ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n027

Internet Message Format | 1998-02-23 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #27
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest    Tuesday, February 24 1998    Volume 02 : Number 027




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

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: NRA fires telemarketer 1/2

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:12:14 GMT
From: Carl Reimann <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

This is an important letter. However, it seems to me that overall the
incident was salutary. In her letter Metaksa suggests that the
Internet can be a source of unreliable information, and indeed it can
be (and how!). But, it turns out that the story told by The Vigo
Examiner was in the end accepted by NRA. What the Examiner said was
that one or more telemarketers had expressed views which are in effect
contrary to those of Constitutionalists, and contrary to those which
should be held by the NRA, an organization members pay to help support
the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The NRA in fact, through the
Internet rumor mill, was able to determine that there was a problem,
and to resolve that problem.

The larger implication of the Examiner's article, that the NRA itself
has a weak position, is false, according to Metaksa. But it is
nonetheless important for the NRA's marketing arms to be well-prepared
and to express the views of the organization, because when telemarketers
make calls, during those calls they _are_ NRA. The incident was salutary
because it helped NRA to realize that a problem existed and required
action, which they have taken.

>                 Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director
>                 NRA Institute for Legislative Action
> Dear NRA Member:
> Recently, there has been a rumor circulating about NRA-ILA's
> position on the Clinton gun and magazine ban.

It is perfectly natural for the recipient of a call to believe that
the contents of the call reflect the position of the organization.

> The rapid and widespread reach of this erroneous information is
> clear evidence of the need to confirm, with a reliable source, any
> questionable information obtained via the Internet.

The informational aspect of the Examiner's article was correct. The
telemarketer did reflect the position that various types of weapons
are not considered worthy of protection.

> I thank you for taking the time to do just that by contacting my
> office.

Upon receiving this information, people asked the NRA for follow-up.
Hardly a sign that the Internet is a bad resource.

> The basis for this rumor was a conversation between one particular
> individual and a representative from a telemarketing firm contracted
> by NRA for membership recruitment. Unfortunately, in his zeal to
> sign up a new member, the telemarketer made several false statements
> to this particular individual regarding our position on the Clinton
> gun and magazine ban. The telemarketing firm in question has been
> suspended pending further review of their procedures. Furthermore,
> the telemarketer involved in this incident has been removed from our
> account. [ ... ]

Thus confirming that the Examiner's information was reliable, and
important.

Below I reproduce the Examiner article. One detail which remains
unresolved is that the article makes reference to a pattern of similar
incidents.

Carl



- -

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

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

- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:54:03 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning Dallas -Forwarded

I hope I'm not seen as supporting anti-gun ads.  However, I don't
think the ads are as bad as has been suggested.

They are not aimed at kids, but at parents.  Kids don't need
instructions on how to break into the cheap 3 dial home lock box.  I'm
no genuis and by the time I was 11 or 12 I had long since figured out
that simply starting at 000 and counting my way up towards 999 would
open the box and give me the combo for future use with about 30 to 45
minutes of effort.

Neither, do I think, do they teach kids to pick up a gun and shoot--at
least far less than anything else portraying guns on TV does.  The
overall message is that to do so will get someone hurt.

The ads are aimed at parents.  And the message is simply, "Don't rely
on hiding places or simple lock devices to keep your children away
from your guns."  None of us here would disagree with that message.
They could be improved by adding the message that education
"gun-proofing" your child is as or more important than locks and
mechanical means of "child-proofing" your gun.  But as far as they go,
they are reasonably good and I think we discredit ourselves by
opposing them.  Offering the Eddie Eagle as an addittion (rather than
a substitue) which would be aimed at kids, is a good idea.

If you have kids and guns you need to, IMO, do two things.  1--teach
your child proper gun safety so that they are safe around your guns
and around any guns they may stumble across in someone else's home.
Even--or especially--those without guns need to do this as their child
are the ones who likely to be most intrigued by the mystique of guns.
2--physically secure your guns so that if your child EVER has friends
over they can not easily get into your guns if they have not been
properly trained.

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998,  DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]> posted:

>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]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>-
>
>


- --

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 rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine.
 Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
 -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister

- -

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

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

- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:17:46 +700
From: "Michael J McPharlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: University Police contact info

> Subject:       University Police contact info
> From:          [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
> Date:          Fri, 20 Feb 98 19:01:00 -0700
> Organization:  Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA  801-281-8339
> Reply-to:      [e-mail]

>
> ---------- 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
>


The man arrested was licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Detective Michael McPharlin
University of Utah Police
585-1202
[e-mail]

- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 08:47:57 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: (from Sen. Ashcroft) Hatch's S-10 will go to the full

             Senate -Forwarded

Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA19410; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:05:23 -0700
Received: (qmail 12988 invoked by uid 516); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:47 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 12961 invoked from network); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000
Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg1.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.11)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000
Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14])
    by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA14877;
    Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:50 -0700 (MST)
Received: from helmetfish ([166.93.69.112])
    by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA07693;
    Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:46 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:08:37 -0700
From: "C. F. Inston" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Global Neighborhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Blind-copy list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: (from Sen. Ashcroft) Hatch's S-10 will go to the full Senate
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]>
- -----------------------
Looks like the work on the Senate Judiciary committee didn't work to
kill S.10, time to work on our individual U.S. Senators now.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FWD %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
John Ashcroft wrote:
>
> Dear On-Line Friend:
>
> Thank you for sharing your ideas with me about juvenile
> justice. I am happy to report that the Senate Committee on the
> Judiciary, of which I am a member, favorably reported the Violent
> and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997, clearing it for
> consideration by the full Senate early in the new year.
>
>      The Committee recognizes that a traditional rehabilitative
> approach to juvenile justice has been ineffective and inadequate
> in trying to curb juvenile crime.  Data confirms this -- from
> 1985 to 1996, the number of persons under the age of 18 arrested
> for violent crimes rose by 75 percent.  Criminologists also
> expect the number of juvenile offenders to increase as the
> children of the baby boom generation reach the age at which they
> are most likely to commit crimes.
>
>      To counteract this trend, the Violent and Hardcore Juvenile
> Offender Act (S.10), which I sponsored, enables state and local
> governments to establish effective juvenile justice systems so
> that serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders can be
> identified, punished, and deterred.  The Judiciary Committee
> recognizes that an effective strategy to reducing violent
> juvenile crimes requires greater access to juvenile records and
> greater collection of data.  Currently, juvenile records are
> tightly controlled.  The police, school officials, and even
> judges are unable, in many cases, to obtain information about
> possible violent and repeat youth offenders.  Neither these
> juvenile offenders nor society is well served by this policy.
>
>      It is imperative that judges, educators, and law enforcement
> officers have accurate information about violent juveniles.  Many
> of these offenders move from county to county and from state to
> state in committing crimes.   Therefore, I have authored
> provisions in S.10 that encourages states to create and maintain
> criminal records on juveniles.  S.10 would encourage states to
> transmit juvenile criminal records, including fingerprints and
> photographs, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion
> into the national criminal identification data base.  Juvenile
> criminal records would then be made available to state and
> federal courts for purposes of sentencing juveniles.  These
> records would also be made available to law enforcement agencies
> and school officials.
>
>      Likewise, violent disabled students should be held
> accountable for their behavior, especially when the disability
> has no relationship to the violent behavior.   On June 4, 1997,
> the President signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act Amendments of 1997 (P.L. 105-17).  This legislation expands
> the authority of school officials to discipline students with
> disabilities.  Under prior law, violent children were not removed
> from the classroom until the dispute was resolved.  Now, a
> hearing officer can order a change in placement for no longer
> than 45 days if the child is considered to be of harm to himself
> or others.  The new law also subjects disabled students to the
> same discipline as a child without a disability if the child
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> carries a weapon to school or uses, possesses, or sells illegal
> drugs.
>
>      While I support tough action against juvenile offenders, I
> will not allow S.10 to be used as a means to expand gun control
> regulations.  Standing firm in my belief in the Second Amendment,
> I will continue to oppose misguided amendments to S.10 that
> infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear
> arms.  Restricting lawful firearm ownership will not stop crime.
>
>      Finally, let me stress that S.10 as it was voted out of the
> Judiciary Committee is not a perfect bill.  In particular, the
> bill does not do enough to ensure that the most violent juvenile
> criminals are treated as adults.  I plan to offer amendments on
> the Senate floor to ensure that those who commit adult crimes are
> sentenced as adults.
>
>      Once again, thank you for expressing your views.  If you
> have additional concerns, please feel free to contact my office.
>
>
>                         Sincerely,
>
>                         John Ashcroft
>                         www.senate.gov/~ashcroft

- --
                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: 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

- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 08:47:57 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: (from Sen. Ashcroft) Hatch's S-10 will go to the full

             Senate -Forwarded

Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA19410; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:05:23 -0700
Received: (qmail 12988 invoked by uid 516); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:47 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 12961 invoked from network); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000
Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg1.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.11)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000
Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14])
    by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA14877;
    Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:50 -0700 (MST)
Received: from helmetfish ([166.93.69.112])
    by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA07693;
    Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:46 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:08:37 -0700
From: "C. F. Inston" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Global Neighborhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Blind-copy list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: (from Sen. Ashcroft) Hatch's S-10 will go to the full Senate
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]>
- -----------------------
Looks like the work on the Senate Judiciary committee didn't work to
kill S.10, time to work on our individual U.S. Senators now.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FWD %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
John Ashcroft wrote:
>
> Dear On-Line Friend:
>
> Thank you for sharing your ideas with me about juvenile
> justice. I am happy to report that the Senate Committee on the
> Judiciary, of which I am a member, favorably reported the Violent
> and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997, clearing it for
> consideration by the full Senate early in the new year.
>
>      The Committee recognizes that a traditional rehabilitative
> approach to juvenile justice has been ineffective and inadequate
> in trying to curb juvenile crime.  Data confirms this -- from
> 1985 to 1996, the number of persons under the age of 18 arrested
> for violent crimes rose by 75 percent.  Criminologists also
> expect the number of juvenile offenders to increase as the
> children of the baby boom generation reach the age at which they
> are most likely to commit crimes.
>
>      To counteract this trend, the Violent and Hardcore Juvenile
> Offender Act (S.10), which I sponsored, enables state and local
> governments to establish effective juvenile justice systems so
> that serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders can be
> identified, punished, and deterred.  The Judiciary Committee
> recognizes that an effective strategy to reducing violent
> juvenile crimes requires greater access to juvenile records and
> greater collection of data.  Currently, juvenile records are
> tightly controlled.  The police, school officials, and even
> judges are unable, in many cases, to obtain information about
> possible violent and repeat youth offenders.  Neither these
> juvenile offenders nor society is well served by this policy.
>
>      It is imperative that judges, educators, and law enforcement
> officers have accurate information about violent juveniles.  Many
> of these offenders move from county to county and from state to
> state in committing crimes.   Therefore, I have authored
> provisions in S.10 that encourages states to create and maintain
> criminal records on juveniles.  S.10 would encourage states to
> transmit juvenile criminal records, including fingerprints and
> photographs, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion
> into the national criminal identification data base.  Juvenile
> criminal records would then be made available to state and
> federal courts for purposes of sentencing juveniles.  These
> records would also be made available to law enforcement agencies
> and school officials.
>
>      Likewise, violent disabled students should be held
> accountable for their behavior, especially when the disability
> has no relationship to the violent behavior.   On June 4, 1997,
> the President signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act Amendments of 1997 (P.L. 105-17).  This legislation expands
> the authority of school officials to discipline students with
> disabilities.  Under prior law, violent children were not removed
> from the classroom until the dispute was resolved.  Now, a
> hearing officer can order a change in placement for no longer
> than 45 days if the child is considered to be of harm to himself
> or others.  The new law also subjects disabled students to the
> same discipline as a child without a disability if the child
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> carries a weapon to school or uses, possesses, or sells illegal
> drugs.
>
>      While I support tough action against juvenile offenders, I
> will not allow S.10 to be used as a means to expand gun control
> regulations.  Standing firm in my belief in the Second Amendment,
> I will continue to oppose misguided amendments to S.10 that
> infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear
> arms.  Restricting lawful firearm ownership will not stop crime.
>
>      Finally, let me stress that S.10 as it was voted out of the
> Judiciary Committee is not a perfect bill.  In particular, the
> bill does not do enough to ensure that the most violent juvenile
> criminals are treated as adults.  I plan to offer amendments on
> the Senate floor to ensure that those who commit adult crimes are
> sentenced as adults.
>
>      Once again, thank you for expressing your views.  If you
> have additional concerns, please feel free to contact my office.
>
>
>                         Sincerely,
>
>                         John Ashcroft
>                         www.senate.gov/~ashcroft

- --
                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: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:17:46 +700
From: "Michael J McPharlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: University Police contact info

> Subject:       University Police contact info
> From:          [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
> Date:          Fri, 20 Feb 98 19:01:00 -0700
> Organization:  Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA  801-281-8339
> Reply-to:      [e-mail]

>
> ---------- 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
>


The man arrested was licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Detective Michael McPharlin
University of Utah Police
585-1202
[e-mail]

- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 06:52:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA fires telemarketer 1/2

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:12:14 GMT
From: Carl Reimann <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

This is an important letter. However, it seems to me that overall the
incident was salutary. In her letter Metaksa suggests that the
Internet can be a source of unreliable information, and indeed it can
be (and how!). But, it turns out that the story told by The Vigo
Examiner was in the end accepted by NRA. What the Examiner said was
that one or more telemarketers had expressed views which are in effect
contrary to those of Constitutionalists, and contrary to those which
should be held by the NRA, an organization members pay to help support
the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The NRA in fact, through the
Internet rumor mill, was able to determine that there was a problem,
and to resolve that problem.

The larger implication of the Examiner's article, that the NRA itself
has a weak position, is false, according to Metaksa. But it is
nonetheless important for the NRA's marketing arms to be well-prepared
and to express the views of the organization, because when telemarketers
make calls, during those calls they _are_ NRA. The incident was salutary
because it helped NRA to realize that a problem existed and required
action, which they have taken.

>                 Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director
>                 NRA Institute for Legislative Action
> Dear NRA Member:
> Recently, there has been a rumor circulating about NRA-ILA's
> position on the Clinton gun and magazine ban.

It is perfectly natural for the recipient of a call to believe that
the contents of the call reflect the position of the organization.

> The rapid and widespread reach of this erroneous information is
> clear evidence of the need to confirm, with a reliable source, any
> questionable information obtained via the Internet.

The informational aspect of the Examiner's article was correct. The
telemarketer did reflect the position that various types of weapons
are not considered worthy of protection.

> I thank you for taking the time to do just that by contacting my
> office.

Upon receiving this information, people asked the NRA for follow-up.
Hardly a sign that the Internet is a bad resource.

> The basis for this rumor was a conversation between one particular
> individual and a representative from a telemarketing firm contracted
> by NRA for membership recruitment. Unfortunately, in his zeal to
> sign up a new member, the telemarketer made several false statements
> to this particular individual regarding our position on the Clinton
> gun and magazine ban. The telemarketing firm in question has been
> suspended pending further review of their procedures. Furthermore,
> the telemarketer involved in this incident has been removed from our
> account. [ ... ]

Thus confirming that the Examiner's information was reliable, and
important.

Below I reproduce the Examiner article. One detail which remains
unresolved is that the article makes reference to a pattern of similar
incidents.

Carl



- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #27
**********************************