ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n036

Internet Message Format | 1998-03-24 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #36
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Wednesday, March 25 1998     Volume 02 : Number 036




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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:50:48 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC BBS/listserver

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:48:55 -0700 Will Thompson wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior
>
> >Unless that was just meant as a tweak to a set of people involved
> >with USSC....if so, it's a cheap shot and you might also bear in
> >mind that the only board member who is likely to read this on this
> >forum voted against supporting the bill.
>
> Didn't the USSC once have a BBS? What became of it?
> If the USSC board, with one exception, isn't willing to
> read utah-firearms, how about starting their own list?
>
> -
They may well have had a BBS in the past, they do not now.

As to starting their own list...they have one, or two.  Because
it takes considerable time and money to maintain, it is for
dues paying members only at this time.  If someone would
care to make a significant donation along with their membership
dues, perhaps the USSC could afford to distribute their
stuff to a wider audience.  For now, though, many of the
people who receive USSC correspondence are without access
or other requirement to have internet access, and prefer
to use newsletters, fax and telephone to correspond.  As
to how they spend their time, most of these folks have
non-desk jobs and have other things to do with their time
than to wade thru a bunch of flame wars and petty bickering
on the internet. While some may disagree with their
philosophy, or their political affiliations, they are doing
more than just being keyboard jockeys.  In the years that
I've been involved with socio/political/philosophical
people, I've really never known a set of people who work
harder at their "hobby" than this bunch...in the
face of support that's a "mile wide and an inch deep".
So maybe I can disagree with some of the board's personal
philosophy, and I can certainly believe that some of them
haven't come to agree with me yet, but I can't fault their
willingness to put their backs to the task and work like
dogs to accomplish what they do.

So, instead of wasting more time on this pettieness, I'm
going to go work

- -

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:24:11 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC BBS/listserver

At 07:41 AM 3/19/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:48:55 -0700 Will Thompson wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior
>
>>Unless that was just meant as a tweak to a set of people involved
>>with USSC....if so, it's a cheap shot and you might also bear in
>>mind that the only board member who is likely to read this on this
>>forum voted against supporting the bill.
>
>Didn't the USSC once have a BBS? What became of it?
>If the USSC board, with one exception, isn't willing to
>read utah-firearms, how about starting their own list?

USSC does not currently have a BBS.  It does have a mail list, but that's
one-way.  I'm perfectly willing to set up a BBS, and have the ability to do
so.  However, I suspect a request for same from _members_ would be required
for the board to agree to such a plan.

The above is my opinion only and does not reflect the views of the USSC Board.

Sarah


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

- -

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:14:42 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Interesting letter to the ed

Thursday, March 19, 1998


                       Our Olympic Facelift


      No one has been more excited
  about the prospect of the 2002
  Winter Olympics being held in Salt Lake City than I have been. I have been enthusiastic to the
  point of even supporting the notion of some tax dollars being used to support this event. The
  Olympics would be a wonderful way of showcasing Utah to the world. Some aspects of these
  Winter Games, however, are troubling me.
      There seems to be a disturbing trend of using the 2002 Games to shame Utahns into liberalizing
  liquor laws, further restricting firearms and going full steam ahead on every public works project
  imaginable.
      Organizers seem ashamed of our local history and heritage. They appear more concerned
  about fixing all of us ``yokels'' so we may be ``fit'' to display on the world stage than they are with
  respecting our rights and traditions. In my estimation, this is lousy public relations for an
  organization counting on the good will of locals to provide a first-class event.
      The ``world is welcome here,'' but Utah is our home. Not everyone has to sing in the local ward
  choir to be a welcome guest, but we shouldn't have to trash our home, deny our heritage or hide
  our customs to make our guests feel welcome. If SLOC feels we do, then they have lost my
  support.
      KEITH TAUFER
      Salt Lake City

- --

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.

"They tell us, Sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so
 formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the
 next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed,
 and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we
 gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means
 of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the
 delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and
 foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which
 the God of nature hath placed in our power." -- Patrick Henry (1736-
 1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775

- -

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:15:56 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Core dump

Hi all!

Well, just when you think it can't get any worse.....  my ISP core dumped
all my mail.  So - anything you sent to me after 12:30 to 1:00 PM MST today
(3/19) is probably forever lost in the ether.  If it was important, please
resend it.

Thanks!

Sarah Thompson

- -

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:43:25 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Texas Concealed Carry--Violence Policy Center refuted]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --------------651F7EAA6379
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Of possible interest to some....
(personally, I think using stats to justify rights is a losing
battle, but...)(And yes, in advance, I realize that CCW permitting
is a priviledge, not a right, etc.)

- --------------651F7EAA6379
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA09935; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:45:54 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ssiinc.com by phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA2508436475; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:30:35 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23892; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com"
 via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa005p9; Thu Mar 19 13:32:29 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: "Dave Kopel" <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Texas Concealed Carry--Violence Policy Center refuted
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

Below is John Lott's reply to the Violence Policy Center "study" claiming
that Texans with concealed carry permits commit crime at a high rate.

License to Kill?:
Careful look at critical study actually
backs gun permit holders
By John R. Lott, Jr.
[Originally published in the Dallas Morning News, Feb. 8, 1998, p. 6J]
There has been some confusion over whether people who have permits to carry
concealed handguns are as law-abiding as other Texans. Using the provocative
title "License to Kill," the Violence Policy Center recently released a
report claiming that "those who do carry concealed handguns get into trouble
more often than other Texans."
While there is cause to wonder whether the Violence Policy Center
overreported the number of permit holders arrested, even its own numbers
don't justify that claim. During 1996 and 1997, the first two years that the
concealed handgun law was in effect, 163,096 people were licensed. During
that period, 263 license holders were arrested for felony offenses, and
another 683 were arrested for misdemeanor offenses. By comparison, if permit
holders had been arrested at the same rate as the average adult Texan, they
would have had 731 arrests for violence crimes and 2,202 for property
crimes. Thus, permit holders were about a third as likely to be arrested as
nonpermit holders and much less likely to commit serious crimes.
The public's ultimate concern is whether permit holders have used their
concealed handguns improperly. So let's look at some more statistics to
determine that.
During 1996 and 1997, five permit holders were arrested for felonies
involving the "deadly conduct/discharge of a firearm" and another two for
the "deadly conduct/display of a firearm." Those charges were brought in
connection with four deaths. If permit holders had been arrested for murder
at the same rate as other adult Texans, 56 would have been arrested.
Equally important, relying on arrest rates misses an important difference
between permit holders and others who are arrested for murder. While the
vast majority of murder arrests end in conviction, that hasn't been true for
permit holders.
Of the four deaths mentioned, none has resulted in a conviction. In fact,
two so far have been cleared and deemed to have acted in self-defense.
Thirty-five other permit holders were arrested for other felony
"weapon-related offenses," but those involved the unlawful carrying of a
weapon in places such as airports and schools. None of those cases
apparently involved threats but invariably resulted from people who forgot
they had a gun with them.
Overall, the experience in Texas is similar to that in other states. In
Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 through 1997. About
half, 204,700, currently are licensed. Eighty-four people lost their
licenses after using a firearm in the commission of a felony.
So far in Virginia, not a single Virginia permit holder has been involved in
a violent crime. Similar results have been observed in Kentucky, Nevada,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and other states for which
detailed records are available.
In December, Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, summed
up the typical reaction of those police officers who opposed the concealed
handgun law before its adoption: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995
because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't
happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen.
No bogeyman. I think it has worked out well, and that says good things about
the citizens who have permits. I am a convert."
Harris County District Attorney John Holmes admitted he is "eating a lot of
crow on this issue. It isn't something I necessarily like to do, but I am
doing it on this."
In a forthcoming book, I find evidence indicating that concealed handgun
laws save lives and reduce the threats that citizens face from rapes,
robberies and assaults. Criminals tend to attack victims whom they perceive
as weak, and guns can offset the differences in strength and serve as an
important deterrent.
People don't even have to carry a permit themselves to benefit. The fact
that criminals can't tell whether a potential victim has a concealed gun
makes them less likely to attack people in general.
Without a doubt, people do bad things with guns, but guns also protect
people when law enforcement officers aren't able to be there.
In the final analysis, one concern unites us all: Will allowing law-abiding
citizens to own guns save lives? Unfortunately, studies like those done by
the Violence Policy Center needlessly scare people and don't move us any
closer to answering that question.
John R. Lott Jr. is the author of More Guns, Less Crime, which will be
published by the University of Chicago Press in May

This article is available at
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/OpEdArcv/License%20to%20Kill.htm

"La circulation des idees est, des tous les genres de commerce, celui don
les avantages sont les plus certains." (Of all the types of trade, the
circulation of ideas is the one that results in the most certain benefits).
Mme. de Stael, "L'Esprit des traducions."



- --------------651F7EAA6379--


- -

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 98 21:37:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Rules of Engagement 1/2

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:43:42 -0800
From: "J.J. Johnson" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

To All Second Amendment Associates,

It's time to have another serious discussion about a troubling pattern
that has been developing once again. I'm referring to these recent rash
of arrests across the country and a few other things...

It is very easy to take the knee-jerk approach, and say that they were all
"set up" by the government. Even I say that, and it's probably true. But we
should not have to spend valuable time giving everyone another crash course
about undercover agents, informants, provocateurs, etc. Perhaps it's time to
establish some common policies for the best interest of this institution.

1) Let's put it this way: If you can't have a meeting and avoid the
discussion of killing people, blowing things up, manufacturing ordnance, or
selecting targets, then STAND DOWN YOUR UNIT! You're really not helping the
rest of us, and you and your friends are a conspiracy charge waiting to happen.

2) If you find yourself in custody, and you are told to wear a wire for less
jail time, use some common sense-- tell your unit that you are wearing a
wire. Write a note if you have to. Your unit leader will be more than happy
to send false information back to your handlers.

3) As we all understand that it is everyone's responsibility to prevent
domestic terrorism, that doesn't mean that we have to make weekly reports
to law enforcement, induce crime just to make a case, or end up being a
material witness against one or more of our associates in court -- all for
thirty pieces of silver. To those who are practicing this behavior, keep in
mind that your handlers consider you expendable. They'll have no problem
tossing your buns in jail after they're done using you. You also lose
friends that way. One can simply read the penal codes to see that many
people spend less time in state jails for manslaughter than they do for
federal conspiracy or weapons charges. Think about it.

4) If you do not believe that all men are created equal, and are guaranteed
certain inalienable rights, then please do the rest of us a favor, and stop
using the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to hide behind your "ends
justify the means" ideology. Let me put this another way: In this country,
Freedom, Liberty and Justice must not be guaranteed to [only] a select few,
or determined by pigmentation, religion, or national origin. If you have
a problem with this, there are other continents you can live on populated
with people more suitable to your ethnic background. I only hope your
flight out of JFK airport makes it past Long Island.

Who am I referring to? Those who have knowingly justified every false and
negative stereotype given to this movement. Those whose rantings, actions,
and subsequent arrests have done more public relations damage than the
Oklahoma City Bombing itself. Those who claim to be "underground", but their
enemies always find ways to "dig them up". As usual, I expect to receive
reams of character assassinations, name callings, and false accusations for
those remarks. Go ahead. My delete key is armed and ready. But I digress...

5) Public Recruiting Breeds Informants! Maybe we were working under a
misconception in the first place. Why try to convince people to join
something that they're already a member of anyway? Why try to convince
people of a war that is already taking place? Face it, folks: Counter-
intelligence operatives are getting paid big bucks for what they do.
That's why there are so many of them.

Of course, we all feel our country and our rights slipping away. This
fustration naturally gives some of us a tendency to reach for the sword. To
some degree, our ability to remain civilized in the midst of an uncivilized
authority has ensured our survival to this point. I say with deep conviction
that there are enforcement agents who would love nothing more than to have
their photos taken while standing over dead patriots, just like Klansmen who
gleamed with pride standing over the burning corpses of dead negroes. Let's
not willingly give them the opportunity of that photo-op. There is no need
to declare war on them. They have already declared it on us.

***

Okay...I've spent enough time on my soap box saying what NOT to do.
Sorry, but like I said before, the leaders out there need to stop being
"cheerleaders". Stop preaching and start teaching. Queries have come this
way asking how could we deal with this problem. Here are my suggestions:

NOTE: many of you believe that the following information doesn't apply to
you since you're not "one of us". Unfortunately, you opposition doesn't
discriminate any longer. If you've got a problem with government, they've
got a problem with you. Deal with it. Even if you have taken the pledge not
to advocate the use of force to achieve political or social goals, you are
not exempt from government's "situational ethics". Most if not all of the
people who have been assaulted by the government never expected it to
happen, nor did they ever see it coming. Anticipation of this fateful
moment, along with subsequent prior planning is the first step to a sound
defense. Anything less is uncivilized. [End NOTE]



- -

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 98 21:37:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Rules of Engagement 2/2

The "system" is designed to neutralize any group that plans anything or
anyway to counter the "system". The enemy has changed the Rules of
Engagement. Now, it's time to change ours.

We need to spend more time at Radio Shack and less time at the Gun Show
and Gun Stores.
We need to spend more time infiltrating and less time being infiltrated.
We need to spend more time scrambling communication gear and less time
scrambling to hide our gear.
We need to spend more time keeping ourselves out of court and less time
trying to build new courts.
We need to spend more time becoming fully informed jurors and less time
being convicted by them.
We need to spend more time making our own lists, and less time worrying
about who's on their list.
We need to spend more time becoming the deterrent of the next Waco, and
less time being the excuse for the next Waco.

I could go on and on...

Let's take working with communications, for instance. It has a three fold
benefit: 1) There's nothing illegal about that discussion 2) It will help
provided an early warning system and 3) Operations will be more secure. We
know the general protocol of our enemy when we are attacked or assaulted.
Communications are the first thing to go. Now is the time to improve our
networking skills. To put it simply: Our opposition fears a 50 watt FM
transmitter more than it does a .50 cal rifle. Just ask Arthur L. (Lonnie)
Kobres of Lutz County, Florida.

We are about 5 to 10 years behind the basic technology of audio, video,
photographic, and digital use in the field. Our associates in various states
have proven that these topics can be debated openly with no fear of a
conspiracy charge. Those states that have developed sound and effective
networks, have reaped rewards for their efforts by having no arrests to
date. Communication networking as our first line of defense must become our
top priority. This will take a major attitude adjustment at many meetings.

Sure, much of this equipment is expensive. But we are better off selling one
of our firearms and buying two-way gear than we are *donating* all of our
weapons to the other side due to lack of communications. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but back in the late 18th century, the Committees of Correspondence
were created long before Lexington and Concord ever happened. Think about it.

As far as folks *planning* hostile activities, FORGET IT. Your best friend
can rat you out. I've even seen the opposition use spouses, cousins and
brothers against one another. If you believe that now is the time to act,
you're on your own. If you think that now is the time to take action, then
you don't need me or anyone else to tell you. If you are wondering when do
we draw the line, well... the chalk is in your hand. If you're wondering who
your commanding officer is, get on your knees and pray - then go look in a
mirror. If you haven't found your commanding officer by then, you're in the
wrong business. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. It's called Unintended Consequences.
Go read it.

Whining and crying about the latest assault on someone's home is
counterproductive. Whenever a raid happens, if it can't be stopped, we
should at least gather enough information so we could learn from it. How
many were there? What tactics did they use? What type of equipment did they
use? Who was the informant? How did the media respond? What actions can we
take to prevent it next time? Go to any military war college or SWAT
briefing. The officers use past battles to learn future combat tactics. Not
just victories, but defeats as well. This means less time preparing for the
U.N. takeover or the next race war, and more time focusing on the immediate
threat: The person(s) who have the hand in your pocket, the foot in your
door, and the gun in your face.

Yes, working on these principles is a tall order. It means we don't have
time to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic when the iceberg is in
full view -- as we have been doing for too long.

Each of us should be prepared with basic the tools for battle. We should
all learn, how, where, when, and why we should use them, and how they should
be protected. We should all educate ourselves to be prepared for most
emergencies. When a time to respond to a given action occurs, each of us
should instinctively know what to. Items such as target acquisitions, times,
locations and firearms need not be discussed to formulate these polices.

TO RESTATE: There will come a day when people may have to respond to
aggression. At that point, group response must be spontaneous. Each person
willing to defend the sovereign must instinctively know what options are
available, and how to carry out the operations.

As it become more and more obvious that each of us are slowing becoming
targeted for termination solely on our political beliefs, now is the time
for a complete strategic overhaul. When a raid takes place, we lose another
sword. Another safe house. Another voice for freedom. Even if we don't agree
with their politics.

None of us are perfect. Nor do I have all the answers. When an event
happens, we must admit our errors, learn from our mistakes, make corrections,
and move forward. Covers-ups, unnecessary finger pointing, back-biting, and
screaming "revenge" must stop. Top priority must be given to protocols,
communications, and networking to provide better escape and evasion
techniques if and when necessary. This must be done for our own survival
before ensuring Liberty in any form.

The Second Amendment alone will not ensure Liberty and Justice, nor will it
be successful as the only line of defense. Take a good look at the First
Amendment. Consider its use as a first strike weapon -- a necessary
enhancement to our overall defense strategy. Discussions of these topics
at your next meetings will be much more productive...

...and much less incriminating.

J.J. Johnson -- And now, back to the battlefield.

[e-mail]



- -

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:04:17 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lawmakers Assail Clinton's "Back Door" Gun Ban (fwd)  -Forwarded

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA27118; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:16:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:16:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026997; Mon Mar 23 09:12:11 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lawmakers Assail Clinton's "Back Door" Gun Ban (fwd)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list





- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:38:46 -0600
From: Gary Stocker <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Lawmakers Assail Clinton's "Back Door" Gun Ban

- --  Texas State Rifle Association Email  ---
March 22, 1998

The Senate Republican Policy Committee, which develops and
coordinates legislative policy making for the GOP in the Senate and
is chaired by NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig (ID), sharply criticized
the Clinton Administration's "back door" plan for a sweeping new
ban on firearms. At issue: thousands of foreign-made firearms -- guns
the Committee report accurately termed "legally importable under
President Clinton's 1994 Semi-Auto Gun Ban and the 1968 'sporting
purposes' import standard."

The President's goal: banning guns by circumventing Congress and
sing his power to halt imports. "While every firearm sold in the
United States meets or exceeds the exact standard set forth in
Clinton's Semi-Auto Gun Ban, the Administration is now attempting to
justify further restrictions -- only now ignoring the role
of Congress," the Committee report explained.

The next salvo in the battle over the Bigger Clinton Gun Ban will be
fired any day now, when the Treasury Department releases its review
of the 1968 "sporting purposes" standard. NRA-ILA predicts that the
Clinton Administration will misuse this unconstitutional standard and
ban as many imported semiautomatic firearms as possible -- all guns
legal under his own gun ban -- continuing the Clinton tradition of
hypocrisy, abuse of power and elimination of Second Amendment rights
by every means possible. Call the Senate Republican Policy Committee
at 202-224-2946, compliment them for their document titled "Clinton's
New Gun Ban" dated March 16, 1998, and request a copy so you can mail
one to your elected representatives. You may also download a copy from
the SRPC's website at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/pubindex98.htm

Please visit the Texas State Rifle Association website: http://www.tsra.com/
If you wish to no longer receive email from TSRA, please reply to this message.



- -

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:31:03 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: March 22 column - counties]

A good read from Vin...

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

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MARCH 22, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Counties join forces against 'green' steamroller

    Faced with what they see as another ploy by federal agencies and their
"environmental" allies to cut off productive use of vast tracts of Western
land, eight counties in four southwestern states have founded the
Quad-State County Government Coalition.

  As the federal government moved to put in place its West Mojave regional
management plan, designed to restrict human activities on millions more
acres via the fiction of declaring the desert tortoise, the Mojave ground
squirrel, and other species to be "endangered" or "threatened," the
counties -- including Lincoln in Nevada, Inyo in California, and Mojave in
Arizona -- "felt they didn't have enough say," and "decided their interests
would be served by attacking the listing itself rather than looking for
consensus," says an opponent of the group, wildlife biologist Jim Moore of
The Nature Conservancy of Nevada.

  The goal is to present a "united front," explains Kathy Davis, a
supervisor in San Bernardino County in California, another signatory. "In
the past we've hurt ourselves by fighting each battle as though we were in
it alone."

  Clark County (Las Vegas), which adopted its own desert tortoise habitat
plan several years ago (under typical blackmail pressure from the
federals), has not joined.

  The coalition will seek to overturn the desert tortoise "critical
habitat" designation and to stop enforcement of the tortoise recovery plan,
which the counties argue go too far and tie up too much otherwise usable
land.

  But most significantly, the counties now plan to seek redress -- monetary
compensation -- for damages caused by "overly restrictive and unsupported
decisions and actions of federal agencies" involved with the tortoise and
other wildlife habitat issues.

  "It's very transparent what their agenda is," carps Moore of The Nature
Conservancy. "Their justifications and their counter-arguments are not well
respected and not rooted in science."

  One thing they (start ital)are(end ital) rooted in is the Bill of Rights
- -- the Fifth Amendment clearly states the federal government must pay for
any land it "takes," as it surely does "take" any land which it
high-handedly removes from productive human use (as the Supreme Court has
recently agreed, more than once.)

  But meantime, for the likes of Mr. Moore to contend that these endangered
and threatened species listings are "rooted in science" is the height of
hypocrisy.

  Everyone knows the West is positively acrawl with desert tortoises and
spotted owls. The question is whether the "Northern" spotted owl and the
"Mojave" desert tortoise are really separate species.

  In a double blind test, could Mr. Moore and his "wildlife biologists"
sort from a mixed batch the "endangered" subspecies from the other kind?
They know they cannot. Threatened "subspecies" are nothing but a legal
invention -- defined by arbitrary, human-set boundaries -- to "protect"
vast tracks of land from  productive human use ... never the intent of the
congressmen who passed the Endangered Species Act in the first place (even
if such a scheme is authorized under the Constitution ... a question for
another day, though a good one.)

  For that matter, where is the "science" to prove that tortoises do better
on land from which grazing cattle have been banished?

  In fact, there is at least anecdotal evidence of long standing that
tortoises fare better during droughts, on lands which (start ital)are(end
ital) grazed by cattle. The tortoises -- which cannot travel as far to
water -- acquire moisture from the cattle droppings, the cattle (in this
case) filling the ecological niche occupied in previous times by herds of
wild grazers.

  "Science," indeed!

  The eight counties deserve hearty congratulations for standing up to the
federal steamroller -- deluded Eastern collectivists in green suits waving
their magic wands and aiming to "restore" the entire West into a vast,
uninhabited buffalo plain.

  Other Nevada counties should strongly consider joining up.

  There is no evidence that these massive federal schemes are necessary to
keep the tortoise or the prairie dog from extinction, nor does anyone
believe that is their main purpose.

  But beyond that, if it ever does come down to mankind being able to
survive and prosper here, vs. the preservation of the tortoise, then let us
recall that millions of species went extinct on a regular basis, long
before mankind was present on this globe, only to have their ecological
niches promptly filled by a fresh biological "new try."

  Even if we have the hubris -- the chutzpah -- to believe we (start
ital)can(end ital) amend the harsh rules of survival by which Nature's God
chooses which creatures shall survive and which shall pass away ... who is
to say we (end ital)should(end ital)?

  That surely is a matter of religious conviction -- and as it turns out,
the federal government is specifically banned from any such establishment
of religion, by yet another of those pesky first 10 amendments.

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/.

***


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.

"Whenever people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular,
 standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will
 remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..." -- "A
 Framer" in The Independent Gazetteer, 1791

- -

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:36:57 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [ LPU: LP RELEASE: Arkansas Shooting]

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

Guns save lives, says Libertarian Party --
despite tragic shooting at Arkansas school

        WASHINGTON, DC -- Tuesday's tragic massacre in an Arkansas school yard
- -- where a pair of schoolboys brutally shot and killed five unsuspecting
people -- won't cause the Libertarian Party to budge one inch on its 100%
pro-gun position, the party's chairman said today.

        "The Libertarian Party will continue to fight any attempts to disarm
law-abiding Americans -- despite efforts by political vultures to exploit this
tragedy to advance their anti-gun agenda," said Steve Dasbach, national
chairman of the Libertarian Party.

        "Guns not only save more lives than they cost, they are a fundamental
bulwark in our defense of liberty. Any effort to restrict that right is not
only unsafe, it's positively un-American," he said.

        "Of course, our hearts go out to the victims, survivors, and families
of this tragedy. And, like all Americans, we hope that the perpetrators are
punished appropriately for this horrific crime. But don't punish the Bill of
Rights for the actions of two mentally ill juvenile criminals."

        Dasbach's comments came 24 hours after two young boys, age 11 and 13,
opened fire on classmates and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Their barrage
left four students and one teacher dead, and 11 others wounded.

        But aren't Libertarians somewhat leery of speaking out in favor of
guns after such a tragedy?

        No, said Dasbach: "The time to defend the Second Amendment is not when
it is easy, but when it is most difficult. That is when the danger is greatest
that politicians -- perhaps well-meaning, but deluded -- will try to revoke
our Second Amendment rights.

        "In fact, failing to speak out now would be to surrender to the
demagogues. We know that numerous politicians will swoop in on the
blood-stained victims of this tragedy, and use their needless deaths as an
excuse to demand that Americans give up their rights in exchange for promised
security. But the criminal behavior of young psychopaths should not be the
basis of unconstitutional laws," he said.

        Besides, said Dasbach, the tragedy in Arkansas is an opportunity to
remind Americans that guns actually save lives.

        "For every one innocent victim murdered in Arkansas, there are dozens
of Americans who are alive today because of the defensive use of guns," he
pointed out.

        * Research by Peter Hart Associates in 1980 found that 4% of American
households reported defensive use of a handgun within the previous five years.


        * In 1991, Gary Kleck of Florida State University estimated defensive
handgun use at between 850,000 and 2.5 million incidents per year. Every year
an estimated 2,000-3,000 criminals are killed by armed citizens acting in
self-defense.

        * As many as 75 lives are protected by a gun for every life lost to a
gun, reported Kleck in "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" (New York:
Aldine de Gruyter Books, 1991).

        * And a Cato Institute study this year found that violent crime rates
dropped dramatically in the 24 states that have passed "concealed-carry" laws
- -- with murders dropping by 7.7%, rapes falling by 5.2%, and aggravated
assaults reduced by 7.7%.

        "Libertarians know that guns are not the cause of America's rising
tide of violence. In fact, they're one of the solutions," said Dasbach. "We
believe the most effective way to stop human predators is by repealing the
laws prohibiting concealed weapons. We also know that guns are the best
defense an individual can have against crime, and that the laws banning guns
accomplish only one thing -- victim disarmament."

        But Libertarians don't support gun rights merely as a deterrent to
crime, said Dasbach.

        "We're also the only political party with the guts to publicly state,
and forcefully defend, the true purpose of the Second Amendment," he said.
"Ultimately, that purpose isn't about hunting, or collecting, or target
shooting. It's not even about stopping criminals. It's about defending freedom
against tyrants, be they foreign or domestic.

        "That's why the Founding Fathers enshrined the right to keep and bear
arms into the Bill of Rights, and why Libertarians will continue to support
that right," he said. "Yes, we mourn the victims in Arkansas whose lives were
needlessly lost because of the actions of deranged criminals -- but we will
never let criminals or opportunistic politicians blackmail us into
surrendering our fundamental rights."

        #       #       #




LPUtah
LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "[e-mail]"
LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender.
LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: [e-mail]
LPUtah

- ----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.

"Whenever people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular,
 standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will
 remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..." -- "A
 Framer" in The Independent Gazetteer, 1791

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #36
**********************************