ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n012

Internet Message Format | 1998-01-08 | 44KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #12
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Friday, January 9 1998      Volume 02 : Number 012




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

Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 13:45:47 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ruby Ridge Updates -- Local News Reports (1998)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --------------3AC149869BF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.ruby-ridge.com/localnews98.htm#KootenaiValleyTimes971218

Just heard on the radio that the judge found "probable cause" to
try Lon on charges of manslaughter.  Maybe there is some justice
left in the world

- --------------3AC149869BF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="localnews98.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="localnews98.htm"

                          LOCAL NEWS REPORTS (1998)

           Refresh these pages often -- They change almost daily.

   Can't wait for me to update this page? Check out the Spokesman-Review's
                          on-line Ruby Ridge page.

Below are brief summaries of articles on Ruby Ridge from several local and
regional newspapers. Most newspapers copyright their content (and I really
don't want to spend all my time and then some typing in their content), so
the summaries and a few brief quotes will have to suffice. For subscription
information, just click on the name of the paper. Direct links will be
provided for any articles that are on-line; if any of these links break,
please drop me a note."

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

Kootenai Valley Times, December 18, 1997, article entitled "Judge not ready
to rule on trial for Horiuchi", subtitled "Weaver family center of attention
with Sarah Weaver taking the stand under fire from the defense". Contains a
lot of the same material as the two articles below, so I'll focus on the
highlights.

"Saying that he [Judge Quentin Harden] had no doubt that Horiuchi, a
sharpshooter working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had killed
Vicki Weaver, he said that Horiuchi had no intent to kill her. 'The issue
is, was it (the shooting) done in a careless or reckless manner . . . must a
breach of duty be more than ordinary negligence,' Harden instructed
attorneys for prosecution and defense to file Memoranda of Authority, citing
case law similar to the case in question."

". . . said defense attorney Hoffinger, 'The standards of care must be
different for a medic in wartime than for a plastic surgeon working in
Beverly Hills [I find that a rather disgusting metaphor -- real medics don't
kill U.S. citizens],'he said, 'We're not talking about shooting into a
crowd.'

"'Yes, your honor, it is like shooting into a crowd,' retorted Woodbury,
taking advantage of the prosecution's opportunity to respond. 'There were
minor children, a baby, a 16-year-old girl, a mother, father and Kevin
Harris, all of whom ran across that porch and into the hour (where Horiuchi
shot).' she said. 'They did have rules of engagement, but only two shots
were fired. Long Horiuchi's the one who fired those two shots.'"

"Hoffinger devoted much of his time questioning Sarah Weaver to try to
establish the anti-government sentiment in the Weaver household just prior
to the shooting. His rapid-fire attempts to establish a sympathy for Nazis,
swastikas and the term ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government) were thwarted by
Weaver's angry, terse retorts. When asked to confirm, for instance, that she
had marked swastikas on her calendar, she said, 'Is is illegal to use it?'
'Have you used it, yes or no?' he persisted, and she said she had. Asked to
confirm that she and her mother both were "crack shots, better even than
your father . . . and your sister, Rachel, was taught to shoot young' [Just
keep it up Hoffinger -- with questioning and an attitude like that that,
you'll fall flat on your face in front of any Idaho jury in any court --
state or federal -- and that's just what most of us would like to see you
do.]," Weaver said "Define young."

"Hoffinger wanted [Sarah] Weaver to say that she knew her father had
armor-piercing ammunition in the house . . ." [Whoopee, ding, Hoffinger, go
back to Washington, D.C., where you belong. As a teenager in northern Idaho
I used to buy & shoot armor-piercing ammunition all the time. Many millions
of round became surplus when our military switched from .30-06 to the 7.62mm
NATO cartridge. A store named Tri-State on the outskirts of Moscow, Idaho,
used to put it out by the bucket for 10 cents per round; the ones with the
black tips were armor-piercing. Better yet, stick around for a while -- at
the rate you're going, you'll do a great job for the prosecution.]

"Hoffinger asked if she was aware there was at least 14 guns in the house
[Keep it up, City Slicker, that's a paltry "arsenal" by Idaho standards,
especially for a household with 5 or 6 shooters] and 20,000 rounds found in
the house [Have you read our Constitution lately, City Slicker? It has a
second amendment that, by some strange coincidence, comes right after the
first amendment. It's no more illegal to have 20,000 rounds of ammunition
than it is to have 20,000 books or newspapers. That said, I must crank up my
reloading presses (another skill I learned as a youth in Idaho) -- gotta
catch up with the Weavers!] after the standoff ended. 'Didn't your mother
and father make sure there were guns at the doors and windows, and isn't it
true that you slept with guns?' [Sarah] Weaver disagreed"

"At one point when the prosecution was questioning another of its witnesses,
Randy Weaver, Judge Harden clearly was angry and had lost his patience with
the objections of the defense counsel. 'Counsel will stop sniping at each
other because the court will not tolerate that,' he said. 'The state may put
on their case as they see fit.'"

Horiuchi is now asserting his 5th amendment right not to testify. His
attorneys tried to prevent transcripts of his testimony from the 1993 trial
from being introduced as evidence. Prosecutor Yagman objected that their
reasoning [that they couldn't cross examine a transcript] was absurd, and
Judge Harden apparently agreed with him.

"The decision on whether or not to hold Horiuchi over for trial will come
some time after December 29, 1997."

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

Bonners Ferry Herald, December 17, 1997, article entitled "Weaver faces
Horiuchi in court", subtitled "No decision on whether FBI sharpshooter will
face trial". The magistrate who presided over the preliminary hearing might
not release his decision until 1998. Horiuchi appeared in person, dressed in
dark blue suit. The magistrate did rule, "I find Lon Horiuchi did unlawfully
kill Vicki Weaver", but he wants more information for ruling on whether the
can can go to trial. Sarah Weaver (now 21, then 16) testified about the
shootings of her father, her mother and their friend Kevin Harris. Defense
attorney Hoffinger tried to suggest to her that "the family was preparing
for a battle with the federal government". [This line of B.S. has been so
thoroughly debunked so many times, they must really be grasping at straws to
defend assassin Horiuchi.] Hoffinger also tried to portray her as a Nazi
racist [All kids may be misguided at one time or another, or maybe she
really is racist -- but is that any excuse to shoot her parents? Get a life,
Hoffinger!] During his cross-examination of Randy Weaver, Hoffinger was
admonished by the judge "to ask questions and don't testify". The judge is
withholding his decision until the attorneys file opinions on the degree of
negligence required. The prosecution contends that he was negligent because
he fired into the house where children were located; Hoffinger contends that
a "reckless disregard to safety" must be proven. The attorneys are to turn
in the briefs by Dec. 29.

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

Spokesman-Review, December 17, 1997, on-line article entitled "Weaver takes
stand against FBI sniper ", subtitled "Agent returns to Boundary County as
accused ". The assassin's attorneys are already trying to demonize the
Weavers and their children by pursuing irrelevant lines of questioning, most
of which was stopped by the judge. Prosecutor Woodbury is threatening to
come back with a first-degree murder charge if the manslaughter charge is
dismissed in the preliminary hearing. [Maybe she's coming to her senses?
Murder is what it should have been from the beginning!]

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

Spokesman-Review, December 16, 1997, on-line article entitled "Sniper to
appear in court ", subtitled "Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris called as witnesses
against agent".

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

Bonner County Daily Bee, December 16, 1997, article entitled "FBI
sharpshooter faces judge today", subtitled "Preliminary hearing to determine
of Horiuchi will face felony charge". Today's hearing will determine if
there is enough evidence to bring assassin Horiuchi to trial. Assassin
"Horiuchi contends the woman's death as an accident . . . . [Prosecutor]
Woodbury claims Horiuchi wasn't acting on behalf of the government when he
fired into the Weaver cabin, because he had been ordered to protect people
designated as hostages inside the cabin."

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Click here for 1997 local news reports.

- --------------3AC149869BF--


- -

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:26:18 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Jan. 18 column -- the 'general welfare']

The latest from Vin

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

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 18, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    The 'general welfare'

    A correspondent identifying himself as "Publius" writes:

  "Dear Vin --

  "I recently read your essay on our second national holiday, and believe I
have an answer to one of your questions. You urge us to advise legislators
to look at Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, and then ask, 'Which
one of these 18 sentences gives you the specific, delegated power to spend
FEDERAL tax money to pay the medical bills of barefoot Appalachian widows?
Which one? Point to it.'

  "I find the answer in the very first sentence. The Congress has the power
'to promote the general welfare of the United States.' ...

  "Don't misunderstand me: I think a welfare state is a terrible idea, and
that the only goal of government should be to prevent and/or punish
aggression. I just think the Constitution gives them the widest mandate any
tyrant could possibly want with those words. ..."

  Publius proposes that one solution would be to amend the Constitution,
striking the words "and promote the general welfare."

  I replied:

  It's a good question, and another reminder that Joseph Sobran is right
when he says that a government under the U.S. Constitution would hardly be
perfect, "just a lot better than the one we've got now."

  One way to argue this case is that -- if that "general welfare" clause
meant what the CURRENT court and Congress contend it means -- it surely
would have been the LAST sentence of the Constitution. Why go on for
several more pages, setting limits on this or that, when you've just given
them all carte blanche?

  In fact, if they meant that Congress may do anything that a simple
majority believes might further the "general welfare," why write a
Constitution at all -- a Constitution which the Federalists THEMSELVES
insisted was intended to LIMIT the new federal government to a very small
number of functions, "sharply delineated"?

  But a closer reading is also possible. Does government charity for
barefoot Appalachian widows actually advance the "general" welfare? Not if
we suppose "general" to be set up as an antonym to "special," or
"specific."

  I know the collectivist taxmen will argue we "all" benefit by sleeping
better in the knowledge that all the little matchgirls have warm beds. But
I strongly doubt the Founders were talking about the "welfare" of my
conscience, or would have agreed that I should feel happy to see all my
wealth looted for someone else's "good cause." At that point, what's to
prevent the next "good cause" from being a bigger castle for the emperor,
or a snazzier mausoleum for the Pharaoh?

  Milk price supports hardly advance the "general" welfare -- they
specifically advance the interests of a tiny number of dairy
farmer/campaign contributors, at the expense of HURTING the "general"
welfare of the millions ... including the working poor with too many tiny
mouths to feed. As do nearly ALL government interventions, no matter how
high-sounding their titles.

  The furthest extension of this absurdity is the notion that thousands of
individual property owners may be impoverished by the virtual seizure (or
ban on productive use) of their land, to advance the "general" welfare
through the far-fetched benefit folks purportedly receive from knowing that
somewhere, in a distant rural environment they will never see, a few horned
bugworms of three-toed salamanders have been granted free grazing
privileges, never again to be disturbed by the sound of a nasty tractor or
chainsaw.

  Does the "general welfare" now include the welfare of small beasties who
will never cast a ballot? This way lies not just tyranny, but madness.

  But as for the notion of repealing the offending phrase: does anyone
really think the self-aggrandizing buffoons currently ensconced in
Washington City would make it worth our trouble by paying a single moment's
heed to such a change ... any more then they currently tell every man and
woman in uniform to go home after two years because the bill authorizing
their pay has expired ... "and we'll call you the next time there's a war"
... as is the clear intent of the 12TH sentence of Article I, Section 8?

  If this phrase were gone, how long would it take them to "reinterpret"
another obscure phrase to justify all they've done?

  Once the power to regulate interstate commerce was used to ban a Kansas
wheat farmer from selling his wheat INSIDE HIS OWN STATE at a price lower
than the rigged federal price ... on the theory that such sales would
"AFFECT interstate commerce" in grain ... once this bunch of windbags felt
free to ban handguns within a quarter-mile of a school INSIDE ONE OF THE
SEVERAL STATES, justifying this intervention under the interstate commerce
clause on the theory that "some components of the gun were most probably
made in other states" ... I fear playing word games with this gang became a
total waste of time.

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

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."    -- Samuel Adams




- ----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.

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire
 a dangerous servant and a terrible master." -- George Washington

- -

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:25:57 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Latest Asset Forfeiture Scheme -Forwarded

Received: from xmission.XMISSION.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id pa404601; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:23:42 -0700
Received: from devans.xmission.com (slc75.modem.xmission.com [166.70.1.141]) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.7/8.7.5) with SMTP id HAA03478 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:23:36 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 07:37:51 -0700
To: [e-mail]
From: Donna Evans <[e-mail]>
Subject: Latest Asset Forfeiture Scheme
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]

>Return-path: <[e-mail]>
>Envelope-to: [e-mail]
>Delivery-date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:49:19 -0700
>Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 21:51:30 -0800
>From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" <[e-mail]>
>Organization: XMission
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Latest Asset Forfeiture Scheme
>
>Rep. Bill Hickman has concocted the latest asset forfeiture scheme - this
one promises to protect
>us against drunk drivers rather than drug dealers.  Please read article at
URL below.  It might
>be possible to extinguish this bad idea now if enough of us call Rep.
Hickman and encourage him
>to drop his proposal.  I plan to call him tomorrow evening.  His home
phone is 673-2671, office
>628-5100, and fax [phone].  If you do contact him, I'd be interested in
the response you get.
>Also, please pass this message along to others who are forfeiture
opponents.  Thank you.
>
>http://www.standard.net/cgi-win/table.exe?local+5dui2.htm
>
>                       Arnold
>
>



- -

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:50:23 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRA Bylaws:  Preventing GREED from Taking Over -Forwarded

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id IAA29956; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:31:05 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:31:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma029935; Fri Jan  9 08:30:07 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: "Chris BeHanna" <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRA Bylaws:  Preventing GREED from Taking Over
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS!
POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES!
PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD!

- ----- Begin Forwarded Message


                           WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
                                     by
                              John H. Trentes
                    Candidate - NRA Board of Directors

   Why should any of us send even a single dollar bill to the National
Rifle Association of America without a solid assurance that it won't wind
up in the pocket of a self-dealing officer, director, or vendor instead of
being spent in the fight to protect the Second Amendment?

   If you just smiled knowingly at this question, then it is time we
considered a few things about Human Nature and how it affects crucial
business at our beloved Association. Money flows through the NRA, and lots
of it. The number of individuals and organizations that have a personal
stake in receiving part of that money is truly mind-boggling. They range
from a shotgun trick shooter receiving a few thousand, up to large public
relations and marketing firms that get paid MILLIONS. The stakes are high;
no-one who has secured such a handsome paycheck from the Association wants
to have it reduced or eliminated. All of these vendors have a vested
interest in maintaining a profitable relationship with the NRA, at any
cost. Human Nature is at work here, by which I really mean GREED. If greed
becomes the moving force behind the daily activities of the NRA, then its
mission will be forgotten. Should that day arrive, we will all pay a heavy
price, and the medium of exchange will be our freedoms.

   Safeguards need to be put in place to expose conflicts of interest and
self-dealing amongst those in charge, and to subject their political or
financial conduct to the glaring light of day and to the critical
scrutiny of the membership. Individuals with the solemn responsibility of
leadership in this organization cannot be allowed to use their power,
notoriety, or authority to shield their dealings with the NRA from public
view. If this can be prevented, then and only then can we be satisfied
that "every penny" of our money (yours and mine!) is being handled with a
"Scotsman's stewardship".

   In the dark, even a Scotsman is tempted to cheat.

   The NRA By-laws already contain a financial disclosure provision
(Article IV, Section 2) but, regrettably, it doesn't even come close to
offering the fiscal protection we need. As it stands now, directors,
officers, or employees of the NRA only have to disclose a self-dealing
business transaction with the organization if it took place within the
last year and if the amount of money changing hands was more than
$2000.00. By setting a dollar amount like this, any dishonest officer,
staff member, or director can easily avoid having to disclose his or her
financial hanky-panky merely by splitting large-dollar transactions into
numerous small deals amounting to no more than $2000.00 each. Therein, my
friends, lies a GAPING loophole.

   In the next Board elections, the membership will vote on a by-law
amendment that will slam this loophole shut with a resounding bang. The
proposed amendment would:

   * Require Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, and members of the
     Executive Council to provide a sworn statement prior to the annual
     meeting that fully discloses all of his or her dealings with the NRA,
     its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, employees,
     vendors, or employees of vendors if they benefited in any way, WITH
     NO DOLLAR LIMIT, for the last THREE years;

   * Require the Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Executive Director
     of General Operations, Executive Director of NRA/ILA, and NRA/ILA
     Fiscal Officer to disclose all of his or her dealings with the
     Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, or Members and the Executive
     Council of the NRA, or its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect,
     Officers, Employees, vendors, or employees of vendors OR ANYONE WHO
     HELD SUCH OFFICE IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, if it benefited him or her
     IN ANY WAY.  Again, there is no dollar limit to skirt under; and

   * Prohibit any Officer of the NRA or Member of the Executive Council
     from undermining the fit and proper function of the Nominating
     Committee or the Board of Directors by misusing his or her public
     notoriety (notoriety that was cultivated with member dollars!) to
     influence Board of Director elections, an activity which is not
     within the duties, responsibilities, or authority granted to them by
     the By-laws.

   If you are tempted to succumb to the warm, fuzzy feeling that none of
this is necessary because the NRA is one big happy family, that worrying
about the financial conduct of the staff and directors is paranoid
because, after all, blood is thicker than water, I have some distressing
news for you:

   GREED is thicker than blood.

   And ask yourself this: If any current officer or director of the NRA is
opposed to this by-law amendment...

   Why?

   What are they hiding from you?

THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES FOR NRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS WANT TO HELP YOU FIND
OUT! VOTE FOR THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE BYLAW AMENDMENT AND THESE BOARD
CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT IT!

  1. Please vote for these Second Amendment Action candidates:

          Jerry L. Allen
          Michael J. Beko
          James A. Church
          William Dominguez
          Howard J. Fezell
          Daniel B. Fiora
          Arnold J. Gaunt
          Fred Griisser
          Wesley H. Grogan, Jr.
          David M. Gross
          John Guest
          Fred Gustafson
          Don L. Henry
          William B. Hunt
          Phillip B. Journey
          Michael S. Kindberg
          Jeff Knox
          John C. Krull
          Robley T. Moore
          Larry R. Rankin
          Albert C. Ross
          Frank H. Sawberger
          Thomas L. Seefeldt
          Kim Stolfer
          John H. Trentes
          Glen I. Voorhees, Jr.

  2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b)
     to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter
     and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA
     members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES.

  3. A few advertising dollars go a long way when they tell the truth.
     Please send your donation to:

          Second Amendment Action
          100 Heathwood Drive
          Liberty, SC 29657

  4.  Visit our web sites for further information:

          http://www.2ndamendment.net
          http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html
          http://www.nealknox.com/         (contains Heston interviews)

- ----- End Forwarded Message

PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS!
POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES!
PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD!

Regards,
Chris BeHanna                          PGP Key Available
NJ-RKBA List Maintainer                GUNS SAVE LIVES!
[e-mail]            (400,000 per year in the U.S. alone!)
Lon Horiuchi, give yourself up!
                 http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna


- -

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:52:19 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ruby Ridge Shooter To Stand Trial - AP -Forwarded

Received: (qmail 18723 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 1998 01:18:11 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 18715 invoked by uid 516); 9 Jan 1998 01:18:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 18691 invoked from network); 9 Jan 1998 01:18:05 -0000
Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg2.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.12)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 9 Jan 1998 01:18:05 -0000
Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14])
    by mg2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA27488;
    Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:16:56 -0700 (MST)
Received: from helmetfish (166-93-69-107.rmi.net [166.93.69.107])
    by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14634;
    Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:16:53 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 18:14:53 -0700
From: "C. F. Inston" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Global Neighborhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Blind-copy list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ruby Ridge Shooter To Stand Trial - AP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by "C. F. Inston" <[e-mail]>
- -----------------------
01/07/1998 19:42 EST

 Ruby Ridge Shooter To Stand Trial


 BONNERS FERRY, Idaho (AP) -- An FBI sharpshooter must stand trial on a
state
 manslaughter charge in the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's
wife in the 1992
 siege at Ruby Ridge, a judge ruled Wednesday.

 Magistrate Judge Quentin Harden said there was probable cause to bring
Lon Horiuchi to trial for firing the shot that killed Vicki Weaver
during the 11-day siege at the mountain cabin.

 Harden scheduled a Feb. 13 arraignment before state Judge James
Michaud.

 Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury filed the involuntary
manslaughter
 charge in August. The Justice Department decided in 1994 against
prosecuting
 Horiuchi on federal charges and upheld the decision last year after a
long review.

 U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge is scheduled to hear arguments Monday
from
 Horiuchi's lawyers in Boise that the case should be transferred to
federal court.

 Harden, who could have dismissed the charge, ruled after reviewing
briefs submitted
 last month on whether Horiuchi was negligent, reckless or careless in
firing the shot.
 In Wednesday's ruling, he made no comment on the reason for his
decision.

 Lawyers for Horiuchi have argued that the state had failed to meet its
burden of proof
 that Horiuchi was grossly negligent, or that ``standards of care'' had
been violated.

 If the case moves to federal court, Horiuchi's lawyers could seek to
dismiss the case
 there, said Mike Weland, a Boundary County spokesman.

 Justice Department and FBI officials wouldn't comment on Wednesday's
ruling.
 Private lawyers hired by the Justice Department to represent Horiuchi
also refused to
 discuss the case.

 David Nevin, a Boise attorney who represents Kevin Harris, a friend of
the Weavers
 who was involved in the standoff, said he hoped the ruling would help
make federal
 agents more accountable for their actions.

 ``My feeling all along has been that not only Mr. Horiuchi, but others
who gave him
 orders, should be prosecuted,'' Nevin said. ``My only other reaction is
disappointment
 that the charge against Mr. Horiuchi isn't more serious, and that the
people above him
 are not sharing the criminal responsibility.''

 If convicted of involuntary manslaughter, Horiuchi could face 10 years
in prison. He
 has continued to work for the FBI.

 Horiuchi was among dozens of federal agents who surrounded the cabin.
Weaver was
 being sought on an illegal-weapons charge. His 14-year-old son, Sam,
and deputy U.S.
 Marshal William Degan also were killed in a gunfight at the outset of
the siege.

 Horiuchi testified during a 1993 federal trial for Weaver and Harris
that he accidentally shot Mrs. Weaver in the head while aiming at
Harris, who was running into the cabin in northern Idaho.

 Mrs. Weaver was standing at the door holding her infant daughter when
she was shot. Harris was wounded by the same bullet that passed through
the door of the cabin and killed Mrs. Weaver.

 When Woodbury charged Horiuchi, she also filed state murder and assault
charges
 against Harris in Degan's slaying and the wounding of another federal
agent. Harden
 dismissed those charges in October because Harris already had been
cleared of murder
 and other charges in the 1993 federal trial.

 Harden said the state charges violated an Idaho law that bars
prosecution of someone
 who already has faced prosecution in another state, territory or
country.

 A $10 million lawsuit filed by Harris against the federal government is
pending.
 Weaver settled a similar lawsuit last year for $3.1 million.
- --
                Charles 'Chuck' Inston

 Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in
 compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107,
 "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching"


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


- -

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:54:47 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Important Gun Statistics -Forwarded

Received: from mcfeely.concentric.net (mcfeely.concentric.net [207.155.184.83])
    by darius.concentric.net (8.8.8/(97/11/17 5.8))
    id KAA08075; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:26:02 -0500 (EST)
    [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]
Errors-To: <[e-mail]>
Received: from default (ts001d07.chi-il.concentric.net [206.173.185.19])
    by mcfeely.concentric.net (8.8.8)
    id KAA19590; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:18:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 09:23:02 -0600
To: [e-mail]
From: Jack Koenig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Important Gun Statistics
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The only way you can defend the Constitution and your right to bear arms is=
 to have facts which will support your arguments. The following was printed=
 in Investors Business Daily on 1/8/97 and I believe you should add it to=
 your arsenal!


Take care!


Jack Koenig


By MORGAN 0. REYNOLDS &

H. STERLING BURNEFf


Nationally, gun-rights advocates have been on the defensive since the early=
 '90s. But in the states, where the fight against crime is won or lost, they=
 re winning the debate. That s because they have the facts on their side.


Thirty-one states now let citizens carry concealed weapons =97 up from just=
 nine states in =9186. Have these "right-to-carry" laws made the public=
 safer, or have they caused a sharp drop in public safety, as opponents=
 warned?

The standard argument against "concealed carry" laws is that there is no=
 good reason for the average Joe to carry a gun. But federal courts have=
 ruled that police aren t obliged to protect individuals from crime. That=
 means citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense.


But do concealed weapons deter crime? Criminals commit 10 million violent=
 crimes a year. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck found that=
 victims use handguns about 1.9 million times in self-defense.


Criminals weigh the costs of the crime against the benefits. You don t have=
 to be a criminal mastermind to know that the possibility of a concealed=
 weapon tilts the odds in the victim s favor. Research shows that robbery=
 and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be=
 injured as those who don t.


A recent study by John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago=
 published in the Journal of Legal Studies bears this out. They found that=
 concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5% and severe assault by 7% from=
 1977 to =9192. Had "right-to-carry" laws been in effect throughout the=
 country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders and 60,000 fewer=
 assaults every year.

Vermont has long had the least restrictive firearms-carry laws. Citizens=
 there can carry guns either openly or concealed without any permit. Perhaps=
 in part because of its liberal gun policies, Vermont has among the lowest=
 violent crime numbers in the country.


In 1980, when murders and robberies in the U.S. had soared to 10 and 251 per=
 100,000 people, respectively, Vermont s murder rate was 22% of the national=
 average and its robbery rate was 15%.


In 1996, Vermont s crime rates were among the lowest in the country: 25% of=
 the national murder rate, 8% of the national robbery rate.


Another objection to concealed-carry laws is that they ll boost impulse=
 killings =97 fostering a "wild West" mentality with more shootings and=
 deaths as people vent their anger with pistols instead of fists. Yet FBI=
 data show that killings stemming from arguments are falling as a share of=
 all homicides.

In fact, concealed-weapon permit holders are involved in fewer incidents=
 than off-duty police officers.

   Consider also:

     Dade County, Fla., kept detailed records for six years. Of 21,000 carry=
      permit holders, there was no reported incident of a permit holder=
 injuring      an innocent person.


     Virginia issued more than 50,000 permits since it passed a=
 right-to-carry           law in =9195. In that time, not one permit holder=
 has been convicted of a                crime, and violent crime has=
 dropped.


Opponents are left to argue that concealed-carry laws will put guns in=
 untrained hands and accidents will go up.


But there has been no rise in accidental shootings in counties with=
 right-to-carry laws. Nationwide, there are about 1,400 accidental firearms=
 deaths annually =97 a figure far lower than the number of deaths blamed on=
 medical errors or car accidents.


And data show that civilians are even more careful with firearms than police=
 officers are. There are only about 30 mistaken civilian shootings in the=
 U.S. each year. The police commit more than three times as many mistaken=
 killings as civilians.


In fact, the death rate from firearms has dropped in the last 20 years even=
 as gun ownership has more than doubled and 22 states have passed=
 right-to-carry laws.


The fatal firearm accident rate has dropped more than 19% in the last=
 decade, and the number of gun-related accidents among children fell to an=
 all-time low of 185 in =9194 =97 down 64% since =9175.


Keeping honest, law-abiding people unarmed and at the mercy of armed and=
 violent criminals was never a good idea. In the gun policy debate,=
 gun-rights advocates can argue honestly that a general concealed-carry law=
 is sound public policy.



Morgan 0. Reynolds is director of the National Center for Policy Analysis=
 Criminal Justice Center and an economics professor at Texas A&M University.=
 H. Sterling Burnett is a policy analyst for the National Center for Policy=
 Analysis.



<color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>Jack Koenig


</color><color><param>8080,8080,8080</param>Impact Voters of America

</color><color><param>8080,0000,8080</param>

</color><color><param>8080,8080,8080</param>Communications without
intelligence is noise. Intelligence without communications is
irrelevant!</color>


- -

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:26:20 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: New to speak

Maybe of interest to some...

[Image]
[Image]

      [Image]

      Right-wingers landing in Utah County
      [Image]
      Eagle Forum meets at UVSC Saturday
      [Image]

      [Image]
      Last updated 01/09/1998, 11:21 a.m. MT

      By Jeffrey P. Haney
      Deseret News staff writer

            PROVO ù Daniel New facetiously drawls that his 80-hour work week
      is dedicated to "fighting the government."
            "I think I'm going to have to cut back to 12 hours a day," New
      joked during in an interview with the Deseret News from his Texas
      home.
            "What I'm fighting for affects more people than Kelly Flynn and
      Heather Faulkiner ever will," he said. "Somebody has to fight the
      fight for the legal precedent."
            New's overture about waging a federal war may by intended as
      tongue-in-cheek, but he is grimly serious. He has headed full-steam
      into a legal battle with the U.S. Department of Defense, intending to
      prove that an allegiance to the United Nations violates intentions of
      the Constitution.
            He has crisscrossed the country, appearing on the air waves and
      chatting at conservative coalition conventions, stumping for support
      of his son, Michael, who was court-martialed in 1996 for refusing to
      wear an insignia of the U.N. on his Army uniform.
            New will speak Saturday at the Eagle Forum's 7th annual state
      convention held at Utah Valley State College. Keynote speakers at the
      9 a.m. event include such right-wing political figures as New, author
      John Stormer, Eagle Forum executive director Kris Ardizone and the
      Sutherland Institute's Gaylord Swim.
            Stormer's book, "None Dare Call It Treason," sold more than 6
      million copies in 1964.
            Some 34 years ago, the pastor and administrator of a Christian
      school quit his job as an editor of a leading electrical mag- azine to
      devote his life to writing and conservative political activism. An
      update of his book will be published this year.
            Cost for the conference is $25 at the door. Registration begins
      at 8:30 a.m.
            Daniel New's foray into the battle began in 1995, when Michael,
      serving as a medic in Germany, told his superior officers he would not
      don a blue beret and shoulder patch emblazoned with U.N. identifying
      marks.
            Supporters of the United States as a sovereign nation, including
      the New family, say the U.N. is part of the conspiracy to form the New
      World Order, a plan to create a one-world government operated by
      powerful nations and financial interests.
            Michael New believes he enlisted in an eight-year term to
      protect fight encroachment of foreign soils. He didn't enlist in the
      U.S. Army to become a foreign power's peace-keeping stormtrooper, his
      father said.
            Micheal New, now a nursing student, shuns the media spotlight.
      He doesn't talk to reporters about his case. He was prepared to go to
      prison for his convictions, but not to be famous, his father said.
            "He said, 'I'm not a mercenary.' It just went against his grain
      instinctively," he said. "He took an oath to support the United
      States, not the U.N., and the U.N. is by law a foreign power."
            New's attorneys cite Article I, section 9 of the U.S.
      Constitution in his defense. They claim the order to wear U.N.
      clothing violates regulations governing Army uniforms and insignia.
      Members of the armed forces, they say, are prohibited from wearing
      medals or adornments from other nations on their regulation uniforms.
            More than $500,000 has been spent in his defense, including
      legal fees, producing a $20 video proclaiming his innocence and
      creating a home page on the Internet at
      www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8817.
            The appeal will be argued on its merits for the first time in
      February or March in the Army's Court of Criminal Appeals.
            New says his son's legal defense is largely paid for by a
      grassroots effort contributing to the Michael New Defense Fund. The
      family receives a slice of the donations for living expenses, and New
      insists they are frugal with the donated money.
            He says he usually receives no money other than travel costs for
      his speaking dates. While here in Salt Lake City, he will stay
      overnight with a family belonging to the Eagle Forum.
            Most supporters live in smaller cities and towns, where the
      political climate is largely conservative. More people have sent money
      and letters from Ogden than New York City, he said.
            "We have a deep-seated concern for freedom both as individuals
      and as a nation and for rights we have in the Constitution," he said.
            Karen Clark, vice president of the state forum, said the group
      invited New to speak to the expected 200 convention attendees because
      of an interest in his son's case and his thoughts on the U.N.'s
      political reach.
      [Image]
      [Image]

      Return to front page
[Image]


- --

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

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the
 state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please.
 [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the
 measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army,
 and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." -- Aristotle.
 Quoted by John Trenchard and Walter Moyle "An Argument Shewing, That a
 Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely
 Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy" [London, 1697]

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #12
**********************************