ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n052

Internet Message Format | 1998-04-30 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #52
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest        Friday, May 1 1998        Volume 02 : Number 052




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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:28:46 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GSL> Instant Checks -Forwarded

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:42:00 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA27624; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:38:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:38:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma027531; Thu Apr 30 10:38:00 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: Re: GSL> Instant Checks
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

PERSONAL OPINION

I would like to throw out for thought and discussion some ideas about
"instant check" records. I will not address here the problem that the
checks will not be instant but will enshrine a waiting period, that the
system will quickly be turned into a basis for curtailing gun shows and
private sales, or a host of other problems with it.  This deals with the
destruction of records. If you have heard it, bear with me.

#1  NO instant check system run by the feds (and most states) can EVER
have the records destroyed legally.  Absorb this.  The Federal Records
Act and many court decisions following have repeatedly been upheld as
requiring that records be kept.  Federal records (including computer
transactions) are federal property.  They are governed by the Records
Act.  THEY MUST KEEP THEM.  Now, a simple principle of law that
everybody understands says that if a later law modifies an earlier one
in some way, the later law applies.  The federal courts have made an
exception to this for the Records Act.  The Records Act itself must be
explicitly and intentionally addressed and amended in the new law for
any new law's procedures to override those of the Records Act.  This
means the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady Act's requirement that background check
records NOT be kept is VOID.  The feds conducting the program could be
PROSECUTED if they destroy the records.

#2  The FBI is taking a very sneaky tack on the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady
permision-to-exercise-your-rights checks.  They are saying that the gun
check program is one thing, and the records of that might have to
disappear (this is questionable), but the access of FBI records is a
separate thing.  ANY TIME the FBI criminal databases or fingerprint
databases are checked, the person who is being checked and the reason
WILL BE KEPT.

#3  The NRA's fight to have states pass instant check systems was based
on their propaganda that the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady invasions of privacy
would NOT be done by the feds if the state where the purchase was going
on had its own check.  Now it appears the feds are proposing they will
conduct the national check, regardless. There will be multiple layers of
checks.  In Fairfax County, VA, where the National Rifle Association,
Gun owners of America, and ironically, GunsSaveLives, are headquartered,
a handgun buyer at the end of this year will get the same check, through
the federal database, THREE time to buy a handgun.  The locals check for
handgun buys.  The state checks all firearms purchases from dealers.
The feds will now be checking ALSO, they are proposing, and the state
law has not been and will not be modified this year to stop the
repetitive checks of the same data.  Buying a handgun in a store there
will create THREE 99-year records in the FBI's files of the single
purchase.  If you go to the state police for a permit to buy more than
one handgun in 30 days, the single act of buying two handguns will
create FOUR computer checks and computer records, as the state police
will run your background AGAIN for this permit.  Just one example of how
the vaunted NRA instant check will not have any records kept.

#4  At each stage of all this, the local and state governments may or
may not be under any compunction or compulsion to keep or detroy
records.  It doesn't matter.  Which prosecutor (in most places) will
prosecute cops for NOT destroying government property?  Almost
everywhere there is a background check, somebody keeps a record. It is
the nature of government.

#5  The ironic thing about this is many of the pro-gun people around the
country who have fought and contributed and worked to prevent national
computer registration of gun owners in earlier years have EMBRACED this
insidious plan.  It is the demarcation line.  For years, federal
computer records of who has guns has been the big enchilada of the gun
movement.  The boogie man.  It's here.  Thanks to the NRA for joing with
HCI and the ATF, wittingly or unwittingly.

- --Rick Vizachero
chairman, GunsSaveLives
(personal opinions, and not those of any organization)

walter lee wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
> Nancy, Jim and others:
>
>         I sent this to Tanya last week. When I say in the letter to her,  that
> instant checks are not bad in theory, I mean that.  If one could get
> clearance in one minute with no records of the call kept and no fee, I
> don't have are reason to be against it-- if it served a purpose.  It the
> feds would prosecute any violent felon or fugitive to the max for trying
> to buy a gun, then everyone would be safer.  However, the feds don't
> prosecute, the want fees, there is still a potential six day wait, and
> they are setting it up for registration.
>
>         By the way, under the proposed federal rules, the instant checks don't
> effect people with state CHLs that include background checks in the
> application.  My objection is on principle.  They already have my name,
> but they won't have a list of transactions.
>
> Walter LeeInstant check (walter lee , Sat 15:38)
> To:
>     [e-mail]
>
> Given the rules the rules posted concerning the "instant background
> check"  it is time for the NRA and ILA to reconsider its endorsement.
>
> The instant check is not instant.  Allow three business days for
> results, which translates up to six calendar days.  Call on Wednesday
> morning.  Currently, the day of the call does not count.  Maybe it will
> under the new ruling.  Wednesday, Thursday, Friday (three business days)
> , Saturday, Sunday, National Holiday.  They call you Tuesday and
> comply.  There is nothing instant about it.
>
> There are serious fees imposed;  13 to 16 dollars per transaction is the
> estimate.  On a two thousand dollar trap gun, its like nothing.  On a
> used, sixty dollar .22 rifle it comes to a 25% increase.
>
> They asked for SS#s.  Its volunteer, but...
>
> I have been told that because Federal computers are involved, the data
> will be retained "for audit purposes" "by law."  I have also been told
> that the record will be discarded when the applicant turns  99.
>
> Some of this comes directly from the BATF website--in terms of time and
> money.
>
> I can agree that an instant background check is not bad in theory but
> the devil is in the details and those details are what we have to live
> by.  Please, Please, Please oppose the rules submitted by the FBI and
> ATF before its too late.
>
> Demand that instant be instant.  Congress appropriated money to set up
> the system.  Don't try to make gun owners pay for it again.
>
> I have heard three dealers say they are going to quit when their FFLs
> expire.  We are running out of dealers in my neck of the woods.  The
> rules of the instant checks are one of the things that are driving them
> out.
>
> Please register an objection to these details.
>
> Walter Lee
> Life Member
>
> --------------------------
> GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List
>
> This list is governed by an acceptable use
> policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html
> or available upon request.
>
> To unsubscribe send a message to
> [e-mail]
>
> with the following line in the body:
>
> unsubscribe gsl
>
> GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST.
> THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL
> RIGHTS RESERVED.

- --
Don't agonize.  Organize.
http://GunsSaveLives.com


(Opinions here are personal and not those of any organization.)


- -

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 98 18:56:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Shoe protest to symbolize U.S. child deaths by guns

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:14:33 -0500
From: jlbtexas <[e-mail]>
Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services
To: Ignition Point <[e-mail]>

******************************************************
12:37 PM ET 04/29/98

Shoe protest to symbolize U.S. child deaths by guns

By Grant McCool

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Gun control advocates plan Saturday to
display piles of shoes, some of them once worn by young victims
of firearms, in a protest against handgun makers over the
shooting deaths of thousands of children.

Calling it the ``Silent March,'' demonstrators will take
their cause to gun manufacturers in Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Maryland, Virginia and Georgia with a list of 10 demands urging
changes in the way they produce and market handguns.

The main display of 5,285 pairs of shoes, some of them
donated by relatives and friends of people killed in gun
violence, will be in the historic district of Springfield, Mass.
British-owned Smith and Wesson, the largest U.S. handgun
manufacturer, has its headquarters near the town.

The shoes will be laid out in a two-hour silent protest in
the town square and then hundreds of demonstrators are expected
to go to the Smith and Wesson plant and stand in silence with
posters for a further 90 minutes, the New York-based founders of
The Committee on the Silent March said.

They said the number of pairs of shoes represented the
number of children and teen-agers killed by gunfire -- including
murders, accidents and suicides -- in the United States in 1995,
the last year for which statistics are available. More than
36,000 people were killed by guns in 1995.

``Media reports on gun violence don't ask the question
'where does the gun come from?' It's as if we have a country
full of bad kids who have guns ... And we can't do anything
about it,'' said Tina Johnstone, one of the founders of the
non-profit group. Johnstone's husband was killed by a
16-year-old with a handgun in San Francisco in 1992.

Americans have become accustomed over the years to hearing
about firearm murders, accidents and suicides, but at least five
shootings in the past six months have focused attention again on
children and guns. Plans for the ``Silent March'' had begun long
before the recent spate of shootings.

Last Friday night, a 14-year-old in the rural northwestern
Pennsylvania town of Edinboro shot dead a teacher at a school
dance and on Saturday a 4-year-old boy fatally shot a 6-year-old
playmate in Greensboro, North Carolina, with a semi-automatic
pistol he found in his grandmother's purse.

Last month, an 11-year-old and a 13-year-old using handguns
and rifles shot dead four students and a teacher at school in
Jonesboro, Ark. In October 1997, two were killed and seven
wounded in a shooting at a Pearl, Miss. school and two months
later, a 14-year-old boy killed three high school students and
wounded five in Paducah, Ky.

Statistics gathered from government, academic and health
care sources show that 50,000 children were killed by guns in
the decade from 1986 to 1995, almost 3,000 more than the number
of Americans killed in the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 70s.

The Silent March group urges manufacturers to participate in
preventing gun violence by making a ``sea change'' in their
business, including installing locking devices to make weapons
childproof, putting prominent warning labels on guns and
establishing manufacturer-authorized dealerships.

A spokesman for Smith and Wesson, which is owned by Tomkins
PLC of London, declined to comment on the protest or the demands
until a news conference the company has scheduled for Friday in
Springfield, Mass.

Similar protests are planned Saturday at Colt in Hartford,
Connecticut; Beretta in Accokeek, Maryland; Interarms in
Alexandria, Virginia; Glock in Atlanta, Georgia and Sturm, Ruger
in Southport, Connecticut. A separate protest is scheduled for
May 16 in Los Angeles, Ca., at Bryco, makers of the so-called
''Saturday Night Specials.''

Johnstone and fellow-activist Ellen Freudenheim helped organize
a similar event in 1996 that brought 40,000 pairs of shoes on
display in Washington D.C. ``The idea behind the shoes is to
show the numbers, put a human face on the numbers,'' said
Freudenheim.

The group believes that gun manufacturers, like the tobacco
industry, should pay some of the billions of dollars in medical
costs incurred by treatment of gun wounds. Handgun injuries cost
at least $1.5 billion a year, they said.

They also want Congress to impose on firearms the consumer
product safety regulations that cover less lethal products
such as electric toasters, teddy bears and children's pajamas.

REUTERS

 <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><

http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html [Real Audio]

[We have stories to learn here]

PSALMS:37
Deuteronomy 28:1-68

- -------------------------------------------
"The First Amendment has erected a wall
of separation between church and state,
but that wall is a one directional wall;
it keeps the government from running
the church,but it makes sure that Christian
principles will always stay in government."

- --Thomas Jefferson, 1 Jan 1802,
address to the Danbury Baptists
- -------------------------------------------
"But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to
warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that
man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman
accountable for his blood."
Ezekiel 33:6 (NIV)
 __________________________________________________________
 "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null
 and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)
 --------------------------------------------------------
 "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny."
 "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty."
 +++++++++++++++++++   ><>   +++++++++++++++++++++
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

- -- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, see
Jefferson On Democracy, 20 (S. Padover ed. 1939).

<@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><


- -

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 98 19:22:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Truth New Threat to Law Enforcement

by WILLIAM KEMP
[e-mail]
The Vigo Examiner

WASHINGTON -- Reacting to recent efforts by law enforcement to infiltrate,
prosecute, and disrupt their activities, a consortium of citizens' militia
groups around the nation have announced a plan to rid themselves of
individuals in their midst who are actually working for various federal
and local police agencies.

Their plan employs a relatively obscure but fairly simple technology,
using computers to analyze tape recorded statements for stress levels.
The human voice displays a natural frequency. If the individual tells
a lie, added stress causes the natural frequency to shift very slightly,
indicating that the statement is not true. It is anticipated that this
method will gain wide acceptance. Plans are being made for group members
to individually and voluntarily make statements of loyalty, to be analyzed
by an independent contractor who has no knowledge of the identity of the
individuals making the voluntary statements, providing a double blind
test. Individuals refusing to submit to analysis may no longer be included
in group activities.

It is further planned that individuals who wish to make accusations
against other individuals shall submit statements outlining the accusations
for analysis, thus allowing a quick determination of the validity of the
accusations. It is anticipated that accusers unwilling to offer their
accusations for analysis shall not be taken seriously.

Federal law enforcement has experienced much success in recent times
by infiltrating and subsequently prosecuting what they allege to be right
wing extremist groups which have burgeoned in recent years. These groups,
referred to by government sources as antigovernment, or as domestic
terrorists, and by the groups themselves as citizens' militia,
constitutionalists, common law organizations, and various Christian
organizations, have grown dramatically in the wake of events they see
as evidence of government out of control.

These events are exemplified by the killing of white separatist Randy
Weaver's son and wife. Government agents wanted Mr. Weaver to become a
confidential informant to infiltrate groups such as those known as Christian
Identity. Mr. Weaver, a jury subsequently found, was entrapped in order to
bring pressure on him to do the bidding of government law enforcement agents.

Weaver refused to cooperate, and a major effort was mounted by the
government to surveil his isolated Idaho cabin. Subsequently, his son was shot
in the back and killed by U.S. Marshals; his wife was killed by a shot to
the head while she held her infant daughter in the door of her remote Idaho
cabin by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. Special Agent Horiuchi acted on orders
from high-placed FBI officials to "shoot on sight." Neither Mr. Weaver's
son nor his wife were wanted for any violation. Special Agent Horiuchi was
charged by Idaho authorities with manslaughter in the case, and a federal
court has appropriated jurisdiction. The government is defending Horiuchi,
and many believe that the federal court will throw out the charges against
him.

This event was followed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
(ATF) disastrous assault on the Seventh Day Adventist church complex near
Waco, Texas, following the infiltration of the church community by an agent
of the ATF. This event began with ATF forces arriving at the church complex
en masse, allegedly to serve a "knock" search warrant (where the warrant
is to be served by knocking on the door of the building to be searched).

However, ATF brought no warrant to the site, and a major gun fight
erupted, with ATF suffering twenty or more casualties, the loss of two
helicopters, and was routed from the scene. A jury subsequently absolved
those inside the church complex who survived the initial assault by ATF,
and the final assault by the FBI using tanks and poison gas, of homicide
charges, declaring the actions to be self defense and therefore justifiable.

In the meantime, by law enforcement's own admission, the use of
confidential informants and other infiltration agents of law enforcement
has continued unabated, strongly reminiscent of the FBI's COINTELPRO
operations declared unconstitutional some years ago. This has resulted
in many prosecutions of individuals for statutory violations which carry
major prison sentences.

This major effort by government to place individuals under false colors
into citizens' organizations has resulted in major disruption of their
activities, and a great deal of suspicion and "finger pointing" in their
ranks. Many have been brought to the brink of complete dissolution. The
plans to ascertain individuals of questionable loyalty and intentions
threatens to become a major stumbling block for law enforcement.

Law enforcement officials, apprised of these developments, are greatly
disturbed. Speaking on condition of anonymity, one related "This is
disastrous. Our entire effort has been to place infiltrators in these
groups, and the loss of these infiltrators will require us to completely
revamp our efforts. Because there is no overt manifestation of criminal
intent by these groups, this could completely remove us from their inner
workings.

When asked of other ramifications of this approach, the official was
even more distressed. "As you know, most of the people we prosecute are
accused of so-called victimless, or statutory, crimes. Since there is no
complaining party for these crimes, we are required to put secret agents
inside the general population, who can ferret out these activities. If
these agents can be identified by a cheap, quick, and simple method, our
efforts could be halted. We will not be able to place agents, or coerce
individuals into acting in our interests, if they know that they can be
so easily discovered. If people implement these plans on a wide scale,
our efforts against ownership of illegal firearms and all sorts of other
illegal activities will be crippled."

He continued: "We use this stress analysis ourselves, to great benefit,
and there are laws against individuals using it. But the laws against
individual use are inoperable when performed with permission of those being
analyzed. If our agents voluntarily submit to analysis, they will be found
out. If they do not submit, they will be ostracized-- in either case, they
are no longer useful to us. We will be required to expend a great deal of
effort at surveillance, phone taps and mail intercepts. There are simply
too many people to watch on an effective basis, and when we start poking
around without warrants, we will soon be forced to almost completely halt
our activities. We'll have to wait until someone commits a crime, and then
try to find out who did it. In the case of drugs, firearms, gambling, and
the like, we will NEVER find out, for there will be no crime that we can
even know occurred."

Another official was even more distressed, however, when he anticipated
other uses of the stress analysis technology. "The worst of this isn't
even related to law enforcement. If people start analyzing statements
of public officials, judges and legislators and candidates for office,
the outcome will be chilling. Every politician will know that his
statements will be subject to scientific scrutiny, his answers to
questions will be quickly and widely known as truth or not, and the
confidence of people in government will be greatly eroded."

He continued "It wouldn't surprise me if most politicians simply quit
rather than subject themselves to this, and the only people who will run
for office will be those who have no experience in politics and government,
and these folks are not likely to continue the policies which have brought
us this far. It is illegal to analyze people without their permission, but
it is easy enough to see that with this genie out of the bottle, there's
no way that we can keep people from finding out the truth."

h


- -

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 98 19:25:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Truth New Threat to Law Enforcement

Clipped from previous post:

http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com




- -

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 01:31:51 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Incident on Long Island

Dear NBC:

I noticed that there is no mention of the upcoming movie "Incident on Long
Island" on your Web page.  I hope that means that you have decided not to
air this show.

Obviously, I haven't seen the movie in question.  But I am familiar with
both Rep. McCarthy and Ms. Streisand and their irrational and prejudiced
hatred of firearms, so I think I can rationally conclude that "Incident"
will be an extremely biased piece of anti-gun propaganda.

You do, of course, have the right to show whatever nonsense you choose.
However, apart from the firearms issue, Rep. McCarthy is currently running
for Congress.  I trust you will be willing to produce a feature film about
each of her opponents, utilizing the skill of your top producers to promote
their political agendas as well.

In the meantime, please be aware that should you show "Incident on Long
Island" as scheduled, or at any future time, I will boycott each and every
sponsor, and encourage everyone I know to do the same.

You should also know that I do not fit your stereotype of a marginalized,
sub-human, poorly-educated "gun nut".  I'm a well-educated retired
physician and writer, and I'm not a member of the NRA.

As for your sponsors, I don't yet know who they are.  But you, and they,
should know that I'm planning on buying a vehicle in the next three months,
I travel frequently both by car and by air, I dine out, I drink beerand
soft drinks on occasion, I make long distance phone calls, I have children
and pets, I buy insurance, do laundry, shop for groceries, plan vacations,
run a household as well as a business, and make all decisions regarding
office furniture, equipment and services.

I also keep my word.

Sincerely,
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
Sandy, UT



- -

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 08:10:51 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: A request from you... -Forwarded

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BD74AB.120E5240
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have studied the issues and the candidates for State Senate (Bob =
Bennett and Hartley Anderson) and I am whole heartedly in support of =
Hartley Anderson. He is a Constitutional Conservative in the Tradition = of
the Founding Fathers. I am a state delegate and am going to cast my =
vote for Hartley. Please contact any State Delegates you know and ask =
them to support Hartley. Bob Bennett is a good man, but we have too
many = good men in Washington that aren't making any difference, don't
vote = right, and don't understand the Proper Role of Government. If Bob
= understands it, he has chosen not to stand up for it.

Please cast your votes and tell as many state delegates as you can to =
cast their votes for Hartley Anderson.

On the same but different note, I would like to make another suggestion.
=
I am not endorsing Jeremy Friedbaum (against Chris Cannon) for U.S. =
Congress, but I don't believe it's good for any of us to have an =
unopposed candidate (Chris Cannon). If you are a Utah County delegate I
= ask you to please vote for Jeremy at the convention (please tell other =
delegates the same). This will assure that Chris will be forced into a =
primary and he will have to address the issues (debates, etc.). I am a =
county delegate and I'm going to vote for Jeremy for this reason if =
nothing else.

Thanks for your time,

Cullen




- -

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 08:12:30 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NBC -Forwarded

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 01 May 1998 03:28:25 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id FAA07642; Fri, 1 May 1998 05:26:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 05:26:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma007493; Fri May  1 05:22:39 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: [e-mail] (Bill Vance)
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NBC
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

On Apr 30, TSBench wrote:

>In a message dated 98-04-30 18:23:54 EDT, [e-mail] writes:
>
><< >A list of sponsors will be circulated immediately after the May
> >3 broadcast.  Efforts to ascertain sponors in advance are still
> >being made.>>>
>
>Just to make a suggestion. Most of the network spots have been sold during the
>so-called 'up-front' season, so even if they all pull out of the show, pretty
>unlikely, NBC is still going to get their financial committment for the year,
>just by dumping the spots into unsold slots in other shows in order to make up
>any audience guarantees (bear in mind that the big heavy hitting advertising
>agencies buy time using various formulas and getting all kinds of 'deals' and
>'packages'.)
>
>Were you can have a real immediate impact at the local level, is find out who
>the "local" sponsors are and go after them with your message. These are the
>folks who buy the local 'spot' advertising in the individual programs, and
>where the stations make a lot of their money. Look, whatever car manufacturers
>run ads on the network, they are going to sell X millions of automobiles this
>year whether you buy one or not.
>But, let Joe's Ford down on Main Street know that your next three automobiles
>will be bought at Tom's Ford on Washington Street, and you'll get Joe's
>attention real fast.
>
>And, remember that the networks are scared shitless of the affiliates, because
>that is what makes them a network. And with the competition from Fox, UPN, WB,
>etc
>the last thing they are looking forward to at the annual affiliates meeting is
>some bullshit general manager bitching about how being one of their affiliates
>is costing him local dollars.
>
>Like the tree huggers say, Think Globally, Act Locally. It works, and with
>very little lag time.
>
>Regards,
>TSB

Good points all.  We've been doing this for some time now, and with some
success in the list boycott dept., with Denny's et al, so this is more of
same at the Local Level.  My point though, is that a lot of folks read
various news groups at all levels, and we could hit them shotgun style
through the proposed method.  The main msg being, "that there's lots of
folks out there who care about (X), and why aggravate them by supporting
programming or other stuff that gets them miffed at you in the first
place?"  Counter Programming for the Politically Correct/Robotically
Inclined, if you will.

Seems like it ought to work.....

- --
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
- ----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand = Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus Christ
- ----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------


- -

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

Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:14:50 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Re: [[The Real Lesson of the School Shootings - WSJ])]]]

I received the following reply from Governor Leavitt's email address.
Note the typical, "I support the 2nd amendment, but guns don't belong
in all these different places" reponse.  My initial email to him
is below.  Put this in the "Don't confuse me with facts" catagory.
Also note the next mesage from me.

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

X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 08:21:32 -0600
From: "Governor Michael Leavitt" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [[The Real Lesson of the School Shootings - WSJ])]]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 6897

       Thank you for your letter regarding the issue of concealed weapons. =
 I appreciate your taking the time to express your feelings.

         While I firmly believe in our 2nd Amendment rights, I do not =
believe those rights trump private property rights of others.  I do not =
believe schools or churches are appropriate places for firearms.  In =
addition, I believe we should look at private property rights in relationsh=
ip to our concealed weapons law.=20

         As Governor, I represent the citizens of Utah.  This process =
requires the input of concerned people like you who are willing to =
participate.  Your ideas suggestions and opinions are vital to an =
effective government and I appreciate your involvement.


>>> Charles Hardy <[e-mail]> 03/27 4:05 PM >>>

From today's (Friday 27 March 1998) edition of the Wall Street
Journal, page A14, lower, right-hand section.  Passed along
for educational purposes.

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

By JOHN R. LOTT JR.

This week's horrific shootings in Arkansas have, predictably, spurred
calls for more gun control. But it's worth noting that the shootings
occurred in one of the few places in Arkansas where possessing a gun is
illegal. Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi--the three states that have
had deadly shootings in public schools over the past half-year--all
allow law-abiding adults to carry concealed handgun for
self-protection, except in public schools. Indeed, federal law
generally prohibits guns within 1,000 feet of a school.

Gun prohibitionists concede that banning guns around schools has not
quite worked as intended--but their response has been to call for more
regulations of guns. Yet what might appear to be the most obvious
policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is
law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them.
Obviously the police cannot be everywhere, so these laws risk creating
situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad
ones.

Consider a fact hardly mentioned during the massive news coverage of
the October 1997 shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss.: An
assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically
immobilized the gunman for a full 41/2 minutes while waiting for the
police to arrive. The gunman had already fatally shot two students
(after earlier stabbing his mother to death). Who knows how many lives
the assistant principal saved by his prompt response?

Allowing teachers and other law-abiding adults to carry concealed
handguns in schools would not only make it easier to stop shootings in
progress. It could also help deter shootings from ever occurring.
Twenty-five or more years ago in Israel, terrorists would pull out
machine guns in malls and fire away at civilians. However, with
expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon
found the ordinary people around them pulling pistols on them. Suffice
it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public
shootings--they have switched to bombing, a tactic that doesn't allow
the intended victims to respond.

The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in Israel further
illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven seventh- and
eighth-grade Israeli girls were shot to death by a Jordanian soldier
while they visited Jordan's so-called Island of Peace. The Los Angeles
Times reports that the Israelis had "complied with Jordanian requests
to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave.
Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several
parents said."

Together with my colleague William Landes, I have studied
multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1995. These
were incidents in which at least two people were killed or injured in a
public place; to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas we
excluded shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as
robbery. The U.S. averaged 21 such shootings per year, with an average
of 1.8 people killed and 2.7 wounded in each one.

We examined a whole range of different gun laws as well as other
methods of deterrence, such as the death penalty. However, only one
policy succeeded in reducing deaths and injuries from these
shootings--allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns.

The effect of "shall-issue" concealed handgun laws--which give adults
the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal
record or a history of significant mental illness--has been dramatic.
Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during
the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings
declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by
90%, injuries by 82%. Higher arrest rates and increased use of the
death penalty slightly reduced the incidence of these events, but the
effects were never statistically significant.

With over 19,600 people murdered in 1996, those killed in multiple
victim public shootings account for fewer than 0.2% of the total. Yet
these are surely the murders that attract national as well as
international attention, often for days after the attack. Victims
recount their feelings of utter helplessness as a gunman methodically
shoots his cowering prey.

Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided
coverage of gun use. Tragic events like those in Arkansas receive
massive news coverage, as they should, but discussions of the 2.5
million times each year that people use guns defensively--including
cases in which public shootings are stopped before they happen--are
ignored. Dramatic stories of mothers who prevented their children from
being kidnapped by carjackers seldom even make the local news.

Attempts to outlaw guns from schools, no matter how well meaning, have
backfired. Instead of making schools safe for children, we have made
them safe for those intent on harming our children. Current school
policies fire teachers who even accidentally bring otherwise legal
concealed handguns to school. We might consider reversing this policy
and begin rewarding teachers who take on the responsibility to help
protect children.

Mr. Lott, a fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law,
is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime," forthcoming in early May from
the University of Chicago Press.


<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/SB89095813222556500.ht=
m>

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

- --=20

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

 A camel is a horse designed by a committee and an elephant is a mouse
 built to military specifications." -- from page 321 of "Cryptoanalysis
 for Microcomputers" by Caxton C. Foster (University of Massachusetts),
 Hayden Book Co. Inc., 1982.



- ----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 #52
**********************************