ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n033

Internet Message Format | 1998-03-08 | 45KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #33
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest       Monday, March 9 1998       Volume 02 : Number 033




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

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 11:49:10 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Everybody's SURFING now, let's go surfing now,...   -Forwarded

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id BAA12739; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 01:42:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 01:42:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma012701; Fri Mar  6 01:39:58 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Neal Atkins <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Everybody's SURFING now, let's go surfing now,...
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list


Whilst surfing the net I came across an interesting anti-gun site.  it's

http://www1.jointogether.org

It's a much better run site than most and it has a list of "non-profit" foundations that
FUND the anti-gunners.  Wouldn't it be interesting if WE ( meaning VA or TX groups, or
anyone else with the time to deal with the situation)
were to apply for some of this gravy to spout OUR MESSAGE!!  They detailed sources
of 10 BILLION in fund dollars that were waiting to be spent.

Is there anyone out there with experience in weasle wording fund requests?  I'd love to
set up an "ANTI-VIOLENCE" group to teach young people responsablity and self-worth
by learning to shoot responsably.

Check it out.

And the MacArthur fund that is listed (and linked) to them has in their "things we don't
fund" list a blurb about "we don't fund political organizations".  Look up their e-mail
address and remind them they ARE FUNDING A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION!!

Ain't e-mail grand?






- -

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

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:57:07 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shameful Inaction on Guns

Hi all!

Bet you didn't know that "gun rights" were invented in 1995, when the Utah
legislature instituted PERMITS.
Bet you didn't know that self-defense is a "compulsion" and not a right,
either.

And it's funny - as far as I can tell, they don't think that overturning
Roberti-Roos in California is even NEWS.  I haven't seen a word about it
anywhere.

Responses may be sent to [e-mail]

Sarah


http://www.sltrib.com/03061998/opinion/26436.htm

>                                 [Image]
>  [Image] [Image]         Friday, March 6, 1998         [Image] [Image]
>
>                        Shameful Inaction on Guns
>
>
>      Utah's legislators
>  walked away from their responsibility on concealed weapons when they
>  walked out of the Capitol at the close of their session Wednesday.
>  Their failure once again to amend the state's flawed 1995 law
>  represents the most egregious example this year of lawmakers ignoring
>  the electorate.
>      In defending a concealed-weapon permit holder's right to carry a
>  gun anywhere, ``without restriction,'' Utah's gun-happy Republicans
>  seem to think the world began in 1995, when the Legislature loosened
>  the requirements for obtaining a permit. Before that, only a handful
>  of Utahns had permits -- those who had demonstrated they needed one
>  -- and there was little evidence the system was broken.
>      Now, with the rash passage of the 1995 law and the subsequent
>  permitting of more than 15,000 gun owners, it is as if any amending
>  of the carelessly crafted legislation -- like, say, keeping guns out
>  of schools and churches, as most Utahns would prefer -- would somehow
>  infringe on the sacred, 3-year-old rights of permit holders, who,
>  after all, haven't shot anybody yet.
>      That the Legislature failed again to modify this law represents a
>  collective abdication of duty. Ever since passage of the 1995 law,
>  complaint after complaint has arisen from entities that do not want
>  weapons carriers on their premises -- from businesses to schools to
>  churches to universities to, inevitably, operators of Olympic venues
>  in 2002. But legislators ignore these voices; they evidently are
>  waiting for one errant gunshot.
>      They miss the point completely. What must be balanced here is the
>  permit holder's overinflated compulsion for self-defense in these
>  aforementioned places against the general public's desire to feel
>  safe and gun-free in these environments. The math is simple, and so
>  is the logic: These new permit holders could not carry weapons into
>  churches and schools four years ago, so why treat it as some
>  unalterable right now?
>      Sen. Robert Steiner has tried to correct the 1995
>  concealed-weapon permit law the last two years. The Legislature
>  failed to consider his bill last year. This year, he came back with
>  S.B. 183, which would have covered all the right bases -- churches,
>  schools, colleges, private residences, and business and places of
>  employment that choose to ban firearms on the premises.
>      Given last year's experience, he needed the support of the
>  leadership. So he backed a piecemeal approach offered by Senate
>  President Lane Beattie. But Beattie withdrew his bill too late in the
>  session to move S.B. 183 -- not that it would have gotten anywhere in
>  this Legislature anyway.
>      Legislators must transport themselves back to 1994 and reconsider
>  what places they reasonably would have deemed off limits to permitted
>  weapons if they had it to do over again. Then they should amend the
>  law to keep guns out of churches, schools, universities and any place
>  of employment or private business or residence where the owner so
>  chooses. They must end their shameful negligence on this issue.
>
>
>
>                 [Image] [Friday Navigation Bar] [Image]
>
>                                 [Image]
>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  ) Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune
>
>  All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake
>  Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced
>  or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
>            --------------------------------------------------
>      Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.



- -

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:07:16 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: One more police force

Do we really need one more police force in this State?  Especially
one that likes to wear khaki uniforms?

                                                                     [Image]
[Local]
                                                                     [Image]

                                      [Image]

                                      [Movies]

       [Image]

       UTA hires a security force to prowl for problems
       [Image]
       Bus cops to field questions, deal with unruly passengers
       [Image]
       Last updated 03/06/1998, 10:18 a.m. MT

       By Zack Van Eyck
       Deseret News staff writer

             The few, the proud, the . . . Utah Transit Authority public
       safety officers.
             OK, so maybe joining UTA's new security force doesn't carry
       the same prestige as enlisting in the fabled Marines.
             But UTA's latest hires are ready to be all they can be to bus
       passengers throughout the agency's six-county service area.
             That means helping them catch the right bus, read UTA route
       maps, locate bus stops, pay the correct fare and, in general, follow
       the rules and etiquette of responsible bus riding.
             Like their counterparts in the military, UTA's transit
       officers might have to get physical if any nation, er, passenger
       becomes unruly or breaks the law. Thanks in part to a law passed
       recently by the state Legislature, UTA's bus cops will have the
       authority to remove and detain hostile or uncooperative passengers.
             Beginning today, unarmed transit officers dressed in sharp
       khaki uniforms, shiny black shoes and black baseball caps will
       appear at bus stops, on buses and in UTA security vehicles from
       Ogden to Provo.
             Unlike Marines, UTA's transit officers aren't parachuting into
       a crisis situation. Agency officials say their 550 buses have not
       been besieged by crime. UTA entered a $406,800 annual contract with
       the Wackenhut Corp. to prepare for the future when its transit
       network will include a 15-mile light-rail mass transit system.
             "This is not being brought about because we have any security
       problems," UTA general manager John Inglish said Thursday during the
       public unveiling of the Transit Public Safety Officers group near a
       State Street bus stop.
             UTA board member Ron Whitehead said the agency is being
       proactive rather than reactive.
             "The whole thing is a deterrent to crime," said Coralie Alder,
       UTA community relations specialist. "We have a relatively safe
       system now. We're just trying to keep ahead of the situation."
             Twelve officers, earning an average of $10 per hour, are now
       employed by Wackenhut as UTA transit cops. Three more will be hired
       soon. At least four and as many as seven officers will be in the
       field at any given time between 8 a.m. and midnight, six days a
       week.
             "I think it'll take some time for people to get used to us,
       seeing us around," said Stacy Martinez, the only woman among the
       first 12 officers. "We're hoping it will be a good experience for
       everybody we come in contact with."
             UTA Security Administrator Mike Dorman said the officers will
       not carry weapons for now but could in the future, if necessary.
             Joe Dongvillo, one of two field supervisors, said he and three
       other transit officers are already certified as peace officers who
       can carry weapons.
             "We've trained our officers in crisis management and
       verbal-communication skills," said Dongvillo, 43, of Riverton.
       "They will be able to handle 98 percent of the situations they
       encounter" without having to use physical force.
             The officers, however, will be able to make arrests.
             Dongvillo said his troops will be on the lookout for loud and
       rowdy teens, passengers or bus-stop loiterers who may be
       intoxicated, patrons disturbing or arguing with other passengers and
       riders who hassle bus drivers.
             The officers will stand at bus stops and ride buses, but most
       often will cruise bus routes in their patrol cars, responding to
       dispatch requests or following certain buses to monitor potential
       problems.
             "Their instructions are to be flexible and friendly and treat
       people courteously and do everything they can to solve problems in
       an amicable fashion," said Bill Essex, projects manager for
       Wackenhut, which provides a similar service for transit agencies in
       seven other U.S. cities, including Denver and Miami.
             Dorman said UTA officers won't replace local law enforcement
       agencies, but will work with them to keep transit peace.
       [Image]

       [Image]

       [Image]
                                      [Image]
[Image]


- --

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

"It is better to die on one's feet, than to continue living on your knees."
    --Emiliano Zapata

- -

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:18:40 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Shameful Inaction on Guns]

Forwarded from utah-firearms...

- ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
Hi all!

Bet you didn't know that "gun rights" were invented in 1995, when the Utah
legislature instituted PERMITS.
Bet you didn't know that self-defense is a "compulsion" and not a right,
either.

And it's funny - as far as I can tell, they don't think that overturning
Roberti-Roos in California is even NEWS.  I haven't seen a word about it
anywhere.

Responses may be sent to [e-mail]

Sarah


http://www.sltrib.com/03061998/opinion/26436.htm

>                                 [Image]
>  [Image] [Image]         Friday, March 6, 1998         [Image] [Image]
>
>                        Shameful Inaction on Guns
>
>
>      Utah's legislators
>  walked away from their responsibility on concealed weapons when they
>  walked out of the Capitol at the close of their session Wednesday.
>  Their failure once again to amend the state's flawed 1995 law
>  represents the most egregious example this year of lawmakers ignoring
>  the electorate.
>      In defending a concealed-weapon permit holder's right to carry a
>  gun anywhere, ``without restriction,'' Utah's gun-happy Republicans
>  seem to think the world began in 1995, when the Legislature loosened
>  the requirements for obtaining a permit. Before that, only a handful
>  of Utahns had permits -- those who had demonstrated they needed one
>  -- and there was little evidence the system was broken.
>      Now, with the rash passage of the 1995 law and the subsequent
>  permitting of more than 15,000 gun owners, it is as if any amending
>  of the carelessly crafted legislation -- like, say, keeping guns out
>  of schools and churches, as most Utahns would prefer -- would somehow
>  infringe on the sacred, 3-year-old rights of permit holders, who,
>  after all, haven't shot anybody yet.
>      That the Legislature failed again to modify this law represents a
>  collective abdication of duty. Ever since passage of the 1995 law,
>  complaint after complaint has arisen from entities that do not want
>  weapons carriers on their premises -- from businesses to schools to
>  churches to universities to, inevitably, operators of Olympic venues
>  in 2002. But legislators ignore these voices; they evidently are
>  waiting for one errant gunshot.
>      They miss the point completely. What must be balanced here is the
>  permit holder's overinflated compulsion for self-defense in these
>  aforementioned places against the general public's desire to feel
>  safe and gun-free in these environments. The math is simple, and so
>  is the logic: These new permit holders could not carry weapons into
>  churches and schools four years ago, so why treat it as some
>  unalterable right now?
>      Sen. Robert Steiner has tried to correct the 1995
>  concealed-weapon permit law the last two years. The Legislature
>  failed to consider his bill last year. This year, he came back with
>  S.B. 183, which would have covered all the right bases -- churches,
>  schools, colleges, private residences, and business and places of
>  employment that choose to ban firearms on the premises.
>      Given last year's experience, he needed the support of the
>  leadership. So he backed a piecemeal approach offered by Senate
>  President Lane Beattie. But Beattie withdrew his bill too late in the
>  session to move S.B. 183 -- not that it would have gotten anywhere in
>  this Legislature anyway.
>      Legislators must transport themselves back to 1994 and reconsider
>  what places they reasonably would have deemed off limits to permitted
>  weapons if they had it to do over again. Then they should amend the
>  law to keep guns out of churches, schools, universities and any place
>  of employment or private business or residence where the owner so
>  chooses. They must end their shameful negligence on this issue.
>
>
>
>                 [Image] [Friday Navigation Bar] [Image]
>
>                                 [Image]
>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  ) Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune
>
>  All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake
>  Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced
>  or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
>            --------------------------------------------------
>      Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.



- -


- ----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.

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and
 degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing
 is worth fighting for is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he
 is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal
 safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless
 made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- Seen
 on a poster at a gun show. No author was cited for this truly excellent
 statement.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:36:24 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is it time to call the Govenor to sign SB 140 and SB  141?    -Forwarded -Forwarded

Received: (from uucp@localhost) by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id PAA02947 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:08:08 -0700
Received: from gw1.thiokol.com by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com via smap (3.2)
    id xma002823; Fri, 6 Mar 98 15:07:41 -0700
Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM
    with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:08:16 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:08:08 -0700
From: "Neil W. Sagers" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Is it time to call the Govenor to sign SB 140 and SB 141?
    -Forwarded

Received: From [209.37.209.129] thiokol-bh.thiokol.com
      By THIOKOL.COM (GroupWise SMTP/MIME daemon 4.11)
      Fri,  6 Mar 98 15:05:21 MST
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id PAA01960 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:04:38 -0700
Received: from mars.aros.net by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com via smap (3.2)
    id xma001943; Fri, 6 Mar 98 15:04:35 -0700
Received: from shell.aros.net ([e-mail] [207.173.16.19])
          by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP
      id PAA14862 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:01:06 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [207.173.25.144] (dm3-47.slc.aros.net [207.173.25.144])
    by shell.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA05290
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:04:31 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <v01510100b125c380a2a9@[207.173.25.26]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:04:31 -0700
From: American Gun Review  <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Is it time to call the Govenor to sign SB 140 and SB 141?

Hi Neil,

Thanks to gun rights activists like you, Utah gun owners came out a winner
this year!

As far as we can tell, there is NO OPPOSITION to SB140 & SB141; meaning DPS
doesn't have a problem with it, so the word is that the Gov. will SIGN them
BOTH.  Therefore, at this time, we are not asking for people to call
Leavitt.  But stay tuned.  You never know what that fickle Leavitt is going
to do.

Thanks for your support.

As always, yours in freedom,
Shirley





- -

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

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:54:58 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: February/March Harris Poll OnLine -Forwarded

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id RAA29717; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:46:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:46:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma029618; Fri Mar  6 17:41:22 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: "Posthill, John B." <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: February/March Harris Poll OnLine
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

Dear Fellow Culture Warriors:

I registered with Harris to be able to have some input into national
polls on politics.

I did and got to participate in the one below.  Perhaps you can too if
you want.  It has gun control and Monicagate relevance but of course
there is a lot of extra marketing crap to go through.  Takes about 15
minute sor so to do.

FYI,
John Posthill

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    [e-mail] [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    Friday, March 06, 1998 1:50 PM
> To:    '[e-mail]'
> Subject:    February/March Harris Poll OnLine
>
> Dear Harris Poll Online Member,
>
> As part of our promise to provide an ongoing forum for your opinions,
> we
> now invite you to participate in the first HARRIS POLL ONLINE of 1998,
>
> the World Wide Web equivalent of the prestigious Harris (telephone)
> Poll
> of February/March, 1998.
>
> The HARRIS POLL ONLINE is your opportunity to share your opinions with
>
> people who make decisions about your life, the laws that affect you
> and
> your community, and the products and services you buy to make your
> life
> easier.  But not all HARRIS POLL ONLINE questions explore "serious"
> matters--a few surprises are also included.
>
> To participate, visit http://hpol.harrispollonline.com/feb98a.htm on
> the
> World Wide Web today.  The survey will take about fifteen minutes to
> complete.
>
> We appreciate your participation and look forward to providing you
> with
> additional opportunities to express your opinion.


- -

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

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 17:10:50 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One more police force

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Do we really need one more police force in this State?  Especially
> one that likes to wear khaki uniforms?
>
>
>              "This is not being brought about because we have any security
>        problems," UTA general manager John Inglish said

Of course we do!  What's wrong with you?  Can't you see?  They don't
_have_ any problems, that's a crises that MUST be dealt with, NOW!

>     UTA entered a $406,800 annual contract with
>        the Wackenhut Corp. to prepare for the future when its transit
>        network will include a 15-mile light-rail mass transit system.

'Sides, you didn't need that $407k...per year...to do anything
like...oh,
maybe buy an air conditioner for a school, or lower taxes, or....

- -

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

Date: Sat, 07 Mar 98 06:34:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: UTA's Wackenhut police

Charles Hardy wrote re: One more police force

> UTA entered a $406,800 annual contract with the Wackenhut Corp.
> to prepare for the future when its transit network will include
> a 15-mile light-rail mass transit system.

Now that's the scary part. Have you seen the shady doings of
that spook outfit? How fascist is UTA trying to make Utah?


- -

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:14:26 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Media Attacks on Richard Mack Have Begun -Forwarded

PROVO  -- Richard Mack already has put his name on a piece of
American history  -- a 1997 Supreme Court verdict that overturned a key
provision of a gun-control bill.

 As the crusading, Constitution-quoting sheriff of Graham County, Ariz.,
he made a national name for himself, appearing on the ``Today Show,''
``Good Morning America,'' ``Donahue,'' CNN's ``Crossfire'' and National
Public Radio.

 Now, two years after publicity weary voters in southeastern Arizona
handed him a humiliating defeat, Richard Mack wants to be a sheriff
again: in his old college town of Provo.

 ``If your sheriff is not going to stand up for freedom, there's very little of
value he has to offer,'' said Mack, who is best known for his successful
lawsuit against the federal government, which did away with the
``Brady Bill'' requirement that police conduct background checks on gun
buyers.

 Mack is revving up a well-financed and ideologically charged campaign
to unseat longtime Utah County Sheriff David Bateman in the June
Republican primary.

 It promises to be one of the more colorful elections in recent Utah County
history  -- largely because Mack brought a roof-rack full of political
baggage with him when he moved here last year from Safford, Ariz.,
with the intention of running for sheriff.

 His many speaking engagements before right-wing groups earned him a
reputation as a friend to militias and patriot groups that advocate the
overthrow of the U.S. government.

 ``He is very much in the pantheon of heros in the anti-government
movement,'' said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center in
Montgomery, Ala., which monitors militias and hate groups. ``He goes
from gathering to gathering and is seen as a hero in the battle against the
tyrannical federal government.''

 Yet Mack, soft-spoken and unfailingly cordial, defies easy pigeonholing
as a one-note zealot.

 Indeed, he is a study in complexity: He professes contempt for federal
law enforcement, yet he is the son of an FBI agent and tried three times
to get into the FBI himself. He is the co-author of a book called From My
Cold Dead Fingers: Why America Needs Guns!, yet he doesn't hunt,
doesn't have a personal liking for guns and never even owned a firearm
until he was elected sheriff in 1988.

 ``I wouldn't know an Uzi from an AK-47 if I saw one,'' he said. ``I've
never been into guns. But when somebody takes them away from me,
then I've got a problem.''

 In person, Mack looks more like a New York investment banker than a
grizzled Western lawman.

 He is a graduate of Brigham Young University who spent 10 years as a
Provo police officer before making a calculated move back to his Arizona
hometown in 1988 to make a winning shot at the sheriff's job there.

 He is holding a job with American Institute for Research, a Provo
company that sells exercise trampolines, mineral-diet supplements and
investment portfolios.

 The company has an office on University Drive in a tony colonial-style
building with shiny brass chandeliers and paintings of fox hunts on the
cream-colored wall.

 Mack, 45, landed here after leaving Safford in August 1997 in the wake
of a crushing defeat in the 1996 Democratic primary. One of his deputies
trounced him by a 3-1 margin, even winning the precinct in Thatcher,
Ariz., where Mack lived.

 Many voters felt Sheriff Mack had let the Brady Bill crusade go to his
head.

 ``He spent too much time away from here. He wanted to get on TV,
waving his little copy of the Constitution like it was a Bible,'' said Billie
Horner, who led an unsuccessful recall drive against Mack. ``He's a
smart aleck. People look into his eyes and they're blank.''

 Delbert Householder, the former chairman of the Graham County Board
of Supervisors, said personally he liked Mack but felt the sheriff had
become too enmeshed in his quest against the government.

 ``When people vote for a local sheriff, they want him to take care of
local issues,'' he said. ``Richie liked the publicity.''

 $5,000 Reward: In the waning days of the campaign, Mack tried to
defuse the criticism by publishing an ad in the Eastern Arizona Courier
which gave a detailed accounting of the time he spent in office. He
offered a $5,000 reward to anyone who could prove differently. There
were no takers.

 Householder also said he fought with Mack over the issue of the
sheriff's office budget.

 ``He wanted more and more money and I was trying to keep spending
down,'' he said.

 In keeping with a rural Arizona tradition, Mack ran as a Democrat during
his Graham County days. He since has switched to the GOP, though he
said his core beliefs have never changed.

 If he becomes sheriff in Utah County, Mack said he would request a
budget increase  -- and even a tax hike  -- for only one thing: to increase
the pay of his deputies.

 ``It comes down to, do you want to have a responsible
law-enforcement department or don't you?'' he said. ``If you don't, the
same old problems are going to continue.''

 Pay Raises: The starting salary of a Utah County Sheriff's deputy is
between $23,000 and $28,000 per year; Mack said he would like to see
the average raised to $30,000.

 He first floated this idea in a mass-mailed campaign letter sent to the
homes of all deputies. He also promised a higher level of accountability,
proclaiming that ``the days of the doughnut shop cop will be over.''

 ``That offended me,'' said Sheriff Bateman. ``I have a very professional
and well-trained group of people and they don't work out of the coffee
shop.''

 The 57-year-old Bateman, who has been sheriff since 1985, is viewed
as vulnerable because of his longevity in office.

 He also has predicted publicly that the continuing urbanization of Utah
County will reduce the sheriff's office to becoming less of a
law-enforcement agency and more of a jail keeper and a process-server
in the next 10 to 15 years. A far-seeing statement, but a politically
dangerous one.

 Mack and the other Republican candidate, sheriff's Lt. Doug Witney, are
saying they will bring new blood and fresh energy to the 240-member
sheriff's office, which operates on an annual budget of $14.2 million.

 Avoiding Criticism: They are careful to avoid direct criticism of Bateman,
but say it is time for him ``to move on.''

 Witney, 48, said he would put more focus on consumer fraud and
white-collar crime. He also pledges to work in conjunction with federal
agents  -- a skill he says Mack may be philosophically incapable of.

 With 23 years of law-enforcement experience, Witney is a formidable
opponent to Bateman, but the incumbent sheriff says he is more afraid of
Mack, who he fears will draw financial backing from national right-wing
groups.

 This also could be Mack's greatest weakness. The questionable types
of people he rubbed shoulders with during his long period in the national
limelight already has become an issue in the sheriff's race.

 ``He's spent an awful lot of time in speaking engagements and
associating with groups that have an ideology that isn't mainstream
America by any manner or means,'' Bateman said.

 Mack was the subject of a lengthy and flattering front-page story in a
newspaper called The Jubilee, which has a high readership among
members of the white supremacist group Christian Identity.

 Potok called Jubilee ``the premiere Christian Identity publication in the
country.''
 ``Sheriff Richard Mack is now available full time to lecture and tell his
story,'' said the newspaper in 1996. ``The Christian patriot sheriff was
voted out of office in the Arizona primaries.''

 Mack strenuously denies that the racist or violent leanings of some of
his admirers have rubbed off on his personal feelings in any way. He
says he believes in unity among the races and has always been a
pacifist.

 ``I can't help who supported my cause,'' he said. ``I can't help who
honors me. . . . If a church group asks me to talk, I go talk. I don't refuse
interviews  -- I don't care who you are. If I can tell the truth, I'll tell it to Phil
Donahue or anybody else.''


- -

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:22:38 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: One World Gun Control races ahead -Forwarded

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id CAA00211; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:29:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:29:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma028449; Sun Mar  8 02:26:23 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Edgar Suter <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: One World Gun Control races ahead
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

Browse this site <http://www.prepcom.org/>... then _act_.
Edgar A. Suter MD
National Chair
Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc.



- -

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:30:25 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hearing in Fezell Case -Forwarded

Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id XAA05954 for [e-mail]; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 23:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: Chris Knox <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hearing in Fezell Case
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 00:51:34 -0700 (MST)
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

This is an unofficial transcript of a hearing held last week in the
Fezell case.  The only thing it lacks is the line numbers and the
paragraphing may be slightly different from the official version.

This hearing was prompted by the disregard that NRA management
showed for Judge Shainswit's original injunction against printing the
Nominating Committee report in the magazine.  The Bylaws clearly
state that candidates must not have the method of nomination in the
magazine.  The bylaw languished for some 16 years (including two
during which time Knox partisans controlled the Nominating
Committee.  Those Nominating Committees named some familiar names,
including Sue King, Marion Hammer, Susan Howard and others.

If it were possible for a judge to spank an attorney, Steve Shulman
would not be able to sit down for a week.  He is said to have left
the building red-faced and swearing.  People who know him reacted
with raised eyebrows at that.  Few have heard Mr. Shulman utter
profanity.

Chris Knox
http://www.NealKnox.com

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK                    1
COUNTY OF NEW YORK      -      PART 10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
HOWARD J. FEZELL, JOHN C. KRULL,
JERRY L. ALLEN, FRANK H. SAWBERGER,
LARRY R. RANKIN, JOHN GUEST, WILLIAM
DOMINGUEZ, JEFF KNOX, KIM STOLFER,               Index No.
JOHN H. TRENTES,                              600211/98

                    Plaintiffs,

     - against -

NATIONAL. RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

                    Defendant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
                    60 Centre Street
                    New York, New York
                    March 5, 1998

BEFORE:     HONORABLE BEATRIC SHAINSWIT, Justice

Appearances:

     WHITMAN, BREED, ABBOTT, MORGAN, LLP
          Attorneys for Plaintiffs
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, New York 10166
     BY . JOHN T. SHABAN, ESQ.

     CADWALADER WICKER SHAM TAFT, ESQS.
          Attorneys for Defendant
          100 Maidenlane
          New York, New York 10038
     BY:     GRANT B.  HERING, ESQ.

               -and-
     FREEDMAN, LEVY, KROLL, SIMONDS, ESQS.
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20036
     BY: STEPHEN N. SHULMAN, ESQ.

                              MAURICE J. SCHWARTZBERG
                              OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
2
Proceedings

     THE COURT Counsel, my attention has been called to a notice that
appeared in the NRA Magazine which I found very troubling, and since my
attention was called to it by a non-party to the proceeding, I would
like to have comments on it by the lawyers for the parties, please.
     MR. SHABAN: Your Honor, is this the notice in question?
     THE COURT: That is the notice in question. I'm sure you're familiar
with it.
     MR. SHABAN: Your Honor, I'm John Shaban, for the plaintiff.
     It's the plaintiffs' position and plaintiffs were in the process of
discussing if, what and how we should TO in dealing with this, that this
notice essentially flies in the face of all the work we've done to date.
     We received an injunction from your Honor to level the playing field,
force NRA to abide by its own bylaws.

3
Proceedings

     The Case Law supports your Honor's decision
     Your Honor put together a nine or ten page opinion clearly laying out
what  the rationale of the Court is and what's fair and what was to be
done, and what we believe the NRA has done with this notice was to
circumvent that order surreptitiously.
     They didn't say who was nominated by petition and who was nominated by
the nominating committee. But if your Honor will note, this notice
appeared on page P of the ballot issue directly behind the biographical
sketches of all the nominees
     So, essentially what they've done is blackball these ten candidates and
say, look, here's ten troublemakers, they put a monkeywrench in the
works.
     Until we get this thing figured out, we can't help you out here, but
here it is right in the middle of a ballot issue



4
Proceedings

     THE COURT: There's more, Counsel, little bit more than that.
     The statement at the bottom is: A preliminary injunction was issued by
Justice Shainswit.
     This injunction will be reviewed on appeal by the Appellate Division,
Until it is reversed, the injunction must be obeyed.
     I find that statement bordering very closely on contempt.
     Now, are you making a motion to this effect, sir?
     MR. SHABAN: Your Honor, we will make a motion for a contempt before the
Court.
     THE COURT: IS there anything you would like to say, counsel?
     MR. SHULMAN: First, your Honor, have not been informed until this
moment what the subject of this proceeding was going to be.
     THE COURT: That is not true, sir. You were informed by my law secretary

5
Proceedings

that the subject was the notice that appeared in your magazine.
     MR. SHULMAN: Your Honor, I accept what your Honor says, but I
personally have only been told that you received a letter, that your
Honor received a letter that included a page from a magazine, and we
would not be told what was on the page.
     THE COURT: No, sir.
     Would you like my secretary to testify that he referred you to this
particular notice?
     And, counsel, since I would be amazed to learn that you were not the
one who drew this notice, I find your innocence a little
disturbing, counsel.
     This is a notice drawn by lawyers, and you could not help but be aware
of it, sir.
     Now, what is it that you have to say in defense of letting this notice
appear in the Law Journal or drafting it, or whatever you had to do with
it,

6
Proceedings

sir?
     MR. SHULMAN: If your Honor would like, I would be happy to have the
secretary of the NRA who prepared this notice come before your Honor and
explain why it was prepared.
     I can tell you what I know about it, but I did not prepare this notice.
     THE COURT: You can tell me what  you know about it, sir.
     MR. SHULMAN: What I know about it is this, that the NRA has been
publishing the report of the nominating committee for 16 years
continuously. That it was not publishing the report of the nominating
committee in this issue because of your Honor's order.
     I have here the report of the nominating committee which was not
published. That's the page that it is on, the page that had to be
deleted.
     It can't be deleted because the magazine has all the pages
     The determination was made that

7
Proceedings
the membership had to be informed about why the nominating committee
report was not published.

     THE COURT: And the reason they had to do it this way by publishing the
caption so all the names were stated and with the statement that the
Appellate Division, of course, is going to reverse, was something that
just occurred to them out of the blue and had nothing to do with
anything.
     MR. SHULMAN: Your Honor, the plaintiff extensively reported your
Honor's decision on the Internet before this was ever done.
     Mr. Fezell had been on the Internet on a regular basis stating
everything that's taking place in this case. This has been largely
broadcast before the NRA published anything.
     This is not any piece of news whatsoever.
     Mr. Fezell himself has done it, and I can bring in, if your Honor

8
Proceedings
wants, a dozen Internet statements prior to this publication.
     THE COURT: The Internet statements have nothing whatever to do with
what appears to be contempt of Court in this statement, and, counsel, as
a distinguished lawyer, you must know that.
     Now, if you're going to tell me that everybody at the NRA acts without
legal advice, well, then, if counsel makes the motion, I will bring a
contempt proceeding against them.
     MR. SHULMAN: Your Honor, at the time that this was published, the
matter was on review in the Appellate Division.
     THE COURT: On review doesn't mean will be reversed, sir.
     MR. SHULMAN: It doesn't say it will be reversed.
      THE COURT: Sir, until it is reversed. That does not say it is on
review, and maybe it will and maybe it

9

Proceedings
won't, and you know that, sir, and I really would be very grateful if I
heard something by a lawyer saying something proper in this case.
     I think your organization is out of control.
     MR. SHULMAN Well, your Honor, I apologize to the Court that you are
taking it that way.
     Obviously, the NRA and myself in the arguments had a different feeling
than your Honor.
     My understanding is that all orders of trial courts are subject to
appeal; until they're reversed, they have to be obeyed.
     I don't see why that constitutes a statement that it is going to be
reversed, and judging the way things have been going so far, it doesn't
look very good for getting reversals.
     But, at the time that this statement was made, the matter had been
filed on appeal in the Appellate





10

Proceedings

Division.
     I had personally appeared in Justice Rubin's chambers to discuss
getting a stay of your Honor 's order.
     I was trying to work something out so that the matter could be heard in
a manner that might let the election go forward,
     And, as it turned out, the stay was denied, and that was it.
     We had asked originally for interim relief. He persuaded us not to go
for interim relief, but to wait and to have the stay heard and arrange
for an expedited - -
     THE COURT: By stating the names of the petitioners and by saying
''Until this is reversed. "
     Counsel, I don't think we really need much more on this.
     Counsel, submit your papers expeditiously. I mean expeditiously.
     MR. SHABAN: Yes, your Honor.
     THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

11

Proceedings

     Call the next matter.

(Proceedings concluded.)


****

     I hereby certify that the above is a
true and accurate transcription of the
proceedings.

                              /s/ M. J. Schwartzberg


                                   MAURICE J. SCHWARTZBERG
                                   OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER





- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNQJNKyGz4I2lBJDFAQFxSAP/b30LV8AAd23Wu/0OjsD8V0MGTqvCQEdW
Gd6qq/fMuJkDSduqi3Uxb8Bs5DyvnlbnEBlUEUhN4wDS3YXO7AWixuk2e/0bxQfT
5IJ/5S4ta2mvzKh9DOwMEJ+K4jCwzJCKUg5/z2Q2OZWZX4wR/dG2d0dGMadklw2A
yVWDsu3xM64=
=r9JQ
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #33
**********************************