ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n026

Internet Message Format | 1998-02-23 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #26
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Monday, February 23 1998     Volume 02 : Number 026




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

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 17:11:26 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd from ca-liberty: Charlton Heston - Father of gun control!

I haven't verified this.  It sounds plausible, but that doesn't mean it's
_true_.
I also think it's necessary to add that people DO change.  I was once an
advocate of gun control; it doesn't mean I am now.  OTOH, I haven't seen
any real evidence that Heston has had a change of heart.

Sarah

>>From: [e-mail]
>>Subject: Charlton Heston - Father of gun control!
>>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:10:29 EST
>>To: [e-mail]
>>
>>Did you see the posting on talk.politics.guns of a letter Heston signed in
>>1968 calling for national gun control?  Bad enough he's on the radio giving
>>away our assault weapon rights, now this....Heston is the father of gun
>>control!!!
>>
>>These letters are in the LBJ Library in Texas.  Transcribed word for word
>>below.
>>
>>(White House letterhead)
>>
>>June 20, 1968
>>Thursday, 8:00 p.m.
>>
>>FOR THE PRESIDENT
>>
>>FROM:  Joe Califano
>>
>>I thought you might be interested in the attached statement which Hugh
>O'Brien
>>read on the Joey Bishop Show last Tuesday.  This was a statement
>subscribed to
>>by Charlton Heston, Kirk Douglas, James Stewart and Gregory Peck and has
been
>>widely circulated throughout the country.
>>
>>The statement was prepared by Levinson and Middleton and was "slipped" to
>Hugh
>>O'Brien through Jack Valenti.
>>
>>Attachment
>>
>>
>>TWO WEEKS AGO, ROBERT F. KENNEDY BECAME ONE OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS STRUCK
>>DOWN BY AN ASSASSIN'S BULET.  SOMETIME TODAY, IN SOME CITY IN AMERICA, A GUN
>>SHOT WILL RING OUT AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL FALL DEAD OR WOUNDED.  THE VICTIM
>MAY
>>BE A PUBLIC LEADER OR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, BUT WHOEVER HE IS AND WHEREVER HE
>>FALLS, HE IS NOT ONLY THE VICTIM OF A GUNMAN -- HE IS THE VICTIM OF
>>INDIFFERENCE.
>>
>>THE TRAGEDY IS STARK AND REAL.  THE SCARS LAST FOREVER, AND THE ULTIMATE AND
>>SENSELESS HORROR IS THAT SO MUCH OF THIS SLAUGHTER COULD BE PREVENTED.  OUR
>>GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON...THE MENTALLY ILL,
>>THE CRIMINAL, THE BOY TOO YOUNG TO BEAR RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNING A DEADLY
>>WEAPON.
>>
>>THE SOUND OF THAT GUNFIRE WILL ECHO AGAIN...TOMORROW, THE DAY AFER, AND ALL
>>THE DAYS TO FOLLOW UNLESS WE ACT!!!  6,500 PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EVERY YEAR
>WITH
>>FIREARMS IN THESE UNITED STATES.  THIS IS AN OUTRAGE AND WHEN IT IS COMPARED
>>WITH THE FAR, FAR LOWER RATES IN OTHER FREE COUNTRIES, IT IS INTOLERABLE.
>>
>>LIKE MOST AMERICANS, WE SHARE THE CONVICTION THAT STRONGER GUN CONTROL
>>LEGISLATION IS MANDATORY IN THIS TRAGIC SITUATION.  WE DO NOT SPEAK FROM
>>IGNORENCE OF FIREARMS.  THE FIVE OF US COUNT OURSELVES AMONG THE MILLIONS OF
>>AMERICANS WHO RESPECT THE PRIVILEGE OF OWNING GUNS AS SPORTSMEN OR AS
PRIVATE
>>COLLECTORS.  WE HAVE USED GUNS ALL OUR LIVES BUT THE PROPER USE OF GUNS IN
>>PRIVATE HANDS IS NOT TO KILL PEOPLE.
>>
>>THE CONGRESS HAS RECENTLY GIVEN US SOME PROTECTION AGAINST PISTOLS IN THE
>>WRONG HANDS, BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH...NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.  THE CARNAGE WILL
NOT
>>STOP UNTIL THERE IS EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE SALE OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.
>>
>>           PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.
>>           MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.
>>           MEDGER EVERS WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.
>>
>>NOT LONG AGO, A DEMENTED SNIPER PERCHED ON A TOWER KILLED FOURTEEN PEOPLE IN
>>COLD BLOOD...BY A RIFLE.
>>
>>FOR MANY LONG MONTHS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ASKED THE
>>CONGRESS TO PASS SUCH A LAW, BUT THE CONGRESS WILL NOT LISTEN UNLESS YOU,
THE
>
>>VOTER, SPEAKS OUT...UNLESS THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY RISE UP AND DEMAND
>THAT
>>THE CONGRESS GIVE US A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL LAW.
>>
>>THE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED.  IN THE SENAT, IT IS S-3633.  IN THE
>>HOUSE IT IS HR-177735.
>>
>>THIS BILL IS NO MYSTERY.  LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT IT.  IT'S PURPOSE IS SIMPLE
>AND
>>DIRECT.  IT IS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE SPORTSMAN OF HIS HUNTING GUN, THE MARKSMAN
>>OF HIS TARGET RIFLE, NOR WOULD IT DENY TO ANY RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN HIS
>>CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM.  IT IS TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF
>>AMERICANS.  IT CONTAINS THREE SENSIBLE AND REALISTIC RULES.
>>
>>FIRST, IT WOULD OUTLAW THE MAIL ORDER SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES.  IF THIS
>>LAW WERE IN FORCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT MIGHT HAVE STOPPED LEE HARVEY OSWALD
>>FROM BUYING THE HIGH-POWERED RIFLE HE USED TO MURDER PRESIDENT JOHN F.
>>KENNEDY. EACH YEAR ON MILLION RIFLES ARE SOLD THROUGH THE MAILS.
>>
>>SECOND, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO MINORS -- PEOPLE TOO
>>YOUNG TO BEAR THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A GUN OWNER.
>>
>>THIRD, IT WILL OUTLAW THE SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO STRANGERS.  PEOPLE
>>WHO DRIFT ACROSS STATE LINES, TOO OFTEN WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, BUY THESE
>>WEAPONS, AS EASILY AS THEY BUY CIGARETTES AND CANDY.  THE STATES WHICH HAVE
>>STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.
>>
>>WE URGE YOU, AS  A RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE AND CONCERNED CITIZEN, TO WRITE OR
>>WIRE YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IMMEDIATELY AND DEMAND THEY SUPPORT THESE
>>BILLS.  IN THE SENATE, IT IS BILL S-3633.  IN THE HOUSE OF
>REPRESENTATIVES, IT
>>IS BILL HR-17735.
>>
>>IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY...IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE...FOR THE COMMON
>SAFETY OF
>>US ALL...FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT IS UP TO YOU...YOU ALONE AND
>>THE TIME IS NOW!
>>
>>CHARLTON HESTON, KIRK DOUGLAS, JAMES STEWART, GREGORY PECK, HUGH O'BRIEN
>>
>
>

- -

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

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 98 19:01:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: University Police contact info

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:16:21 -0700 (MST)
From: T Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Scott's Proof

> I would also want to read the report and make sure the fellow was
> actually a CCW permit holder rather than someone simply in possession
> of a concealed weapon.  Papers tend to make a habit of missing that
> subtle point when reporting on bad guys.

You could check with the University Police. (I think the officer who
mainly corresponds with the press is named Kevin Nollenberg.)
[Chronicle office phone # [phone]]

University Police phone numbers:
- --------------------------------
Building 301: 585-2677
Administration: 581-7619
Records: 585-3634
Investigations: 581-5460
Crime Prevention: 585-2677
Security Division: 581-8669


- -

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

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 98 19:01:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Chronicle editorial

Unsigned editorial: Reply to [e-mail] or drop off at
240 Union. Please include phone number for verification purposes.

http://chronicle.utah.edu/0dag/opinion/0298/1902perspec/1902house.html

DUC: Letters and Opinion

CHRONICLE EDITORIAL

Weapons on Campus? The Debate Goes On

It's another normal day on campus. You're walking through
the plaza by the Marriott Library and you notice somebody
carrying a shotgun at his side. You think it's odd, but
continue on. Suddenly you notice a rifle slung over the
shoulder of another student. Upon closer inspection, you see
noticeable bulges underneath students' jackets. It seems
everybody on campus has a weapon but you.

It may seem sensational, but just such a scenario is plausible.

There's a big hullabaloo brewing over the University of
Utah's and Governor Michael Leavitt's bans on weapons. The
U's ban prohibits weapons on campus and Leavitt's prohibits
state employees from packing heat in state buildings, state
cars or while on state business. Legislative lawyers and
some legislators say such bans are illegal.

Think about it, if the ban on campus is lifted, students
will get weapons just because they can. If there's no fear
of retribution, they'll flaunt them. Other students, fearing
the students who already have guns will get guns of their own.

Soon, large portions of the student population will be
packing heat. If someone has a weapon on their person, think
about what could happen if that person encounters somebody who
deftly maneuvers into a parking space before them. Think about
what could happen the next time tempers flare in the long
lines at the Student Services Building. It could get ugly.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) makes
employers responsible for providing safe work places, banning
weapons does just that. The university and the governor should
continue their policies until it's no longer possible, that is,
until the Legislature clarifies the laws to include the
university and state institutions as places where guns are
allowed, or until the courts rule the ban illegal.

The Chronicle feels the Legislature should leave the issue
alone and recognize the fact it's not healthy to have guns
everywhere you go, but its not likely that will happen.

If the University of Utah is serious about keeping the
gun ban on campus, it should propose legislation of its own
to ensure the ban will stay in place. Such a bill would
stand a good chance of passing. We have the support of the
governor and the attorney general, an odd couple, but
capable of garnering the support of legislators on both
sides of the aisle.

The Daily Utah Chronicle is an independent student newspaper.
Unsigned editorial reflect the majority view of the Chronicle
Editorial Board.


- -

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 98 07:31:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Fwd from ca-liberty: Charlton Heston - Father of gun control!

On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 S. Thompson wrote:

>I haven't verified this.  It sounds plausible, but that doesn't mean it's
>_true_.
>I also think it's necessary to add that people DO change.  I was once an
>advocate of gun control; it doesn't mean I am now.  OTOH, I haven't seen
>any real evidence that Heston has had a change of heart.

[snip]

>>>GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON...THE MENTALLY ILL,

Have you seen the Jan 26, 1998 NEWSWEEK? The cover story implies
we may all be a little crazy. Perhaps indicative of a design to bar
anyone from having a firearm except under direct federal supervision?
Also, why was that "letter" in all caps? Was it actually a telegram?
Were the spelling and grammatical errors in the original?

Copy to [e-mail]


- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:26:39 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning Dallas -Forwarded

Attached is a message about antigun public service announcements
running in Dallas.  In Utah these same TV  PSA are sponsored by IHC.

I wrote a letter to IHC's President - Scott Parker and copied VP of public
relations - John Taylor.  After a couple of weeks I called John Taylor to
discuss the PSA.

We discussed the actual numbers of accidential gun deaths and how the
PSA are misleading, if not deceptive.  I was basically patted on the head
and told I didn't know what I was talking about.  Later I received a letter
mostly saying that IHC was right and that my information was wrong.

It is time that we start criticising IHC for running anti gun ads that teach
kids dangerous and irresponsible gun handling practices.

These include how to break into a locked gun case, (use your dad's
birthday), showing kids that when they see a gun they should immediatly
pick it up, point it at the nearest person and pull the trigger.

I offered to give my Eddie Eagle video to IHC to use as a PSA, because it
teaches a much safer and smarter message to kids, "Stop, Don't touch,
Leave the area and teall an adault."  IHC was not interested.  Seems that
IHC is more interested in the political ageda than in providing a
responsible PSA.

I did find out that the IHC person pushing this campaign is a Mr. Bill
Barnes at Primary Children's Medical Center.

As suggested in the attached e-mail, it is time we find out more about this
and start the letter writing campaign.
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA21595; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma021547; Mon Feb 23 09:47:26 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning Dallas
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

I just heard another PSA public service announcement by a group called
"Project Lifeline" on 1190AM IMUS in the morning 8am Dallas 2-23.
It had the sound of kids playing with a loaded handgun in the background
as a Woman Doctor talks about how: A gun is fired more times against a
love one or friend than an intruder. You are 43 more times to be injured
by a gun if you own one. Please if you own one remove the bullets and put
them in a safe place, better yet get rid of the gun. Then you here the
kids fussing over the gun and it discharges. Then she says before its to
late.

It is time we find out more about this and start the letter writing
campaign. Imus is one of the top rated shows in America. I think this is
only being aired in Dallas at this time.
Regards,
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Watson C.P.M., [e-mail]   Senior Buyer UTD
The University of Texas at Dallas ph# 972/883-2307,fax# [phone]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------





- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 06:52:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Love Libertarian Style

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:11:48 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife
Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal.
handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed
me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife
on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic,
loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means
to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see
my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery
victim."

My friend then smiled and said my point was well taken but she herself
could never carry a gun for self-defense for fear a criminal may take
the gun away from her and use it on her because she wouldn't have the
nerve to pull the trigger and shoot anybody. I then told her, she could
go shooting with me and Lori and that once she became more familiar
with firearms she'd have more self-confidence and less to fear (just
like Lori) as Lori was once shy of guns but now wants to go shooting
all the time as Lori finds it not only relaxing but fun. Cat said she
would consider tagging along and for us to let her know next time we
go shooting.

Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion
and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think
that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for
self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody
into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such).

At any rate, until our friend works through her gun phobia, Lori
suggests, we get her some pepper spray for her upcoming birthday,
which makes me wonder... what good is pepper spray going to do, if
you're still too cared to squeeze the trigger? ;)

Unfortunately, our friend lives in a high crime area and works the
night shift and thus our concern. Nobody wants to see anybody become
a crime victim especially your friends but sometimes that's what it
takes for some people to learn the importance of self-preservation.

Next year, I'll send my wife flowers with a box of ammo.

Warmly,
Don



- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:51:58 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Fw: Hb-57 dead.  Guns or Games.  Food storage not allowed inIndonesia]

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

- ----------
> From: Mike Megeath <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Hb-57 dead.  Guns or Games.  Food storage not allowed
inIndonesia
> Date: Friday, February 20, 1998 4:29 PM
>
>  You have probably heard by now that Sen Beattie
> withdrew SB-57.  Good news indeed.
>   You might like to know where this bill and those
> similar to it are pointed.  You will come to understand
> why Governor Leavitt quietly passed a no guns policy
> and why the U of Utah did likewise, although not so
> quietly.
>   Olympic rules require "gun free" zones.  In order to get
> the Olympics and perhaps even to hold the Olympics
> after they were awarded, local authorities have
> promised to make it so.   No guns at Olympic sites.
> The "without restriction" clause of current  CCW law is
> at odds with this.
>   We have yet to learn what constitutes an Olympic
> site.   Considering sites are widely dispersed, local
> officials might be required to insure gun free
> transportation zones and parking facilities.  Perhaps
> there can be no guns within a certain radius of a site.
>    Since we are talking about a lot of money to loose
> our elected officials are in a real bind.  Uphold the law
> or loose the Olympics.   I surmise pressure to kill CCW
> and  eliminate gun rights will build as the time for the
> games approach in 2002.   Our opponents will look for
> and perhaps "create" an "incident" to inflame the
> passions of the populace.   They may try to finesse the
> issue,  delaying a full hearing of restrictions until after
> the games are held, then admit they were wrong.
>    I think, as rights activists, we  must be on guard for
> such incidents and behavior.   We should use the
> games to  prove to the world that every human being
> has a right to keep and bare arms for defense of self,
> family, property or country without restriction.  More
> especially law abiding citizens.  We should give the
> world another shining light on a hill to better see truth
> and better  hear that immortal word, "freedom"
> shouted out by the  brave and  courageous people of
> Utah.
>    The "without restriction" clause of Utah's CCW  law is
> at odds with the Olympic Games rules for a  host city.
> Utah has the games, and now, our elected officials
> must keep their promise to the citizens of Utah or to
> the U.S. and World Olympic Committees.
>    Guns or Games what will it be?
>
>    That's my view.  I could be wrong.   I'd like to hear
> what you think.
>
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -------
> Out of 2/20/98  "USA Today,"  Section B (Money), Page
> 1, Money Line.
> "Death Penalty.   Indonesians found guilty of hoarding
> any of the nine basic essential goods, such as rice or
> cooking oil, could face the death penalty, a
> spokesman for the country's Attorney  General said
> today.  Warehouses are also subject to more stringent
> rules.  The action was taken after shortages spurred
> rioting across the nation."
> Comment:  Corruption and official interference
> with the  economy.   These folks might send an
> Olympic team to Utah.
>
> Happy Birthday George.
>
> end.  =|:^#
- ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

- --

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

"The best that we can hope for concerning the people at large is that
 they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers at
 184-8)

- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:14:12 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Political quote -Forwarded

Received: from shire.coloc.XMISSION.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ra511073; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:21:23 -0700
Received: from slc507.modem.xmission.com (W7RCP.pengar.com) [166.70.7.11]
    by hobbiton.shire.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0y71ZA-0006oC-00; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:21:20 -0700
From: "Allen Leigh" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:24:32 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Political quote
Priority: normal
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]

The following quote was emailed to me by a friend.  It appeared in an
article about photocop.

"As representatives we are given the power to take people's money and
their rights."
 Rep.  Keele Johnson, R-Blanding

/Allen
- --------
You're already a Libertarian in your heart, why not
at the voting booth?


- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:18:11 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: RTR:Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruby Ridge Ruling  (fwd)  -Forwarded

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA24479; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:01:10 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:01:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024340; Mon Feb 23 13:59:17 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: RTR:Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruby Ridge Ruling  (fwd)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list


Does this mean there really is a "legal over riding authority" could it be
the US constitution?=20

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:47:33 -0600
Subject: Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruby Ridge Ruling


http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/top_stories/story.html?s=3Dn/reuters/9=
80223/news/stories/rubyridge_1.html

- --

 Monday February 23 11:17 AM EST

 Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruby Ridge Ruling

 By Gail Appleson

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court Monday=20
let stand a ruling that said federal agents at the
 deadly seige at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 are not=20
immune from civil claims they lied about events at the
 shootout.

 This case stems from the fatal confrontation at the=20
home of white separatist Randy Weaver. The FBI's
 "shoot to kill" policy led to the death of Weaver's=20
wife and the serious wounding of his long-time
 friend, Kevin Harris.

 Harris sued 13 federal agents for their actions but=20
the agents moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging
 they were immune from such claims. The district court=20
denied the motion based on the Fourth Amendment,
 which prohibits unreasonable seizure.

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

 On Aug. 21, 1992, the agents entered Weaver's property=20
to serve an arrest warrant upon Weaver. Harris was
 then living on the Weaver property. Three agents had=20
confronted Harris, Weaver, Weaver's son Sammy, and
 the family dog at a road intersection near the Weaver=20
property.

 One of the agents shot and killed the dog and firing=20
erupted. Sammy and one of the agents were killed.
 Harris said he fired one or more shots but that they=20
were in self defense.

 Following the incident, Harris alleged that some of=20
the agents conspired to lie about events, including
 describing Harris as the initiator. A group of FBI=20
agents and marshals then created a special "shoot to
 kill" rule allowing them to shoot adults in the=20
vicinity.

 On Aug. 22, federal agents shot and wounded Weaver and=20
killed his wife. Harris was seriously injured when
 he was hit in the chest and arm. The standoff ended=20
nine days later when Weaver surrendered.

 Weaver and Harris were indicted for assaulting the=20
agents with a deadly weapon and for killing the agent,
 though they were later acquitted.

 Harris then sued the agents. Among his claims was that=20
his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. He
 argued that the agents' lie about his role in the first=20
shooting led him to be shot and almost killed in
 the second incident. The fabrications also led to his=20
arrest and wrongful prosecution.

 The agents argued that as law enforcement officers,=20
they had immunity from claims that they gave false
 testimony.

 The Ninth Circuit said that while immunity has been=20
granted to officers who testify during the trial
 stage of a proceeding, this was a difference case. It=20
held that the agents at Ruby Ridge functionally
 served as complaining witnesses who initiated Harris'=20
prosecution and as such were not entitled to
 immunity for their false statements.

 The court also said that the 13 defendants, working=20
together, created special rules that required FBI
 agents to "shoot on sight" in order to "kill." The=20
rules infringed on Harris' rights. The appeals court
 said there was no immunity for this as well or the=20
fact that Harris was shot without warning while he was
 retreating.
 -------------------------------------------------------- =20
Copyright =A9 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.=20
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content
  is expressly prohibited without the prior written=20
consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any
               errors or delays in the content, or for=20
any actions taken in reliance thereon.




- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:58:32 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: URGENT ALERT! - RANGE PROTECTION

URGENT ALERT!

SUBSTITUTE HB 343, a new range protection bill, will be heard in the House
Judiciary Committee at 8 AM tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 24.  The meeting will
be held in Room 223 at the State Capitol.

You may remember that last week the original HB 343 was defeated in
committee on a 4-4 vote.  (Not all members of the committe were present.)
Although I still don't have formal vote results, committeee members voting
AGAINST HB 343 were Nielsen, Rowan, Tyler, and possibly Arent.

The substitute bill is not available online as of this afternoon.  The new
bill, unlike the original version, does not deal with zoning issues.
Because the primary objection to the bill offered by the League of Cities
and Towns was that it removed too much discretion from local governments,
this bill should be more acceptable.

The new bill provide that:
1) Users of the range accept reasonable risks associated with using a
shooting range
2) Noise ordinances may not be used to shut down an existing range
3) Developers within roughly 1/4 mile of the range are required to inform
prospective buyers that they are in a shooting zone range.

ACTIONS:

1) If at all possible, please SHOW UP at the committee hearing tomorrow.
We had a good turnout last time, and I hate to ask people to take time to
attend yet again, but it is important that we fill the room one more time.
This bill is the ONLY item currently on the agenda, so it should be a quick
meeting.

2) Contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to
support this bill.  We have addressed their concerns and would like them to
reciprocate.  Reps. Arrington, Hickman, Keele Johnson, and possibly Curtis
supported the original, so please thank them for their support if you
contact them.  Members of the committee are:

         A. Lamont Tyler, Chair
    Greg J. Curtis, Vice Chair
    Katherine Bryson
    Bill Hickman
    Keele Johnson
    Swen Nielsen
    Tammy J. Rowan
    Glenn L. Way
    Patrice Arent
    John B. Arrington
    Loretta Baca

Individual contact information including e-mail can be found at
http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/html/members.htm

All Representatives can be contacted by phone at 801-538-1029 or 800-662-3367.

The fax for Republican Representatives is 801-538-1908 and for Democrats is
801-538-9505.


As always, thanks for your support and assistance.  The session is almost
over and YOU have done a great job!!

Sarah Thompson

As always, comments may be directed to any of the Board members listed below.

The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info
made public.  Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse
their open-door policy.  All of us are VERY busy right now.

Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), [e-mail]
Elwood Powell,  426-8274 or 583-2882 (w), 364-0412 (h),
    [e-mail]
Shirley Spain, 963-0784, [e-mail]
Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w)
Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, [e-mail]  (I prefer e-mail to phone
calls when possible).
Joe Venus, 571-2223



To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to:
[e-mail]
In the SUBJECT of the message put:
SUBSCRIBE USSC

- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 06:52:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA fires telemarketer 2/2

NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them"
(high capacity semi-automatic rifles)

by ORAL DECKARD
The Vigo Examiner

I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.)
I was told repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them"
(high capacity semi-automatic rifles).

Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep
and Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the
Second Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by
surprise, and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say
something along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word."

And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is
your job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second
Amendment, and you don't even know what it says?"

Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they
continue trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even
embarrassed.

This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I
decided to have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my
NRA membership had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I
replied "No, I support the Second Amendment."

There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I
clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second
Amendment and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America
([e-mail]) and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership. (Against- [e-mail])

He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the
NRA?" Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV
and announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47."

I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he
took that as a good thing.

So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right
to keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word."

So I simply told him what it says: "A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second
Amendment was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now
we could buy instant food.

A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my
wife signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no
one needed high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to
identify him. Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not
this time.

So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even
spelled it for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February
4th, where are you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas."

As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I
asked "Is there any need to protect assault high capacity
semi-automatic rifles?" He answered "We would like to keep them for
matches and things, but they don't have to have those big magazines,
and only if they were used just for that purpose. We want to be
reasonable."

I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor.

His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no
misunderstanding, I introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo
Examiner, explained Richard Kuhlman and myself were just discussing
the need to protect high capacity semi-automatic rifles, and asked
"What's your take on it?"

He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered
"Both." So he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic
rifles were imported from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get
rid of them."

Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying
the NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles?"

He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them."

So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow
(Feb. 5th, 1998)

So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor
on the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment,
and now, that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of
firearms, the class of firearms the Second Amendment was specifically
enacted to protect.

Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected
to their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it,
or were determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They
both seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This
time I didn't get it just from the solicitor, but also from his
supervisor. And not just his opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion
of the NRA.

So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you
can support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH
the NRA.

Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA
membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an
NRA VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead.

One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members
over a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the
years of refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When
you give up a right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable
will you ultimately have to become?

In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged
that they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't
hold over two shots. They were reasonable.

And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground
will you now brace your feet?

Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is
now no solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That
defense must now rest with those who have not compromised the
Constitution. After Neville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our
time", it then fell to Winston Churchill to defend England.

Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting
the Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies)
to get off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are
loyal to the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem
too proud of our Constitution.

- -------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner All are free to republish at
will this intact document. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com



- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 06:52:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Guns for Olympic Games?

Is Mike Megeath's assertion that the Olympics require gun-free
zones correct?

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Megeath <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, February 20, 1998 4:29 PM
Subject: Hb-57 dead. Guns or Games.

You have probably heard by now that Sen Beattie withdrew SB-57.
Good news indeed.

You might like to know where this bill and those similar to it are
pointed. You will come to understand why Governor Leavitt quietly
passed a no guns policy and why the U of Utah did likewise, although
not so quietly.

Olympic rules require "gun free" zones. In order to get the Olympics
and perhaps even to hold the Olympics after they were awarded, local
authorities have promised to make it so. No guns at Olympic sites. The
"without restriction" clause of current CCW law is at odds with this.

We have yet to learn what constitutes an Olympic site. Considering
sites are widely dispersed, local officials might be required to
insure gun free transportation zones and parking facilities.
Perhaps there can be no guns within a certain radius of a site.

Since we are talking about a lot of money to lose our elected
officials are in a real bind. Uphold the law or lose the Olympics.
I surmise pressure to kill CCW and eliminate gun rights will build
as the time for the games approach in 2002. Our opponents will look
for and perhaps "create" an "incident" to inflame the passions of
the populace. They may try to finesse the issue, delaying a full
hearing of restrictions until after the games are held, then admit
they were wrong.

As rights activists, I think we must be on guard for such incidents
and behavior. We should use the games to prove to the world that every
human being has a right to keep and bear arms for defense of self,
family, property or country without restriction. More especially law-
abiding citizens. We should give the world another shining light on a
hill to better see truth and better hear that immortal word, "freedom"
shouted out by the brave and courageous people of Utah.

The "without restriction" clause of Utah's CCW law is at odds with
the Olympic Games rules for a host city. Utah has the games, and now,
our elected officials must keep their promise to the citizens of Utah
or to the U.S. and World Olympic Committees.

Guns or Games what will it be?

That's my view. I could be wrong. I'd like to hear what you think.


- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:58:19 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Love Libertarian Style

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:11:48 EST
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
>
> This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife
> Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal.
> handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed
> me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife
> on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic,
> loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means
> to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see
> my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery
> victim."
>
[snip]
> Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion
> and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think
> that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for
> self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody
> into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such).
[snip]
> Warmly,
> Don
>
> -

Indeed.

For her wedding present, I gave Sarah the first of her collection
of Glocks.  This one was her 19.  First shot, she put a hole in the
center
of the logo on a Pepsi can from about 15-20 feet.

I knew then I'd made the right choice.

Will

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #26
**********************************