ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n007

Internet Message Format | 1996-09-06 | 43KB

From:      [e-mail]
To:        [e-mail]
Subject:   utah-firearms Digest V2 #7
Reply-To:  [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence:


utah-firearms Digest      Friday, 6 September 1996      Volume 02 : Number 007

In this issue:

    Re: tobacco and guns
    [[e-mail]: (fwd) A phone call from the police]
    [[e-mail]: CONCEALED CARRY - REAL TRUTH!!]
    Second letter to SLPD.
    mr hardys leters
    News on Australia Gun Ban
    National Parks and RKBA
    Jefferson Conservativism E-Zine columnist goes Libertarian!

See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the utah-firearms
or utah-firearms-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:26:23 -0600
Subject: Re: tobacco and guns

On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, [e-mail] posted:

>Charles,
>
>You're quite correct that this is hopelessly vague in its wording.
>"Unlawful user of" is clear enough.  If you're using an illegal substance, or
>using a legal substance illegally, then you cannot buy a firearm.
>
>Lawful user is also fairly clear.  You're using a substance lawfully whether
>it's tobacco which is legal (until they make it a controlled substance anyway!),

What exactly is the difference between being declared an addictive
substance and a controlled substance?  Medical or just legal?

Thanks.

BTW, off topic, are you aware of any petition gathering for the Stop
the Browne Out campaign here in Utah?

PS.  I presume from the nicotine withdrawl that you are attempting to
quit smoking.  Good luck.  If you are into herbal remedies, friends
who have quit smoking have suggested a particular, legal herb that
seemed to help.  I'll forward details privately if you are interested.

- --

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

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and
 military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of
 democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
 Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of
 our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among
 the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:28:08 -0600
Subject: [[e-mail]: (fwd) A phone call from the police]

Forwarded from AZRKBA, just to demonstrate what happens to those who
register their guns or themselves as gun owners.

- ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
Lines: 28
Sender: [e-mail]
Approved: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <502sgl$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: xring.cs.umd.edu

        This afternoon I got a call from the San Diego police, it
seems they were looking for people who have the little Grendel autos.
The detective politely told me that they were investigating a murder
and that ballistics had confirmed  a Grendel as being the murder
weapon.
        So now they are rounding up all the Grendels from people like
me who have legally purchased and  registered them.  Somehow, I rather
doubt the real shooter is going to say "Sure I've still got it.  Come
on over and pick it up for testing."
        Ok, what distinguishes Grendel from other .380 autos that will
identify this manufacturer with only a bullet?  I can only think of
perhaps  a different style of rifling.  How about the rest of you?
Anyone know of brand identification via rifling?


BTW My Grendel hasn't been shot in more then 6 months so I'm not
worried about  myself.   They can drop by tomorrow and pick it up to
try it out.  It is not a house gun nor a primary defense weapon for
anyone in my family.

                                   Best Regards

                               Ron in San Diego

http://www.electriciti.com/~rfuller
(Diving in San Diego)
[e-mail]

- ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

- --

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

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and
 military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of
 democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
 Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of
 our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among
 the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:17:53 -0600
Subject: [[e-mail]: CONCEALED CARRY - REAL TRUTH!!]

Forwarded from AZRKBA

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

At the request of a friend who follows this group regularly, I have
transcribed the article Chris Stark referred to.  After you've had a
chance to read it, go buy the magazine--there are other articles worth
reading in it, and I feel badly enough about posting their copyrighted
material.  However, I believe they would want their message spread and
discussed, and I think this is an appropriate forum for that.  It's not
that long, but as Chris noted, it's worth reading the entire article.

+++===+++===+++===+++===+++

Transcribed from the column "2nd Amendment" in the October, 1996, issue
of Guns & Ammo

Concealed-Carry Laws are Not the Answer (Some Gun Owners Believe that
Permit Systems Play into the Hands of the Antis).  by Ed Moats

"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United states is to
outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace."


So said Janet Reno at a 1991 B'nai B'rith meeting in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.  Reno was then the chief prosecutor of Dade County, Florida.
Today she is the attorney general of the United States and her doctrine
of civilian disarmament is official federal crime control policy.  For
the United States government, fighting crime means rendering civilians
completely defenseless.  And federal constitutional doctrine is that
there is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding
whatever the Constitution itself might have to say on the subject.

Why then has the United States Justice Department remained silent as
state after state has passed statutes allowing concealed-carry permits
(CCPs)? Today 31 states have "shall issue" concealed-carry laws,
requiring the issuance of a CCP to any citizen who pays the fee and is
not disqualified (felon, mental health, drug or alcohol commitment,
etc.).

We can understand this federal silence as a clever application of the
technique for cooking frogs.  Question:  How do you cook a frog?
Answer: Very slowly.  If you toss a frog into a pot of boiling water
the frog will leap out.  But if you gently place the frog in a pan of
cool water and slowly raise the temperature, the frog will be too
cooked to leap by the time he realizes he's in trouble.  Question:
"How do you steal the liberties of a free people?"  Answer:  "The same
way you cook a frog: very slowly."  This is the socialist doctrine of
gradualism, employed successfully by socialists since World War II to
erode the liberties of America s citizens.

The feds tolerate the explosion of state concealed-carry laws because
they know these concealed-carry laws are gradually creating a culture
that will facilitate the confiscation of all firearms.

"A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his
steps," says the Scripture, accurately describing the simple among us
who imprudently celebrate the liberalization of concealed-carry laws.
As ignorant as lambs bleating their way to slaughter is the pitiful
glee of gun owners rejoicing that their state is going to allow permits
for concealed carry.

Concealed-carry permits are the deadly enemy not the friend of the
right to keep and bear arms.  Everyone who purchases a permit plays
into the hands of the gun confiscators, who are patiently biding their
time until the moment is ripe.

A gun owner who buys a concealed-weapon permit steps into six traps:

Confusing the distinction between "Concealed Carry" and "Carry."
In many states the CCP is required to carry a handgun at all, concealed
or not.  And some require the CCP to carry any firearm, even long guns,
except to the hunt or the firing range.  Soon a CCP will be required to
take your grandfather's .22 to the dump to shoot rats.  Ultimately in
my opinion, a CCP will be required to possess any firearm anywhere
outside your own home.

Paying for a Constitutional Right.
Every gun owner who buys a CCP helps establish the principle that the
government may charge a fee for constitutional rights.  If a CCP is
$50, what shall it be for a free speech permit, or a permit granting
protection from unreasonable searches and seizures?  We all long ago
acquiesced to buying government permission to build a house or operate
a motor vehicle. Shall we now place constitutional rights in the same
category?

Turning a Right into a Privilege.
Similarly, everyone who obtains a CCP assents to the proposition that
bearing arms is a privilege, not a right.  There is an infinite gulf
between these two concepts.  A privilege is granted at the state s
discretion, revocable at its will (or whim).  A right is vested in an
individual, not subject to the grace of the state.  What is done by
state license is a privilege, not a right.  A CCP law is itself an
infringement of the constitutional right to bear arms.

Camouflaged Registration.
Everyone buying a CCP registers himself as a gun owner.  Registration
is the necessary antecedent to confiscation.  Confiscators don t need
to have the firearms registered.  What they really need is to have the
owners registered.  Concealed-weapon permits do exactly that.  When the
time comes, confiscators will know whose house to search.  Ominously,
the March 1996 issue of Guns & Ammo reports a secret federal gun
registration scheme in Pittsburgh that uses a computer program to
generate a map of the city with the homes of legal firearm owners
circled.  The data for this map will come partly from concealed-carry
permits.

Any data source that identifies gun owners will serve the confiscators
purpose.  On a recent visit to a gun store in Seattle, I was told by
the owner that he had recently received a call from the BATF inquiring
whether he kept records on his sales of gun safes. To the storekeeper's
"why?" the BATFman replied "Well, we figure where there's gun safes,
there's guns."

This should be no surprise.  Gun owners  enthusiasm for concealed-carry
laws has been misplaced from the beginning.  CCP laws are camouflaged
registration laws, registering owners, which is even worse than
registering guns.  This is the reason some states require a CCP to
carry a handgun at all, even if not concealed.  The purpose is not to
liberalize firearms possession for the law-abiding, but rather to get
owners of firearms registered for the day of confiscation. [Editor's
Note:  In point of fact, "registration" already exists on the federal
level whenever a gun buyer completes a Form 4473.]

Misplaced Faith in Lawmakers.
The fifth trap is thinking that lawmakers who create the concealed-
carry laws are motivated by support for the constitutional right to
bear arms. If they were, they would not create the complex
concealed-carry machinery, complete with application forms, fees,
waiting periods, record checks, required concealment, mandatory
training, renewal fees, etc.  That complex machinery is irrelevant to
any legitimate purpose.  All that is needed to support the
constitutional right to bear arms and protect the public is a
simple statute making it a crime for the disqualified (felons, drug
addicts, alcoholics, etc.) to carry a firearm.  Nothing further is
required or helpful.

Proponents may claim concealed-carry laws allow the law-abiding to pack
heat while restricting firearms from the disqualified.  No thinking
person can be fooled by this patent canard.  Denying criminals
concealed-weapon permits does not deny them concealed weapons.  Such
laws only affect the law-abiding.  Concealed-carry laws only restrict
weapons from those law-abiding citizens who are unable or unwilling to
pay the fee.  The criminals are unaffected.  No law can keep guns from
gremlins.

Hence this vital question:  What is the difference between a
concealed-carry statute and a statute declaring it a felony for a felon
to possess a firearm?  To the felon there is no difference at all.  But
the law-abiding person must register and pay a fee.

Thus, the net practical effect of a concealed-carry statute is to 1)
compile a registration list of gun owners, 2) establish that bearing
arms is a privilege, not a right, and 3) extract a fee for this
privilege.

Solidifying Bias against Open Carry.
Most concealed-carry laws permit only concealed carry.  That is, they
disallow open carry.  These laws thus further cement the current
cultural bias against open carry.  Yet open carry is the direction we
must move if we're going to actually stop the crime wave in this
country.

It has been noted that "An armed society is a polite society."  True,
but incompletely stated.  An armed society will be a polite one only if
everyone knows it is armed.  Concealed weapons won t induce politeness.


Someone rejoins "Under concealed-carry laws, you'll be polite to
everyone, because you won't know who is armed."  I reply: You don't
know now who is armed!

All the infamous public massacres of recent times the Long Island
Railroad, the Killeen, Texas, Luby s Cafeteria are characterized by one
critical fact:  The killer believed that he would be the only one there
armed.  Concealed carry won t change that.  Open carry will.

Gun Owners Come Out of the Closet.
Consider this:  If you carry a weapon concealed, just who are you
concealing it from?  Not the vermin:  You want them to know you're
armed. Then you're less likely to have to use your weapon.  You are
concealing the weapon from the police and from the public who might
call the police. In our unfortunate mindset, it is socially
unacceptable for the peaceable to be armed.  Because of this attitude
armed crime is ubiquitous.  But let the citizen carry his arms openly,
and this mindset and the crime it promotes will rapidly reverse.

If our lawmakers were truly interested in curbing crime they would
mandate that every qualified adult man and woman carry a firearm, long
or short, concealed or open.  Instead, lawmakers are creating
camouflaged registration laws, while mouthing fidelity to the Second
Amendment.

To counter this, gun owners should come out of the closet.  In every
jurisdiction where it is still legal, gun owners should carry their
weapons openly.  The public will at first be shocked, but will soon
applaud it as violent crime skids to a halt.

- ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

- --

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

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and
 military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of
 democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
 Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of
 our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among
 the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:36:19 -0600
Subject: Second letter to SLPD.

Below is a copy of my second letter to the SLPD concerning Officer
Bell's editorial.  It is in response to their letter to me which I
posted here on the 24th of last month.  Much of it is not terrribly
original as I have stolen freely from some posts that were sent to me.

- ---begin letter--

Chief Ruben Ortega
Asst. Chief Stephen Chapman
Salt Lake City Police Dept.
315 E. 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84102

CC: Mayor Deedee Corradini
    451 S. State Street
    Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in regard to Asst. Chief Chapman's letter of August 14
which was in reference to my letter dated August 3 (not August 2 as
Asst. Chief Chapman wrote in his letter).

You neglected to include in your letter to me the requested written
policy and training guidelines concerning appropriate officer conduct
when interacting with a non-violent individual who may be in
possession of a concealed weapon.  You have also made no mention of
the hearing I requested.  I hereby renew both these requests.  Please
provide either the information requested or else written refusal to do
so.

With regard to what you did send me, I am deeply troubled by the
obvious contradictions and out-of-hand dismissals I see evident.

You claim that Officer Bell "did editorialize as a private citizen,
and not as a police officer" and that "[h]e did not speak for the Salt
Lake City Police Department in any way".  I will accept that he did
not speak as an official spokesman of the Department.  However, he
went to great lengths in his letter to identify himself as a long-time
police officer.  He also spoke not on his own behalf as a private
citizen, but on behalf of every law enforcement officer in the State.
Further, he promised to carry out certain actions not on his own time
as a private citizen, but while acting in his capacity as a sworn
officer.  It is those promised actions, and now your complacency in
dismissing them out-of-hand, that are at the heart of my concern.
Also, I have not seen any public statements from the department or any
other officers to counter Officer Bell's pronouncement of how he and
his fellow officers will treat law-abiding citizens.  Is your
collective silence to be read as acceptance of Bell's position?

You assure me that you do not "put citizens on the ground 'face down'
as a matter of policy".  However, in neglecting to provide me a copy
of those policies I am left to assume that either a) There is some
reason you do not wish the pubic to review your policy; or b) You do
not have clear policy and training in this area and my concerns that
such situations are left too much to the discretion of Officers such
as Bell who have already decided that citizens' civil rights will take
a back seat to their own fears and political agendas are, in fact,
completely justified.

You say you know officer Bell and that he would not put a "citizen
face down on the ground without the probable cause to justify that
course of action".  Where in his signed, published letter did you read
the words "probable cause"?  Officer Bell has made a public
declaration that EVERY citizen he encounters in possession of a gun is
going to be treated as if they were a dangerous criminal and placed
"face down in hand cuffs".  Only at that point, he says, will he
inquire as to the legal status of the concealed weapon.  This is in
direct conflict with State law which recognizes that the vast majority
of citizens are not dangerous criminals and allows them the statutory
privilege of carrying a concealed weapon.

I have friends and relatives serving as peace officers.  I appreciate
the dangerous circumstances under which you work.  But any officer who
chooses to deal with those circumstances by initiating force against
peaceful citizens who are in full compliance with the law has no
business walking the streets with a badge and gun.  Officer Bell has
proclaimed he will do just that.  He is a walking personal injury and
civil rights law suit waiting to happen.  I want to know what action
has and will be taken to insure the safety of Salt Lake and Utah's
citizens from Officer Bell and others in the Department who share his
low regard for the rights of private citizens.

Let me restate a point I made in my previous letter.  The citizens of
this State, particularly those who have fulfilled the full
requirements of the law and choose to exercise their rights to
self-defense, are under NO obligation to be subjected to State
sponsored violence just to allay the concerns of police officers who,
it seems, are too ill-trained to insure their own safety through
legal, appropriate, and less intrusive, demeaning means.

Your prompt reply to my specific concerns is most appreciated.  Please
include the requested documentation or written refusal to do so.

Thank you



Charles Hardy


- --

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

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and
 military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of
 democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
 Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of
 our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among
 the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979]

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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:57:56 -0600
Subject: mr hardys leters

Below, my response.

Larry Larsen
P.O. Box 417
Santa Clara, Utay 84765

September 4, 1996


Chief Ruben Ortega
Asst. Chief Stephen Chapman
Salt Lake City Police Dept.
315 E. 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84102

CC: Mayor Deedee Corradini
    451 S. State Street
    Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Dear Sirs,
    I have been following Mr. Hardys comments, and officer BellÆs remarks
concerning those who carry concealed firearms legally.  I too request an
explanation, in the same regard as Mr Hardy,  just to let you know that
this is not an isolated request, and that I support it also.

Larry Larsen



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 96 14:31:00 -0700
Subject: News on Australia Gun Ban

*****Forward*****
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 10:25:29 -0400
From: Rdy4Battle (Paula Demers)
Subject: Press release from australia
To: [e-mail]

Hi folks, I hear a rumor about US Marines going door to door in Australia
confiscated weapons.  I contacted some folks to ask them about it and this
is the press release they sent me back. Lots of similarities. (Reighstag
Australia)

Paula

Subj: Re: searches
Date: 96-09-03 23:11:40 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Wendy Beuster)
To: [e-mail]
Dear Paula,

If there is Paula we have had no news yet, but because of the interest
we have issued a statement to help clear up things as we can see them.
This statement is not copyrighted as long as it is copied entirely and
source acknowleged.

bye Wendy Beuster
============================================

3rd. September, 1996

Despatch Statement...re "The Gun Issue"

Here in Australia New gun laws from the Federal government have made the
retaining of Semi-Automatic & Automatic type weapons illegal. This was
a kick started by the massacre in Tasmania, where approx. 36 people
were gunned down by a `madman' at or near the Port Arthur tourist cafe.
Hysteria was stirred up across Austalia and many citizens joined in the
cry to take personally owned guns away. Street marches for and against
resulted, with suggestions that guns could be crimped where possible,
not removed from our citizens...Prime Minister Howard vetoed this, and
put tremendous pressure on the States to all agree to ban guns by
legislation. This was achieved.

Victoria was the first to hand over the guns; a 12 months amnesty is
being allowed; the government is offering a buy back system which of
course does not adequately recompense the gun owners...there has been a
huge bonfire of collected guns since all this began.

During all this two federal parliamentarians Downer and Fisher, went to
the USA to confer with Warren Christopher ...is this a co-incidence?

USA marines have been in Australia since the 31st. of July 1995. As far
as we can ascertain, 7,000 odd are stationed here with supposedly 30,000
coming and going for supposed training exercises. We know of these
troops in Ipswich, Queensland, as far south as Victoria, and as far
north as Townsville. There has been no information in newspapers,
Television or by word of mouth re the USA rumour of these troops using
any standover tactics out here.  But of course it is convenient that
they are here in case we do object to Gun removal eh!

Before the States capitulated to Howard's demand for legislation re the
Guns; the Gun Lobby people became so irate in demonstrations that the
Television showed pictures of John Howard wearing what could be nothing
other than a bullet proof vest under his suit. He copped quite a bit of
flack over it!

Many people want the guns taken away, but it appears to us that many,
many more are objecting, even with threats of anarchy and violence...
stirred on by the `rambos'. They are saying our `inherited' Bill of
Rights from England gives us, (mainly those in Queensland are saying
this) the right to bear arms etc. But the Politicians are maintaining
that our Constitution over-rides the English Bill of Rights, which was
brought in round Magna Carta time.

The riots out here in Australia have been occurring concurrently with
the above gun lobby, but about the supposed Budget blow out of 8
billion dollars inherited from the Labour Government of Paul Keating,
and John Howard's [Liberal] apparently drastic cut-back program to
spending, prior to his announcement of his new budget. The new budget
has quieted things down a little.

The unions have caused violent riots at Parliament house in Queensland
over ensuing loss of jobs for, State school cleaners and the State
University's Austudy cut backs. But Federally, they have rioted over
loss of jobs for public servants, health workers changes to the
unemployed benefits etc

The Aboriginals also have rioted at both Parliament Houses in Canberra
[the old and the new] over large cut-backs in Federal Assistance and the
Mabo legislation infringements etc....injuries resulting in blood being
spilt on the parliamentary floor...unheard of, such madness in Australia.

Wendy Beuster...Publications Dept. for W.b. Howard.

   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{@>

W.B. Howard...Director & Editor of Despatch Magazine
Endtime Ministries/Christian Resource Center [pub.Q'rtly.Despatch mag.],
 which exposes the Infiltration of the N.A.N.W.O.
  in our Churches and Society in General.
=============================================================
Visit our Aussie site: http://www.closer.brisnet.org.au/~despatch/
=============================================================
 Jesus said: " I am the way, the truth and the life;
 no man cometh unto the father but by me." Jn.14:6

<#}}}><   <#}}}><   <#}}}><   <#}}}><   <#}}}><   <@}}}><


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:29:38 -0600
Subject: National Parks and RKBA

Below is a draft of a letter intended for my Congressional Delegation
(Utah) as well as the delegation from Wyoming.  Comments are welcome.

- --begin letter--

Charles Hardy
xxx
xxx

Sept. 4, 1996


Dear Utah or Wyoming Congressional Delegate

Over this last Labor Day weekend I had the pleasure of spending three
nights camping in the the Grand Teton National Park and visiting
Yellowstone for the first time in many years.  While there, I read
numerous signs warning of the danger of bear attacks.  It was clear
that some number of people are seriously injured or killed by bear in
the area each season.  Ironically (both because of the signs and
because I was in Wyoming), I also saw numerous notices that firearms,
even State permitted concealed weapons, were not allowed within the
park.

Why are the tools which provide the highest chance of human survival
in the event of a bear attack prohibited in bear country?  Why are the
tools which provide the greatest chance of victim survival in the
event of human attack prohibited in the very areas where peace
officers have the least chance of preventing or responding to such
attacks?  It is highly immoral to make the good citizens of this
country choose between their own safety and obeying federal law just
to enjoy the great outdoors.

It doesn't seem to do any good for States such as Wyoming or Utah to
protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from
predatory attacks--animal or human--if those rights are violated in
the huge areas of the States controlled by Washington D.C.  Certainly,
the Second Article of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should bind
the federal government on lands it controls.

That Amendment guarantees, in the words of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch,
"an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in
a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his
freedoms."

I fully agree that National Parks are no place for hunting or target
shooting.  However, a law against discharging a weapon except in an
emergency would accomplish the same thing without stripping
law-abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves.

Will you please sponsor and vigorously support legislation requiring
the Federal Government to honor on all public lands it controls my
right to self defense by peaceably carrying firearms?  Please explain
to me why or why not.

Your comments are most appreciated.

Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter.

Sincerely



Charles Hardy


CC:Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Robert Bennett, Sen. Alan Simpson,
Sen. Craig Thomas, Rep. Barbara Cubin, Rep. Enid Greene, Rep. James
Hansen, Rep. Bill Orton,





- --

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

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an
 unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear
 arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with
 army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and
 gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
 -- WILSON v. STATE, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 96 18:29:00 -0700
Subject: Jefferson Conservativism E-Zine columnist goes Libertarian!

- --------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: [e-mail] (Gary Gorka (gag68 x3514) SYSTEM COORDINATION)
To: libertarian-activist#desktop.tyrell.com,[e-mail],
libernet#listserv.rmii.com,[e-mail]
Subject: Jefferson Conservativism E-Zine columnist goes Libertarian!

Read his essay here:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1783/trott.html

BTW, STBO'ers.  Maybe we can pursuade these folks to put up an STBO link??

- --Gary

The homepage is at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1783/index.html
It's a great site!

Thanks Dale, your support is greatly appreciated.

Text follows:


        Decision '96: More Choices Than You Might Think

         by

    Dale R. Trott

They have finally convinced me. Although I've been quite sympathetic
to their cause for a number of years, I was always reluctant to take
them completely seriously come Election Day. Given the sorry state of
this republic that has developed over the past few decades, I suppose
it was inevitable that I would finally take them seriously and realize
that a vote for a Libertarian candidate wasn't simply a wasted vote
for a candidate that had no chance of winning.

I'll be the first to admit that the Libertarian candidate for president
has virtually no chance of winning the election. As someone who is
registered as an Independent, and who usually votes for the Republican
candidates whose positions and ideas most closely align with my own,
I was in violent agreement with those who have said that a vote for a
Libertarian candidate is a wasted vote. I do not feel that way any longer.

As recently as a month ago I was planning to vote for Bob Dole this
coming November. But that wasn't because I think Dole would make a good
president. Frankly, I think someone like Bob Dole -- a died-in-the-wool
Washington politician and 28-year veteran of the U.S. Senate -- is not
the kind of person we need sitting in the White House. Bob Dole and his
Washington buddies are major contributors to the mess we now find
ourselves in the midst of.

I'm sure this will come as no surprise to anyone, but the reason I had
planned to vote for Bob Dole was simply to help prevent Bill Clinton from
winning a second term. Until recently, I was a strong believer in the ABC
principle, which promotes the concept of "Anyone But Clinton." Although I
still believe that the election of Bill Clinton is one of the most damaging
and disgraceful events that this nation has ever had to endure, I no longer
believe that just "anyone" is capable of guiding us on the long journey
back towards what the founders of this nation had originally intended.

It wasn't Bob Dole's lackluster campaign or advanced years that changed my
mind about his candidacy. It wasn't his lack of charisma or inability to
play to the TV cameras. Although many people believe that the majority of
our elected representatives are little more than liars who will say or do
almost anything in order to get elected or stay in office, it often takes
a particular act of deception to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt
that this is so.

After passage of the much-publicized "assault weapons" ban in 1994,
Senator Dole pledged to make the repeal of the ban one of his legislative
priorities. He said everything that the National Rifle Association wanted
to hear. He could have easily been mistaken for an NRA spokesman as he
attempted to convince his Senate colleagues that the ban was a bad idea.

Senator Dole pulled off a damn fine impression of a politician who was a
true friend to America's gun owners. Many gun owners were convinced that a
Dole presidency and Republican majority in both houses of Congress would
almost surely result in the repeal of the ban. Until a few weeks ago that is.

During a campaign stop at a law enforcement facility in Virginia, Dole
extolled the virtues of that state's instant check system for people
purchasing firearms. When he was asked about his promise to work towards
the repeal of the "assault weapons" ban, he revealed his true intentions.

"Let's be realistic," Dole said. "Of the 17 weapons that were specifically
outlawed, 11 are already back on the market in some form. We've moved beyond
the debate over banning assault weapons."

There you have it. According to the Republican Presidential Candidate,
we've officially "moved beyond" the debate over banning "assault weapons".
I guess we can all just forget about it now and go on with our lives,
right? No need to concern ourselves with such a blatant infringement on
our rights by the passage of legislation that drives yet another stake
into the heart of the Second Amendment, right?

Wrong! Watching Bob Dole utter those words on television that evening, I
finally realized that President Bob Dole wouldn't differ all that much
from President Bill Clinton. Either one of them will say whatever they
think they need to say in order to win an election. They are both willing
to change their positions on key issues in exchange for a few percentage
points on the next public opinion poll. Truth, integrity and core beliefs
be damned!

Although I had always suspected it, Dole's comments with regard to the
'assault weapons" ban confirmed that a Dole Presidency would simply mean
four more years of political deal-making, flip-flopping and further
erosion of our liberties.

Granted, the erosion of liberty may be slowed a bit, but frankly, I'm not
sure that's in our best interest. Maybe it will take four more years of
Clinton's socialist accomplishments before people wake up and realize what
is really going on.

Bob Dole probably feels pretty confident about his decision to abandon his
efforts to repeal the "assault weapons" ban. After all, where else can gun
owners and other freedom-loving Americans go? Bill Clinton has proven
himself to be the most anti-gun president in our nation's history. Dole
knows that gun owners won't be voting for Clinton in November. Dole's
mistake is believing that gun owners don't have anywhere else to go.

Apparently, Dole doesn't think he needs the gun owner vote anymore. This
despite the fact that Bill Clinton himself blamed gun owners for the defeat
of 21 anti-gun incumbent congressional representatives in 1994. I cannot
begin to imagine what Bob Dole thinks has changed since that election.

More and more gun owners I am acquainted with are beginning to realize that
voters are not limited to a choice between the Democrats and Republicans.
Dole's recent comments on the "assault weapons" ban was the final straw for
many gun owners I have been hearing from. It's a shame it has taken such a
blatant disregard for individual liberty on the part of Bob Dole to awaken
them to the fact that there is a very worthy alternative to the Republicans
for voters who would like to vote their conscience for a change.

I'm as guilty as anyone. It was Dole's recent comments about the gun ban
that sent me zipping over the Internet at the speed of light to the
Libertarian home page. As the Libertarians are quick to point out, it is
unlikely that their candidate for president will even come close to winning
the election. Even so, a significant percentage of votes -- say 15% or so
would send a powerful message to all of our friends inside the beltway. It
might convince them that Americans are finally starting to pay attention
to what's going on down there. A shocking concept, I agree, but it is
conceivable.

Besides sending a strong message to the power brokers in D.C., it would
also be a nice change for many voters to support a candidate that believes
the Constitution is still a relevant document. Among other things, the
Libertarians also want to dramatically shrink government, end the "war"
on drugs and stop the U.S. from meddling in the internal affairs of other
countries. Ideas that surely must give the inside-the-beltway crowd a
serious case of the jitters.

The Libertarians are the only major party I am aware of that actually
understands the reasons this nation is in the condition it is in today.
They also have some very good ideas about what must be done in order to
bring it back to what the founders had originally intended. Personally,
I find myself feeling somewhat embarrassed for not hopping on their
bandwagon a lot sooner.

I am not generally accustomed to such open and obvious campaigning for any
political party or candidate. Perhaps that is because I have never realized
that there was a real, honest-to-goodness political party that embraces so
many of the same principles and core beliefs that I hold dear. Some of their
ideas and intentions surely seem shocking in these days of ever-increasing
government encroachment, but that is only because so many of us have allowed
our values and beliefs to be defined for us by those that pretend to know
what is best for us.

As Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne is so quick to point
out, the Federal Government has proven that it is no longer capable of
doing anything right. The "war" on drugs is an utter failure, unless you
believe that the further erosion of individual liberty is a good thing.
Constant meddling in the affairs of others has the world's various
terrorist groups competing to see who can give us the bloodiest bloody
nose. And efforts to control crime consist of legislation intended to
disarm law-abiding citizens and deny them the right to protect themselves
in an era when big city police departments admit that they simply don't
have the resources to protect everyone.

If you can't find anything wrong with this picture, I encourage you to
cast your vote for Bob Dole or Bill Clinton this November. I have come
to the conclusion that the result will be essentially the same no matter
which of the two major parties wins the election.

On the other hand, if you agree that this country is has essentially
gone to Hell in a hand basket, you should at least consider taking the
Libertarian Party more seriously. After all, the two major parties have
been working diligently to destroy this country for decades and I don't
see any sign that they have even started to turn things around. I think
it's high time we give someone else a shot at it.

It is not my intent to provide every conceivable reason to support the
Libertarians or provide every detail of their party platform. If I have
prompted a few readers to at least consider the possibility of supporting
a Libertarian candidate, I feel I have accomplished what I set out to ac-
complish when I began writing this column. If the Libertarians accomplish
even half as much as they promise they will, we might actually have a shot
at keeping this republic in business for another couple of centuries.


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

End of utah-firearms Digest V2 #7
*********************************

To subscribe to utah-firearms Digest, send the command:

    subscribe utah-firearms-digest

in the body of a message to "[e-mail]".  If you want to
subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such
as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-utah-firearms":

    subscribe utah-firearms-digest [e-mail]

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "utah-firearms-digest"
in the commands above with "utah-firearms".

Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in
pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive.  These are organized by date.