ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n018

Internet Message Format | 1998-02-03 | 50KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #18
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Tuesday, February 3 1998     Volume 02 : Number 018




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

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:55:31 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Feb. 8 coilumn -- GOA]

- ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 8, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Second Amendment: changing of the guard

    Last time, we were discussing the "take-the-best-available-compromise,"
defeatist attitude of the nation's largest gun control organization, the
National Rifle Association.

  Their lighter, leaner competition for gun owner support, Gun Owners of
America, prefers a more high-pressure approach, putting the fire to the
feet of lawmakers to make sure they know that a vote against gun rights
will cost them their next election ... just as Bill Clinton acknowledged
that the gun rights vote cost the Democratic Party its control of Congress
in 1994.

  In a 1968 edition of the NRA's magazine, "The American Rifleman,"
Associate Editor Alan C. Webber responded to then-timely criticism by U.S.
Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., who said "I think it is a terrible indictment
of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any
legislation to ban and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this
country."

  To this, Mr. Webber reports NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
responded with a ringing endorsement of the 1968 Gun Control Act. "The
National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun
control legislation since its very inception in 1871," Mr. Orth proclaimed.
"The duty of Congress is clear. It should act now to pass legislation that
will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons
adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles, from obtaining
firearms through the mails."

  One will remember that the way the 1968 law accomplished that, was by banning
EVERYONE but an ever-shrinking pool of federally licensed gun dealers from
"obtaining firearms through the mails"! Sort of like "getting drunks off the
road," by banning cars and trucks!

  "The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has
consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse
of guns, without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and
collectors," concludes editor Webber.

  What an interesting list. Do you see "militiamen" in there? I don't. Does
the Second Amendment say anything about duck-hunting?

  The Brits, who have just finished banning all private ownership of
handguns, insist THEY still protect the "rights of law-abiding hunters,
target shooters, and collectors," too.

  If you have an English country estate, you can still own a
richly-engraved, $5,000 bird gun. If you like to target shoot, you may fire
pellet guns or even .22s at your registered club ... so long as you leave
the weapon locked up there when you go home. And "collectors" are still
presumably welcome to own as many guns as they want ... from the flintlock
era or earlier.

  Gee, that'll put them in great shape the next time the Germans or French
come storming the beaches. Which is precisely why OUR Second Amendment
talks exclusively about the needs of "the militia."

  Meantime, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agents holding a panel discussion
for an audience of mostly gun store owners at this week's SHOT Outdoor
Trades show, here in Las Vegas, declared that the way they interpret the
"permanent replacement Brady Bill" due to go into effect in November of
1998 -- the one the NRA favors due to its promised "insta-Check" capability
- -- will call for a "Brady check" and permanent record of every LONG GUN
purchase, as well.

  The NRA operates, in effect, as nothing but a public relations outreach
arm for the Republican Party, tasked to convince gun rights advocates that
the GOP is their only hope.

  But Newt Gingrich promised us that if only we would elect a GOP majority
to Congress there would be "no more gun control passed" on his watch,
didn't he?

  Mind you, that's a pretty modest promise, compared to the Libertarian Party
platform plank on guns, which calls for ALL existing gun control laws to be
immediately REPEALED.

   But not only have Mr. Gingrich's Republicans failed to repeal the major
federal gun control acts of 1933 and 1968, not only have they failed to
repeal the Brady Bill and the Feinstein-Schumer "assault weapons ban" (as
they promised), but they actually ENACTED the so-called Anti-Terrorism Bill
with the Lautenberg Amendment, which retroactively strips police and many
other citizens of their gun rights based on any prior domestic misdemeanor
convictions (shouting at your kids).

   And then, not satisfied, they went on to pass the "Gun Free School Zone
Act" ... TWICE!

  Putting him to the test of fire, I asked Larry Pratt of GOA last week
whether he would favor allowing a 17-year-old girl to walk into a hardware
store, buy and take home a belt-fed .30-caliber machine gun, without
signing her name, showing any ID, or applying for any kind of government
"permit."

   "Well, that's the way it would have been in 1933, before the National
Firearms Act, wouldn't it?" he asked.

  "Is that a yes?" I asked back.

   Mr. Pratt, in front of a sizeable public gathering at the San Remo Hotel
and Casino, said "Yes."

  And that's why I think we're about to see a changing of the guard when it
comes to gun-rights lobbying, from the arthritic and the defeated, to the
aggressive, the fearless, and the principled.

  Congressman Ron Paul, R-Tex., has called Gun Owners of America "the only
no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." With a fraction of the NRA's
manpower, membership or budget, GOA has defeated powerful state legislative
committee chairmen (in Ohio) who were foolish enough to support more gun
control, and has helped elect congressmen like Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland,
currently sponsor of HR27, the Citizens Self-Defense Act, which would
"protect the right to obtain ... and to use firearms in defense of self,
family or home."

  Unless they change their stripes with fearsome speed, I fear the NRA and
their hog-trough affiliate, the Republican Party as we've known it, are
headed for the elephant's graveyard, and soon.

  On the other hand, if Gun Owners of America sold stock, I'd be buying.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail].

***



Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"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.

"25 states allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street
with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US
murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"
     - Andrew Ford

- -

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

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:24:32 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Knife control in Japan

Wonder how long before we import this...

[Image]
[Image]

      [Image]

      Japanese seek knife ban for minors
      [Image]
      [Image]

      [Image]
      Last updated 02/02/1998, 09:13 a.m. MT

            TOKYO (Reuters) ù Japanese police said Monday they want to ban
      the sales of knives to minors in the wake of two violent stabbings by
      junior high school boys.
            The move comes after a series of crimes involving teenagers with
      knives came under intense media scrutiny due to Japan's skyrocketing
      youth crime statistics.
            Police have asked all knife stores and outdoor goods shops to
      stop selling knives to minors.
            No Japanese laws set age limits for knife sales, so compliance
      is voluntary.
            Earlier on Monday, police arrested a 15-year-old Japanese boy
      for attacking a policeman with a knife in downtown Tokyo in an attempt
      to steal his gun, police said.
            The boy, whose name was withheld because he is a minor, attacked
      officer Yoshinari Yasuda, 54, who was patrolling on a bicycle, a
      spokesman for the Tokyo metropolitan police said.
            The boy was arrested on charges of attempted murder and robbery.
      He told police he wanted to try shooting a gun.
            Yasuda and the youth suffered minor injuries in the scuffle,
      police said.
            Japan has an enviably low crime rate but in the past two years
      has seen the number of crimes committed by those under 18 increase by
      158 percent.
            Violent crimes committed by minors have also risen, alarming
      parents and educators.
            Last week, a 13-year-old Japanese boy stabbed a woman teacher to
      death after she asked him why he was late for her English class.
            A few days after that incident, a 16-year-old senior high school
      boy allegedly used a knife to assault a 16-year-old girl in class at
      the same school, slightly injuring the classmate, police said.
            Linking all of these crimes is the weapon used ù a butterfly
      knife ù and the claims by the boys that they carried the knives for
      self-protection.
            The handle of a butterfly knife divides in two and can be
      pivoted to cover the blade. The weapon gained national prominence when
      a popular actor Takuya Kimura, playing a tough in a top-rated drama
      series, brandished the blade in fights.
            Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto told reporters he did
      not know why the boys used the knives in attacks.
      [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.

"Poor people have access to the courts in the same sense that the
 Christians had access to the lions. . ." -- Judge Earl Johnson Jr.

- -

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

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:28:19 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Drs. and guns

From the Tribune

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]        Monday, February 2, 1998       [Image] [Image]

                  Surgeons See Gun Wounds As Epidemic

 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


     PHILADELPHIA -- William Schwab hasn't ever gone to war, but the
 51-year-old surgeon says he sometimes thinks he is in one.
     ``We average about 500 gunshot wounds a year,'' said Schwab,
 chief of critical care and trauma for the Hospital of the University
 of Pennsylvania.
     ``I trained in the U.S. Navy during Vietnam, and it's similar,''
 he said. ``Think of the phrase `incoming wounded.' That's what it's
 like.''
     A survey published in Sunday's issue of the Annals of Internal
 Medicine finds that 87 percent of surgeons and 94 percent of
 internists across the country believe it's time to consider gunshot
 wounds a public-health epidemic -- akin to AIDS, alcoholism and
 tobacco use.
     Doctors should play a more active role in trying to prevent the
 injuries, an accompanying position paper says, whether it's
 supporting more stringent gun-control legislation or simply taking
 time to counsel patients.
     The position paper predicted that bullets will kill more people
 than automobile accidents by 2003.
     The authors also noted that more teens today die from gunshot
 wounds than from all natural causes combined, and that firearms in
 the home make homicide three times more likely.
     ``Do you have a gun in the house? Is it loaded? And did you know
 suicide can go up five-fold when you have one around that is loaded?
 Those are the kinds of questions doctors should start asking and
 telling their patients,'' said Frank Davidoff, an internist and
 editor of the journal, published by the Philadelphia-based American
 College of Physicians.
     The survey involved 915 doctors who answered 55 questions,
 including the extent of their personal and medical experience with
 firearms and their opinions on public policy.
     Less than 20 percent of the surgeons and internists reported
 discussing firearm ownership or storage with their patients.
     The survey showed that 64 percent of the surgeons and 84 percent
 of the internists said they thought stronger measures were needed to
 reduce gun-related deaths, which reached 39,720 in 1994. That
 includes 13,593 slayings and 20,540 suicides, the journal said.
     ``If this was any other disease, if this was a virus, the public
 would be demanding a cure,'' said Schwab, who co-wrote the journal's
 article about the survey. ``They'd want something done about it. The
 problem is nobody is willing to come out and say `This is a
 public-health emergency' '' as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
 did with AIDS, he said.
     The doctors who said they didn't believe gunshot wounds were a
 health epidemic tended to be older men who work in smaller cities.



                [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image]

                                [Image]

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

 ⌐ 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 I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was
 landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms -- never -- never -
 - NEVER! You cannot conquer America." -- William Pitt, Earl of Chatham
 Speech in the House of Lords November 18, 1777

- -

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 18:42:20 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Important Senate Votes -Forwarded

Received: from gunowners.org (207-172-57-222.s222.tnt2.ann.erols.com [207.172.57.222])
    by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07158;
    Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:34:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:31:03 -0500
From: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Important Senate Votes
X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

             Two Important Senate Votes Coming Soon

                    by Gun Owners of America
      8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA  22151
             [phone], http://www.gunowners.org
                       (February 3, 1998)

Clinton's Anti-gun Choice for Surgeon General

  The Senate will soon be resuming its consideration of Dr.
David Satcher for Surgeon General.  Dr. Satcher, who heads up
the virulently anti-gun Centers for Disease Control (CDC), was
nominated by President Clinton last year to take on the "Top
Doc" position.

  Under Satcher's watch, the CDC, along with its subordinate
agencies and grantees, has regularly used its position to
tarnish gun rights.  Satcher's hired guns have called firearms
a "virus that must be eradicated" and stated that such weapons
should be viewed as cigarettes:  "dirty, deadly and banned."

  Gun owners should register their opposition to Dr. Satcher
for Surgeon General by calling their Senators at
1-800-522-6721 or 202-224-3121.


Restrictions on Gun Owners' Speech

  The Senate is also soon expected to begin debating so-called
"campaign finance" legislation.  The legislation your Senators
will be voting on would seriously hamper (if not prevent) the
ability of gun groups and other political organizations to
publish the anti-gun records of incumbents.

  In reality, this legislation is "Incumbent Protection"
masquerading as campaign finance "reform."  Consider how
these bills (S. 25 and H.R. 493) will seriously prevent gun
owners from removing anti-gun politicians from Congress:


  Analysis of Free Speech Restrictions in "Incumbent Protection"
                             Bills

 1. Regulate GOA's Communications.  As introduced, both the
  House and Senate bills would seriously hinder the ability of
  groups to help pro-gun candidates and to educate pro-gun
  voters.  If a group like GOA had ever communicated with a
  candidate or his campaign at any time, it could possibly be
  barred from making independent expenditures (mailings,
  advertisements, etc.) on behalf of that candidate (section
  251, H.R. 493).  Both bills would also regulate GOA's
  educating of voters:  GOA mailings which ask recipients to
  contact their congressman, and which cost in excess of
  $10,000, would have to be registered (sec. 241, S. 25; sec.
  254 H.R. 493) -- and could even be outlawed.

 2. Slash the Political Power of the Pro-Gun Movement.  S. 25
  would ban political action committee (PAC) contributions to
  federal candidates (section 201).  For Second Amendment
  groups, this ban on PACs -- coupled with the elimination of
  independent expenditures -- would outlaw virtually any
  involvement in the national political process.  Incumbents are
  handed over $5 million of taxpayer funds to conduct their
  operations (including their pro rata share of the general
  operations of Congress).  Used effectively, these resources
  can be channeled into a formidable reelection effort.  Without
  seed money from PACs, challengers will find it considerably
  more difficult to take on this type of taxpayer-financed
  publicity machine.

 3. Insulate Anti-gun Incumbents.  Because incumbents already
  have strong name recognition -- and because pro-gun groups
  would be prohibited from being active in the political process
  -- it would be virtually impossible to attempt to remove
  congressmen for their anti-gun votes.  The media would, of
  course, be free to continue its anti-gun drum beat.  The
  result is that a pro-gun vote would politically jeopardize an
  incumbent's political career, while an anti-gun vote would
  enhance it.  How long would the manufacture, importation, sale
  and ownership of firearms in America continue under this
  system?

   HERE'S WHAT TO DO:

 * Contact your Senators (1-800-522-6721 or 202-224-3121) and
  urge them to oppose S. 25.  When the Senate voted on these
  restrictions in October, the anti-gunners only mustered 53
  votes -- which was seven votes short of killing the
  filibuster.

 * Gun owners should also focus on the eight Republicans who
  voted for the anti-gun bill:  Chafee (R-RI), Collins (R-ME),
  Hutchinson (R-AR) [Note:  he later asked GOA to "call off the
  dogs" and then switched his vote], Jeffords (R-VT), McCain
  (R-AZ), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA) and Thompson (R-TN).

 *  Keep on the look out:  There may very well be a "compromise"
  bill that, while scaled back in some respects, will still ban
  or limit a lot of political activity in which citizens
  currently engage.  Ask your Senators not to settle for any
  compromises that would limit your 1st Amendment rights, or the
  rights of those groups (like GOA) that represent you.


***********************************************************
Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of
getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider
joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service
is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume
is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week
indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward
this notice) to [e-mail] and include your
state of residence in either the subject line or the body.




- -

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 18:57:18 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: RNC AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 13:38:41 -0800
From: Howard Last <[e-mail]>
Subject: Republican Senatorial Inner Circle

Got an invitation in the mail to join the Republican Senatorial Inner
Circle ($1000 a pop). I called and let them know that I can not support
them until they repeal Brady, semi-auto ban, lautenberg, kohl, 68 GCA
etc.

I also reminded them that lautenberg and kohl passed on their watch.
They also brought us Dole for President.

The person I spoke to said "You have to remember that when the
Second Amendment was written the Militia was the means of defense". I
corrected him that the Second Amendment pertains to the individual
citizen and not the national guard. I suggested he read the "Federalist
Papers". The Second Amendment means the same as when James
Madison wrote it, it has never been changed.

Call and let them know what you think.  800-877-6773 it is their dime.

Maybe we can get the god owful party to see the light, but don't hold
your breath.

Please circulate.

Howard Last



- -

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 19:03:13 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digest ca-firearms.v001.n556 -Forwarded

Received: (from root@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id XAA02571 for [e-mail]; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 23:02:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 23:02:54 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digest ca-firearms.v001.n556
BestServHost: lists.best.com
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


- -------------- BEGIN ca-firearms.v001.n556 --------------

    001 - Mike Van Pelt <mvp@netcom - Goobernatorial musings
    002 - "Mike Schrader" <bay2a@we - Fw: : Time to Write (fwd)
    003 - "Mike Schrader" <bay2a@we - Fw: Per minute local access calls charges -Reply
    004 - "jmarch" <jmarch@ricochet - Fw: SSL February '98 Schedule
    005 - Stuart Mac Tavish <stuart - Another shot fron the Times
    006 - [e-mail] - Another article on anti-gun med article
    007 - JM <[e-mail]>     - Re: Another shot fron the Times
    008 - Bruce Erickson  <be1@ElSe - Republican Senatorial Inner Circle
    009 - Bruce Erickson  <be1@ElSe - Re: various Lungren threads
    010 - "Mike Schrader" <bay2a@we - Fw: HB  1181

- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.1 ---------------

From: Mike Van Pelt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goobernatorial musings
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:21:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've never paid much attention to the Democrat side of things,
since that odds I'd be voting for any of that gang of "simps and
ninnies, lava-lamp liberals and condo-pinks, spoiled twerps, and
ratchet-jawed purveyors of monkey-doodle and baked wind" generally
range from nil to negative.

However, now that primaries are open, in addition to voting for whoever
is running against Duh Lungren, I get to pick my "favorite" among the
candidates in the Democrat primary.

Are there any likely prospects there?  Which one of them is the
least anti-Bill-of-Rights?  Maybe even one I'd feel right about
voting for a Democrat in the general election, for the first
time in my life?


(Appolgies to any pro-RKBA Democrats out there, but that P. J.
O'Rourke slam at the American Liberal has always tickled me...)

- --
"A clown is a warrior who fights gloom."       | Mike Van Pelt
             -  Red Skelton                    | [e-mail]
                                               | KE6BVH


- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.2 ---------------

From: "Mike Schrader" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: : Time to Write (fwd)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 02:18:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If you haven't emailed the FCC on this you have less than 2 weeks to do so.

- ----------
> From: Bill Maggiora <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Barry Jacobson-home
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: : Time to Write (fwd)
> Date: Friday, January 09, 1998 9:11 PM
>
> Hi:
>
> I have seen at least one newspaper mention of this.  I think that all
> of us that use e-mail should be interested.  I agree with the author,
> it should not matter whether you use your flat rate local calls for
> voice or computer connections.   This is a very unfortunate scheme to
> shake the public down.
>
> Bill Maggiora
> -----------------
> > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:43:01 -0600 (CST)
> > From: Richard Ippolito <[e-mail]>
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Time to Write
> >
> > This was forwarded to me but for some reason since it has attachments,
I
> > am not able to just forward:
> > Text:
> > "Apparently the $12-$21 base charges you get each month from the
> > telephone
> > company aren't enough to keep those nice dividends flowing out to the
> > stockholders. They are now attempting to charge you extra if you are
> > connected to the Internet. Personnally, I fail to see the difference
be-
> > tween unlimited use of my phone for local calls and unlimited use for
any
> > other reason, but the Bells smell bid bucks. Read the following and act
> > on
> > it. You may save yourself a pile of cash if the FCC votes NO..
> > Suject: FCC TO IMPOSE PER MIN CHARGES...
> > Richard Causey wrote:
> > I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter
currently
> > under review by the FCC.  Your local telephone company has filed a
> > proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet
> > service.  They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation
> > of
> > the telephone network.  It is my belief that internet usage will
diminish
> > if users were required to pay additional per minute charges.  The FCC
has
> > created an e-mail box for your comments, responses must be received by
> > February 13, 1998.  Send your comments to [e-mail] and tell them
what
> > you think.  Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying
to
> > sneak it in just under the wire for litigation.  Let everyone you know
> > hear this one.  Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of."
> >
> > Richard Ippolito  Colonel USA (Ret)
> > Asst Dean, School of Nursing, Cunningham 717
> > [phone]  fax [phone]
> >
> > --------- End forwarded message ----------


- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.3 ---------------

From: "Mike Schrader" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Per minute local access calls charges -Reply
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 03:35:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I got this response back from the FCC site, apparently the per minute
charges are not going to happen, so never mind.

- ----------
> From: ISP <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Per minute local access calls charges -Reply
> Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 2:21 AM
>
> This is an automated response to the message you sent to [e-mail].  We
established this mailbox for informal comments about usage of the public
switched telephone network by Internet access and information service
providers for a proceeding on this matter in 1997.
>
> If you are responding to a message stating that local phone companies
have asked the FCC for permission to impose per-minute charges for Internet
access, please be aware that this information is out of date.  The FCC
decided in May 1997 NOT to allow imposition of interstate access charges on
Internet service providers. There is no comment period currently open in
this proceeding.
>
> More information on Access Charges and the ISP proceeding is available at
<http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html>
>
> Look for more features and announcements on our Web site,
<http://www.fcc.gov/>, in the future!
>
> updated 1/6/98


- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.4 ---------------

From: "jmarch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: SSL February '98 Schedule
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 07:43:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here's Dale's latest schedule...you'll probably see me at the minimag class
the 15th.

Jim March

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dale Seago <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, February 01, 1998 11:13 PM
Subject: SSL February '98 Schedule


>   SAFE & SECURE LIFESTYLES
> Self-Defense Workshops with Dale & Teri Seago
>     at Jackson Arms, 710 Dubuque Avenue, So. San Francisco
>    FEBRUARY, 1998 SCHEDULE
>
>We're offering 3 workshops this month, but please note that one of them
>is NOT being held at Jackson Arms. Selection of specific workshops for
>each month is largely request-driven: If a lot of people ask us for a
>particular kind of training, it gets moved to the "front burner".
>
>"ENLIGHTENED SELF-DEFENSE":
>
> This workshop applies traditional feudal-era Japanese short-
>stick techniques to the "Mini-Mag" and similar metal-bodied small flash-
>lights. The methods are significantly different from those used for the
>more familiar "kubotan", and they feature striking, nerve-pressure, and
>grappling/joint-lock applications. No martial-art experience is necessary,
>and the small flashlight can be legally carried anywhere. (Cost: $55)
>
> SUNDAY, February 15, 10:00 AM - 4:30 PM
>
>"KEYS TO SELF-DEFENSE":
>
> A feudal-era chain weapon, often called a *manrikigusari* or
>"ten thousand power chain", was (according to legend) developed for the
>purpose of subduing swordsmen without breaking edicts against shedding
>blood on palace grounds. There is nothing mythical or legendary about
>the techniques, which are real and powerfully effective. We show you
>how to apply them with a long "key-chain" - legal to carry anywhere -
>for striking, trapping, joint-locking, choking, and throwing attackers.
>This workshop will be held at a South Bay corporate location, NOT Jackson
>Arms. (Cost: $55)
>
> SUNDAY, February 22, 10:00 AM - 4:30 PM
>
>HANDGUN DISARMING & RETENTION, LEVEL I (CIVILIAN):
>
> Many handgun owners seem to think, "If a 'bad guy' tried to
>snatch MY gun, I'd just shoot him". . .and some who thought so have
>been murdered with their own weapons. Hard-core felons spend a lot of
>prison training time perfecting such career-enhancing skills as disarm-
>ing arresting police officers. We begin this class by showing you how
>easy it is to take away a handgun; then we teach you how to counter dis-
>arming attempts. This is a truly sensible form of gun control - and as
>the anti-self-defense lobby says, "If it saves just one life, it's worth
it!"
>(Cost: $75)
>
> SUNDAY, February 28, 10:00 AM - 4:30 PM
>
>To register, call [phone], or e-mail <[e-mail]>. . .and
>visit our website at http://www.asiapac.com/freedom/ssl!
>
>



- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.5 ---------------

From: Stuart Mac Tavish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another shot fron the Times
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:51:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mondays Los Angeles Times has an editorial calling for "Greater Gun =
Safety, Now". It starts by bitching that guns aren't even regulated by =
the Consumer Product Safety Commission and ends calling for Congress to =
"do the right thing this time" when Senators Boxer & Feinstein =
reintroduce safety equipment legislation. In the middle it claims that =
"sensitive trigger mechanisms are one problem" in accidental shootings. =
"Make triggers harder to squeeze so small children can't fire the =
weapon. Required built in trigger locks and an indicator that shows =
whether a bullet is chambered." I guess the Times anti gun barrage will =
never end. Nor will they ever understand. The above suggestion would =
surely disarm my mother with severe arthritis in her hands. But then =
that's the point I guess.=20

Stuart =20



- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.6 ---------------

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Bowen)
Subject: Another article on anti-gun med article
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:59:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This is a blurb on the just published anti-gun article in the
"Annals of Internal Medicine".  Note: no mention of the number
of lives saved or property protected with guns.  None of the
benefits, just the cost.

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

Gunshot wounds should be considered an epidemic like AIDS, surgeons
say

Copyright 1998 The Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (February 1, 1998 6:49 p.m. EST) -- A survey published in
Sunday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine finds that 87
percent of surgeons and 94 percent of internists across the country
believe it's time to consider gunshot wounds a public health epidemic
- -- akin to AIDS, alcoholism and tobacco use.

For example, William Schwab hasn't ever gone to war, but the
51-year-old surgeon says he sometimes thinks he's in one.

"We average about 500 gunshot wounds a year," said Schwab, chief of
critical care and trauma for the Hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania.

"I trained in the U.S. Navy during Vietnam, and it's similar," he
said.  "Think of the phrase 'incoming wounded.' That's what it's
like."

Doctors should play a more active role in trying to prevent the
injuries, an accompanying position paper says, whether it's supporting
more stringent gun-control legislation or simply taking time to
counsel patients.

The position paper predicted that bullets will kill more people than
automobile accidents by 2003.

The authors also noted that more teens today die from gunshot wounds
than from all natural causes combined, and that firearms in the home
make homicide three times more likely.

"Do you have a gun in the house? Is it loaded? And did you know
suicide can go up five-fold when you have one around that is loaded?
Those are the kinds of questions doctors should start asking and
telling their patients," said Frank Davidoff, an internist and editor
of the journal, published by the Philadelphia-based American College
of Physicians.

The survey involved 915 doctors who answered 55 questions, including
the extent of their personal and medical experience with firearms and
their opinions on public policy.

Less than 20 percent of the surgeons and internists reported
discussing firearm ownership or storage with their patients.

The survey showed that 64 percent of the surgeons and 84 percent of
the internists said they thought stronger measures were needed to
reduce gun-related deaths, which reached 39,720 in 1994. That includes
13,593 slayings and 20,540 suicides, the journal said.

The accompanying position paper noted that annual firearm-related
deaths increased by more than 60 percent from 1968 to 1994.

"If this was any other disease, if this was a virus, the public would
be demanding a cure," said Schwab, who co-wrote the journal's article
about the survey. "They'd want something done about it. The problem is
nobody is willing to come out and say 'This is a public health
emergency"' as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop did with AIDS,
he said.

The doctors who said they didn't believe gunshot wounds were a health
epidemic tended to be older men who work in smaller cities.

- -- By By TOM RAGAN, Associated Press Writer


- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.7 ---------------

From: JM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another shot fron the Times
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:49:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Stuart Mac Tavish wrote:

> ...In the middle it claims that
> "sensitive trigger mechanisms are one problem" in accidental shootings.
> "Make triggers harder to squeeze so small children can't fire the
> weapon. Required built in trigger locks and an indicator that shows
> whether a bullet is chambered." I guess the Times anti gun barrage will
> never end. Nor will they ever understand. The above suggestion would
> surely disarm my mother with severe arthritis in her hands. But then
> that's the point I guess.

    Not to mention the fact that a heavy trigger pull makes guns
significantly less accurate!  And that a bullet-in-the-chamber indicator
will result in people forgetting one of the most basic rules of gun
safety (which, of course, is treat all guns as if they're loaded).  I am
convinced that no one on the editorial staff of the Times understands guns
to even the slightest degree.  They certainly don't understand gun safety
or that the way to reduce accidental shootings is to educate gun owners.

    John

__________________________________________________________________
 [e-mail]      Gun Law Press      John F Machtinger, Esq.
__________________________________________________________________





- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.8 ---------------

From: Bruce Erickson  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Republican Senatorial Inner Circle
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 98 15:38:57 PST

FWD without further comment.

- ----- Begin Included Message -----

>From [e-mail] Mon Feb  2 15:01:58 1998
From: barbara beier <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: barbb@Delta
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Joe Horn <[e-mail]>, Keeva Segal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Republican Senatorial Inner Circle
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Content-Length: 1414
X-Lines: 34

Howard sent this along -- I haven't verified it, so I'm including his
address in case anyone wants to check in with him. Posted FYI. Interesting
comment about the relevance of the Second Amendment today from the person
who answered the phone - certainly fits in with the backpedalling the
Republicans have been doing since we gave them Congress in '94.

Barb

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 13:38:41 -0800
From: Howard Last <[e-mail]>
Subject: Republican Senatorial Inner Circle

Got an invitation in the mail to join the Republican Senatorial Inner
Circle ($1000 a pop). I called and let them know that I can not support
them until they repeal Brady, semi-auto ban, lautenberg, kohl, 68 GCA etc.
I also reminded them that lautenberg and kohl passed on their watch. They
also brought us Dole for President.

The person I spoke to said "You have to remember that when the Second
Amendment was written the Militia was the means of defense". I corrected
him that the Second Amendment pertains to the individual citizen and not
the national guard. I suggested he read the "Federalist Papers". The
Second Amendment means the same as when James Madison wrote it, it has
never been changed.

Call and let them know what you think.  800-877-6773 it is their dime.

Maybe we can get the god owful party to see the light, but don't hold your
breath.

Please circulate.

Howard Last


- ----- End Included Message -----



- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.9 ---------------

From: Bruce Erickson  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: various Lungren threads
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 98 17:18:34 PST

 >
 >
 > Concerning the various threads all revolving around the topic
 > of "doing" something to stop Lungren -- it's pointless.  Dan Lungren
 > is going to be the next governor of California and you can take that
 > to the bank.  Accordingly, each person can act as their conscience directs.
 >
 > Vote Libertarian if you want, knowing in this election Lungren will
 > win anyway, thus making a pro-RKBA, pro-liberty statement.
 >
[snip]

I've heard rumors that Lungren expects gun owners to vote in his favor.
This means there is nothing to be gained by "liberalizing" (making more
free) his agenda for guns.  If we actually do vote for him as-is, there
is no reason for him, or any other politicritter, to pay attention to us.
We will makes ourselves irrelevent to the political process.  Vote for
Lungren and place your stamp of approval on gun bans.

 >
 > So vote for Lungren or not as you like, but don't kid yourself about
 > being able to keep him out of the governor's mansion.

Then we are no worse off voting for the Lib but we can be measured.
We will be a known quantity that can be courted by political hopefulls.

 >
 > -Dorr H. Clark
 >


Bruce Erickson


- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.10 ---------------

From: "Mike Schrader" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: HB  1181
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 20:46:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm not posting this because of the Colorado AW bill, though it's argument
is useful, but for the piece on the moral imperative of self defense that
follows.
Mike S

- ----------
> From: Patricia Fosness <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: HB  1181
> Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 8:15 PM
>
> Posted to rkba-co by Patricia Fosness <[e-mail]>
> -----------------------
> The following is the item I sent to members of the judiciary committee.
Due
> to work conflicts (I *just* started a new job) I am unable to attend the
> hearings in person:
>
> Dear Representative xxxx:
>
> I understand that HB 1181, Concerning the Prohibition of Assault Weapons
in
> the State of Colorado, is being brought before the committee for review
this
> week.   Please take time to consider the following  brief essay regarding
> gun confiscation in respect to the moral obligation to obey the law.   If
> the proposed Act becomes law, and there is non-violent civil disobedience
to
> the law (i.e. failure to comply by revoking one's firearms), what is the
> next step?  Will agents of the court be sent to people's homes to
confiscate
> weapons, and if so, will they do so in open daylight, or, thinking that
> there is a danger, use surreptitious means which would expose them and
the
> people they plan to serve to a risk of armed violence?  In short, who is
> going to bell the cat?  In the case of this proposed legislation, it
appears
> that the cure is clearly worse than the disease.
>
> Obviously, you are concerned about violence in our society.  I venture to
> guess that any sane person is.  But when addressing solutions, please
> consider the ramifications of what may, on the surface, look like a good
> idea.  At this point, I wish to register my strong disagreement with any
gun
> ban, and in the current case, HB 1181.
>
> GUN CONFISCATION LAWS AND MORAL OBLIGATION
> By Patricia Fosness
>
> With gun confiscation becoming a more likely reality, we are faced with
the
> difficult question:  What should an individual do if their legally owned
> firearm(s) become the object of a new ban.   The choices are either to
> ignore the law and hope not to get caught, to comply with the law and
turn
> one's property over to the authorities, or to conscientiously disobey the
> law as an act of civil disobedience.   Clearly, each individual must
follow
> his or her own moral compass when making such a decision.
Unfortunately,
> the problems that arise when wrestling with such a decision are
substantial,
> particularly when there is a very real potential for violent consequences
to
> be realized as a result of making a choice not in keeping with the
> institutions chartered with enforcing the law.
>
> As a philosophy major in the '60s, I had the opportunity to explore at
> length the problems involved with legal and moral obligation,
particularly
> when those obligations conflicted with each other.  Some would say that
in
> all cases, there is a moral obligation to obey the law, but, to quote
from a
> paper in my archives: "Disobeying the law is often - even usually -
wrong;
> but this is so largely because the illegal is usually restricted to the
> immoral and because morally right conduct is still less often illegal.
But
> we must always be sensitive to the fact that this has not always been the
> case, it is not now always the case and need not always be the case in
the
> future.  And undo concentration upon what is wrong with disobeying the
law
> rather than upon the wrong which the law seeks to prevent can seriously
> weaken and misdirect that awareness."  From "The Obligation to Obey the
Law"
> by Richard A. Wasserstrom, printed in the UCLA Law Review Vol 10, May
1963.
>
> Recent firearms seizures purport to provide for the greater good by
removing
> deadly weapons from members of society.  The fallacy here lies with the
fact
> that firearms will still remain in the hands of those who are chartered
to
> use same by the government, hence not all firearms will be removed from
> society.  Those who are predisposed to obtain them through the black
market,
> theft or other means will continue to be able to do so.  The very serious
> question then becomes:  Is society better off by disarming those who have
> owned firearms for defensive purposes, while being unable protect those
> people from others who could obtain and use such arms for aggression
against
> the disarmed population?  The obvious answer is "no".  Indeed, it is
natural
> to suspect the motives of those who, retaining their arms either
personally
> or through their agents, would take action to disarm a population of
people
> who own arms for the sole purpose of defense.
>
> The argument goes further:
>
> "The principal thrust of [the above] argument is to deny government the
> moral authority to require someone to give up his ability to defend
himself
> when government does not agree to provide protection in return. That is,
it
> suggests that laws prohibiting citizens from using arms to defend
themselves
> are immoral because there is in fact no social contract. The argument is,
> however, faulty to the extent that it suggests that, if government did
> assume an obligation to protect each individual, it could rightfully
require
> its citizens to abandon their right to self-protection. Social contract
> theorists like Hobbes and Locke held the right to life to be irreducible
and
> inalienable; government could not require men to trade or abandon the
right
> to defend themselves. As Hobbes said, "A covenant not to defend myselfe
from
> force, by force, is alwayes voyd." See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
(Cambridge:
> Cambridge University Press, 1991),p. 98. The absurdity of such a "trade"
is
> apparent if one merely follows it through. Suppose government did assume
an
> obligation to protect me and then asked me for my arms, so that I could
not
> adequately defend myself. If government then failed in its duty so that I
> was killed by a criminal, the result would be that my estate would have a
> lawsuit for monetary damages against the government. I would hardly
believe
> that in trading my life (i.e., my right to continue my life by defending
it)
> for money damages for my heirs I had made an equal exchange. The more
> radical argument, based on the right to life, is that government has no
> right to deprive its citizens of the means with which to defend
themselves
> regardless of whether or not it assumes an obligation to protect each
> separate individual."  From: Cato Policy Analysis No. 284 October 22,
1997
> FIGHTING BACK   Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun  by
> Jeffrey R. Snyder  footnote 42.
>
> Clearly, firearms confiscation laws (and, by extension, gun registration
> laws which could provide information to those who would divest others of
> their arms) bring moral and legal obligation into conflict.  By obeying
the
> law and divesting oneself of defensive arms, one reinforces actions that,
in
> the long run, are likely to lead to a great injustice by creating an
> environment where only the predators will have strength of arms.  In this
> case, is civil disobedience not merely justified, but indeed a moral
imperative?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Pat Fosness
> NRA certified instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history
> will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the
> blackest" -  Mahatma Ghandi  - 1927
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


- --------------- END ca-firearms.v001.n556 ---------------



- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #18
**********************************