ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n046

Internet Message Format | 1998-04-17 | 49KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #46
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Saturday, April 18 1998     Volume 02 : Number 046




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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:17:54 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: First Response to KSL Editorial

Here is the first of two responses I plan to write to KSL.  If there
is a group out there who would like to use this one (it reads better
with the "we"s rather than with "I"s) let me know.  Otherwise I will
send it in under my own name.  I don't think it addresses everything
it should, but thinking minds (are there any left) may get the main
point.  Read the original editorial from KSL before reading my
rebuttal.

Presses And Presidents
April 14, 1998

Before many more days dim the memory of the tragedy of our nation's
highest elected official's privacy being invaded, let's talk about
the press.

The causes of these horribly, internationally embarassing scenes run
deep with blame being place on everything from lack of professionalism
to a drive for increased ratings.  Whatever the cause, the tools used
to carry out this depraved violation of privacy were high speed
presses, digital networks, and television cameras.

The arguments of the powerful media aside, can anyone who heard or
read of graphic descriptions of our president's most private and
intimate affairs honestly doubt that our nation is paying a terrible
price for allowing such easy access to and disemnination of
information?

Yes, the Bill of Rights certainly allows Americans freedom of the
Press.

But this is 1998, not 1776, and something about the President's most
intimate and private matters being sallied before the world like some
kind of cheap side show attraction causes us to wonder if the Founding
Fathers would feel the same about the First Amendment if they were
here today.

We know the issue is emotional and even as we speak, media advocates
are heading to their keyboards and microphones to pound out responses
to what we've said.  It's a powerful lobby that continually defeats
any effort to reign in their unbridled rumor-mongering, speculation,
and otherwising distressing of individuals both private and public,
even though 80-percent of Americans think the media goes too far.

We say it is time for the media to quit being so calloused, so
obstinate.

Unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious constitutional
bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that ultimately could
result in what they fear most...a revocation of their constitutional
right to a free press.



- --

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

"The American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." --
 Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924).

- -

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:48:29 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: KSL

At 08:56 AM 4/14/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Charles:
>
>Assuming KSL will allow an opposing view point, do you have anyone in
>mind to give the rebuttal.  Are you interested?  Perhaps Janalee?
>
>I am still working to get an answer from KSL.
>

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect that any of the Board members of
USSC would be willing to rebut it as well.

Sarah

- -

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:03:55 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan

I received this response from Brian Judy, our local NRA-ILA representative,
in response to my question regarding the authenticity of the alleged HCI plan.

So the NRA says it's authentic and GOA says it's not.  Anyone else have any
more information?

Sarah


>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:15:40 -0400
>From: Brian Judy <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan
>Sender: Brian Judy <[e-mail]>
>To: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mars.aros.net id
SAA16802
>
>I heard from another gun rights activist that this letter has been
>confirmed with HCI headquarters as of 4/2.  It is no surprise that they
>would either go after gun shows or use the issue of gun shows as a
>fundraising tool (or both). The gun shows have been under attack and it
>will no doubt get worse before it gets better.
>
>Brian
>
>

- -

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 98 08:28:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: KC Star Gun Ban Editorial

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:18:55 -0600
From: Mike Vanderboegh, Pinson, AL [e-mail] (Mo10Cav)
To: Rich Hood, Kansas City Star Editorial Page [e-mail] (Rich Hood)
Subject: Your Dangerously Silly Editorial of 12 April Entitled "Gun Ban Was
Needed" (attached).

Mr. Hood,

It is a measure of how far common sense and respect for the rule of law have
deteriorated in our constitutional republic during the present administration
that educated men such as yourself could write such dangerously silly and
unconstitutional drivel such as your editorial "Gun Ban Was Needed."

In the past, when I had illusions that legal, moral and historical arguments
could sway anti-freedom ideologues such as yourself and the President, I
would have mustered a formidable array of facts, cited legal opinions and
quoted from the Founders' own lips to refute your wrong-headed opinion that
law-abiding Americans need to be disarmed. (Oh, I know you do not say it
directly, but isn't that what you're endorsing when you urge "the President
should consider stricter prohibitions"?)

Forget that the Second Amendment is, like the First you cherish, both an
individual and collective right. Forget, indeed, that it is the Second
Amendment that secures all the others, including the First.

Forget that the Founders' didn't write the 2nd Amendment with "sporting
purposes" in mind. Forget that the very idea of codifying the right to "keep
and bear arms" for the purposes of shooting fuzzy animals would have been
laughable to men such as Thomas Jefferson.

Forget that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarantee the 18th Century
equivalent of "assault rifles" to the citizenry so that they might resist
tyrannical administrations. Forget that the Clinton Administration has from
the beginning used every means at its disposal to strip law-abiding Americans
from exactly these kind of previously legal arms of military utility. Forget
that this President has acted like he was King George III himself, not only
adopting His Late Majesty's firearms policy, but issuing imperial "Executive
Orders" in the middle of the night, when Congress is not in session, contrary
to law and Constitution.

Forget all that.

If the law and the Constitution mean nothing to you and your President,
let's explain this in terms you will understand. If you want my legal,
semiautomatic rifle then I suggest you come and get it. Yourself. Today.
Bring the President if he's suddenly caught a draught of courage. Have
the strength of your gun-grabbing convictions and come along with the
raiding party you are encouraging through your editorial page to confiscate
my weapons. Don't send someone else's son to do the job. Don't cry out for
the police or military to disarm me while you sit safely at home and cluck
your editorial tongue in approval. You want my rifle? Come and get it.
Call your gun-grabbing buddies at the BATF, they'll give you directions
to my house. You don't even have to call and tell me you're coming.

Of course, I'll bet you won't because you're a smart little editorial
writer and you know that you'll likely get killed if you try. And you
what? That's exactly what the Founders had in mind. That tyrants, or
their pissant editorial apologists such as yourself, would think twice
before trying to disarm the law-abiding citizenry, the final arbiter
and guarantor of American liberty.


Mike Vanderboegh
[e-mail] (Mo10Cav)
1st Alabama Cavalry Regiment, Constitutional Militia
P.O.Box 926
Pinson, AL  35126
[phone] pager

**********************************************************

Gun ban was needed

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Gun ban
Date: 04/11/98 22:30

President Clinton has added a new, needed prohibition to the nation's gun
control regulations. His recent executive order would bar the importation
of military-style rifles that have been modified to evade a previous ban.
Law-abiding Americans who want to reduce gun violence should appreciate
the president's action.

Clinton's move followed a review by the Treasury Department of these types
of weapons. The examination was conducted in cooperation with state law
enforcement and game agencies, as well as shooting and hunting organizations.
It found that many of the rifles did not meet federal law for sporting use.

The United States prohibits assault weapons coming into the country. But it
permits the importation of some rifles for uses such as target practice and
trap shooting. Many foreign manufacturers circumvented the law by altering
the look of the weapons to provide a sportlike appearance.

The rapid-firing, assault-style weapons are designed for one main purpose.
That is to kill. Americans know that. The deadly proof has been found on
our streets.

Thus public safety will be well-served by Clinton's order. Fewer foreign
assault rifles means citizens of this nation are less likely to be slain.

Congress cannot be relied on to protect the public against the weapons.
Clinton and President Bush before him have attempted to protect the public
with bans.

If this order is not as effective as it should be, the president should
consider stricter prohibitions.

All content ⌐ 1998 The Kansas City Star



- -

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 15:59:48 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: President Clinton's executive order on gun imports  -Forwarded

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:15:38 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA24010; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma023969; Sat Apr 11 13:09:17 1998
Message-Id: <v01510103b1552fba3c55@[209.20.133.159]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: [e-mail] (Dave Workman)
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: President Clinton's executive order on gun imports
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

>Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 09:33:20 -0500
>To:[e-mail], [e-mail],
>[e-mail],[e-mail]
>From:[e-mail] (Dave Workman)
>Subject:President Clinton's executive order on gun imports
>Cc:[e-mail] (Newt Gingrich)
>
>Hon. Jennifer Dunn,
>Hon. Rick White,
>Hon. Linda Smith,
>Hon. George Nethercutt:
>
>        I am writing to urge you all to join your colleague, Utah Rep.
>Chris Cannon, and some 40 others in a planned action to nullify President
>Clinton's recent "executive order" banning the import of several
>foreign-made firearms.
>
>        The firearms community is not simply alarmed at this move by the
>President to capitalize on the Jonesboro, Ark. tragedy. The firearms
>community is angry, and they are asking themselves why they should bother
>sending back a Republican majority this fall if that majority - which has
>enjoyed strong support from firearms owners since the sweeping
>Congressional sea change in 1994 - turns a deaf ear and blind eye to its
>concerns.
>
>        As a spokesman for over 80,000 members of the National Rifle
>Association here in Washington state (make that, 80,000 voters) I am
>obliged to tell you that the members I represent are demanding swift,
>decisive action when Congress returns April 22. They have had quite enough
>vilification from the Clinton Administration, and far too much neglect for
>their concerns from the Republican majority, of which you are all members.
>
>        One would think that if the ACLU can fight for the First Amendment
>rights of Nazis to parade through the streets of Skokie, Ill., than the
>Republican majority that gun owners sent to Congress in 1994, and kept
>there in 1996 - in response to Clinton's passage of the Brady Law, and the
>semi-auto and high-capacity magazine bans - should be able to find the
>courage to speak out and take action on behalf of the Second Amendment.
>
>        There's been considerable discussion lately in the media that
>Republicans may lose control of the House this fall. No more certain
>guarantee of that would be for this nation's firearms owners to "sit this
>one out" as they did in 1992 when they lost all confidence in President
>George Bush because of his import ban order.
>
>        I urge you to join your fellow congressional representatives and
>do the right thing, rather than the "politically correct" thing. Regain
>the spirit you showed in 1995, when the nation watched and waited to see
>whether your party really would change the direction of government.
>
>Sincerely,
>Dave Workman
>Board member
>National Rifle Association
>P.O. Box 1638
>North Bend, WA 98045
>




- -

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:06:08 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: resolution to nullify an EO

Concerning repealing the recent executive order to ban some 50 foreign
made firearms, I have received several posts that claim that to repeal the
so called assault weapons ban,  "congress need only pass a resolution
to nullify an EO.  Congress does NOT need to get a bill in front of
WeeWillie and get him to sign it, otherwise, the EO would be
unconstitutional, as having the effect of law without originating in the
legislative branch."

Anyone know if this is true?


- -

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:17:25 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10

A fine response to KSL's Editorial "Guns and Little Girls",
http://www.ksl.com/TV/opinion.htm, written by John Spangler of the Utah
Shooting Sports Council Advisory Board.  Reposted with Mr. Spangler's
permission.

Sarah

>Response to KSL Editorial of April 10
>
> Utah gun owners share KSL-TV's distress at the carnage inflicted upon
>innocent children by guns. And automobiles. And drugs. And knives. And
>any other objects used in deliberate illegal acts by criminals of any
>age.
> We must look beyond the emotional images portrayed on the TV screen and
>seek a logical, factual and legal basis to prevent such problems.
> This audience must look beyond the emotional imagery and understand
>that the criminal misuse of guns is entirely unrelated to law abiding
>citizens being permitted to carry guns in schools (or any other place).
>The data from every state is absolutely clear on this point.  Increased
>numbers of concealed carry permits do not result in any increase in
>shootings  Those involved in illegal shootings are not the people
>licensed to carry guns, but the criminals who disregard laws from the
>Ten Commandments through the over 20,000 gun laws already on the books.
> The easy, but absolutely wrong, panacea is to advocate banning guns or
>further restrictions on law abiding citizens.  Instead, a civilized
>society must punish those who break existing laws.  Murder, assault with
>a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed firearms without a permit,
>possession of a handgun by a minor, and theft of a firearm are all
>serious crimes, too often plea-bargained down or overlooked.  Even
>"gateway" crimes of truancy, assault, car theft, and other juvenile
>offenses cannot be tolerated in a civilized society.
>We should not tolerate "entertainment" that glamorizes rather than
>chastises such behavior, especially by children.  Nor should KSL
>broadcast such material if it is truly committed to fighting against the
>breakdown of our society.
>We urge KSL to skip the attacks based on emotions, and join Utah gun
>owners in addressing the logical and factual roots of violence in
>society today.
>
>John Spangler
>Salt Lake City


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

- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:00:13 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10

On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted the
follwoing from Mr. Spangler:

>>society must punish those who break existing laws.  Murder, assault with
>>a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed firearms without a permit,
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>possession of a handgun by a minor, and theft of a firearm are all
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^
>>serious crimes, too often plea-bargained down or overlooked.  Even
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm afraid Mr Spangler hurts an otherwise excellent article, and does
a disservice to gun owners, by including subjective offenses like CCW
without a required permit or minor possession of a handgun.  In the
absense of criminal intent, neither of these acts poses any threat to
anyone and should not be illegal.  In fact, minor possession of a hand
gun was perfectly legal in Utah until just a couple of years ago.  I
routinely possessed a handgun, without formal permission from my
parents, well before my 21st birthday.  I purchased my first handgun,
a Colt Gold-Cup .45, --used so as to compy with inane federal
laws--prior to my 18th birthday.  Is Mr. Spangler suggesting the Utah
legislature let a "serious crime" go unnoticed and without recourse
for almost 150 years and that I'm guilty of said "serious crime?"

Laws limiting minor posession of guns virtually guarantee that the
rising generation will have even less proper, legal experience with
guns than the current generation.  Yes, training and supervision is
important in the beginning.  But there is absolutely no reason a 16,
15, or even 14 year old who has been shooting for several years should
not be able to go to a range or even the empty desert and do some
plinking without parental escort (A 12 year old male is deemed
responsible enough to exercise the priesthood of God in the LDS
religion and is considered a man in the Jewish faith if I'm not
mistaken.).

Furthermore, the Arkansas case did not involve CCW without a permit.
Pretty tough to CCW a rifle.  One should note that Vermont, which
requires no permit to CCW has yet to have such an incident.  Also,
even if the youth in Arkansas were in possession of any handguns, I
was under the impression the fatal shots came from long guns.

Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot (no pun intended) by heaping
praise upon laws that should not exist in the first place or
suggesting the enforcement of those laws is a good thing or would have
prevented such tragedies.

Once again, other than the, IMO, unfortunate inclusion of these two
subjective "crimes", it is an excellent piece.




- --

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

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

- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:52:28 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10

At 12:00 AM 4/16/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted the
>follwoing from Mr. Spangler:
>
>>>society must punish those who break existing laws.  Murder, assault with
>>>a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed firearms without a permit,
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>possession of a handgun by a minor, and theft of a firearm are all
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^
>>>serious crimes, too often plea-bargained down or overlooked.  Even
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I'm afraid Mr Spangler hurts an otherwise excellent article, and does
>a disservice to gun owners, by including subjective offenses like CCW
>without a required permit or minor possession of a handgun.  In the
>absense of criminal intent, neither of these acts poses any threat to
>anyone and should not be illegal.  In fact, minor possession of a hand
>gun was perfectly legal in Utah until just a couple of years ago.  I
>routinely possessed a handgun, without formal permission from my
>parents, well before my 21st birthday.  I purchased my first handgun,
>a Colt Gold-Cup .45, --used so as to compy with inane federal
>laws--prior to my 18th birthday.  Is Mr. Spangler suggesting the Utah
>legislature let a "serious crime" go unnoticed and without recourse
>for almost 150 years and that I'm guilty of said "serious crime?"
    I agree with you completely here.  There shouldn't be ANY laws restricting
the possession of any firearm by a responsible person, of any age.  And
there shouldn't BE permits, so it follows that there shouldn't be any
problem with carrying/possessing without one.  I would trust either of my
kids with firearms, and they're 16 and 18.
But I do agree with Mr. Spangler that _real_ serious crimes committed by
juveniles are often overlooked and/or plea-bargained.

>Laws limiting minor posession of guns virtually guarantee that the
>rising generation will have even less proper, legal experience with
>guns than the current generation.  Yes, training and supervision is
>important in the beginning.  But there is absolutely no reason a 16,
>15, or even 14 year old who has been shooting for several years should
>not be able to go to a range or even the empty desert and do some
>plinking without parental escort (A 12 year old male is deemed
>responsible enough to exercise the priesthood of God in the LDS
>religion and is considered a man in the Jewish faith if I'm not
>mistaken.).
    Actually it's 13 in Judaism, but that's still well younger than our
current laws allow.  And it's rather odd that a fourteen year old can get
married in Utah, but can't possess a rifle!

>Furthermore, the Arkansas case did not involve CCW without a permit.
>Pretty tough to CCW a rifle.  One should note that Vermont, which
>requires no permit to CCW has yet to have such an incident.  Also,
>even if the youth in Arkansas were in possession of any handguns, I
>was under the impression the fatal shots came from long guns.
>
>Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot (no pun intended) by heaping
>praise upon laws that should not exist in the first place or
>suggesting the enforcement of those laws is a good thing or would have
>prevented such tragedies.
>
>Once again, other than the, IMO, unfortunate inclusion of these two
>subjective "crimes", it is an excellent piece.
    Which is why I posted it.  I don't agree with every single idea, but I
thought it was well-written and effective.  I'm forwarding a copy of your
response to Mr. Spangler, since I don't think he subscribes to utah-firearms.

Sarah


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://www.therighter.com

April 19, 1775 - The Battles of Lexington and Concord
April 19, 1783 - Congress proclaims victory in the American War of
Independence
April 19, 1933 - The US abandons the gold standard
April 19, 1943 - The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
April 19, 1993 - The Branch Davidian Massacre at Waco
April 19, 1995 - The Oklahoma City bombing

What are YOU willing to do for freedom?

- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 01:41:12 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>But I do agree with Mr. Spangler that _real_ serious crimes committed by
>juveniles are often overlooked and/or plea-bargained.

Agreed.

>    Which is why I posted it.  I don't agree with every single idea, but I
>thought it was well-written and effective.  I'm forwarding a copy of your
>response to Mr. Spangler, since I don't think he subscribes to utah-firearms.

Thank you.  I'd be interested in any response.

- --

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 American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." --
 Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924).

- -

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:11:30 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Violence in Japan

From today's tribune.  Funny how when a child uses a weapon of choice
in the U.S. it is the "easy availability of guns" that gets the blame,
but when children slash each other with knives in Japan we start
talking about "breakdown of societal values," "stress," or whatnot.

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]         Friday, April 17, 1998        [Image] [Image]

         Japanese Students Fight Stress With Classroom Violence

 KNIGHTRIDDER
 NEWS SERVICE
     TOKYO -- No one
 talked much about the troubles in Japan's junior high schools until
 late January, when a 13-year-old boy killed his English teacher with
 a switchblade knife after she asked him why he was late for class.
     That was a big enough shock in ``crime-free'' Japan. Then another
 13-year-old stabbed a 14-year-old classmate to death in a suburban
 Tokyo classroom after the older boy teased him about his frizzy
 hairdo. The next day, a 14-year-old boy in Nagoya slashed another
 student who had taunted him. And a 16-year-old stabbed a 17-year-old
 classmate in Atsugi, another Tokyo suburb, because the older boy
 demanded money.
     Here in orderly and homogeneous Japan, where trains run on time
 and no one jaywalks, there have been three murders and 54
 knife-related incidents in schools since the end of January.
 Suddenly, mainstream Japan is learning what its teachers, child
 psychologists and sociologists have quietly suspected for a
 half-decade: As the nation's social fabric frays, student violence
 against other students and teachers has doubled in the past five
 years and juvenile crime has reached record levels.
     Japan's youth crime rate is almost three times higher than
 America's.
     According to Manabu Sato, an education professor at Tokyo
 University who studies youth and crime, 45 percent of those arrested
 for crimes in 1996 were younger than 20.
     In America, the overall crime rate is much higher, but only about
 18 percent of all crime is committed by people under 18, according to
 figures recently compiled by the FBI and the Department of
 Education's National Center for Education Statistics.
     ``Youth crime . . . is much more of a problem in Japan than in
 the U.S.,'' said Sato. ``And the quality of crime is getting more and
 more aggressive.'' Juvenile violence and crime are growing problems
 in Japan, he says, because ``all the social contradictions of society
 are being put on their shoulders. All students see in their future is
 pressure and more pressure. So that's why junior high school is the
 worst.''
     By American standards, the violence rocking Japan's middle
 schools seems as anachronistic as the leather-jacketed gang rumbles
 in ``West Side Story.'' In a nation where guns are strictly
 forbidden, switchblade ``butterfly'' knives, not handguns and hunting
 rifles, are the weapon of choice for young students.
     Nevertheless, the violent outbursts in Japan's schools have
 forced the Education Ministry and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party
 to respond. Education Minister Nobutaka Machimura has urged students
 to ``stop carrying knives around'' and lectured students that
 ``hurting people, or robbing people of their lives, is
 unforgivable.''
     Meanwhile, the ruling party has promised to offer changes to the
 nation's juvenile laws to allow 15-year-old offenders to be tried as
 adults.
     Under current Japanese law, a juvenile suspect must be at least
 17 to be tried as an adult.



                [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.


- --

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.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who
 approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
 downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." --
 Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification
 of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms.

- -

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 00:38:37 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: BATF Admissions Re: Instant Check]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:10:40 -0400
From: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: BATF Admissions Re: Instant Check
X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 5330

Brady "Instant" Check to Spell Trouble
- -- Possible three-day wait could cripple gun show sales

by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151,
703-321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org
(Friday, April 17, 1998)


Brady Instant Registration Check could take three days;
register gun owners

The BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) issued
regulations in February that should concern every gun owner.
The regulations involve the implementation of the so-called
instant check, which is supposed to go on-line in November of
this year.  It turns out, however, that the instant check may
not be so instant after all.  The BATF regulations make it
clear that the feds will have "up to three business days" to
respond to each background check request.

Read that again:  "three business days."  Following these
guidelines, could the feds decide to take the weekends off?  If
so, that would seriously impact all gun dealer sales at weekend
gun shows.  Moreover, since weekends are not typically
considered business days, the "three business days" can easily
impose a five day waiting period for weekend gun sales - or a
six day waiting period if there is a holiday on a Friday or
Monday.  Given the BATF's own verbiage, and given the
President's track record regarding his abuse of firearms
rights, gun owners should be very concerned about the
implications that these regulations carry for gun dealer sales
at weekend gun shows.

Gun Owners of America has strongly opposed the Instant
Registration Check from its inception. Such a check requires a
law-abiding citizen to prove his innocence to government
officials before exercising a right. Furthermore, GOA has
always argued that no matter how many prohibitions are written
into the law, the possibility of gun owner registration is
always present.

BATF wants your Social Security number

GOA's concerns were recently validated when the BATF made it
clear they want gun dealers to retrieve the Social Security
numbers of gun buyers. Providing the feds with the Social
Security number of gun owners enhances their ability to compile
a national gun registry.  (Gun owners should also note that the
feds will be conducting background checks on ALL guns -
shotguns and rifles included.)

It is imperative that your Representative and Senators
understand that gun owners do not want their names to be phoned
in and entered into a federal bureaucrat's computer.  We
repeat: honest gun owners should not have to prove their
innocence to the government before exercising a
constitutional right - any more than a preacher or journalist
should have to prove their worthiness before exercising their
First Amendment rights.

GOA members should have already received the latest GOA
newsletter and legislative alert in the mail. While the GOA
newsletter (dated April 24, 1998) quotes pertinent passages
from the BATF regs, one can also read them in their entirety by
going to http://www.gunowners.org/bitb.htm on the GOA website.

ACTION:

Urge your Representative (1-800-504-0031 or 202-225-3121) to
cosponsor Rep. Ron Paul's H.R. 2721 - a bill which would, among
other things, repeal the Brady "registration" law in its
entirety.   GOA has also posted on the Web a sample opposition
letter to the BATF.  Go to the above mentioned URL and use the
sample letter to compose your own - or copy it word for word if
you're short on time.  But make sure you sound-off to the BATF
before May 20 when the comment period ends. (Grassroots heat
can have a tremendous effect in getting regulatory agencies to
back off their gun control proposals - as we've seen in recent
years with the Forest Service, the EPA and the BLM.  As for the
BATF, go ahead and write them anonymously to protect your
privacy.)


- -- Clip & Fax -- (see http://www.gunowners.org/h105th.htm for
fax numbers or call your Rep. and ask)


Dear Representative,

The proposed new BATF regulations calling for the use of Social
Security numbers as part of the information taken during the
purchase of a firearm is a clear invasion of my right to
privacy and another step toward national gun registration.

Even though Congress has passed laws to prevent a national gun
registry, this agency continues to ignore public law, the
Constitution and the express will of the Congress.

Moreover, the proposed BATF regulations will allow federal
bureaucrats up to "three business days" to complete the
background checks on gun buyers.  This "three day" period could
easily be used to cripple gun show sales, and could turn the
supposed "instant" check into a three to six day waiting
period.

The best way to prevent this from infringing upon my rights is
by passing H.R. 2721, a bill to repeal the Brady registration
law.  I urge you to become a sponsor of this important pro-gun
legislation.

***********************************************************
Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of
getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider
joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service
is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume
is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week
indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward
this notice) to [e-mail] and include your
state of residence in either the subject line or the body.


- ----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 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: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 00:59:10 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: April 26 column -- Swiss militia]

An excellent article, containing some incredible historical quotes that
I hope you find interesting and useful.

- ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED APRIL 26, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    'As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapon to use, he does
not yield'

    Those who would blithely abandon the greatest safeguard of liberty --
the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear military-style arms --
aren't real strong on consistency.

  Aiming to gradually erode the quality of arms we have "permission" to
bear -- back to the level of the muzzle-loading flintlock, if not the
slingshot -- they have been disingenuously mewing for 60 years that they
have no objection to arms "for which there is a legitimate sporting use."

  Of course, the Constitution says nothing about hunting or skeet shooting.
Rather, it says we must be allowed to keep our arms -- no "infringement"
whatsoever, no tax, no registration, no "application for permit" -- because
the citizens constitute the militia, the most powerful armed force in any
free state.

  The gun-grabbers sneer that this is an out-of-date notion, that a bunch
of farmers with deer rifles could hardly stand up to the 82nd Airborne ...
let along a Chinese invasion.

  But the logical conclusion of that argument is surely that we should
encourage law-abiding citizens to keep machine guns and rocket-launchers in
the closet ... not ban AK-47s, with or without pistol grips and bayonet
lugs.

  The victim disarmament extremists (those who would disarm law-abiding
rape victims, but not their assailants, who ignore all such laws) ridicule
this as the sheerest homicidal macho fantasy -- no modern nation has ever
thrown out a tyrant by the simple expedient of the common folk rising up
with their personal rifles, nor does any civilized nation today allow its
citizens to keep machine guns at home.

  Wrong and wrong. Try placing a long-distance call to the American
military governor of Vietnam, or the Soviet military governor of
Afghanistan, to ask them how easy it was to suppress a nation of armed
peasants.

  And as to the advisability of "allowing" citizen militias to keep modern
military arms with them at home -- yes, Sarah, the kind "designed for no
purpose but to kill large numbers of people" -- we turn to Virginia
attorney and Second Amendment expert Stephen P. Halbrook, author of the new
book "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II," due this
spring from Sarpedon Press.

  Writing in the January 1998 edition of the excellent magazine
"Chronicles," Mr. Halbrook points out that "Since the origins of the Swiss
Confederation in 1291, it has been the duty of every male Swiss citizen to
be armed and to serve in the militia. Today, that arm is an 'assault
rifle,' which is issued to every Swiss male and which must be kept in the
home. During Germany's Third Reich (1933-1945), that arm was a bolt-action
repeating rifle, which was highly effective in the hands of Switzerland's
many sharpshooters.

  "Americans of the wartime generation were familiar with the fact that
brave and armed little Switzerland stood up to Hitler and made him blink.
As a map of Europe in 1942 shows, the Nazis had swallowed up most of
everything on the continent but this tiny speck that Hitler called 'a
pimple on the face of Europe.' The Fuhrer boasted that he would be 'the
butcher of the Swiss,' but the Wehrmacht was dissuaded by a fully armed
populace in the Alpine terrain. ...

    #   #   #

  "The Swiss federal shooting festival, which remains the largest rifle
competition in the world, was held in Luzern in June 1939. Hitler's
takeover of Austria and Czechoslovakia was complete, both countries had
been surrendered by tiny political elites who guaranteed that there would
be no resistance. Swiss President Philipp Etter spoke at the festival,
stressing that something far more serious than sport was the purpose of
their activity. His comments demonstrated the connection between national
defense and the armed citizen:

  " 'There is probably no other country that, like Switzerland, gives the
soldier his weapon to keep in the home. The Swiss always has his rifle at
hand. It belongs to the furnishings of his home. ... That corresponds to
ancient Swiss tradition. As the citizen with his sword steps into the ring
in the cantons which have the Landsgemeinde (government by public meeting),
so the Swiss soldier lives in constant companionship with his rifle. He
knows what that means. With this rifle, he is liable every hour, if the
country calls, to defend his hearth, his home, his family, his birthplace.
The weapon is to him a pledge and sign of honor and freedom. The Swiss does
not part with his rifle.'

  Mr. Halbrook continues: "On September 1, 1939, Hitler launched World War
II by attacking Poland. Within a day or two, Switzerland had about half a
million militiamen mobilized out of a population of just over four million.
General Henri Cuisan, commander in chief of the Swiss militia, responded
with Operations Order No. 2:

  " 'At the border and between the border and army position, the border
troops and advance guard persistently delay the advance of the enemy. The
garrisons at the border and between the border and the works and positions
making up the defensive front continue resistance up to the last cartridge,
even if they find themselves completely alone.'

  "This astonishing order was the opposite of the policies of the other
European countries, which either surrendered to Hitler without a fight or
surrendered after a brief resistance. For example, in April 1940, Denmark's
king surrendered the country after a meeting with the Nazis and instructed
his forces not to resist. Norway resisted, although 'unlike Switzerland' it
had no armed populace and was ill- prepared for combat.

  "In response to the invasions of small neutral countries, Switzerland
issued its 'directions concerning the conduct of the soldiers not under
arms in event of attack.' Intended as a warning to Germany, it was pasted
on walls all over the country. It prescribed the reaction against surprise
attack and against the fifth column as follows:

  " 'All soldiers and those with them are to attack with ruthlessness
parachutists, airborne infantry and saboteurs. Where no officers and
noncommissioned officers are present, each soldier acts under exertion of
all powers of his own initiative.'

  "This command for the individual to act on his own initiative was an
ancient Swiss tradition which reflected the political and military
leadership's staunch confidence in the ordinary man. This command was
possible, of course, only in a society where every man had his rifle at
home.

  " 'Under no condition,' the order continued, 'would any surrender be
forthcoming, and any pretense of a surrender must be ignored: If by radio,
leaflets or other media any information is transmitted doubting the will of
the Federal Council or of the Army High Command to resist an attacker. this
information must be regarded as the  lies of enemy propaganda. Our country
will resist aggression with all means in its power and to the death.' ...

    #   #   #

  "France collapsed in June, 1940 after only a few weeks of fighting. Paris
was taken without a shot being fired. The Nazis promptly proclaimed the
death penalty for possession of firearms in France and other occupied
countries.

  "In contrast, Cuisan recalled the high duty of the soldier to resist:

  " 'Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience
of each fighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his
assigned position. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their
position until no more ammunition exists. Then cold steel is next. ... The
machine gunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, if in
the bunker or on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapons, or
allow the enemy to seize them. Then the crews fight further like riflemen.
As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapons to use, he does not
yield. ..."

  Even old men and children were issued armbands, identifying them as
Ortswehren (local defense) so they could not be shot as partisans under
international law, when the time came for them to shoot any invader they
saw.

  Hitler never invaded Switzerland. Would you have?

  Nor has any dictator -- military or otherwise -- ever attempted to rule
the Swiss cantons by "executive order" ... like the one Bill Clinton
haughtily signed to outlaw the import of AK-47 variants which his own ATF
had found to be in full compliance with current law.

  "There was no holocaust on Swiss soil," Mr. Halbrook concludes. "Swiss
Jews served in the militia side by side with their fellow citizens, and
kept rifles in their homes just like everyone else. It is hard to believe
that there could have been a holocaust had the Jews of Germany, Poland, and
France had the same privilege."

  Folks ask me: "I'm just one person, what can I do?"

  Buy an M1-A, or an AR-10, at $1,100. These are better weapons than are
currently standard issue in the U.S. Army. If you can't afford those, buy a
surplus M-1 Garand at $500, or even a 1917 Enfield, at $250. For the
smaller women and teens, a surplus M-1 carbine apiece, at about $350. Six
magazines for each rifle and a couple thousand rounds of surplus ammunition
(in bulk) may set you back $800.

  Do it before autumn of 1998, when the Brady Bill allows national gun
registration, even for LONG GUNS.

  But only if you want America to remain a free country, of course.

  Freedom is always optional.

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

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
"Commentaries on the Laws of England."




- ----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 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.

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #46
**********************************