ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n029

Internet Message Format | 1998-02-26 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #29
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Friday, February 27 1998     Volume 02 : Number 029




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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:03:14 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Sent to Sec.

Received auto notification that the status of SB23, Negligent storage of
a firearm, had changed.  Change history is below.

Anyone know what the last item, today's update means, and is it cause
for concern?

- -- S.B. 23   Negligent Storage of Loaded Firearm (Steiner, R.)

01/06/98 Number                                            LRGC
01/08/98 Bill Distributed                                  LRGC
01/19/98 Senate/read 1st (Introduced)                      SPRES
02/02/98 Senate/to Standing Committee                      SSTTPS
02/26/98 Senate/comm rpt sent to Senate Secretary          SSEC

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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule
 of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm
 the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
 general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of
 inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be
 appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered
 academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was
 offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States,
 by President Washington.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:41:16 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Feb. 26 column - Anthrax]

The latest from Vin...

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


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 26, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    The Great Las Vegas Anthrax Plot

    The news flashed around the world on Thursday, Feb. 19. I know, because
I started getting phone calls from New England, and e-mail from Asia ...
asking me if I'd broken out my gas masks.

  The news was accepted at face value in most places, too ... because it
was precisely what many folks had been led to expect.

  A pair of depraved white men -- one a former Mormon bishop and the other
(according to a hastily-drawn-up federal criminal complaint) a
"self-admitted member of the Aryan Nations (who) claims to have the rank of
Lieutenant-Colonel," had been busted by FBI agents and thrown in a Las
Vegas hoosegow, while the Mercedes-Benz they had been driving was carefully
shrink-wrapped in plastic and hauled away to a U.S. Army facility for
testing.

  Why?

  "These individuals posed a potential chemical and biological threat to
our community," Bobby Siller, head of the FBI's Las Vegas office, told
members of the working press at a Thursday morning press conference. A
"citizen informant (hereafter 'the source')" had telephoned the Las Vegas
offices of the FBI on Feb. 18 -- again according to the criminal complaint
- -- to report that suspects Larry Wayne Harris, 46 (a licensed
microbiologist from Lancaster, Ohio), and William Job Leavitt, Jr., 47 (a
fire extinguisher manufacturer, owner of a pair of microbiological
laboratories, and former Mormon bishop from Logandale, Nevada) were in
possession of what Leavitt had reportedly described as "military grade"
anthrax in flight bags in the trunk of their Mercedes-Benz convertible.
Another source, spotted with Leavitt and Harris at the Gold Coast Hotel,
reportedly told the FBI that Harris held out a vial and stated there was
enough there to "wipe out the city."

  FBI Special Agent John W. Hawken further alleged in his Feb. 19 criminal
complaint -- this time citing no specific source -- that Harris, the Ohio
microbiologist, had "in the summer of 1997 ... told a group of plans to
place a 'globe' of bubonic plague toxins in a New York subway station,
where it could be broken by a passing subway train, causing hundreds of
thousands of deaths. Harris stated that the Iraqis would be blamed for that
event."


'Go write your own Civil Defense manual'

  But something about this one smelled wrong from the start. Defendant
Harris had appeared as a guest on Las Vegas-based radio talk shows within
the previous week, spouting his obsessive concern that the Iraqis were
preparing to launch precisely the kind of biological attack the FBI was
talking about, and that the United States was ill-prepared to defend
against any such attack.

  Patriot sources on the Internet (ever paranoid) immediately theorized
that the FBI had busted well-known gadfly Harris precisely to shift the
blame for any such attack -- considered all the more likely if Bill Clinton
proceeded with plans to renew bombing of Saddam Hussein -- onto the FBI's
favorite target, the gun-owning domestic patriot militias.

  Only a few minutes work were required for Las Vegas Review-Journal
columnist John L. Smith to download from the Internet and hand me the
opening section of Larry Wayne Harris' book, "Bacteriological Warfare: A
Major Threat to North America, What You and Your Family Can Do Defensively,
Before and After." (http://norden1.com/~hawkins/CIVIL.HTM)

  In it, Harris describes taking courses in advanced microbiology at Ohio
State University in 1991, and meeting there fellow student Miriam Arif,
daughter of a former Iraqi president. After the two became friends, Arif
reportedly told Harris in 1993 of the plans of Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria And
North Korea to respond to any future American interventions in their
regions by loosing germ warfare weapons in this country.

  It is agents of those nations that plan to release plague and anthrax
cultures in the subway systems of large American cities, according to
Harris' writings.

  Harris reports calling the FBI, and the CDC in both Atlanta and Fort
Collins. "I told them what Miriam had told me, and they responded that they
thought I had been watching too many science fiction movies."

  After repeatedly promising to send Harris a copy of the government
contingency plan to deal with such an attack, Harris writes that he was
finally told by exasperated spokesmen at the CDC that all such biological
civil defense planning had been scrapped in 1972. "They said if I were a
microbiologist and so concerned, why don't I go and write my own Civil
Defense manual and leave the CDC alone?"

  Would a man planning to kill thousands via a germ warfare attack, write
books and appear on the radio, drawing attention to himself by warning
Americans of how unprepared we are to deal with such an attack? What would
Harris' motive be, anyway? Might it not be possible that the FBI's sources
had misunderstood Harris' intense warnings about Miriam Arif, as threats he
himself was making?


Time machines and UFOs

  The possibility grew even stronger when it turned out FBI agent Hawken
had admitted in his initial criminal complaint that the FBI's main source
"has two felony convictions for conspiracy to commit extortion in 1981 and
1982."

  I have been unable to independently confirm that Ronald G. Rockwell --
since identified by numerous sources as the FBI's main informant -- was
indeed twice convicted on extortion counts. But Leavitt's attorney, Kirby
Wells, paints quite a picture of Rockwell, reporting that at a Feb. 14
meeting Rockwell offered to sell Leavitt more than just the machine Leavitt
wanted to conduct anthrax research.

  "He offered as part of the deal to turn over work on other projects,
including a time machine project and a UFO project," attorney Wells told
Review-Journal reporter Steve Friess on Feb. 23. "I questioned Bill about
whether it made sense to be negotiating with someone who professed to have
these kinds of projects."

  Eventually, Leavitt did reject Rockwell's demand that he buy a so-called
Rife Regenerator for $2 million, including a non-refundable $100,000
deposit. (The discredited Rife machine, which is supposed to cure illness
through radio waves, usually sells for $20,000.) Within days, the
disappointed Rockwell apparently telephoned the FBI to turn Leavitt and
Harris in.

  Paul Pantone, chief executive officer for research at Global
Environmental Energy Technology LLC, spent 15 minutes chatting with
Rockwell at a conference in Las Vegas last April, and pronounces the fellow
"a total fruitcake."

  "He said he can build flying saucers any size you want," said Pantone,
whose Utah company specializes in far more mundane mileage-boosting
automotive fuel processors. "He said he has a plane the size of a 747 that
extracts energy out of the air as it moves and flies for hours on one
gallon of gasoline. He has it hidden somewhere in Nevada. ... For the FBI
to even listen to this man, I'm appalled," Pantone told reporter Friess.


False alarm

  Businessman Leavitt was released from jail on Saturday, Feb. 21.
Scientists at the Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases
in Fort Detrick, Md. (where the Army stores precisely the kinds of toxic
agents which President Clinton brands other nations "terrorist" for
developing) had worked through the night analyzing the contents of the
Harris-Leavitt vials, and found them to contain exactly what the defendants
said they contained -- veterinary anthrax vaccine, incapable of forming
spores to spread the disease to either humans or animals.

  Informant Rockwell "wanted money up front, sight unseen, and when he
didn't get it ... he went to the FBI and made some outlandish statements,"
says Leavitt's other attorney, Lamond Mills. "That's their witness. And on
that, we've had worldwide news."

  After a final weekend FBI search of both defendants' homes to see if they
could find anything else to hold them on, all criminal charges against both
defendants were dropped on Monday, Feb. 23.

  Mind you, Ohioan Harris would appear to be several stops down the local
line toward Bonkersville, himself.  He signed a consent decree in 1995,
under which he is still on probation for fraudulently obtaining bubonic
plague toxins for his research. His book contains such  unattributed
nuggets as his rambling report that "The HIV (AIDS) virus ... was designed
to kill only Negro's (sic). The HIV virus was ... inoculated into Negro's
for their genocidal removal from Africa. The HIV virus was designed to use
an intermediate bacterial carrier, that was present in the Negro's body but
not present in Caucasians. This strategy has been extremely effective and
by some estimates the Negro population of Africa will soon be reduced to
below 5 million."

  Yeah, right.

  So: should police agents have had some serious questions for Messrs.
Harris and Leavitt? Of course. Should they have acquired warrants to seize
and test the material in question? OK; fine.

  But the broadest public response to this whole tempest in a teapot seems
to be that the FBI was justified in acting swiftly -- even if the tip
turned out to be wrong -- given the virulence of the agents the two men
supposedly possessed.

  I feel obliged to offer a somewhat different perspective.


Infiltrate the churches, shoot the dogs

  The FBI, as currently composed, is an illegal and unconstitutional
agency. The Constitution  grants the Congress no power to swear in any
federal political police force, the familiar German word for which is
"Gestapo."

  In recent years -- leaving aside its treatment of the presumably innocent
security guard Richard Jewel while the real perpetrators of Atlanta's
Olympic Park bombing walked away at their leisure -- this proud and
courageous agency stood in charge of the final, deadly, tank, machine gun,
and poison gas assault on the parishioners of the Mount Carmel Seventh Day
Adventist Church in Waco, Texas, which directly caused the deaths by fire
and poison gas of dozens of innocent women and children. (See it for
yourself, as filmed by federal government cameras: Order the video "Waco:
The Terms of Engagement," now nominated for an Academy Award as best
documentary, at $25 by dialing 1-800-771-2147, ext. 19.)

  Only a few months before, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, acting under FBI
orders, shot and killed the unarmed Vicky Weaver in the kitchen doorway of
her Idaho home as she held her baby in her arms. (The federal government is
still involved in procedural shenanigans to shield Horiuchi from facing the
criminal charges he so richly deserves for that little feat of
marksmanship.)

  The Weaver standoff started when federal agents approached and entrapped
Vicky Weaver's husband, Randy, in order to convince him to infiltrate and
snitch on parishioners of a nearby church. The Waco standoff started when
ATF agents turned down the Rev. David Koresh's invitation to come out and
inspect his parishioners' fully legal firearms "any time," preferring to
stage a big military-style raid for the TV cameras, shortly before their
next set of funding hearings in Washington.

  In both cases, the federals targeted churches. In both cases, the first
shots were fired by federal agents, killing their victims' dogs.

  But under our American system, it is (start ital)not(end ital) acceptable
to trash the First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights of the politically
unpopular few, in order to "protect the many" even from real threats ...
let alone trumped-up ones. If it were, the FBI would be justified in
sending SWAT teams into the homes of the 100 patriot militiamen and foreign
nationals which it judges most likely to cause trouble, with orders to
simply shoot them all through the head.

  Nevada has a State Police force. Las Vegas has its own, sizeable,
Metropolitan Police. Those agencies had sole jurisdiction in this case. All
law enforcement, under our constitutional system of government, is left to
local authority. (start ital)No(end ital) federal police force is
authorized.

  The safest thing for the liberties of the citizens of this republic would
be to disband the deadly, incompetent FBI, immediately. Failing that, this
homicidal gang should at least be restricted to what the "I" in its name
stands for, "Investigation" (keeping up to date with what's readily
available on talk radio and the Internet, for starters -- and perhaps
keeping running tabs on the credibility of such local snitches as Ronald G.
Rockwell, while they're at it.) When they feel an arrest is justified, they
should do just what everyone else does: Call the police.

  As goofy as Larry Wayne Harris may be, he has a point. If we keep
meddling in the affairs of nations that can't afford to build aircraft
carriers and nuclear bombers, they will eventually strike back in any way
they can ... quite possibly with such cheap, easy-to-employ weapons as germ
warfare and poison gas.

  (Calling them "terrorists" proves nothing. Generals Howe and Cornwallis
doubtless would have called the brigand Washington -- unwilling to line up
all his men across an open field and fight it out in a sporting manner -- a
"terrorist.")

  But instead of heeding such a sensible warning, the federals just arrest
the messenger.

  Anyone interested in disarming America's criminal element would do well
to start with the incompetent and counterproductive ATF and the FBI ...
auctioning off their Tommy guns and MP-5s to law-abiding private citizens,
who would then be in a much better position to drop by their offices
occasionally, "just to check."

  Then, if we're finally tired of making enemies overseas, comes the CIA.

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

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

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




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

- --

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

God created all men equal.  Sam Colt made sure they remain that way.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 98 21:17:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: USSC Legislative ALERTS!!

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy:

>However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM.

Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf
list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them
depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would
seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the
call. It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what
they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board
meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It
would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating
their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can
override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a
contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC
attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights
supporters in Utah?




- -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:22:32 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!!

Sarah posted contact info a while back.  I thought I had saved it, but
apparantly did not.  Sarah, would you be so good as to post that
again?

I should make everyone aware that in addition to Sarah, only one board
member has contacted me regarding the 10 questions I posted here and
which Sarah presented to the USSC board.  That response I considered
very positive.  I only wish the other board members had responed as
well, let alone at all.

Apparantly the board voted and decided that individual members would
only respond to the questions if they wanted to do so strictly as an
individual.  The board itself would respond by passing along some
formal positions adopted by the previous board.  I've not seen that
info yet but will pass it along if it ever shows up.

It seems the majority of board members do not want the USSC membership
or the gun owning non-members of this State to know their true
position on gun rights or even how they voted on any given issue.  So
far there are only 2 of the 7 members in whom I can place any
confidence.  I'm hoping based on what I've heard, there is a 3rd who
is ok, as well.  Three out of 7 may be a start, but at this point I'm
not prepared to offer my financial support.  I do plan to attend
meetings whenever possible which is going to be few and far between
since I'd have to leave work at a reasonable hour and fight commuter
traffic between SLC and Kaysville to get there.  Any meeting I attend
I will do my very best to record votes, etc and pass along.  I ask
others to do likewise.

Assuming it looks like there is hope, I will consider joining just
soon enough to vote in the next election and try to put the true
rights, no-compromise, respond to questions, not afraid to let their
views be known advocates in a majority.  For heaven sakes, even the
State legislators record votes and publish them on the internet for at
least committee business.  Of what are those 4 members of the USSC
board afraid?

Maybe if enough members keep track and let board members know which
votes will cause loss of support for them and/or lack of renewal and
if enough non-members let the board know exactly why we aren't members
yet, they will get the message and change their ways or will get off
the board and let someone who really values and understands rights do
the job they seem unwilling to do.  I fear too many are far too cozy
with the NRA.

And yes, I agree completely that it would behoov board members to at
least read this list, if not become active participants in it.  If
they want to claim to represent gun owners' interests in this State,
they should make at least as much effort to search out those interests
as gun owners make to make them known.

Accolades to Sarah for doing just that and much more.



On Thu, 26 Feb 98 21:17:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) posted:

>
>On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy:
>
>>However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM.
>
>Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf
>list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them
>depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would
>seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the
>call. It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what
>they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board
>meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It
>would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating
>their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can
>override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a
>contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC
>attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights
>supporters in Utah?
>
>
>
>
>-
>
>


- --

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.

"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a
 few public officials." -- George Mason, Framer of the Declaration of
 Rights, Virginia, 1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of
 Rights; 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 02:03:38 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC

At 09:17 PM 2/26/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy:
>
>>However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM.
>
>Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf
>list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them
>depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would
>seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the
>call. It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what
>they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board
>meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It
>would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating
>their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can
>override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a
>contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC
>attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights
>supporters in Utah?

I'm the only Board (or Advisory Board) member of USSC who's subscribed to
utah-firearms.  Most, but not all, of the other members have e-mail
capabilities.  However, my impression is that not too many read e-mail with
any regularity or are very comfortable with computers.  I've posted the
e-mail addresses of all who were willing to make them available, so you can
e-mail at least those members.  But I suspect most of them do prefer
telephone contact.

As I understand the so-called "gag order", members may not _publish_
positions or votes.  (I don't have the exact language.)  I don't think
there's any prohibition against stating  one's position or vote.  But there
are huge gray areas such as private e-mail and public statements.

I can understand that the Board would not want internal discord aired
publicly - at least during the legislative session, when it's necessary for
the most part to present a united front.  (I'm not saying I agree or
disagree, but I do understand this point of view.)  However, I don't see
why that should preclude recording votes and publishing them immediately
after the session.

However, with the possible exception of during the legislative session, it
makes no sense to me to suppress one Constitutional right while fighting
for another.  The first and second amendments depend upon each other - as
do all our rights.

The problem is that the only people complaining are non-members.  The only
member who's let me know he has complaints is Will.  No Board member has
any obligation or mandate to represent anyone other than members, and I'm
not sure how many will be receptive to comments from non-members.

Certainly there's room for more than one gun rights organization in Utah.
There's already the Utah Gun Rights Association, the Utah Rifle and Pistol
Assoc. and a few more whose names don't immediately come to mind.  If
anyone wants to start a chapter of NRA, GOA, Brassroots, SAFE, CCRKBA or
even another independent organization, they're free to do so.  And if some
other organization can do a better job than USSC, more power to them!  I
might even join. <g>

But since I'm the only Board member here, complaining about USSC on u-f
isn't going to do any good.  If you want to tell anyone but me what you
think, you're going to have to do it their way, since I know of no way to
force anyone to subscribe to or read u-f.  (Not that I'd force anyone anyway!)

Contact info follows:

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.

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

Because of the confusion over whether comments via e-mail are permitted,
I'd suggest phone calls.

There are a lot of gun owners in Utah, and they have widely divergent
views.  Some are "no compromise" people.  Some only care about concealed
carry.  Some only care about hunting, or target shooting, or collecting.
Some are confrontational, and some prefer not to "make waves".  I don't
honestly think one organization can be everything to everyone.  OTOH, if we
split into too many factions, we're likely to end up with no voice at all.
I don't have any perfect, or even very good, ideas on how to solve this
problem.  But I am open to suggestions.

Sarah

- -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 98 06:45:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: USSC Contact Info

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:22:32 Charles Hardy asked:

>Sarah posted contact info a while back.  I thought I had saved it, but
>apparantly did not.  Sarah, would you be so good as to post that again?

I'm not Sarah, but here it is:

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 (h), 364-0412 (w),
[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



- -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:07:27 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACTION ALERT: "Anti " Article in LHJ -Forwarded

Received: (qmail 19538 invoked by uid 516); 27 Feb 1998 03:17:58 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 19337 invoked from network); 27 Feb 1998 03:17:42 -0000
Received: from ocelot.avana.net (HELO Email.Avana.Net) (205.245.133.6)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 1998 03:17:42 -0000
Received: from tiger.avana.net (tiger.avana.net [205.245.133.2])
    by Email.Avana.Net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA28908;
    Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:27:56 -0500
Received: from nancys (atl867.avana.net [207.42.62.157])
    by tiger.avana.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA00415;
    Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:18:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:17:18 -0500
From: Nancy <[e-mail]>
Organization: Real Pro Second Amendment Activist Never Give Up.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
  [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: ACTION ALERT: "Anti " Article in LHJ
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 Nancy <[e-mail]>
- -----------------------
Subject:
        ACTION ALERT: "Anti" Article in Ladies Home Journal
  Date:
        Thu, 26 Feb 98 22:03:05 EST5EDT
  From:
        [e-mail] (Brenda Bernard )
    To:
        undisclosed-recipients:;


Dear Brother / Sister Shooters,

I just received information, from a sister shooter, about an article
appearing in the current "Ladies Home Journal, p. 28 praising women in
the
"war against guns".

The article highlights "Tina Johnstone" whose husband was gunned down by
a
criminal.  "Tina" is organizing a march on D.C. and wants to make a pile
of
several thousands of shoes of victims.  I am sure there will be many
shoes
thrown in there for the heck of it and the media will have a hay day
dramatically portraying all the shoes as being worn by victims.

You may want to visit a news stand and see the article for yourself
before
responding. It does not seem to be in their website publication.

"Tina Johnstone's" committee phone number is [phone].

Ladies Home Journal
125 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
E-mail:  [e-mail]
Website: http://www.lhj.com

Toll free: [phone]


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brenda Bernard (Ladybug)
P.O. Box 1997
Crystal River, FL  34423-1997
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Women AGAINST Gun Control  @ www.wagc.com
  GUNS GIVE WOMEN A FIGHTING CHANCE
      All THOSE IN FAVOR OF LOSING YOUR GUN RIGHTS, DO NOTHING


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


- -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:22:17 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!!

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy:
>
> >However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM.
>
> Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf
> list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them
> depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would
> seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the
> call.
I have sent the last few of these to Shirley at AGR/UGRA with the
suggestion that she subscribe and "listen in" to our arguments and
suggestions.  I know she's busy but I've told here that this is
mostly a fairly low-volume mail list, maybe she'll have enough
spare time and energy to spend some of it with us.

> It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what
> they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board
> meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It
> would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating
> their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can
> override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a
> contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC
> attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights
> supporters in Utah?

While I disagree vehemently with their stand, I can sort of understand
why they are taking it.  These guys, especially Bob, are all respected
"businessmen and pillars of the community" (gag) and if Dan Harrie or
Vince Horiuchi got hold of something they could use to embarrass them
or otherwise damage their reputation/business, you can bet they'd use
it in a heartbeat.  These guys are scared, with reason, I believe.  I
don't believe any of them except Sarah (and maybe Joe and Shirley, I
haven't asked them) have accepted that we've probably already lost the
war and _will_ lose it if we don't go on the offensive - hard and fast.
They're still proud of being "life members of NRA" as if that proves
how _staunchly_ they support the 2nd.

And as always....the target pistol shooters don't really care about
anything but "sporting use".  The hunters just want to be able to
keep the "ol' thuty-thuty".  The CCW'ers want a better/longer permit.
The collectors want the pre-paid (in rights) convenience of not
having to pay BCI every time they make a trade...meanwhile the few
of us who dispise CCW, who want a return to pre-NFA liberty, are
fighting our own absolutest battles...Yeah, I'm proud to be an
"extremest", but I also realize that I scare the bejeezus out of
guys like Bob Templeton.  Education is all I can try and offer them,
realizing that it's going to take even longer for them to (maybe)
come 'round than it did for me. (What with my pre-disposition to
fight authority)  So I'm going to stand out here, vent my frustrations
here and keep trying to get the "them" board members to see the
light...dunno what else to do...it's "them" who're going to have
to bring the hunters, paper punchers, and other factions with us
and we ain't gonna get that by slammin em down every time they
don't get it.  Sarah tells me that Jews put honey on the pages
of the Torah to get their children to read it and associate
"sweetness" with it...seems like a good idea...if only I can
keep from flippin my lid every time someone does something
"stupid"....

vent vent vent

- -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:28:39 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: steiner and beattie

After that last bit....now I don't have time to look it
up....in this morning's Trib was a short article about
how Steiner and Beattie have teamed up (sort of like
putting two amoebas in a bowl...) to amend the bill
describing how one's CCW may be revoked, by adding the
church ban....(indeciperable, I know)

- -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:34:11 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: steiner and beattie

Which section?  I can't find it.


On Fri, 27 Feb 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>After that last bit....now I don't have time to look it
>up....in this morning's Trib was a short article about
>how Steiner and Beattie have teamed up (sort of like
>putting two amoebas in a bowl...) to amend the bill
>describing how one's CCW may be revoked, by adding the
>church ban....(indeciperable, I know)
>
>-
>
>


- --

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.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
 Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
 conscience; or to prevent *the people* of the United States who are
 peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..." -- Samuel Adams in
 arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published
 by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:43:26 -0700
From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: steiner and beattie

The legislative update section, bottom middle of the page in the print
version

- -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:27:45 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Gun Ban not dead yet!!

From today's tribune, Legislative update section--"Briefs" article:

HB242 orignally only made some minor technical and clarifications on
how and when a CCW permit may be revoked and has sailed through thus
far.

GUN BILL NOT DEAD YET
     Legislation banning legally permitted concealed weapons in certain buildings is not dead yet.
     Democrats plan to amend a bill to prohibit weapons-permit holders
     from carrying their guns to church.

    ``It's one of the areas where there is a great deal of consensus. It's one thing that we can do,'' said
 Sen. Robert Steiner, D-Salt Lake City.
     Senate President Lane Beattie was planning to spearhead the move to ban concealed weapons in
 churches, private property and schools, but pulled out last week because of mounting legal questions
 about the move.
     But the West Bountiful Republican said he will vote for Steiner's amendment.
     Steiner said he will amend House Bill 242, which details circumstances when a
 concealed-weapons permit can be revoked.
     -- The Associated Press

- --

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.

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic,
 and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it,
 without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." --
 James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46).

- -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:56:08 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Victims fight back (Tennessee Bill) -Forwarded

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id GAA27338; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 06:58:33 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 06:58:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma027287; Fri Feb 27 06:57:21 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: larry ball <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Victims fight back (Tennessee Bill)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

Here is the text of the bill.  I am sending a copy to a Nebraska State Senator
for consideration.

Filed for intro on 01/21/98

                              SENATE BILL 2167 By

                                    Cohen

                                HOUSE BILL 2260

                                   By Buck

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6, to enact
the
"Victim and Citizen Criminal Apprehension and Protection Act of 1998"
authorizing the use of force
to apprehend certain suspected felons and for the protection of persons and
property from such
felons.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Victim and Citizen
Criminal
Apprehension and Protection Act of 1998".

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-11-621, is amended by
designating the
existing language as subsection (a) and by adding the following new subsections:

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a private citizen is
justified in threatening or using
all necessary force, including deadly force, to apprehend a person who is
committing or has
committed first or second degree murder, attempt to commit first or second
degree murder,
aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, rape, aggravated rape, or
rape of a child if the
citizen uses such force:

A) While the defendant is on the same property where the offense was committed
or attempted to be
committed or on any public property adjoining such property; and

B) During or in fresh pursuit of the person after commission or attempted
commission of the offense.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a private citizen present
in a motor vehicle is
justified in threatening or using all necessary force, including deadly force,
against a person whom one
reasonably believes is attempting to use unlawful force against such citizen
while committing or
attempting to commit the offense of carjacking.

(d) Any private citizen using deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon under
the circumstances set
out in subsection (b) or who uses deadly force pursuant to subsection (c) is
presumed to have been
put in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to self
or others by such
offender and the use of deadly force is justified even though the person using
such force does not
retreat from the encounter.

(e) Any private citizen who uses force under the circumstances authorized by
subsections (b) or (c)
shall be absolutely immune from actual or punitive damages resulting from
property damage, injury or
death either accidentally or intentionally inflicted by such citizen upon the
person or persons who
committed or attempted to commit one or more of the enumerated offenses.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect on July 1, 1998, the public welfare
requiring it.

Return to Main Bill Index




- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #29
**********************************