ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n031

Internet Message Format | 1998-03-03 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #31
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Wednesday, March 4 1998     Volume 02 : Number 031




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

Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 14:46:03 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good pro-RKBA restaurant in Colorado Springs... -Forwarded

Received: (qmail 8190 invoked by uid 516); 2 Mar 1998 18:44:27 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 8164 invoked from network); 2 Mar 1998 18:44:21 -0000
Received: from mail11.digital.com (192.208.46.10)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 1998 18:44:21 -0000
Received: from sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com (sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com [16.29.160.92])
    by mail11.digital.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/WV1.0c) with ESMTP id NAA03122
    for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:44:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Received: by sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
    id <FXKCDXA2>; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:44:20 -0500
From: Roger Oakey <[e-mail]>
To: rkba-co submit <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good pro-RKBA restaurant in Colorado Springs...
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:44:16 -0500
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by Roger Oakey <[e-mail]>
- -----------------------
Here's a recommendation for a good restaurant in Colorado Springs.

If you happen to be traveling through Colorado Springs and you want a
bite to eat, I'd recommend the Western Sizzlin at 8th and
Cimmeron/Highway 24. From I25 take exit 141 (Highway 24 West exit) 0.2
miles West and it'll be on the north side of the road.

So just why am I sending out a restaurant recommendation to RKBA-CO?
Because of a very heartening thing that happened last night there.

I'm part of a large group of instructors that once a month a teach the
NRA's "Personal Protection" class.  Yesterday (Sunday) was the range
session and afterwards we all went to the above Western Sizzlin for
dinner.  There were about 16 students and 12 instructors.  Because the
instructors feel that not exercising a right is the easiest was to
loose it, most were carrying exposed (we've been doing this for years
and the folks at the Western Sizzlin know us well).  This is perfectly
legal as there are no restrictions on carrying exposed in Colorado
Springs except for the places where the city council has imposed
complete bans on firearms (creating a number of "criminal protection
zones" like their city buildings and parks, but I digress).

Anyway, it seems that another patron called our waitress over and
*demanded* that she tell us all to go out to our cars, take off our
firearms and leave them in our cars.  When she responded "no" he
demanded to see the manager.  The manager's response was to refund the
patron's money and to tell him he was free to leave if he wished to do
so.

The only reason we heard what had happened was that a couple of
students weren't sitting with the main group and happened to be next
to the patron in question and heard the whole thing transpire and told
us at the main table.  The waitress didn't even mention it until we
asked her about it.

The waitress got one heck of a tip from us!

                         Roger Oakey

Ps.  This is yet another illustration of the dichotomy of thought that
an anti-gunner must maintain in order to remain an anti-gun.  On one
hand he thought we were dangerous and that his life was threatened,
which is why he didn't want us around.  On the other hand, he was
willing to confront (or more correctly, as a coward, was willing to
send the waitress to confront) these supposedly dangerous people and
ask them to leave, risking the anger of these supposedly dangerous
people.  It just doesn't make sense.

If we were a tenth as dangerous as the anti-gunners like to say we
are, they wouldn't risk harassing us all the time like they do!  They
KNOW we aren't a danger to them as is evidenced by their actions!


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


- -

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

Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 15:57:36 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Board meeting

Since several of you have expressed interest in attending a USSC Board
meeting ....

The next meeting is TONIGHT at 6:30 PM

The address is 7 N. Main St., in Kaysville, at the Crossroads of the West
offices.  The offices are on the SECOND floor.  The doorway is between the
two halves of a martial arts studio, just south of the movie theater.

Apologies for the short notice - it just occurred to me now that I should
post it.

Board meetings are open to any interested persons.

Sarah Thompson

- -

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 98 06:53:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: HB 304 and NRA

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:08:44 -0700
From: GunFlower <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: LPU: Romney Calls for Fusion

I spoke with Rob Bishop today re: HB304. He said the NRA asked him to
sponsor the bill. He said that they are worried about anti-gun people
passing anti-hunting initiatives. He said the final draft of the bill was
the lesser of the evils to choose from: (requiring more than 10% of the
voters and putting a deadline) He said this would make it so that urban
cities didn't have more power than rural...thus the change from 15 to 20
counties. I suggested to keep it to 15 but maybe just require a certain
percentage to be urban and a certain percentage to be rural. He said he'd
check in to it. I informed him that a lot of people are upset about this.

Janalee

- ----------
> From: FreeUtah <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: LPU: Romney Calls for Fusion
> Date: Monday, March 02, 1998 9:37 PM

> During Mills Crenshaw's Monday morning program, he pledged to call Utah
> GOP chair Rob Bishop to see if the Republican Party was pushing HB 304,
> which increases petitioning requirements from 15 to 20 of Utah's 29
> counties.

> Mills said if he got an affirmative response, he would urge his listeners
> and everyone he knows not to donate any money to the Republican Party.

> I don't know what Mills found out, but I do know that Speaker Mel Brown
> supports the bill, as does the Utah Shooting Sports Council, for which
> Rob Bishop is a lobbyist.

> Scooter!



- -

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 08:48:27 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304 -Forwarded

Received: from shire.coloc.XMISSION.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ta535983; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:37:58 -0700
Received: from slc305.modem.xmission.com (W7RCP.pengar.com) [166.70.2.121]
    by hobbiton.shire.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0y9spT-000473-00; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:38:00 -0700
From: "Allen Leigh" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:41:12 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]

> >> I spoke with Rob Bishop today re:  HB304.  He said the NRA asked him
to
> >> sponsor the bill.  He said that they are worried about anti-gun people
> >> passing anti-hunting initiatives.

Even the NRA wants to use government to force their ideas on others!
When one is afraid of the people, you restrict the people.  :-(

Oh, I forgot, it's ok to use governmental force because my ideas are
"right" and other people are "wrong".  It's only wrong to use
governmental force to enforce wrong ideas......

If the anti-hunters can get more people to sign petitions and to
vote, then they should get their ideas passed.  That's the way
freedom is, folks!

/Allen

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


- -

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:57:45 -0500
From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304 -Forwarded

>Even the NRA wants to use government to force their ideas on others!
>When one is afraid of the people, you restrict the people.  :-(
>
>Oh, I forgot, it's ok to use governmental force because my ideas are
>"right" and other people are "wrong".  It's only wrong to use
>governmental force to enforce wrong ideas......
>
>If the anti-hunters can get more people to sign petitions and to
>vote, then they should get their ideas passed.  That's the way
>freedom is, folks!
>
>/Allen
>
>--------
>You're already a Libertarian in your heart, why not
>at the voting booth?
>


That is NOT the way Freedom is.  Freedom is when the government CANNOT have
its ways, either good or bad.  Democracy is mob rule and not freedom.

Chad

- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
Low cost virtual servers.    DB integration. Tango.
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------



- -

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:57:36 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304 -Forwarded

>
>That is NOT the way Freedom is.  Freedom is when the government CANNOT have
>its ways, either good or bad.  Democracy is mob rule and not freedom.
>
>Chad
>

THANK YOU CHAD!!

Sarah

- -

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 10:54:52 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Legislative ALERT!

Less than TWO DAYS LEFT!

HB 304 - Initiative Amendments was defeated in the Senate, 9-19-1.  There
is currently an effort to resurrect this bill.  (I don't know how that's
done - don't ask!)  The official position of USSC is to SUPPORT this bill.
Please contact your SENATOR and request that s/he support this legislation.
 This will probably be decided TODAY, so please act quickly.  (If you're
one of the people who wrote to say you oppose this bill, please ignore this
request! <g>)

HB 343 - Range Protection (Substitute) is in TROUBLE.  I can't get a recent
update off the Web, but according to Rob Bishop it is in the Senate, and
may not reach a vote.  PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATOR and request that s/he
SUPPORT this legislation - THIS SESSION.

SB 182 - Restriction on Government Collecting Monies for Groups is also in
trouble in the House.  Although this is not strictly a firearms bill, the
official position of USSC is to SUPPORT this bill.  Please contact your
REPRESENTATIVE and request that s/he support this bill.

HB 328 - Public Office Misconduct -   This is also not a firearms bill, but
the opinion of the Board of USSC is that elected officials should be
penalized for failing to take an oath of officeNo current status on this
one, but presumably still before the Senate.  Please contact your SENATOR
and request that s/he OPPOSE this bill.

Representatives may be contacted by calling 801-538-1029 or 800-662-3367.
Other contact info is at http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/html/members.htm

Senators may be contacted by calling 801-538-1035 or 800-953-8824
Other contact info is at http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/roster.htm



GOOD NEWS!

SB 140, which provides that a concealed carry permit shall be good for FIVE
years instead of the current two, was passed, and has been sent to the
Governor.

SB 141, which allows a concealed carry permit to be used instead of a
background check when purchasing a firearm (thus saving the paperwork and
fee), was also passed and has been sent to the Governor.

Thanks to Sen. Michael Waddoups for successfully carrying both of these bills!

As always, thank you for your support!

More to follow on delegate training, contacting the governor, Federal S.
10,  the new provisions of Brady, etc.
Stay tuned!

Next Board meeting and legislative wrap-up, Monday, March 9 at 6:30 PM
7 N. Main Street, Kaysville

Sarah Thompson
for USSC

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


- -

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:27:02 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304 -Forwarded

DAVID SAGERS wrote:
>
> From: "Allen Leigh" <[e-mail]>
>
> If the anti-hunters can get more people to sign petitions and to
> vote, then they should get their ideas passed.  That's the way
> freedom is, folks!
>
> /Allen
>
> --------
> You're already a Libertarian in your heart, why not
> at the voting booth?
>

I thought "Libertarians" took the idea of constitutionality
and the idea that this is a representative republic (not
a mobocracy) seriously...

Looks like i'm still a _l_ibertarian as opposed to _L_ibertarian
if mob-rule is really what _L_ibertarianism's all about.

will

- -

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:40:25 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304 -Forwarded

On Tue, 03 Mar 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>I thought "Libertarians" took the idea of constitutionality
>and the idea that this is a representative republic (not
>a mobocracy) seriously...
>
>Looks like i'm still a _l_ibertarian as opposed to _L_ibertarian
>if mob-rule is really what _L_ibertarianism's all about.
>
>will
>

I believe someone has already responded to Allen's post, but
"Libertarians" do take constitutionality and republicanism seriously.
Rights are not subject to majority vote.

- --

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: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 09:41:25 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Shortish op-ed on concealed carry]

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA15858; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 20:41:13 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ssiinc.com by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA0547851609; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 20:25:13 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07162; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com"
 via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa001jl; Tue Mar  3 19:33:56 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: "Eugene Volokh" <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shortish op-ed on concealed carry
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

    Reposted with permission.  I suspect those on this list already
know most of the facts chronicled here, but I thought it might
still be useful for those who like to forward these sorts of things.



- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

Date sent:      Sun, 01 Mar 1998 20:56:47 -0500
To:             [e-mail], [e-mail]
From:           Center Right <[e-mail]>
Subject:        CENTER-RIGHT  Issue 1, March 2, 1998


           CENTER-RIGHT, a free weeklyish e-newsletter
        of centrist, conservative, and libertarian ideas
                     Issue 1, March 2, 1998
                      Over 1100 subscribers

                PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS
            to anyone you think might be interested.
   Subscription and unsubscription instructions at the bottom.

=================================================================



  No Smoking Guns: Answering Objections to Right-to-Carry Laws
                          [1100 words]

National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 246 (by
Morgan Reynolds & H. Sterling Burnett):


     Since 1986 the number of states in which it is legal to carry
concealed weapons has grown from nine to 31, representing 49
percent of the country's population.  Should we feel safer?

     Opponents of right-to-carry laws predicted a sharp decline in
public safety because minor incidents would escalate into killings
and more children would be victimized by more guns in irresponsible
hands.  Further, critics claimed that criminals would be undeterred
by any increase in armed citizens.  Indeed, they claimed that
right-to-carry laws would increase crime rather than deter it.
Experience has proven them wrong.

     What objections do the critics offer?


     Objection #1: Citizens are safe enough without handguns.

     Criminals commit 10 million violent and 30 million property
crimes a year.  Hospital emergency rooms treat an estimated 1.4
million people a year for injuries inflicted in violent attacks,
according to a recent Department of Justice study.

     Since the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have held that
the police are not obligated to protect individuals from crime,
citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense.
Carrying a handgun allows millions to effectively provide for their
own protection.


     Objection #2: Concealed weapons do not deter crime.

     In choosing their crimes, criminals weigh the prospective
costs against the benefits.  If criminals suspect that the costs
will be too high, they are less likely to commit a crime.  The
possibility of a concealed weapon tilts the odds against the
criminal and in favor of the victim.  A survey of 1,847 felons in
10 states found them more concerned about meeting an armed victim
than running into the police.

     Their concern is well founded.  Victims use handguns an
estimated 1.9 million times each year in self-defense against an
attack by another person, according to a survey conducted by
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.  Studies have
found that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun cut the
risks of injury in half.

     Moreover, a study by economists John Lott and David Mustard of
the University of Chicago, published in the January 1997 Journal of
Legal Studies, examined the impact of concealed carry permits.
Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, the
study found that:

     *  Concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent, rape
by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

     *  Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, 1,600
fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults
would have occurred during those 15 years.

     In addition, the deterrent effect of concealed handgun laws
proved highest in counties with high crime rates.  For example, FBI
statistics showed that in counties with populations of more than
200,000 (typically the counties with the highest rates of violent
crime), laws allowing concealed carry produced a 13 percent drop in
the murder rate and a 7 percent decline in rapes.

     Case Study: Vermont.  Vermont has long had the least
restrictive firearms carry laws, allowing citizens to carry guns
either openly or concealed without any permit.  Vermont also has
maintained one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country.
For example:

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

     *  In 1996 Vermont's rates remained among the lowest in the
country at 25 percent of the national rate for homicide and 8
percent for robbery.


     Objection #3: Right-to-carry laws boost killings on impulse.

     Widespread gun availability was supposed to lead to a "wild-
west" mentality with more shootings and deaths as people vented
their anger with pistols instead of fists.  Yet FBI data show that,
as a share of all homicides, killings that resulted from arguments
declined.  In addition:

     *  Dade County, Fla., kept meticulous records for six years,
and of 21,000 permit holders, none was known to have injured an
innocent person.

     *  Since Virginia passed a right-to-carry law, more than
50,000 permits have been issued, not one permit holder has been
convicted of a crime and violent crime has dropped.


     Moreover, those who have broken the rules have lost their
privilege to carry a gun.

     *  Texas has revoked or suspended nearly 300 permits for minor
violations like failure to conceal or carrying a gun in a bar.

     *  Between 1987 and 1995, Florida issued nearly 300,000
permits, but revoked only 19 because the permit holder had
committed a crime.  That's one crime per 14,000 permit holders
during a nine-year period, an incredibly low rate compared to a
criminal arrest rate of one per 14 Americans age 15 and older each
year.


     Objection #4: Concealed carry puts guns in untrained hands.

     Before issuing a concealed carry permit, most states require
that the applicant prove he or she has been thoroughly trained,
with:

     *  10 to 15 hours emphasizing conflict resolution.

     *  A pre-test and a final test covering the laws of self-
defense and the consequences of misuse of deadly force.

     *  A stress on gun safety in the classroom and on the firing
range.

     *  A stringent shooting accuracy test which applicants must
pass each time they renew their permit.

     Of course, a person who has only a split second to decide
whether to use deadly force can make a mistake.  However, only
about 30 such mistaken civilian shootings occur nationwide each
year.  The police kill in error three times as often.


     Objection #5: Concealed carry increases accidental gun deaths.

     The Lott-Mustard study found no increase in accidental
shootings in counties with "shall issue" right-to-carry laws, where
authorities have to issue the permit to all who meet the criteria.
Nor have other studies.  Nationally, there are about 1,400
accidental firearms deaths each year -- far fewer than the number
of deaths attributable to medical errors or automobile accidents.
The national death rate from firearms has declined even while
firearm ownership has almost doubled in the last 20 years (figure
at http://www.ncpa.org/ba/gif/firearms.gif), and 22 more states
have liberalized right-to-carry laws:

     *  The fatal firearm accident rate has declined to about .5
per 100,000 people -- a decrease of more than 19 percent in the
last decade.

     *  The number of fatal firearms-related accidents among
children fell to an all-time low of 185 in 1994, a 64 percent
decline since 1975.


     Conclusion.

     Concealed carry laws have not contributed to a big increase in
gun ownership.  Nor has allowing citizens the right to carry
firearms for self-protection led to the negative consequences
claimed by critics.  In fact, these laws have lowered violent crime
rates and increased the general level of knowledge concerning the
rights, responsibilities and laws of firearm ownership.

     Putting unarmed citizens at the mercy of armed and violent
criminals was never a good idea.  Now that the evidence is in, we
know that concealed carry is a social good.



     This Brief Analysis was prepared by Morgan Reynolds,
     Director of the NCPA Criminal Justice Center, and H.
     Sterling Burnett, Policy Analyst with the NCPA.

     Original document is on the Web at
     http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba246.html

=================================================================

More on this topic:

     "Myths About Gun Control," also co-written by Morgan Reynolds
of the NCPA, http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176.html

     NRA Web site, http://www.nra.org

     Handgun Control, Inc. Web site, http://www.handguncontrol.org
(temporarily down when checked on Thursday, February 26).

     Second Amendment law library, http://www.2ndlawlib.org

     "The Commonplace Second Amendment," a law review article by
your humble editor, forthcoming in the NYU Law Review,
http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/common.htm

=================================================================

    This list is edited by Eugene Volokh, who teaches
constitutional law and copyright law at UCLA Law School
(http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh), and organized with the
help of Terry Wynn and the Federalist Society.

    To subscribe, send a message containing the text (NOT the
subject line)
    SUBSCRIBE CENTER-RIGHT
to [e-mail]

    To unsubscribe, send a message containing the text (NOT the
subject line)
    UNSUBSCRIBE CENTER-RIGHT
to [e-mail]




CENTER-RIGHT, a low-traffic, high-quality electronic newsletter of
centrist, conservative, and libertarian ideas.





- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, [phone]  fax -7010
               405 Hilgard Ave., L.A., CA 90095



- -

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:30:47 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: CCW around UofU.

- ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
- ----------
From: Chris Kierst <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: LPU: URGENT: SB57 WITHDRAWN! -Reply
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 1998, 2:43 PM


I should like to add that Jim requested that I check with the Sheriff to see if
it was possible to show the area around the UofU to be a dangerous area.  I
learned several things with this arcane drill.  First, that their GIS
capabilities are relatively new to their functions and they don't have much
available yet (I don't know that GIS is even able to benefit the cop on the
street in real time in a meaningful way at this time).  Secondly, as  is
understandable, they are leary of producing crime-related maps for the general
public (I wasn't asking for that anyway) because of the expense.  Thirdly, the
crime related maps they have produced are done for what are called "community
council areas" (city councilperson districts).  It turns out that they are not
responsible for reporting on crime in the area of the U anyway, the city is.
The city law enforcement GIS is still also in its infancy.  The officers are
actually kinda leary of it, especially if it is coupled w/ GPS (I don't see why
considering y2k; "And who will guard the guards?")  They use a grid system with
each cell of the grid a 4 block by 4 block area.  In the 16 grid cell area
surrounding and including the U grounds in 1996 there were (rough count):

2 drive bys
81 drug busts ("drug cases")
14 "gang related cases"
11 rapes
24 robberies
33 aggravated assaults (over twice the 1995 tally)
225 residential burglaries
46 business burglaries
4 arsons
no killings in 1996 but one in 1995
and a partridge in a pear tree

The area thus defined is the area from 800 east to 2400 east and from 400 north
to 1200 south.  The area is clearly the eastern marginal area of the inner city
high crime zone based on distribution of occurances.  Are there higher crime
areas? Definitely!  But the area around the U is definitely anomalous compared
to the areas north, south and east.  The west and south tiers of grid cells are
particularly rough (by East H. S.).  I can see no reason for not packing heat in
the U area.  It is perfectly reasonable.  Data available upon request for
review.

- ----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.

"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time
 that men have died to win them." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

- -

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:30:10 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: March 15 column - inconvenient reality]

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

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MARCH 15, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    If reality is inconvenient ... ignore it

    Since last month's "Great Las Vegas Anthrax Caper" turned out to be a
false alarm, a combination of the FBI going off half-cocked and the press
happily lapping up any libel they're handed (so long as it supposedly
involves "white supremacist militia" types), the government couldn't
possibly use the now-discredited "threat" of an anthrax attack by a bunch
of Nevada Mormon bishops to justify, say, setting up a new police
paramilitary training academy, teaching cops how to dress up like Army
Special Forces and accustoming them to launching SWAT raids against
domestic "terrorist" targets INSIDE THE UNITED STATES ... could they?

  Brett Davis of the Newhouse News Service reported in early March:


  "WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials could get the nod as early as
this week to begin setting up a domestic terrorism training center at Fort
McClellan in Anniston, Ala.

  "The $2 million in start-up funding for the National Center for Domestic
Preparedness, as it is called, has already been approved by Congress.

  "As soon as Attorney General Janet Reno decides which Justice Department
office will have jurisdiction over the school ... federal and local
officials will begin setting it up. It could begin its first classes by
June.

  " 'The timing could not be better,' said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., a
chief sponsor of the new school.

  "This new mission at Fort McClellan, which is closing as a military base
at the end of next year, is intended to train the 'first responders' at
sites of terrorist attacks, including incidents involving chemical or
biological weapons.

  "The recent arrest of two men in Las Vegas accused of planning an anthrax
attack on the New York subway system has heightened interest in defending
against such attacks. That case was a false alarm -- the anthrax in
question turned out to be a harmless anthrax vaccine.

  "Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who has oversight of the Justice Department
through his seat on the Judiciary Committee, said real attacks are probably
just a matter of time. ...

   "The base's tunnels and other structures can be used to simulate
subways, shopping malls or other urban settings, giving the training added
realism.

  "Firefighters, police and emergency medical technicians from around the
country are expected to enroll in the five-day training sessions. ...

     #  #  #

  Meantime, at the conclusion of the Steven Spielberg film "Amistad," the
African protagonist is seen aboard another ship, as land rises to the east.

  The irony of Cinque's return to Africa, the viewers are informed, is that
he learned upon his arrival that a civil war had been going on there for
some time, and that many of his countrymen had, themselves, been captured
and sold away.

  But just as Mr. Spielberg, for all his artistic brilliance, decided to
rewrite history to match the prejudices of today's urban liberal audience
in his "Schindler's List" (Oscar Schindler ARMED his Jewish employees when
he moved them to Czechoslovakia, so they could PROTECT THEMSELVES ...
though that politically significant fact was carefully deleted from the
film), it turns out that was not the real irony of Cinque's return to his
native land.

  As the distinguished American historian Samuel Eliot Morrison wrote in
his "Oxford History of the American People," (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1965), page 520:

  "The most famous case involving slavery, until eclipsed by Dred Scott's,
was that of the Amistad in 1839. She was a Spanish slave ship carrying 53
newly imported Negroes who were being moved from Havana to another Cuban
port. Under the leadership of an upstanding Negro named Cinque, they
mutinied and killed captain and crew. Then, ignorant of navigation, they
had to rely on a white man whom they had spared to sail the ship.

  "He stealthily steered north, the Amistad was picked up off Long Island
by a United States warship, taken into New Haven, and with her cargo placed
in charge of the federal marshal.

  "Then what a legal hassle! ... Lewis Tappan and Roger Sherman Baldwin, a
Connecticut abolitionist, undertook to free them by legal process, and the
case was appealed to the Supreme Court. John Quincy Adams, persuaded to act
as their attorney, argued that the Negroes be freed, on the ground that the
slave trade was illegal both by American and Spanish law, and that mankind
had a natural right to freedom.

  "The court with a majority of Southerners, was so impressed by the old
statesman's eloquence that it ordered Cinque and the other Negroes set
free, and they were returned to Africa.

  "The ironic epilogue is that Cinque, once home, set himself up as a slave
trader."


  If history is more interesting than fiction, perhaps it's because the
people now in charge of doctoring up our fiction have no real taste for the
delicious ironies of history, which are so often at odds with the pompous
simple-mindedness of propaganda.

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

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

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




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

- --

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

"...The right of the people peacefully to assemble for lawful purposes
 existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United
 States. In fact, it is and always has been one of the attributes of a
 free government. It `derives its source,' to use the language of Chief
 Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v Ogden, 9 Wheat., 211, `from those laws
 whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.'
 It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right
 granted to the people by the Constitution... The second and tenth counts
 are equally defective. The right there specified is that of `bearing
 arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the
 constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependant upon that instrument
 for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not
 infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not
 be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no
 other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government..."
 UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK; 92 US 542; (1875)

- -

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 12:46:17 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: GSL> NEAL KNOX REPORT -Forwarded

Received: (qmail 15036 invoked by uid 516); 4 Mar 1998 19:39:21 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 14768 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1998 19:39:01 -0000
Received: from in4.doitnow.com (207.98.156.13)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 1998 19:39:01 -0000
Received: from default (dialup5-1-36.doitnow.com [207.211.43.36])
    by in4.doitnow.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA09188;
    Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:38:45 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 12:43:02 -0700
To: [e-mail]
From: danda <[e-mail]>
Subject: GSL> NEAL KNOX REPORT
Cc: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

- ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
NEAL KNOX REPORT

                         The Heston File
                          By NEAL KNOX

     WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 2) -- The Lyndon B. Johnson
Presidential Library in Austin today confirmed that NRA First
Vice President Charlton Heston actively worked with the Johnson
Administration in passing the 1968 Gun Control Act.

     Heston, who is in line to be elected NRA President in June
if elected to the Board in the election now underway, has served
as a public spokesman for NRA for several years.
     Heston's role in expanding the 1968 Safe Streets Act to
prohibit the interstate sale or transfer of rifles and shotguns
came to light about two weeks ago when the text of two LBJ
Library documents began circulating on the Internet.

     The documents were so historically accurate that they
refreshed memories of the fury of our battle against the Gun
Control Act, but I didn't recall the huge Hollywood effort having
included Heston.

     I worried that an enemy might have added Heston's name in an
effort to torpedo his NRA fundraising.

     But 13 pages documenting Heston's gun control efforts are in
the LBJ Library, White House Central Files "SP" and "LE," Boxes 5
and 80.

     On June 12, 1968, White House Deputy Special Counsel Larry
Levinson sent a memo to a speech writer:  "At the President's
suggestion, Jack Valenti has agreed to hold a luncheon in Los
Angeles ... June 17, at which a number of famous movie actors --
particularly those who play cowboys -- will speak out in favor of
the President's gun control legislation.

     "For this luncheon, we need two pithy, one-page statements
which will be read by two of the 'cowboys' (probably Charlton
Heston ...), supporting the President's Gun Control Bill."

     That same day Levinson sent a telegram to Heston at his
Beverly Hills home with a proposed statement that the Safe
Streets Act "is only a half-way measure.  It covers only handguns
- -- but fails to include shotguns and rifles. ...  As you know, a
mail order rifle was used to assassinate President John F.
Kennedy, and a rifle was used to kill Dr. Martin Luther King."

     On June 18, 1968 Levinson sent a memo to President Johnson:
"Through Jack Valenti's good work, five movie actors will appear
tonight on the Joey Bishop show ... to strongly support your gun
control proposal.  The actors involved are Gregory Peck, Charlton
Heston, Hugh O'Brian [sic], James Stewart and Kirk Douglas.

     "They will read a very tough statement which we prepared
here applauding your action in calling for strict gun curbs."
     Two days later, on June 20, Special Assistant to the
President Joe Califano sent President Johnson a copy of a
statement "which Hugh O'Brien read on the Joey Bishop Show last
Tuesday.  This was a statement subscribed to by Kirk Douglas,
James Stewart, Gregory Peck and Charleton [sic] Heston 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."

     The statement reminded Joey Bishop's audience that "Two
weeks ago, Robert F. Kennedy became one of thousands of Americans
struck down by an assassin's bullet."

     It added: "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 sale of rifles and shotguns.

     "President John F. Kennedy was murdered by a rifle.
     "Martin Luther King was murdered by a rifle.
     "Medgar Evers was murdered by a rifle."

     On June 18 Hollywood public relations consultant Dick McKay
wrote Califano that "Charlton, Gregory [Peck] and Hugh personally
planted this statement with the bureau chiefs at AP and UPI.
They were greeted warmly and ... (t)he AP also photographed the
trio."

     Heston's gun control efforts are also found on Page 10 of
the October 1968 American Rifleman.  The head of a Hollywood
anti-gun group had praised Heston as one of "little more than a
handful" of "diehards" which included Warren Beatty, Candice
[sic] Bergen, Marlon Brando, O'Brien and Jill St. John.

     These events put fresh light on Heston's May 6, 1997
statements about some guns being "inappropriate for private
ownership."   We now have a better understanding of what he means
when he talks about bringing NRA into "the mainstream."

     And now I know why I've never seen a picture of him with
anything other than a flintlock rifle or a double-barrel shotgun.

     Voters now have a clear choice in the election -- Heston's
slate or the Second Amendment patriots he imperiously tells you
to "Vote Against."
                               ---
     For a list of the candidates Neal supports, see his "Knox
Report" in the ballot issue of the March NRA magazines.  Knox
also urges a "Yes" vote on the member-petitioned "Financial
Reporting and Officer Good Conduct" Bylaw amendment.
                               ##  #

    Dennis


- --------------------------
GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List

This list is governed by an acceptable use
policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html
or available upon request.

To unsubscribe send a message to
[e-mail]

with the following line in the body:

unsubscribe gsl

GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST.
THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #31
**********************************