaged.

The second session of the Study Group is scheduled to be held from 11 to =
15
January 1999 at UN Headquarters.

  -------[Cybershooters website & subscription info]--------

  http://www.forge.demon.co.uk/cybershooters/
  or email [e-mail]




****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FEAR: Feds deluged with protests over KYC
Date: 11 Dec 1998 09:56:16 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:04:26 -0700
Received: from americium.baremetal.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id HAA16605; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:51:05 -0700
Received: from localhost (mapinc@localhost)
    by americium.baremetal.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA26022;
    Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:01:58 -0800
Received: by americium.baremetal.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:01:43 +0000
Received: (from mapinc@localhost)
    by americium.baremetal.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA25989
    for [e-mail]; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:01:43 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: americium.baremetal.com: mapinc set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Message-ID: <000d01be2516$edd01d60$[e-mail]>
        "Rosie Retter" <[e-mail]>,
        "Hemp-talk" <[e-mail]>, "FEAR-List" <[e-mail]>,
        "Brian Todd" <[e-mail]>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: "Karen Grumm" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights  http://www.fear.org/
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


-----Original Message-----
regulation


>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>SCAN THIS NEWS
>12/10/98
>
>----------------------
>New anti-money laundering rules spark big protest on bank privacy
>5.26 p.m. ET (2226 GMT) December 10, 1998
>
>By Marcy Gordon, Associated Press
>
>WASHINGTON (AP) * Federal regulators are being deluged with thousands of
>e-mail messages from citizens furious about new anti-money laundering =
rules
>that they view as an invasion of privacy.
>
>As a visible symbol of the federal government with a plaque in every bank
>branch, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has become a magnet for
>consumers' anger over the proposed rules.
>
>But regulators at other federal banking agencies also reported Thursday
they
>had received many protesting e-mails, letters and telephone calls * some =
of
>them apparently instigated by anti-government groups.
>
>The ire is directed at the proposed regulations, called "Know Your
>Customer'' rules, that would require banks to verify their customers'
>identities and know where their money comes from. Banks also would have =
to
>determine customers' normal pattern of transactions and report any
>"suspicious'' transactions to law enforcement authorities.
>
>The proposal, published Monday in the Federal Register, is designed to
>combat money laundering techniques used by drug traffickers and other
>criminals to hide illegal profits. Laundering includes the use of wire
>transfers and bank drafts as well as "smurfing,'' the practice of =
breaking
>down transactions into smaller amounts that don't have to be reported =
under
>banking laws.
>
>The torrent of e-mail, first reported in The Wall Street Journal =
Thursday,
>came as the 90-day public comment period opened for the proposal.
>
>It reflects growing anxiety among consumers about banks' use of personal
>financial data * a concern that prompted a top federal regulator to warn
the
>banking industry this spring that it needs to protect customers' privacy.
>
>Someone from Texas wrote, "I am appalled at even the suggestion of such =
an
>intrusion into our personal lives by the federal government.''
>
>In another message, a Florida doctor told the regulators: "Next you'll =
...
>be implanting (an electronic) chip in newborns at birth so they can be
>scanned as they walk in any banks as an adult.''
>
>FDIC spokesman David Barr said the agency had received a staggering 2,700
>e-mails and letters opposing the proposal.
>
>At least some of the angry messages appear to have been inspired by
>anti-government groups claiming the proposed rules are part of a federal
>conspiracy aimed at limiting people's constitutional rights, according to
>the Journal and people close to the situation.
>
>Regulators and banking industry officials, who worked together on the new
>rules, have taken pains to reassure consumers that their privacy would be
>protected under the changes.
>
>"Because of privacy concerns, it is the ... expectation that banks would
>obtain only that information that is necessary to comply with the rule, =
and
>would limit the use of this information to that purpose,'' the Office of
the
>Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates nationally chartered banks,
>said in a statement.
>
>John Byrne, senior counsel of the American Bankers Association, said, =
"Joe
>Q. Citizen needs to recognize that there's nothing for him or her to =
worry
>about.''
>
>[e-mail]
>=A9 1998, News America Digital Publishing, Inc. d/b/a Fox News Online.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: W.G.E.N. [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 6:30 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: NID:"KYC" Feds being deluged with Email protest
>
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless:
>1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or
>2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true.
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>Reply to: <[e-mail]>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to
>     <[e-mail]> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY.
>    Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY.
>   For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>             "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N.
>           Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page:
>                www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FW: Lawsuit
Date: 13 Dec 1998 14:34:17 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 08:57:53 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA18438; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 08:44:34 -0700
Received: from  (server@localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA07979;
    Sun, 13 Dec 1998 10:56:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
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

News Release
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place  *  Bellevue, WA   98005
[phone]  *  FAX [phone]

For Immediate Release  =20
                   =20
Contact:       =20
        Alan Gottlieb  [phone]
        Joseph P. Tartaro [phone]
        Prof. Daniel D. Polsby [phone]
                                                  =20
MAYORS FACE LAWSUIT BY GUN OWNER GROUP

BELLEVUE, WA (December 9, 1998)-The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), a
gun owner advocacy and educational organization, notified the US
Conference of Mayors in a faxed letter dated Dec. 8 that it plans to
sponsor a "damage action" against the cities of Chicago and New Orleans
for conspiracy to violate civil rights, abuse of process and undue
burden on interstate commerce.

The Foundation's letter to J. Thomas Cochran, executive director of the
US Conference of Mayors, said that a steering committee of distinguished
law professors, who will serve without compensation, has been assembled
as a response to the "frivolous suits" which New Orleans and Chicago
filed recently against firearms manufacturers, their trade associations
and federally licensed firearms dealers. SAF warned the mayors'
conference on the eve of its scheduled Dec. 10 meeting in Chicago that
the suit which it expected to file in Louisiana early next year will
also name any other cities which follow the New Orleans and Chicago
lead.

Noting that the mayors had invited lawyers involved in the suits against
the firearms industry to address the meeting, Alan M. Gottlieb, founder
of the Second Amendment Foundation, encouraged the conference to also
invite a rebuttal presentation by a member of the 12-member steering
committee, Daniel D. Polsby, Kirkland & Ellis professor of law at
Northwestern University.

"From coast to coast, noted law professors seem to agree with the many
newspaper editorials which have suggested that the lawsuits filed by the
cities of New Orleans and Chicago against firearms manufacturers and
marketers are ill-conceived, ill-advised and totally without merit,"
said Gottlieb.

"Whatever problems the cities may have with the criminal and negligent
misuse of firearms, their suits against the gun manufacturers make as
much sense as suing the National Weather Bureau for the cost of storm
damages," Gottlieb added.

Even newspapers and magazines which advocate strict controls over
firearms and their purchasers have with unusual consistency questioned
the advisability of the kind of suits that have been filed by the cities
against the firearms industry. They see these as an attempt to pervert
the concept of product liability as an extension of the arguments used
in the state attorneys general suits against the tobacco industry.

"The nature and status of guns and tobacco are not analogous," said
Joseph P. Tartaro, president of SAF.  "Firearms have a significant
beneficial use in our society beyond recreation, since independent
research shows they are used over 2 million times a year to prevent or
terminate predatory criminal assaults."

"The New Orleans and Chicago lawsuits are not only frivolous they are
dangerous because they are an extension of legal and political
buccaneering that will rape Americans of the means to self-defense while
looting a legal industry."

"The Foundation's primary interest is to safeguard the traditional legal
rights of law-abiding and peaceable American gun owners," Gottlieb said.
"We are not industry advocates. Gun makers and sellers just happen to be
the visible targets of the frivolous actions brought by New Orleans and
Chicago. If these were standard product liability suits, we wouldn't
have more than a passing interest in what the cities are attempting to
do."

The law professors on the Foundation's steering committee for the
lawsuit against the cities besides Prof. Polsby are: Steven Calabresi,
professor of law, Northwestern University, Chicago; Robert A. Carter,
professor of law and Judge Alexander P. Waugh Sr. scholar, Rutgers
University-Newark; Robert J. Cottrol, professor of constitutional law
and legal history, George Washington University, Washington, DC; Michael
I. Krauss, professor of law, George Mason University, Arlington, VA;
Gary S. Lawson, professor of law, Northwestern University, Chicago;
Calvin R. Massey, Hastings College of Law, San Francisco; John McGinnis,
Cardozo Law School, New York City; Glenn Harlan Reynolds, professor of
law, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN; Charles E. Rice, professor
of law; Notre Dame University, South Bend, IN; Larry Soderquist,
professor of law and director of the Corporate and Securities Law
Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN;, and George Strickler,
professor, Tulane University Law School, New Orleans, LA.

The Second Amendment Foundation is a tax-exempt education, legal action
and publishing group founded in 1974 and now has over 600,000 individual
citizen supporters nationwide. It previously has funded successful
firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT,
and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners.



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: She's BAAAAAACK!
Date: 14 Dec 1998 15:03:07 -0700

Hi all!

Just a quick note to let you know that I'm back on Utah-firearms for at
least the duration of the legislative session.  It looks like it will be an
ugly one, so I figure the more we can communicate and cooperate, the better.

I will probably be starting a legislative alert mail list (assuming I can
figure out how to get it set up!), although it will offer my opinions
alone, and will not be affiliated with USSC.  (Where we agree, we will, of
course, cooperate!)

Next up - the U. of U.'s anti-gun curriculum for medical students and
physicians.......

My best wishes to all of you for a very Happy Holiday Season!

Sarah


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

Stop the Gun Ban!
NO-lympics 2002!
Check out http://www.therighter.com/column/Olympics.html


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Univ. of Utah hoplophobes
Date: 14 Dec 1998 15:07:27 -0700

Thanks to Dr. Tim Wheeler for alerting me to this problem, and for writing
such a cogent response.  Please feel free to forward his article to anyone
you think would find it of interest and/or benefit.  Also, if anyone has
any suggestions on how to present an opposing point of view to the
University and/or its students, please let me or Tim know.  Thanks!

Sarah


The following was written by Dr. Wheeler:

Hoplophobia at the University of Utah: Gun Control in the Pathology Curriculum

by Timothy Wheeler, MD  Director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a
Project of The Claremont Institute

Prejudice toward guns and their owners is endemic in the academic world.
Famed firearm instructor Col. Jeff Cooper coined the term "hoplophobia" (from
the Greek root hoplon, or weapon) to describe an irrational aversion to
firearms.

The University of Utah Department of Pathology's Edward C. Klatt, MD has
created a CD-ROM for health care science students, available on the Web at
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINTRO.html.

This on-line tutorial is an example of how presumably objective teachers are
allowed to color facts with their own jaundiced view of firearms ownership.
The tutorial's author commits three fundamental offenses against science:

1) He presents factually false and misleading statements as true.

2) He omits large chunks of established criminology research which demonstrate
societal benefits of firearms.

3) He does all this under the imprimatur of the University of Utah, impeaching
that fine institution's scientific reputation.

In the Statistics, Gun Control Issues, and Safety section of the tutorial one
gets a flavor of the author's bias against guns.  In addition to complaining
about the National Rifle Association and about government being slow to
"severely restrict the...use of firearms by ordinary citizens", the author
presents these fictions:

FICTION:  "... technically, the application of this [the Second] amendment
applied to the maintenance of a militia, and not private gun ownership..."

FACT:  Since 1980 over 60 law review articles have been published on the issue
of "states' right versus individual right" interpretations of the Second
Amendment to the U.S. constitution.  Fewer than 10 of these articles conclude
that the Second Amendment affirms a right of state governments to "keep and
bear arms." (1)  The scholars who wrote the other 50 plus articles determine,
sometimes despite their own admitted abhorrence of guns, that the Second
Amendment clearly affirms an individual right of gun ownership.

FICTION:  "Both accidental and homicidal shooting deaths have increased over
the past several decades..."

FACT:  On the contrary, accidental shooting deaths have decreased over the
last six decades, and continue to decrease. (2)

Homicidal shootings did increase over the period from 1987 to 1991 (3), but
have been decreasing since then. (4)  This temporary increase has been
attributed to the crack cocaine epidemic of that time, which featured an
increase in gun homicides among drug dealers and their customers.  These
statistics tell us nothing about the great majority of American gun owners,
who are not affiliated with street gangs or the illicit drug trade.

The firearms tutorial's introduction implies an even-handed treatment of gun
issues that it fails to deliver.  Conspicuously missing from the text and
bibliography are any references to the voluminous criminology literature on
guns.  Even though scholars like the University of Chicago's John Lott (5) and
Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck have published
acclaimed, widely publicized books on firearms use and abuse, we see no
mention of them in the University of Utah's pathology tutorial on guns.

Was the tutorial's author really unaware of the work of these scholars?  That
is hard to believe.  It's also hard to avoid the conclusion that he omitted
these works for one simple reason: they show convincingly that firearms in the
hands of responsible citizens not only are safe, but save lives, protect
property, and reduce injuries by defending against violent criminals.

Medical students and others unfamiliar with the scientific literature on guns
may find all this hard to believe.  We encourage you to maintain that healthy
skepticism, but to look at the references listed in the endnotes.  You have
the skills to analyze the science and to decide for yourselves whether
firearms are a public health threat or simply a tool like any other, to be
used for good or evil according to the user.

In early 1999 the Claremont Institute will publish Firearms: a Handbook for
Health Professionals.  This booklet contains over 20 pages of facts and
figures about firearms.  It summarizes firearm research of not only Kleck, but
of his main academic critics Cook and Ludwig.  John Lott's elaborate study of
concealed carry laws is digested for quick reference, with graphs and text
showing the highlights of his now-famous work.

Students interested in the part of the gun debate not included in the
University of Utah's pathology curriculum can check out Doctors for
Responsible Gun Ownership at the Claremont Institute's web site (see
directions below, after the endnotes).  Watch the site for announcement of the
Handbook's release, with ordering instructions.

In closing, we make a plea to the University of Utah Department of Pathology
to re-examine its commitment to scientific integrity.  Science demands
rigorous honesty, and that means examining all the data, not just the data
that support our fears and prejudices.  Your reputation depends on that
honesty.  Your students deserve no less.


Endnotes

1)  Kates D and Kleck G, The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and
Violence, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, San Francisco 1997,
38-43.

2)  Accident Facts-1997 Edition, National Safety Council, Itasca, IL 1997:
44-45.

3)  Kleck G, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Aldine de Gruyter,
New York 1997, 256-259, 262-263.

4)  Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 1996, U.S. Department of
Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC, 1997: 18 (Table
2.10).  Note: Uniform Crime Report methodology reports this statistic as total
firearm murders, which do not include negligent or justifiable homicides.

5)  Lott J, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London 1998.


Presented by:

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
  a Project of The Claremont Institute
P.O. Box 1931
Upland,  CA  91785-1931

  e-mail  [e-mail]

  Claremont Institute World Wide Web site:      http://www.claremont.org
For more   information about DRGO go to About The Claremont Institute, then
scroll down to Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.  To see all DRGO
editorial articles, go to Publications, then to The Second Amendment.

  voice message / fax  [phone]



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: For lack of a gun...
Date: 15 Dec 1998 16:58:32 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:38:21 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id XAA20216; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:24:59 -0700
Received: from  (server@localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA17409;
    Tue, 15 Dec 1998 01:36:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <v01530502b29b3d7f3475@[216.65.157.35]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
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

"Arlington, Wash. (AP)- A fire in which eight women died at a boarding =
home
last spring was started in a suicide attempt by a mentally ill resident, a
newspaper reported."

If the poor, unfortunate suicidal person in the above story had been able
to obtain a firearm, perhaps eight innocent women would be alive today.

Remember, "if it saves just one life..."...




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FEAR: fwd: ACLU ad "Did You Know the Money in Your Wallet
Date: 16 Dec 1998 10:16:01 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:47:48 -0700
Received: from americium.baremetal.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id PAA21084; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:55:26 -0700
Received: from localhost (mapinc@localhost)
    by americium.baremetal.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA18437;
    Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:06:18 -0800
Received: by americium.baremetal.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:05:24 +0000
Received: (from mapinc@localhost)
    by americium.baremetal.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA18227
    for [e-mail]; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:05:24 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: americium.baremetal.com: mapinc set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Message-Id: <v02140b05b29c99bd0c45@[209.86.102.185]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (A H Clements)
Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights  http://www.fear.org/
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

[Forwarded from the ACLU newsfeed <[e-mail]>.  The ad can be
seena at http://www.aclu.org/features/nytimesad121198.html ]

     ACLU Op-Ed Advertisement Asks: "Did You Know the Money in Your Wallet
Could Be Legally Confiscated?"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, December 11, 1998

NEW YORK--Police agencies across the country are relieving innocent
people of cash, cars and other property -- and it's all perfectly legal,
the American Civil Liberties Union warned today.

In the ninth installment of its public policy advertising campaign
running on the op-ed page of The New York Times and The New Republic,
the ACLU said that because 75 percent of American money is tainted with
cocaine, police have the right to seize people's cash, as well as any
other assets they can get their hands on.

"In 1984, Congress gave police the right to keep and spend any
'drug-related' assets they seize," the advertisement says. "Police have
since taken cars, homes, restaurants, and cash in epidemic proportions.
And they can use these assets for anything from patrol cars to parties."

The year-long advertising campaign, a first-ever effort for the
78-year-old organization, has run on The New York Times op-ed page once
a month during 1998. Each ad contained a briefly worded message from
ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser on topical subjects ranging from the
war on drugs to religious freedom to government intrusions in the
bedroom.

In the current ad, Glasser says that most of the victims of government
forfeiture laws aren't criminals. "Like the 75-year-old grandmother who
lost her home because her drug-dealing son had once lived there. Or the
landscaper whose $9,000 was seized at the airport because 'only drug
dealers carry that much cash.'"

Those and other stories have landed the issue before Congress, prompting
House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, R-IL, to introduce the bi-partisan
"Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act" to overhaul the nation's laws on
property seizures.

In June 1997 Congressional testimony supporting the bill, ACLU President
Nadine Strossen said that reforms are critically needed because
"innocent property owners, or those who have committed only minor
infractions are now subject to draconian punishments and property
deprivations." The bill is expected to be re-introduced in the 106th
Congress, and the ACLU is urging people to support the measure.

One leading historian, today's ad notes, calls forfeiture laws nothing
less than a government "license to steal." "The war on drugs has become
a war on the Constitution," the ad concludes. "What kind of country
rewards its police for shaking down its own citizens?"

To further stimulate public discussion, the ad will have an interactive
component through a "message board" on the ACLU's Freedom Network
Website at http://www.aclu.org/features/nytimesad121198.html. Visitors
to the website will be able to access background information on the
subject of this month's ad, and will be invited to post their own
thoughts to an interactive message board.

Today's ad concludes the op-ed series for 1998. The ACLU said that it is
contemplating continuing the popular feature in the coming year.

The ACLU is a nationwide, non-partisan organization dedicated to
defending and preserving the Bill of Rights for all individuals through
litigation, legislation and public education. Headquartered in New York
City, the ACLU has 53 staffed affiliates in major cities, more than 300
chapters nationwide, and a legislative office in Washington.

The bulk of its $35 million annual budget is raised by contributions
from members -- 275,000 strong -- and gifts and grants from other
individuals and foundations. The ACLU does not accept government funds.

The new ACLU advertisement can be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/features/nytimesad121198.html




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: AMA "Gun Safety" hoax!!
Date: 16 Dec 1998 10:27:36 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:47:18 -0700
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id UAA21329; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:22:45 -0700
Received: (qmail 23234 invoked by uid 516); 16 Dec 1998 03:34:20 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 23173 invoked from network); 16 Dec 1998 03:34:13 -0000
Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 1998 03:34:13 -0000
Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2])
    by growl.pobox.com (VMailer) with ESMTP
    id CB6F27B4; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:33:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 166-93-76-2.rmi.net (166-93-76-2.rmi.net [166.93.76.2])
    by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA26260;
    Tue, 15 Dec 1998 19:54:21 -0700 (MST)
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 [e-mail] (by way of Douglas Davis =
<[e-mail]>)
-----------------------

Physicians & Firearms:  What Will Your Doctor Prescribe?

        Your physician might soon receive a copy of the American Medical
Association's (AMA) "new guide for physicians on how to counsel their
patients about firearm safety."1  Funded by the anti-gun Joyce
Foundation, about 70,000 copies of the guide will be distributed
nationwide.  Under the guise of "patient counseling," doctors using the
AMA materials will be discouraging people from owning or using firearms.

        We haven't seen a copy of the guide yet, but it is described as
"a safety primer [which] offers doctors an overview of the public health
and clinical issues involved in firearm use, including a review of the
epidemiology of gunshot injuries and deaths."2  We anticipate that the
guide contains the bogus statistical claims that merely having a gun in
your home greatly increases your risk of being killed by a person with
somebody's gun. JPFO and others have debunked these statistics,3 but the
gun prohibitionists will likely be peddling these stats without
providing the opposing views.

        One section of the guide reportedly also "describes different
types of guns and ammunition doctors should know about."  JPFO agrees
that doctors, and everyone else, should have a working knowledge of
firearms.  Unfortunately, however, the guide will likely describe
firearms not as tools or potential life savers ... but more like a
medical book might describe a virus, a poison, or a biting insect.

        Competent firearms instructors need not fear competition from
doctors.  We'd be astounded if the AMA guide teaches real gun safety,
e.g., how to carry a firearm, how to position the trigger finger when
not actually shooting, how to clear the chamber, how to always point
the firearm in a safe direction, safe cleaning techniques, and how to
remove a misfired round.  And we are unaware of any plans for the AMA to
build shooting ranges for its members ... or their patients.

        Every new wave of "gun control" activism brings a new
opportunity to get our message out to interested people.  Don't let the
AMA's propaganda go unchallenged.  Here's your action item list:

1. Buy a 25-copy bundle of JPFO's special report entitled "Disarming the
Data Doctors."  ($19.95 U.S. post paid).  Send or deliver copies to
doctors and other health care professionals.  Send them anonymously if
you want ... but get the information to them.  Include a very brief note
to say that this report will counteract the what the AMA is preaching in
its new "gun violence" guide.

2. Get copies of Brasco the Bear (tm) Firearm Safety coloring books for
younger kids -- so that they will learn real gun safety with a balanced
view.

3. If you haven't taken a professional gun safety course, then you
should enroll in one soon.  You will not only learn how to operate
firearms safely (and accurately), but you will also be able to see the
big difference between the AMA's approach and true gun safety
information.

Don't forget:  No other gun rights group in America gives you as many
different ways to destroy "gun control" as JPFO does.  Take action -- do
it today! Visit our website at http://www.jpfo.org or call us at (414) =
769-0760
or fax us at [phone].  You can also send mail to:

   Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
             2874 So. Wentworth Ave.
              Milwaukee, WI 53207
                                                                           =
    =20
                                                                           =
    =20


Endnotes:
1Deborah L. Shelton, AMA urges physicians to counsel on firearm safety,
Am. Med. News, December 7, 1998, p. 57.
2 Ibid.
3 See Richard W. Stevens, Disarming the Data Doctors:  How to Debunk the
"Public Health" Argument for "Gun Control," The Firearms Sentinel,
Winter 1997, pp. 2-6.






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: How You Can Influence the Vote for Impeachment
Date: 16 Dec 1998 12:33:16 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:17:36 -0700
Received: from neptune.ConnectI.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA22138; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:04:10 -0700
Received: from utbook.connecti.com (sa4-229.ConnectI.com [206.81.244.229])
    by neptune.ConnectI.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA26302;
    Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:43:14 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

It does not take much effort for you to send one e-mail message. =20
This has been pre-digested so all you have to do is copy the=20
addresses in the To: field.

The following are e-mail addresses for congresscritters who=20
currently need to be convinced to vote for impeachment:

[e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail] se.gov,=20
[e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail]

The addresses are identified at:

http://www.sm.org/exegesis/votes.html

for Liberty,
Bill Utterback
http://www.connecti.com/~utbook




-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: For lack of a gun...
Date: 16 Dec 1998 17:21:28 -0700

At 04:58 PM 12/15/98 -0700, you wrote:
>"Arlington, Wash. (AP)- A fire in which eight women died at a boarding home
>last spring was started in a suicide attempt by a mentally ill resident, a
>newspaper reported."
>
>If the poor, unfortunate suicidal person in the above story had been able
>to obtain a firearm, perhaps eight innocent women would be alive today.
>
>Remember, "if it saves just one life..."...
>

Oh really!  Wouldn't you just love to see Scott Howell stand up and read
this at the legislature?

It does us no service to propose that seriously mentally ill people be
allowed access to firearms in order to commit suicide.  Certainly this
illustrates the need for better mental health care, or possibly even
assisted suicide, but it's not much of an argument for firearms rights.

Sarah


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

Stop the Gun Ban!
NO-lympics 2002!
Check out http://www.therighter.com/column/Olympics.html
And now you can link directly to the Nolympics page too!

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: The Left has formed phone banks and are pushing hard
Date: 16 Dec 1998 17:48:52 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:21:02 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id PAA22409; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:07:35 -0700
Received: from  (server@localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA15285;
    Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:19:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
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

- Don't let them win once again.

Attention RKBA Defenders,

This is no time to get comfortable.  This morning I called every fence-
sitting representative on this page. =20

Please call and say "please tell the Representative to vote for
impeachment" and then move onto the next representative.  The e-mail
servers have been backed up and are no longer even being read.  Your
call really does count!

We need to get this guy out!  Fourty minutes out of your lifetime in
what may be the last best chance of casting out this abomination.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3674cc9939ea.htm

Thank you so very much.

Rick V.


>"Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win=20
without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure
and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to
fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for
survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is
no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as
slaves."
-- Winston Churchill.


--=20
The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: A SOLDIERS CHRISTMAS
Date: 17 Dec 1998 14:42:44 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:47:36 -0700
Received: from THIOKOL.COM by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA23278; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:34:03 -0700
Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM
    with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:45:15 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

A SOLDIERS CHRISTMAS=20

'TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS, HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE MADE OF PLASTER AND STONE.

I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO IN THIS HOME DID LIVE.

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT, A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS, NOT EVEN A TREE.

NO STOCKING BY MANTLE, JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.

WITH MEDALS AND BADGES, AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT CAME THROUGH MY MIND.

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT,
IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER,
ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.

THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING, SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE, THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED A UNITED STATES SOLDIER.

WAS THIS THE HERO OF WHOM I'D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO, THE FLOOR FOR A BED?

I REALIZED THE FAMILIES THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.

SOON ROUND THE WORLD, THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE
A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.

THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS, LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.

I COULDN'T HELP WONDER HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.

THE VERY THOUGHT BROUGHT A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES AND STARTED TO CRY.

THE SOLDIER AWAKENED AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
"SANTA DON'T CRY, THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;
I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, I DON'T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD, MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS.";

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN'T CONTROL IT, I CONTINUED TO WEEP.

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS, SO SILENT AND STILL
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED FROM THE COLD NIGHT'S CHILL.

I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR SO WILLING TO FIGHT.

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, "CARRY ON SANTA,
IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE.";

ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH, AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT,
MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND, AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT.


PLEASE. Would you do me the kind favor of sending this to as may people as
you can? Christmas will be coming soon and we should all be aware of where
credit for our being able to celebrate these festivities is due.  Let's =
try
in this small way to pay a tiny bit of what we owe. Make people stop and
think of our heroes, living and dead, who sacrificed themselves for us.=20
Please, do your small part to plant this small Seed



Belleau Wood
"Oh, the snowflakes fell in silence
over Belleau Wood that night
For a Christmas truce had been declared=20

By both sides of the fight
As we lay there in our trenches
The silence broke in two
By a German soldier singing
A song that we all knew

Though I did not know the language
The song was "Silent Night";
Then I heard my buddy whisper,
"All is calm and all is bright";
Then the fear and doubt surrounded me
'Cause I'd die if I was wrong
But I stood up in my trench And=20

I began to sing along
Then across the frozen battlefield
Another's voice joined in
Until one by one each man became
A singer of the hymn

Then I thought that I was dreaming
For right there in my sight
Stood the German soldier
'Neath the falling flakes of white
And he raised his hand and smiled at me
As if he seemed to say
Here's hoping we both live
To see us find a better way

Then the devil's clock struck midnight
And the skies lit up again
And the battlefield where heaven stood
Was blown to hell again

But for just one fleeting moment
The answer seemed so clear=20
Heaven's not beyond the clouds
It's just beyond the fear

No, heaven's not beyond the clouds
It's for us to find it here

Belleau Wood: Joe Henry and Garth Brooks Copy Write 1997



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: [Fwd: A Miserable Scenario part 1]]
Date: 17 Dec 1998 17:47:51 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:14:07 -0700
Received: from mail.sisna.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA22807; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:00:41 -0700
Message-Id: <199812170500.WAA22807@wvc>
Received: from rserzen.sisna.com [209.210.178.101] by mail.sisna.com
  (SMTPD32-4.06) id A25B9F010C; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:10:51 MST
Reply-To: "[e-mail]"@sisna.com
Organization: Sunrise Medical
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT  (Win95; U)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from mailhost.pioneer-net.com [206.58.81.4] by mail.sisna.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-4.06) id AACB14D7007E; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:53:15 MST
Received: from obsidian (rp28.pioneer-net.com [206.58.81.43])
    by mailhost.pioneer-net.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA32718
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:59:04 -0800
Message-ID: <003401be28b8$5f944a80$2b513ace@obsidian>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_AFF8ED2E.77167B7B"

--=_AFF8ED2E.77167B7B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

heres a little story to get your blood moving


-----Original Message-----
 Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 7:21 PM


>
>

--=_AFF8ED2E.77167B7B
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from mail.tignet.com ([199.231.128.3]) by mta1.mailsrvcs.net
          (InterMail v03.02.04 118 119) with ESMTP
          id <[e-mail]>
          for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:48:06 -0600
Received: from ron.tampabay.rr.com (dt0d3nb3.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.171.179])
    by mail.tignet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA03829
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:44:51 -0500
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Mailing-List: ListBot mailing list contact [e-mail]
>Delivered-To: mailing list [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail]
>Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 09:35:26 EST
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject:  A Miserable Scenario part 1
>
>Member Council of Tampa Bay - http://home.tampabay.rr.com/membercouncil
>
>The following has been forwarded for your reading.  I almost said "your
>reading pleasure".  It should push a lot of your buttons....Part 1
>Robert
>Florida
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>Subj:     A Miserable Scenario
>Date:    12/12/98 12:07:39 AM Eastern Standard Time
>From:    [e-mail] (Chaisson, Brant)
>To:    [e-mail] ('FSSA')
>CC:    [e-mail] ('Tallahassee Rifle and Pistol Club')
>
>Sundown at Coffin Rock
>by Raymond K. Paden
>
>The old man walked slowly through the dry, fallen leaves of autumn, =
his=20
>practiced eye automatically choosing the bare and stony places in the =
trail=20
>for his feet. There was scarcely a sound as he passed, though his left =
knee=20
>was stiff with scar tissue. He grunted occasionally as the tight =
sinews=20
>pulled. Damn chainsaw, he thought.
>Behind him, the boy shuffled along, trying to imitate his grandfather, =
but=20
>unable to mimic the silent motion that the old man had learned during=20
>countless winter days upon this wooded mountain in pursuit of game. =
He's=20
>fifteen years old, the old man thought. Plenty old enough to be =
learning.=20
> But that was another time, another America. His mind drifted, and he =
saw=20
>himself, a fifteen-year-old boy following in the footsteps of his own=20
>grandfather, clutching a twelve gauge in his trembling hands as they=20
>tracked a wounded whitetail.
>The leg was hurting worse now, and he slowed his pace a bit. Plenty of=20
>time.
>It should have been my own son here with me now, the old man thought =
sadly.=20
> But Jason had no interest, no understanding. He cared for nothing but=20
>pounding on the keys of that damned computer terminal. He knew nothing=20
>about the woods, or where food came from...or freedom. And that's my =
fault,=20
>isn't it?
>The old man stopped and held up his hand, motioning for the boy to look. =
In=20
>the small clearing ahead, the deer stood motionless, watching them. It =
was=20
>a scraggly buck, underfed and sickly, but the boy's eyes lit up with=20
>excitement. It had been many years since they had seen even a single=20
>whitetail here on the mountain. After the hunting had stopped, the=20
>population had exploded. The deer had eaten the mountain almost bare =
until=20
>erosion had become a serious problem in some places. That following =
winter,=20
>three starving does had wandered into the old man's yard, trying to eat =
the=20
>bark off of his pecan trees, and he had wished the "animal rights" =
fanatics=20
>could have been there then. It was against the law, but old man knew a=20
>higher law, and he took an axe into the yard and killed the starving=20
>beasts.  They did not have the strength to run.
>The buck finally turned and loped away, and they continued down the =
trail=20
>to the river. When they came to the "Big Oak," the old man turned and=20
>pushed through the heavy brush beside the trail and the boy followed,=20
>wordlessly.  The old man knew that Thomas was curious about their =
leaving=20
>the trail, but the boy had learned to move silently (well, almost) and =
that=20
>meant no talking. When they came to "Coffin Rock," the old man sat =
down=20
>upon it and motioned for the boy to join him.
>"You see this rock, shaped like a casket?" the old man asked. "Yes =
sir."=20
>The old man smiled. The boy was respectful and polite. He loved the=20
>outdoors, too. Everything a man could ask in a grandson ....or a son.
>"I want you to remember this place, and what I'm about to tell you. A =
lot=20
>of it isn't going to make any sense to you, but it's important and one =
day=20
>you'll understand it well enough. The old man paused. Now that he was =
here,=20
>he didn't really know where to start.
>"Before you were born," he began at last, "this country was different. =
I've=20
>told you about hunting, about how everybody who obeyed the law could =
own=20
>guns. A man could speak out, anywhere, without worrying about whether =
he'd=20
>get back home or not. School was different, too. A man could send his =
kids=20
>to a church school, or a private school, or even teach them at home. =
But=20
>even in the public schools, they didn't spend all their time trying to=20
>brainwash you like they do at yours now." The old man paused, and was=20
>silent for many minutes. The boy was still, watching a chipmunk scavenging=
=20
>beside a fallen tree below them.
>"Things don't ever happen all at once, boy. They just sort of sneak up =
on=20
>you. Sure, we knew guns were important; we just didn't think it would =
ever=20
>happen in America. But we had to do something about crime, they said. =
It=20
>was a crisis. Everything was a crisis! It was a drug crisis, or a =
terrorism=20
>crisis, or street crime, or gang crime. Even a 'health care' crisis was =
an=20
>excuse to take away a little more of our rights." The old man turned =
to=20
>look at his grandson.
>"They ever let you read a thing called the Constitution down there at =
your=20
>school?" The boy solemnly shook his head. "Well, the Fourth Amendment's=20=

>still in there. It says there won't be any unreasonable searches and=20
>seizures. It says you're safe in your own home." The old man shrugged.=20
>"That had to go. It was a crisis! They could kick your door open any =
time,=20
>day or night, and come in with guns blazing if they thought you had =
drugs=20
>...or later, guns. Oh, at first it was just registration-to keep the =
guns=20
>out of the hands of criminals! But that didn't work, of course, and =
then=20
>later when they wanted to take 'em they knew where to look. They =
banned=20
>'assault rifles', and then 'sniper rifles', and 'Saturday night specials.'=
=20
>Everything you saw on the TV or in the movies was against us. God knows =
the=20
>news people were! And the schools were teaching our kids that nobody =
needed=20
>guns anymore. We tried to take a stand, but we felt like the whole face =
of=20
>our country had changed and we were left outside."
>"Me and a friend of mine, when we saw what was happening, we came and =
built=20
>a secret place up here on the mountain. A place where we could put our =
guns=20
>until we needed them. We figured some day Americans would remember what =
it=20
>was like to be free, and what kind of price we had to pay for that =
freedom.=20
> So we hid our guns instead of losing them."
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe, write to [e-mail]
>Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/
>
>



--=_AFF8ED2E.77167B7B--

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: [Fwd: A Miserable Scenario Part 2]]
Date: 17 Dec 1998 17:48:17 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:14:40 -0700
Received: from mail.sisna.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA22810; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:01:13 -0700
Message-Id: <199812170501.WAA22810@wvc>
Received: from rserzen.sisna.com [209.210.178.101] by mail.sisna.com
  (SMTPD32-4.06) id A27BDF0120; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 22:11:23 MST
Reply-To: "[e-mail]"@sisna.com
Organization: Sunrise Medical
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT  (Win95; U)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from mailhost.pioneer-net.com [206.58.81.4] by mail.sisna.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-4.06) id AADB6D0021E; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:53:31 MST
Received: from obsidian (rp28.pioneer-net.com [206.58.81.43])
    by mailhost.pioneer-net.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA32741
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:59:31 -0800
Message-ID: <004401be28b8$6ffb8280$2b513ace@obsidian>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_CD9A8F4C.73127F7F"

--=_CD9A8F4C.73127F7F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

part 2


-----Original Message-----
=20


>
>

--=_CD9A8F4C.73127F7F
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from mail.tignet.com ([199.231.128.3]) by mta2.mailsrvcs.net
          (InterMail v03.02.04 118 119) with ESMTP
          id <[e-mail]> for <[e-mail]>;
          Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:45:53 -0600
Received: from ron.tampabay.rr.com (dt0d3nb3.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.171.179])
    by mail.tignet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA03825
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:44:49 -0500
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Mailing-List: ListBot mailing list contact [e-mail]
>Delivered-To: mailing list [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail]
>Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 09:35:38 EST
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject:  A Miserable Scenario Part 2
>
>Member Council of Tampa Bay - http://home.tampabay.rr.com/membercouncil
>
>The following has been forwarded for your reading.  I almost said "your
>reading pleasure".  It should push a lot of your buttons....Part 2
>Robert
>Florida
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>"One fellow I knew disagreed. He said we ought to use our guns now and=20
>stand up to the government. Said that the colonists had fought for =
their=20
>freedom when the British tried to disarm them at Lexington and Concord.=20=

>Well, he and a lot of others died in what your history books call the =
'Tax=20
>Revolt of 2001,' but son, it wasn't the revolt that caused the repeal =
of=20
>the Second Amendment like your history book says. The Second Amendment =
was=20
>already gone long before they ever repealed it. The rest of us thought =
we=20
>were doing the right thing by waiting. I hope to God we were right."
>"You see, Thomas. It isn't government that makes a man free. In the =
end,=20
>governments always do just the opposite. They gobble up freedom like =
hungry=20
>pigs. You have to have laws to keep the worst in men under control, but =
at=20
>the same time the people have to have guns, too, in order to keep the=20
>government itself under control. In our country, the people were =
supposed=20
>to be the final authority of the law, but that was a long time ago. =
Once=20
>the guns were gone, there was no reason for those who run the government =
to=20
>give a damn about laws and constitutional rights and such. They just =
did=20
>what they pleased and anyone who spoke out...well, I'm getting ahead =
of=20
>myself."
>"It took a long time to collect up all the millions of firearms that =
were=20
>in private hands. The government created a whole new agency to see to =
it.=20
>There were rewards for turning your friends in, too. Drug dealers and=20
>murderers were set free after two or three years in prison, but possession=
=20
>of a gun would get you mandatory life behind bars with no parole.
>"I don't know how they found out about me, probably knew I'd been a =
hunter=20
>all those years, or maybe somebody turned me in. They picked me up on=20
>suspicion and took me down to the federal building."
>"Son, those guys did everything they could think of to me. Kept me =
locked=20
>up in this little room for hours, no food, no water. They kept coming =
in,=20
>asking me where the guns were. 'What guns?' I said. Whenever I'd doze =
off,=20
>they'd come crashing in, yelling and hollering. I got to where I =
didn't=20
>know which end was up. I'd say I wanted my lawyer and they'd laugh.=20
>'Lawyers are for criminals', they said. 'You'll get a lawyer after we =
get=20
>the guns.' What's so funny is, I know they thought they were doing the=20
>right thing.
>They were fighting crime!"
>"When I got home I found Ruth sitting in the middle of the living room=20
>floor, crying her eyes out. The house was a shambles. While I was down=20
>there, they'd come out and took our house apart. Didn't need a search=20
>warrant, they said. National emergency! Gun crisis! Your grandma tried =
to=20
>call our preacher and they ripped the phone off the wall. Told her =
that=20
>they'd go easy on me if she just told them where I kept my guns." The =
old=20
>man laughed. "She told them to go to hell." He stared into the distance =
for=20
>a moment as his laughter faded.
>"They wouldn't tell her about me, where I was or anything, that whole =
time.=20
> She said that she'd thought I was dead. She never got over that day, =
and=20
>she died the next December."
>"They've been watching me ever since, off and on. I guess there's not =
much=20
>for them to do anymore, now that all the guns are gone. Plenty of time =
to=20
>watch one foolish old man." He paused. Beside him, the boy stared at =
the=20
>stone beneath his feet.
>"Anyway, I figure that, one day, America will come to her senses. Our =
men=20
>will need those guns and they'll be ready. We cleaned them and sealed =
them=20
>up good; they'll last for years. Maybe it won't be in your lifetime,=20
>Thomas.  Maybe one day you'll be sitting here with your son or =
grandson.=20
>Tell him about me, boy. Tell him about the way I said America used to =
be."=20
>The old man stood, his bad leg shaking unsteadily beneath him.
>"You see the way this stone points? You follow that line one hundred =
feet=20
>down the hill and you'll find a big round rock. It looks like it's =
buried=20
>solid, but one man with a good prybar can lift it, and there's a =
concrete=20
>tunnel right under there that goes back into the hill."
>The old man stood, watching as the sun eased toward the ridge, coloring =
the=20
>sky and the world red. Below them, the river still splashed among the=20
>stones, as it had for a million years. It's still going, the old man=20
>thought. There'll be someone left to carry on for me when I'm gone. It =
was=20
>harder to walk back. He felt old and purposeless now, and it would be=20
>easier, he knew, to give in to that aching heaviness in his left lung =
that=20
>had begun to trouble him more and more. Damn cigarettes, he thought. =
His=20
>leg hurt, and the boy silently came up beside him and supported him as =
they=20
>started down the last mile toward the house. How quiet he walks, the =
old=20
>man thought. He's learned well.
>It was almost dark when the boy walked in. His father looked up from =
his=20
>paper. "Did you and your granddad have a nice walk?"
>"Yes," the boy answered, opening the refrigerator. "You can call Agent=20
>Goodwin tomorrow. Gramps finally showed me where it is."
>
>
>Editor's note: "Sundown at Coffin Rock" is a work of fiction. Any=20
>similarity
>to actual events or to actual people, living or dead, remains to be seen. =
-
>Mark Pixler, Editor
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe, write to [e-mail]
>Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/
>
>



--=_CD9A8F4C.73127F7F--

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Impeachment
Date: 21 Dec 1998 08:58:57 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 14:17:13 -0700
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA26609; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 14:03:39 -0700
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA23954;
    Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:15:00 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from pop02.globecomm.net (pop02.globecomm.net [206.253.129.186])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23951
    for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:14:59 -0800
Received: from default (tam-fl6-07.ix.netcom.com [199.183.198.199]) by pop02.globecomm.net (8.9.0/8.8.0) with SMTP id QAA07356; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:14:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <000d01be2c5d$c3bee1c0$c7c6b7c7@default>
        "membercouncil" <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list

If you would like to have a say on Impeachment, take a brief stop and vote
at:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeach.opeds/index.html

Let's all have a say on the subject.

Chuck Hoskinson
FL-11


****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: "The Day Democracy Died"
Date: 22 Dec 1998 08:11:10 -0700

Received: from dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com
    ([206.214.98.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:48:24 -0700
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
      id TAA09527; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 19:45:48 -0600 (CST)
Received: from jac-fl3-21.ix.netcom.com(204.31.245.117) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
    id rma009487; Mon Dec 21 19:45:12 1998
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
        James Wheat <[e-mail]>,
        Jay Meyer <[e-mail]>, Pat Glenn Morningstar <[e-mail]>,
        David Sagers <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Forwarded by a friend.  A sad statement for us all:

The Day Democracy Died
by Tom Hewes, Col. USMC ( ret.)

Democracy got sick the day the President of the United States, William
Jefferson Clinton, decided he was more important than the principles
embodied in the Constitution.  That was the day he chose to lie in a
civil deposition in the Paula Jones case rather than tell the truth as
required
by his oath of office.  That was the day he first used the machinery of
his office to suborn perjury.

Democracy developed a fever the day the President turned the spin
doctors, Carville, Blumenthal, and Lewis, loose on the body politic with
the lie
that a vast right wing conspiracy, abetted by a hostile media, were out
to destroy him.  That was also the day he knowingly lied to his aides
and
his cabinet, and then sent them forth to spread the lie.  Democracy was
placed on the serious list the day the President looked us all in the
eye and said,
"I did not have sex with that woman."  That was the day he and his
"flackeys" claimed our constitutional doctor, Independent Counsel Starr,
was guilty
of malpractice.

Democracy writhed in pain the day the Democrat party decided that party
was more important than principle.  That was the day the radical
feminists
prostituted themselves to stay in bed with the President.  That was also

the day the media found the patient's ratings were down, and abandoned
her
cause.

Democracy screamed in agony the day it discovered that her medical chart

was being filled out with results of a poll taken among a mere one
thousand
carefully selected people.  That was the day most Americans decided they

didn't want to hear any more about illness in the body politic.

Democracy's condition further worsened the day the sixteen Democrat
members of the
House Judiciary Committee savaged the Independent Counsel rather than
determine
the validity of the charges against the President.  That was the day
African
-Americans ironically decided that access to power was more important
than
the rule of law.

Democracy slipped onto the critical list the day the Congress of the
United States ruled that lying under oath is acceptable behavior for the
highest
Law enforcement officer in the land.  That was the day the President of
the
United States became a law unto himself.

Democracy died the day she found out that the majority of Americans were

too ignorant, too busy, or too bored to care whether she lived or died.
That
was the same day the first American Caesar was born.

Where were you the day democracy died?




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: L&J: The ACLU on Gun Control
Date: 22 Dec 1998 14:30:12 -0700

Received: from cor.oz.cc.utah.edu
    ([155.99.2.2])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:56:07 -0700
Received: from localhost (shb4391@localhost)
    by cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24477
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:54:04 -0700 (MST)
X-Received: from locke.adm.by.net ([e-mail] [209.195.180.3])
    by gos.oz.cc.utah.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA03903
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:03:36 -0700 (MST)
X-Received: from majordom by locke.adm.by.net with local (Exim 2.05 #1)
    id 0zsXUz-0002fD-00 (Debian); Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:29:41 -0500
X-Received: from centurion.flash.net [209.30.0.22]
    by locke.adm.by.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
    id 0zsXUy-0002f8-00 (Debian); Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:29:40 -0500
X-Received: from mailgw.flash.net (deimos.flash.net [209.30.0.43])
    by centurion.flash.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05039
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:29:37 -0600 (CST)
X-Received: from echo.flash.net (echo.flash.net [209.30.0.40])
    by mailgw.flash.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20518
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:29:37 -0600 (CST)
X-Received: from ot_55 ([207.252.26.3])
    by echo.flash.net (8.9.1/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA10182
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:29:15 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (WinNT; I)
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
ReSent-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:53:58 -0700 (MST)
ReSent-From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
ReSent-To: David Sagers <[e-mail]>
ReSent-Subject: L&J: The ACLU on Gun Control
ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_4B1CF09A.3E5F323C"

--=_4B1CF09A.3E5F323C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html


--=_4B1CF09A.3E5F323C
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="aaguns.html"

     [Image]

                                 Gun Control

                "Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
                   unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

     BACKGROUND
     The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second
     Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own
     a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored
     by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed
     the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

     We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily
     a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the
     states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and
     security against the central government. In today's world, that
     idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require
     weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The
     ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer
     an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons
     nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such
     as licensing and registration.

     IN BRIEF
     The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We
     believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable
     regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars,
     we can license and register guns.

     Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment
     certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own
     bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles,
     pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

     The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership,
     but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by
     the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

     ACLU POLICY
     "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing
     interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939
     case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms
     applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated
     militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the
     possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally
     protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the
     regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

     ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

       "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
                                    free
     State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
                                infringed."
                  The Second Amendment to the Constitution

      "Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the
                                  State to
     maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms,
                                    there
       can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to
                            possess a firearm."
                      U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

     Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all
     kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable
     restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

     If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute,
     constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to
     preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny,
     then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes,
     SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns,
     rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any
     serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if
     any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the
     unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we
     allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the
     dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are
     not talking about whether the government can constitutionally
     restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable
     restriction.

     The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the
     Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled
     that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to
     guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In
     the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use
     of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at
     this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
     efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the
     Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an
     instrument," the Court said.

     In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue.
     It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In
     1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding
     an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of
     handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695
     F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is
     considered by many to be the most important modern gun control
     case.

                                   [Image]

             Copyright 1996, The American Civil Liberties Union

--=_4B1CF09A.3E5F323C--

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: STOP BATF INTIMIDATION
Date: 22 Dec 1998 20:15:22 -0700

STOP BATF INTIMIDATION
The follwing leter was delivered to a lawabiding firearms
owner by the BATF.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20226

NOTICE OF UNLICENSED FIREARMS DEALING
VIOLATION

    Recently, your participation in the transfer of firearms
has come to the attention of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (ATF).  ATF is charged with the responsibility of
enforcing the Federal firearms laws and, as part of that duty,
we must license persons lawfully dealing in firearms as well
as prevent unlicensed dealing.  We seek the cooperative
efforts of the general public in fulfilling this mandate.

    Your firearms activity may bring you within the definition
of a dealer in firearms as defined by the Gun Control Act of
1968, as amended.  This definition (18 U.S.C. section 921 (a)
(21) (c)) includes =93a person who devotes time, attention and
labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or
business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit
through the repetitive purchase and resale of Firearms . . .=94

    To willfully deal in firearms without a license issued by
AFT would place you in violation of 18 U.S.C. section
922(a)(1)(A).  A sentence of not more than 5 years=92
imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine may be imposed on
anyone found guilty of dealing in firearms without a license.

    Attached to this notice is an ATF F 7, Application for
License Under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, Firearms.  If you
conduct firearms activities on a scale that would bring you
within the scope of the above definition of a =93dealer,=94 then you
need to apply for a Federal firearms license.  Please feel free
to contact the nearest ATF office for assistance.

Sincerely yours
R. W. Haynes
Special Agent in Charge
Served By: (signature unreadable) Date: Location:
I acknowledge receipt of this notice. (Blacked out) Date:

The following suggested reply to this attempt to intimidate you
is written by Past Second Vice President of NRA Albert C.
Ross.

Special Agent, ATF
Department of Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226

Dear _________:
    I wish to acknowledge the letter recently delivered to me
by Special Agent (name) on (date) at (location).  In your letter
you advised that my alleged firearms activity may bring me
within the definition of a dealer in firearms as defined by the
Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended.  You stated that this
definition as set out in 18 U.S.C. section 922 (a)(21)(c)
includes =93a person who devotes time, attention and labor to
dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business
with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the
repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. . .=94 .

    First, I wish to state that it has never been my intention
to violate any state or federal law or ever remotely engage in
conduct that could be interpreted as such.  Also, it has been
my understanding that a Federal Firearms License was not
available to people who are engaging in a hobby (such as me)
or who desire to operate out of their home (also such as me)
due to the ill-advised restrictions as to city zoning issues even
when these issues are of no concern to the city.

    I therefore, would ask for clarification of some of the
items in your recent letter.  These questions are asked in
order that I might keep my activities within the bounds of
lawful conduct as well as to continue the exercise of my lawful
rights as a United States citizen.  My questions are as follows:

    (1)  You stated that 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(21)(c)
=93includes . . .=94 Are there other definitions within the United
States Code in addition to 18 U. S. C. Section 921(a)(21)(c)
that define =93a dealer in firearms=94?  If so, what are they?

    (2)  The subject definition refers to a person who,
=93devotes time, attention and labor. . .=94 Have there been judicial
interpretations or does the ATF have a regulation or policy as
to what constitutes the devotion of =93time,=94 =93attention=94 or =93lab=
or=94
as used herein?  How much time devoted to firearms
transactions vs. What else I do on a daily or weekly basis?
Also, what is meant by =93labor?=94  Is that my personal labor or
volunteer labor of friends who assist me or labor I hire and pay
for?

    (3)  The quoted section of the United States Code
defines who may be a =93dealer=94 in firearms and then used the
term of =93dealing=94 in firearms within the definition.  Have there
been judicial interpretations or does the ATF have a regulation
or policy as to what constitutes =93dealing=94 in firearms?  Is this
based on the number of firearms sold or traded within a given
time?  If so what is applicable here?

    (4)  Is there a judicial interpretation or ATF regulation
that defines what is =93a regular course of trade or business=94 as
used in the United States Code definition?  If so, what are the
citations or ATF regulations?

    (5)  Is there a judicial interpretation or ATF regulation
that defines =93principal objective=94 as used in the United States
Code definition?  If so, what are the citations or ATF
regulations?  In my particular case, I would submit that my
=93principal objective=94 is to engage in social intercourse with my
friends and other people with a common interest in firearms.
It seems incredible to me that this activity would be unlawful.

    (6)  Are there judicial interpretations or ATF regulations
that define =93livelihood and profit=94 as used in the subject United
States Code section?  If so, what are the citations or the ATF
regulations?  Is there any ATF policy that separates
=93livelihood=94 from =93profit=94 as used in the United States Code
section?  Also, does the term =93profit=94 take into consideration
the time, transportation costs, and other expenses that would
be chargeable to a firearms =93business=94 when determining
whether a =93profit=94 has been made?  Who has the burden of
proof on this point, the ATF to show that a =93profit and
livelihood=94 was being made, or me to show that such was not
the case?  Are there any court cases that clarify this issue?  In
my particular case, I certainly am not earning my =93livelihood=94
from ant firearm sales, nor am I making any =93profit=94 from any
such sales if you take into consideration the normal costs and
expenses of overhead along with a reasonable charge for my
personal time devoted to the activity.  Does my failure to earn
a =93livelihood and profit=94 exempt me from the provisions of 18
U.S.C. section 921(a)(21)(c)?

    (7)  Finally, the last paragraph of your letter advised that
if =93you conduct firearms activities on a scale. . . . =93  What
=93scale=94 is being referred to here?  I would appreciate
clarification as to just what =93scale=94 would bring me =93within the
scope of the above definition.=94

    I would respectfully ask for answers to these questions
so that I may faithfully comply with the laws and regulations
you cited.  Also, I would ask that you consider this letter as a
request under either the Open Records Act or Freedom of
Information Request for information relating to all cases or
prosecutions initiated by the ATF charging anyone with a
violation of 18U.S.C. section 921(a)(21)(c) or 18U.S.C.
section 922(a)(1)(A) as of the date of this letter.
Sincerely yours, (should be sent certified mail)

You should keep a copy of all correspondence and send
copies to your pro-firearms organizations NRA, GOA,
CCRKBA, SAF, Firearms Hardcore, ect. and your
Congressman and US Senators.

You are also requested to vote for Albert C. Ross for the NRA
Board of directors elections and his friends all of whom are
running under the Second Amendment Action slate.
See the following web sites.
www.2ndamendment.net
www.nealknox.com/
SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION - Candidates for NRA
Board
Michael J. Beko
Sally Drews Brodbeck
William Dominguez
Howard J. Fezell
Dr. Daniel B. Fiora
David M. Gross
Fred E. Gustafson
Robert E. Hodgdon
Michael S. Kindberg
Albert C. Ross
Frank H. Sawberger
Thomas L. Seefeldt
John H. Trentes
Glen I. Voorhees
Please feel free to forward this information to all your friends.
Thanks.




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: STOP BATF INTIMIDATION
Date: 23 Dec 1998 09:15:15 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 19:07:14 -0700
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id SAA29127; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 18:53:36 -0700
Received: (qmail 13698 invoked by uid 516); 23 Dec 1998 02:04:29 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 13337 invoked from network); 23 Dec 1998 02:03:45 -0000
Received: from pm06sm.pmm.cw.net (208.159.126.155)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 1998 02:03:45 -0000
Received: from hawk (usr3-dialup59.mix2.Atlanta.cw.net [166.55.51.187])
 by PM06SM.PMM.CW.NET (PMDF V5.2-29 #33510)
 with SMTP id <[e-mail]>; Wed,
 23 Dec 1998 02:01:01 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <000e01be2e17$b4f2f760$bb3337a6@hawk>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Posted to rkba-co by Weldon Clark <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
STOP BATF INTIMIDATION
The follwing leter was delivered to a lawabiding firearms
owner by the BATF.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20226

NOTICE OF UNLICENSED FIREARMS DEALING
VIOLATION

    Recently, your participation in the transfer of firearms
has come to the attention of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (ATF).  ATF is charged with the responsibility of
enforcing the Federal firearms laws and, as part of that duty,
we must license persons lawfully dealing in firearms as well
as prevent unlicensed dealing.  We seek the cooperative
efforts of the general public in fulfilling this mandate.

    Your firearms activity may bring you within the definition
of a dealer in firearms as defined by the Gun Control Act of
1968, as amended.  This definition (18 U.S.C. section 921 (a)
(21) (c)) includes =F4a person who devotes time, attention and
labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or
business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit
through the repetitive purchase and resale of Firearms . . .=F6

    To willfully deal in firearms without a license issued by
AFT would place you in violation of 18 U.S.C. section
922(a)(1)(A).  A sentence of not more than 5 years=C6
imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine may be imposed on
anyone found guilty of dealing in firearms without a license.

    Attached to this notice is an ATF F 7, Application for
License Under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, Firearms.  If you
conduct firearms activities on a scale that would bring you
within the scope of the above definition of a =F4dealer,=F6 then you
need to apply for a Federal firearms license.  Please feel free
to contact the nearest ATF office for assistance.

Sincerely yours
R. W. Haynes
Special Agent in Charge
Served By: (signature unreadable) Date: Location:
I acknowledge receipt of this notice. (Blacked out) Date:

The following suggested reply to this attempt to intimidate you
is written by Past Second Vice President of NRA Albert C.
Ross.

Special Agent, ATF
Department of Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226

Dear _________:
    I wish to acknowledge the letter recently delivered to me
by Special Agent (name) on (date) at (location).  In your letter
you advised that my alleged firearms activity may bring me
within the definition of a dealer in firearms as defined by the
Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended.  You stated that this
definition as set out in 18 U.S.C. section 922 (a)(21)(c)
includes =F4a person who devotes time, attention and labor to
dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business
with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the
repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. . .=F6 .

    First, I wish to state that it has never been my intention
to violate any state or federal law or ever remotely engage in
conduct that could be interpreted as such.  Also, it has been
my understanding that a Federal Firearms License was not
available to people who are engaging in a hobby (such as me)
or who desire to operate out of their home (also such as me)
due to the ill-advised restrictions as to city zoning issues even
when these issues are of no concern to the city.

    I therefore, would ask for clarification of some of the
items in your recent letter.  These questions are asked in
order that I might keep my activities within the bounds of
lawful conduct as well as to continue the exercise of my lawful
rights as a United States citizen.  My questions are as follows:

    (1)  You stated that 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(21)(c)
=F4includes . . .=F6 Are there other definitions within the United
States Code in addition to 18 U. S. C. Section 921(a)(21)(c)
that define =F4a dealer in firearms=F6?  If so, what are they?

    (2)  The subject definition refers to a person who,
=F4devotes time, attention and labor. . .=F6 Have there been judicial
interpretations or does the ATF have a regulation or policy as
to what constitutes the devotion of =F4time,=F6 =F4attention=F6 or =
=F4labor=F6
as used herein?  How much time devoted to firearms
transactions vs. What else I do on a daily or weekly basis?
Also, what is meant by =F4labor?=F6  Is that my personal labor or
volunteer labor of friends who assist me or labor I hire and pay
for?

    (3)  The quoted section of the United States Code
defines who may be a =F4dealer=F6 in firearms and then used the
term of =F4dealing=F6 in firearms within the definition.  Have there
been judicial interpretations or does the ATF have a regulation
or policy as to what constitutes =F4dealing=F6 in firearms?  Is this
based on the number of firearms sold or traded within a given
time?  If so what is applicable here?

    (4)  Is there a judicial interpretation or ATF regulation
that defines what is =F4a regular course of trade or business=F6 as
used in the United States Code definition?  If so, what are the
citations or ATF regulations?

    (5)  Is there a judicial interpretation or ATF regulation
that defines =F4principal objective=F6 as used in the United States
Code definition?  If so, what are the citations or ATF
regulations?  In my particular case, I would submit that my
=F4principal objective=F6 is to engage in social intercourse with my
friends and other people with a common interest in firearms.
It seems incredible to me that this activity would be unlawful.

    (6)  Are there judicial interpretations or ATF regulations
that define =F4livelihood and profit=F6 as used in the subject United
States Code section?  If so, what are the citations or the ATF
regulations?  Is there any ATF policy that separates
=F4livelihood=F6 from =F4profit=F6 as used in the United States Code
section?  Also, does the term =F4profit=F6 take into consideration
the time, transportation costs, and other expenses that would
be chargeable to a firearms =F4business=F6 when determining
whether a =F4profit=F6 has been made?  Who has the burden of
proof on this point, the ATF to show that a =F4profit and
livelihood=F6 was being made, or me to show that such was not
the case?  Are there any court cases that clarify this issue?  In
my particular case, I certainly am not earning my =F4livelihood=F6
from ant firearm sales, nor am I making any =F4profit=F6 from any
such sales if you take into consideration the normal costs and
expenses of overhead along with a reasonable charge for my
personal time devoted to the activity.  Does my failure to earn
a =F4livelihood and profit=F6 exempt me from the provisions of 18
U.S.C. section 921(a)(21)(c)?

    (7)  Finally, the last paragraph of your letter advised that
if =F4you conduct firearms activities on a scale. . . . =F4  What
=F4scale=F6 is being referred to here?  I would appreciate
clarification as to just what =F4scale=F6 would bring me =F4within the
scope of the above definition.=F6

    I would respectfully ask for answers to these questions
so that I may faithfully comply with the laws and regulations
you cited.  Also, I would ask that you consider this letter as a
request under either the Open Records Act or Freedom of
Information Request for information relating to all cases or
prosecutions initiated by the ATF charging anyone with a
violation of 18U.S.C. section 921(a)(21)(c) or 18U.S.C.
section 922(a)(1)(A) as of the date of this letter.
Sincerely yours, (should be sent certified mail)

You should keep a copy of all correspondence and send
copies to your pro-firearms organizations NRA, GOA,
CCRKBA, SAF, Firearms Hardcore, ect. and your
Congressman and US Senators.

You are also requested to vote for Albert C. Ross for the NRA
Board of directors elections and his friends all of whom are
running under the Second Amendment Action slate.
See the following web sites.
www.2ndamendment.net
www.nealknox.com/
SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION - Candidates for NRA
Board
Michael J. Beko
Sally Drews Brodbeck
William Dominguez
Howard J. Fezell
Dr. Daniel B. Fiora
David M. Gross
Fred E. Gustafson
Robert E. Hodgdon
Michael S. Kindberg
Albert C. Ross
Frank H. Sawberger
Thomas L. Seefeldt
John H. Trentes
Glen I. Voorhees
Please feel free to forward this information to all your friends.
Thanks.




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: OKC & Clinton Re-Election
Date: 23 Dec 1998 11:11:03 -0700

New Morris Book Portrays How Polls, Clinton Policy Intersected=20
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 22, 1998; Page A18=20

Once a week, every Wednesday night, the group huddled in the Yellow Oval =
Room of the White House residence. The discussion grazed across an =
ever-changing buffet of subjects high and low: welfare and immigration, =
O.J. Simpson and Paula Jones.=20

But the real agenda was always centered on the man sitting at the center =
in a large stuffed chair: President Clinton and his plans for winning a =
second term.=20

The group of political consultants and senior White House staff, joined by =
Vice President Gore and a handful of Cabinet members, was essentially the =
war council for the 1996 campaign. Two years later, a window has opened on =
that campaign and the techniques of its erratic chief strategist Dick =
Morris, thanks to a new book by Morris that reprints 18 months of the =
agendas he produced for the weekly strategy sessions.=20

The agendas reflect Morris's polling-based approach to politics and =
suggest the degree to which Clinton's policy initiatives on such subjects =
as crime, immigration and welfare were influenced by public opinion =
surveys and other political judgments about how best to position the =
president against the Republicans.=20

The documents also reveal how Clinton's advisers weighed the political =
implications of even the most tragic events, and assessed ways in which he =
might gain side benefits from his presidential duties.=20
On April 27, 1995 -- eight days after the Oklahoma City bombing -- Morris =
directed a discussion of how to reap political advantage from the =
aftermath, according to the agenda for the date. As the consultant saw it, =
Clinton's handling of the tragedy would lead to "temporary gain: boost in =
ratings," and how he could create "a permanent possible gain: sets up =
Extremist Issue vs. Republicans."=20

On Aug. 1, 1996, among topics at the weekly meeting was how well Clinton =
had responded to the mid-air explosion of TWA Flight 800. Polling data =
showed that 84 percent of Americans had heard about Clinton's meeting with =
families of the victims. Fifty percent said the emotional meeting made =
them more likely to vote for Clinton over Robert J. Dole.=20
The agendas are printed as an appendix to a newly released edition of =
"Behind the Oval Office," the campaign memoir that Morris published early =
last year. Two years after the election, the agendas -- which were once so =
sensitive that Gore had to return his copy at the end of each session -- =
are noteworthy now primarily as historical documents.=20
They also highlight an irony that echoes through Clinton's presidency to =
this day. At the very time that he was working so methodically to rebuild =
his presidency -- polling on every event or issue that might conceivably =
affect his prospects -- he was carrying on a relationship with Monica S. =
Lewinsky that would later help opponents tear him down.=20
Senior White House officials said yesterday they had not reviewed Morris's =
new book but said they had no reason to suspect that the agendas he =
printed were not authentic. They cautioned, however, that the agendas that =
Morris presented at the weekly political meetings -- before he left the =
campaign in August 1996 -- often reflected his own interests and obsessions=
 more than Clinton's.=20
Even Morris, who said he published the agendas because they were "historica=
l documents," emphasized: "I'm the author of the agendas, not Clinton."=20

Yet reading through the 200 pages of agendas -- and comparing them to =
Clinton's schedule and statements in 1995 and 1996 -- make clear that =
politics and policy became fused in Clinton's White House to a greater =
degree than had been demonstrated.=20

On April 24, 1996, polling data presented at the weekly meeting showed =
that an initiative to crack down on "deadbeat dads" who don't pay child =
support would make 80 percent of respondents more likely to vote for =
Clinton. Later that spring, he announced new regulations requiring states =
to take more aggressive steps to track down fathers.=20
On June 12, consultants presented data showing that 87 percent of the =
electorate favored a constitutional amendment guaranteeing new rights to =
crime victims. Two weeks later, Clinton, surrounded by parents of slain =
children, overruled recommendations of some constitutional experts in the =
Justice Department and endorsed an amendment. He has rarely mentioned the =
idea since 1996.=20

Clinton also looked closely at polls the next month in deciding to sign =
what he called a flawed bill to overhaul welfare. Morris warned him that a =
veto -- as strongly urged by Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. =
Shalala -- "would be a disaster" that would cause him to lose 8 percentage =
points against Dole.=20

While the agendas Morris reprints may buttress those who believe Clinton =
is a finger-in-the-wind politician, Morris in an interview yesterday said =
the perception is unfair. Clinton may poll more than other presidents, he =
said, but he has proven himself willing to take actions that go against =
public opinion -- such as approving a U.S.-led financial rescue of Mexico =
or sending U.S. troops to Bosnia. It is when he is taking unpopular steps, =
Morris said, that Clinton examines polls most minutely to figure out the =
best way to make a hard sale.=20

Numerous White House aides groaned or sputtered expletives when informed =
about the new book by Morris. The consultant, who has worked with numerous =
Republicans, was a despised figure among many Clinton aides even before he =
was fired for consorting with a prostitute.=20

But even some aides who disdain Morris acknowledge that, over the years, =
he has been far closer to Clinton than any other adviser. Especially in =
times of crisis in his career -- after a defeat in Arkansas, after the =
1994 elections, and after the Lewinsky story broke in January -- Clinton =
has turned to his old adviser.=20

The agendas reflect a continuing concern of the president -- maintaining =
his popularity amid news of scandal. The team polled extensively on such =
controversies as the White House's improper possession of FBI files, which =
was hurting his numbers for a time in June 1996, and whether Clinton was =
being hurt by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. In the end, though, =
the numbers always showed that people's support of Clinton's policies =
overcame mistrust of him personally.=20
But the agendas also hint at a controversy to come: Morris urged extensive =
Democratic National Committee issue advertising. "Use DNC to pay for it; =
we control production," the consultant wrote on the agenda for June 26, =
1995.=20

The agendas show how much Clinton and his team worried about news events =
that would seem, at first glance, unrelated to presidential politics. On =
Oct. 3, 1995, in the wake of the O.J. Simpson verdict, Clinton's polling =
team of Mark Penn and Doug Schoen surveyed the public about how whites and =
blacks would react. Morris said Clinton was concerned about a possible =
"right-wing backlash" after an acquittal.=20

On May 9, 1996, Clinton's political team discussed how to use that year's =
Summer Olympics in Atlanta to the president's advantage -- amplifying his =
message about "responsibility and self-improvement." For the 1996 =
Democratic convention, the Clinton team polled on such possible speakers =
as Walter Cronkite, Garth Brooks and John F. Kennedy Jr. before deciding =
on Christopher Reeve.=20

The agendas also reflect the Clinton team's belief in sending messages =
about cultural values. On Oct. 11, 1995, the agenda for the weekly meeting =
was about how Clinton could recast his style to present more of a =
reassuring "father image" -- in part to draw more female votes.=20

"Women crave men who act responsibly," Morris wrote. "Romance novel themes =
are now of woman done wrong and rescued by Mr. Right."=20


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: L&J: CNN: AN EXAMPLE OF  RIGGING THE "CALL IN" POLLS!
Date: 29 Dec 1998 10:57:04 -0700

Received: from cor.oz.cc.utah.edu
    ([155.99.2.2])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:29:36 -0700
Received: from localhost (shb4391@localhost)
    by cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19734
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:27:23 -0700 (MST)
X-Received: from locke.adm.by.net ([e-mail] [209.195.180.3])
    by gos.oz.cc.utah.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA01979
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:19:51 -0700 (MST)
X-Received: from majordom by locke.adm.by.net with local (Exim 2.05 #1)
    id 0zv1xj-0000Jh-00 (Debian); Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:25:39 -0500
X-Received: from db1.cc.rochester.edu [128.151.233.1]
    by locke.adm.by.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
    id 0zv1xh-0000Jc-00 (Debian); Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:25:38 -0500
X-Received: from lysander.english.rochester.edu (eng1.english.rochester.edu)
 by DBV (PMDF V5.1-12 #28447) with SMTP id <01J5WPGF59KG9YCHW2@DBV> for
 [e-mail]; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:22:09 EDT
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
ReSent-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:27:17 -0700 (MST)
ReSent-From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
ReSent-To: David Sagers <[e-mail]>
ReSent-Subject: L&J: CNN: AN EXAMPLE OF  RIGGING THE "CALL IN" POLLS!
ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Ah, yes. The polls. Anyone who believes in polls has an obvious Reality
Perception Problem (RPP), a disease swiftly becoming more pervasive and
dangerous by the minute. Thank goodness the people who suffer from this
disease the most are media people and politicians. It will be their =
downfall.
Patty


Area: 10TH_AMD (10th Amendment Fidonet Conference)
-
------------
Date : Dec 28 '98, 03:34                                      Dir
>From : Roy J. Tellason                                1:270/615.0
To   : all                                =20
Subj : and the survey said...                                              =
 =20
-
------------

* Forwarded (from: TECH-CHAT) by Roy J. Tellason using timEd 1.01.
* Originally from Matt Mc_Carthy (1:396/1.4) to All.
* Original dated: Dec 27 '98, 16:40

Here's something I received in Email:

The following is quoted verbatim from "letters to the editor",
Tampa Tribune, December 27,1998
-+-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
-----------------

CNN aired the impeachment hearings last Saturday. The TV screen
flashed two telephone numbers.  If you were against impeachment,
the number to dial was [phone]. If you were in favor of
impeachment the number was [phone]. I was for impeachment.
I dialed the "1111" number every minute for two hours and 15
minutes and never got through. The response was one ring followed
by a recorded message "all circuits are busy, please try again
later."

After 15 minutes of pushing the redial button, I got suspicious
and frustrated and dialed the "1115" number. I got through the
first time. For every 20 or so times dialing "1111" only to hear
"all circuits are busy" I dialed "1115" and got in every time.

I am an old telephone PBX man and I sold telephone systems for
years. I assure you that what I experienced is statistically
impossible if both numbers were configured the same. I am going
from the local 738 exchange to the Washington, D.C. 624 office.
If the circuits are busy between the two offices, the system will
get you there via New York, Chicago or Boston, etc. If all
circuits are indeed saturated both 1111 and 1115 will get the
same message.

However, if there are five trunks per number and 1111 is
configured with one answer trunk and four call transfer trunks to
the recorded message and 1115 has five trunks and they are all
answer trunks taking in "no impeachment" votes, that's where the
Democrats can say "the survey proves" that the American people
are against impeaching the president.

Another Clinton lie! A desperate move by the Democrats to keep
their pompous, arrogant, vindictive, immoral, lying man in
office.

He's not my president.

                 - JEROME L. ARCHAMBAULT

                                  Dunedin

-+-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
--------------------

I'm _NOT_ a "telephone man", but can see where it would be
relatively easy for _anyone_ from a 'business phone' with
multiple lines to 'jam' such a survey depending on how many lines
the "surveyor" had available for rollover.

I've spent a lot of time watching CSPAN, primarily to gather info
for my HDTV echo.  The CSPAN policy (not polling mind you)
appears to be to accept one caller from each successive 'choice'
in sequence.  Quite often when they go to another line, no one is
there.  It's made me wonder, was there really a person there who
got tired of waiting and running up LD charges, or had someone
called and put that line on 'hold' just to tie up the system?

      M.

___ msged 1.99L MSC
 - Origin: Matt's Hot Solder Point, New Orleans, LA   (1:396/1.4)

---=20
 * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615)


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

                         ARTICLE I
=20
 Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech
 or of the press;...

                         - United States Constitution

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
NOTE: In accordance with Fair Use law, this material is distributed
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational
purposes only.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

                The Berlin Wall Came Down

                The Soviet Union Collapsed

     The U.S. Government Then Turned On It's Own People

 The State Governments Followed The U.S. Government's Lead.
=20
                                               - Les Lemke
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D








=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D
Submit message by sending to [e-mail]
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D=
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D
Unsub info - send e-mail to <[e-mail]>, putting
"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the msg BODY (not subject)
List-Owner of Liberty-and-Justice is Mike Goldman <[e-mail]>



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: GSL> UN AMMUNITION PANEL
Date: 30 Dec 1998 09:09:01 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 08:43:17 -0700
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA05438; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 08:29:23 -0700
Received: (qmail 29687 invoked by uid 516); 30 Dec 1998 15:40:15 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 29256 invoked from network); 30 Dec 1998 15:39:34 -0000
Received: from chai.pobox.com (208.210.124.35)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 30 Dec 1998 15:39:34 -0000
Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2])
    by chai.pobox.com (VMailer) with ESMTP
    id 5C9AB154C; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:38:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 166-93-76-185.rmi.net (166-93-76-185.rmi.net [166.93.76.185])
    by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA23355;
    Wed, 30 Dec 1998 08:27:19 -0700 (MST)
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 Donna Ferolie <[e-mail]>(by way of =
Douglas Davis <[e-mail]>)
-----------------------
http://thePentagon.com/FullBookJacket ------------ http://GunsSaveLives.com=

For Immediate Release

THE UN AMMUNITION PANEL


The Ammunition Panel met at the United Nations in New York from April 27,
to May 1,1998. At this time the membership of the Ammunition Panel is not
publicly known. The panel is working under the unchallenged assumption
that control of ammunition is the key to the control of small arms. The
long term goal is to substantially increase regulation of international
commercial shipments to complete bans on categories of ammunition such as
prohibition of civilian possession military caliber rounds ( 308, 30-06,
303 etc ).Having these anti-firearm groups meeting in " secret " in order
to make public  policy for the Untied Nations is not acceptable.
Law-abiding firearm owners have every right to be
afraid - very afraid !

For more information contact:

Donna Ferolie
R.R 1 Hilton Beach
Ontario, Canada POR 1GO=20
Fax: ( 705 )246-0689
e-mail: [e-mail]
http://[e-mail]/donnaferolie

Proud to be a firearm owner !

--------------------------
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.


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


-