ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n053

Internet Message Format | 1998-05-04 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #53
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest        Monday, May 4 1998        Volume 02 : Number 053




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

Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:15:51 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Re: [[e-mail]: April 26 column -- Swiss militia]]

Different message to the governor--same reply.  :)

This guy has got to be defeated in two years.

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

X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 08:45:16 -0600
From: "Governor Michael Leavitt" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [[e-mail]: April 26 column -- Swiss
    militia]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 12184


        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]> 04/19 2:25 AM >>>

Dear Governor

This article contains some very interesting and timely information I
hope you will read and consider.

- ----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]=20

"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----

- --=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.

"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 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.

"From all that terror teaches, From lies of tongue and pen,
From all the easy speeches That comfort cruel men,
From sale and profanation of honor and the sword,
From sleep and from damnation, Deliver us, Good Lord."
- -- G.K. Chesterton, "A Hymn"

- -

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 14:19:58 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [[e-mail]: Re: [[e-mail]: April 26 column -- Swissmilitia]]

At 11:15 AM 5/1/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Different message to the governor--same reply.  :)
>
>This guy has got to be defeated in two years.

Or maybe impeached in less than two years for willfully and repeatedly
violating the Utah State weapons laws....

Nah......  just wishful thinking. <g>

Sarah

- -

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 15:17:28 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: RNC/ Clinton News Conference - "Breaking the Law is Not Just One              of Those Things" -For

Received: from web185c.bbnplanet.com (web185c.bbnplanet.com [207.121.186.185])
    by web185c.bbnplanet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02140;
    Fri, 1 May 1998 10:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BRONZE.RNC.ORG by BRONZE.RNC.ORG (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b)
          with spool id 15183 for [e-mail]; Fri, 1 May 1998
          09:56:09 -0700
Received: from web185c.bbnplanet.com (web185c.bbnplanet.com [207.121.186.185])
          by web185c.bbnplanet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA01765 for
          <[e-mail]>; Fri, 1 May 1998 09:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Approved-By: [e-mail]
Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by
          web185c.bbnplanet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA01736 for
          <[e-mail]>; Fri, 1 May 1998 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id
          IAA04033 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 1 May 1998 08:47:52 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from unknown(207.94.140.239) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
          id rma004015; Fri May  1 08:47:31 1998
X-Sender: [e-mail] (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>
Date:         Fri, 1 May 1998 09:48:43 -0400
Reply-To: Sean Henry <[e-mail]>
Sender: RNC Press List <[e-mail]>
From: Sean Henry <[e-mail]>
Subject:      RNC/ Clinton News Conference - "Breaking the Law is Not Just One
              of Those Things"
To: Multiple recipients of list PRESSLIST <[e-mail]>

RNC News Release

April 30, 1998

RNC CHAIRMAN JIM NICHOLSON: "BREAKING THE LAW IS NOT JUST ONE OF
THOSE THINGS!"

WASHINGTON - Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson
today strongly criticized President Clinton for saying in his
press conference that breaking the law, perjury and telling others
to lie under oath is "just one of those things."

     "Astonishingly, Bill Clinton was unable to bring himself to
say that a president is not above the law," Nicholson said.
"Instead, we heard him say that -- to him --'committing perjury'
and 'breaking the law' are '"just one of those things.'

     "The answer to the question should have been simple. Clinton
should have said: 'In America no one is above the law. Not the
President. Not anyone.'

     "It is vital that Republicans and, yes, Democrats as well
quickly reassert and emphasize this core American value. It is
disgraceful and deeply disturbing that Clinton rejects this belief
and asserts that he is above the law."

     President Clinton made his remarks today in his first and
only solo presidential press conference of the year.  A verbatim
transcript of the exchange follows:


     ABC White House Correspondent, Sam Donaldson:  "Mr.
President, quite a few Americans seem to believe it doesn't matter
what you may have done in private moments, that that's between you
and your wife.  And some are saying it doesn't even matter if
you've broken the law - obstructed justice or committed perjury.
Now, you deny wrongdoing, I understand.  But as standard for
presidents, what do you think?  And, particularly, does it matter
if you have committed perjury or in other sense broken the law?"

     President Clinton:  "Well, since I have answered the
underlying questions, I really believe it's important for me not
to say any more about this.  I think that I'm the last person who
needs to be having a national conversation about this.  What I'm
trying to do - I may be the leader, but my job as leader is to
lead the country and to deal with the great public issues facing
the country, and to prove Justice Scalia right when he said that
nothing that could be done to me in a legal way would in any way
affect my job as president.  It would be just one of those things
and I could go right on and do my job.  And I'm going to do my
best to prove him correct by doing the public's business."

(Visit http://www.rnc.org for the latest republican news and information)


- -

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 17:06:22 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Promised Land -Forwarded

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:48:37 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA27473; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:45:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:45:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma027328; Thu Apr 30 21:40:59 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Neal Atkins <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Promised Land
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

Just saw a TV movie with Gerald McRaney, Promised Land.  The show's premise
was a 16 year old that comes into a school house and kills a fellow student
while looking for a teacher to kill. McRaney's TV wife talks the kid down and
then the shooter tries to kill himself.  The shooter was using a Remington
742 that looked to be a 30-06.  The shooter was partially blocked in this
suicide attempt by the wife.  He makes it to the Hospital.  The second half
of the show is taken up with dealing with the topic of kids with "conduct
disorder" IE, the target group of kids that do violent acts.

Not ONCE does this show mention guns.  Not ONCE does the show address the
media hot topics of locking up guns or any other gun control topic.  It
addressed the issue of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

I URGE everyone to log onto cbs.com and THANK THEM for showing this episode.
 The producer of the show came on before the start and said the show was
filmed a week prior to the Jonesboro kid shootings and they thought about
delaying airing the episode.

I'm glad they didn't wait.



- -

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:02:49 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: ID: Chenoweth Misrepresented In The Media -Forwarded

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 01 May 1998 17:42:40 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA24445; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:40:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 19:40:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024254; Fri May  1 19:35:42 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Douglas Davis <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: ID: Chenoweth Misrepresented In The Media
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:47:05 -0400
>From: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: ID: Chenoweth Misrepresented In The Media
>
>         Anti-gun Media Distorts Chenoweth's Gun Record
>       -- Make your voice heard in a Letter to the Editor
>
>                    by Gun Owners of America
> 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA  22151, [phone], fax:
>                            321-8408
>
>
>     (Wednesday, April 29, 1998) -- As you know, Rep. Helen
>Chenoweth (R-ID) is one of the strongest supporters of the Second
>Amendment that we have in the Congress.  Not surprisingly, the
>anti-gun media (even in her home state) rarely pass up an
>opportunity to distort her record.
>
>     At the very bottom of this alert, we have reprinted a
>recent misinterpretation from The Idaho Statesman.  While their
>attack is subtle, it is perhaps the most dangerous kind of
>subterfuge that media pens can wield.  They don't attack by
>name-calling or by some other form of obvious denunciation.
>
>     Rather, they attempt to destroy one's credibility using the
>weapon of ridicule.  They attempt to appear "objective" while
>making a legislator's statement seem erroneous.  In this case,
>the Statesman pretends to factually evaluate one of Rep.
>Chenoweth's advertisements.  (Rep. Chenoweth placed a pro-gun ad
>in a national magazine in an attempt to garner support for
>repealing the obnoxious Lautenberg gun ban.  As you know, Rep.
>Chenoweth has courageously taken the lead in fighting to repeal
>this ban.)  But the journalists at the Statesman -- while trying
>to sound "objective" -- cannot divorce themselves from their
>anti-gun mindset.  Objectivity is just not in the cards for
>them.
>
>     ACTION:  GOA has printed the Statesman's distortion at the
>end of this alert.  We would ask that you consider choosing one
>of the Letters to the Editor below and sending it as a response
>to the Statesman's article.  You can send your Letter to the
>Editor by mail or fax to the following address/number:  Idaho
>Statesman, ATTN:  Editorial Page Editor, PO Box 40, Boise, ID
>83707 or Fax:  [phone].
>
>
>Dear Editor:
>
>     Your "Reality Check" article from April 9 is itself in need
>of a Reality Check.  The new law you spoke of -- the one
>introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) -- revokes the Second
>Amendment rights of ordinary citizens for committing VERY minor
>"offenses."
>
>     While you were correct in saying that being a victim of
>domestic violence "doesn't [automatically] trigger the ban," the
>fact is many victims DO get sucked under its purview.
>
>     These days, when the police are called out to a home, both
>parties are often charged, no matter who was at fault -- some
>states even require an arrest be made.  Now you can easily have a
>police record, even if it only led to your paying a small fine.
>The end result is a loss of your God-given rights.
>
>     Last year, the Gun Owners of America reported on one
>Illinois lady who lost her right to self-defense because she
>called the police to her home.  When her husband returned home
>drunk one evening, more than ten years ago, an argument ensued
>and he started breaking out the windows in the house.
>Frightened, she called the police, but when they arrived they
>claimed there was nothing they could do since it was his own
>property.
>
>     Angered by her husband's "smug look," she slapped him in
>the face, right in front of the police officer.  Incredibly, the
>police arrested her and took her to jail, charging her with
>simple assault.  In order to avoid the costly expense of a trial
>and hiring an attorney, she pled guilty to a misdemeanor and
>paid a $25 fine.
>
>     Now, because of the Lautenberg gun ban, she can no longer
>own guns.  She now has a new husband who might also be prevented
>from keeping guns in their home because the wife would still be
>in "possession" of those firearms.
>
>     I agree with Rep. Helen Chenoweth that this law must be
>repealed.  I hope you will run your facts through a "Reality
>Check" the next time you report on this law.
>
>
>Dear Editor:
>
>     The "Political Ad Watch" column missed the mark recently
>when analyzing Rep. Helen Chenoweth's position on the Lautenberg
>gun ban.
>
>     Rep. Chenoweth is absolutely correct in her critique of this
>onerous law.  This gun ban is one of the most dangerous pieces of
>legislation to pass in the last decade.
>
>     This ban will disarm a person for life, for convictions
>as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse.
>
>     Every year, over 200,000 women use a gun to defend
>themselves against sexual assault. But the Lautenberg ban can
>easily take guns away from women who have no other way of
>defending themselves.
>
>     In many localities, spanking your child is now considered
>domestic violence "child abuse." How many mothers have spanked
>their children as a way to correct them? But because of the
>Lautenberg ban, now one can lose their right to self-defense for
>merely spanking their child.
>
>     For these and other reasons, several women's and family
>groups support Rep. Chenoweth's bill repealing the Lautenberg
>gun ban.
>
>     These groups include the likes of Concerned Women for
>America, Independent Women's Forum, Women Against Gun Control,
>American Family Association, Safety for Women and Responsible
>Motherhood, and the Home School Legal Defense Association.
>
>     I'm glad that Rep. Chenoweth is doing something about this
>dangerous law. She is a fine lady for standing up for the rights
>of decent Americans.
>
>
>Dear Editor:
>
>     Representative Helen Chenoweth is right on the money when it
>comes to gun legislation.
>
>     Since late 1996, there has been a law in effect in this
>country which has the potential of disarming millions of decent
>American citizens. Thankfully, Mrs. Chenoweth is pushing a bill
>that will repeal this so-called Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun
>Ban -- a bill that will do nothing to help battered women and
>abused children, as its proponents claim.
>
>     After all, most men who abuse women and children use sheer
>physical force.  Women, however, often rely on a firearm to
>defend themselves.
>
>     But the real danger of the law is that it imposes a
>lifetime gun ban for misdemeanors, which by definition are
>supposed to be minor offenses. In many cases, a misdemeanor does
>not even involve actual physical violence.
>
>     For example, a pro-Second Amendment group that I support
>recently told of an Ohio man who had a fierce verbal argument
>with his father when he was seventeen. Someone called the
>police, and the father let them arrest the youth to "teach him a
>lesson." The next morning, the father went to the police station
>to have the charges dropped, but that was not possible. The
>father paid a small fine and took his son home.
>
>     In 1996, ten years after the original incident, the son had
>nearly completed training to join a local police department.
>After the Lautenberg ban passed, however, this young man, who
>had no other encounters with the law, was subject to a lifetime
>gun prohibition.
>
>     The Lautenberg ban is nonsensical. If there is a problem
>with truly violent offenders plea-bargaining down to
>misdemeanors, that should be handled in the court system.
>Firearm ownership is one of the most basic liberties a free
>people enjoy, and should not be taken away from persons
>convicted of mere misdemeanors.
>
>
>                 Excerpt from the Political Ad Watch
>                    (The Idaho Statesman, 4/9/98)
>
>     "The Advertisement -- AD CONTENT:  In the April 5 national
>weekly edition of The Washington Times, [Rep. Helen] Chenoweth
>attacks an amendment sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ,
>to ban people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence
>offenses from owning guns.  The measure is now law.
>
>     "'Don't Let the Government STEAL YOUR GUNS! . . . An abused
>spouse can be denied the right to own a gun,' the ad says.  'The
>ban applies to couples who get into shouting matches with each
>other or their children.  The amendment is retroactive and
>creates a new penalty for many law enforcement men and women who
>may have been a past victim of domestic violence.'"
>
>     "REALITY CHECK:  The Lautenberg law applies only to people
>who have been convicted by a jury or have pleaded guilty to a
>misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.  Being accused of
>domestic violence -- or being a victim -- doesn't trigger the
>ban. [Note:  Rep. Chenoweth never said that "being accused" of
>domestic violence automatically triggers the ban.  This type of
>subtle misrepresentation makes it appear as though the
>Representative is spouting untruth.]
>
>     "Graham Paterson, Chenoweth's campaign aide, defends the ad
>by saying that some people may be wrongly accused and simply
>plead guilty to the crime 'to put the issue behind them' or
>because they can't afford a lawyer.
>
>     [Note:  Here the Statesman makes a slight concession.]
>"Chenoweth is correct in saying that the law applies to people
>in the armed services and law enforcement.  No one who has been
>convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense is exempt
>from the measure.  And it is retroactive in the sense that
>convictions before 1996, when the law took effect, can strip
>people of the right to own or carry a gun. . . ."
>
>
>***********************************************************
>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.
>
>
>
>
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
********************



- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 08:20:03 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Death Merchants - 81; U.S. Taxpayers - 19" - a letter to  the  editor of the New York Times (May 2,

Received: from bob-dj (slip129-37-227-11.az.us.ibm.net [129.37.227.11]) by out2.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA29046; Sun, 3 May 1998 04:16:40 GMT
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1.329 (Beta)
Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 21:15:34 -0700
To: [e-mail]
From: Bob Djurdjevic <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Death Merchants - 81; U.S. Taxpayers - 19" - a letter to the
  editor of the New York Times (May 2, 1998)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

PHOENIX, ARIZONA

Thought you may be interested in the enclosed letter to the editor of the
New York Times.  If you're not, and don't care to receive any such reports
which upset your 'happy-go-lucky  NWO nirvana" state of mind, just send us
your e-mail address and write REMOVE or UNSUBSCRIBE.  We'll be happy to
oblige.  But be sure to specify the EXACT e-mail ID to which this is being
sent.

Bob Dj.

- ---------------------------------
Toby Harshaw
Letters Editor
THE NEW YORK TIMES
New York, NY
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------------
Subject: Letter to the editor Re. NYT OpEd "Now a Word From X" (5/2/98)

Dear Mr. Harshaw:

Mr. Thomas Friedman's outrage is understandable when he writes that, "we
are in the age of midgets."  And when he quotes a distinguished American
statesman, George Kennan, now age 94, as saying that, "I think it (the
Senate vote) is the beginning of a new cold war...  I think it is a tragic
mistake.  There was no reason for this whatsoever.  No one was threatening
anybody else.  This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this
country turn over in their graves."

But I am afraid that there is a perfectly good reason for the Apr. 30
Senate vote ratifying the NATO Expansion Treaty which neither Mr. Friedman
nor Mr. Kennan mentioned.  It is the $33 million dollars or so which the
U.S. death merchants have pumped into our legislators' campaigns since 1990
in the hope this may help "sharpen their (the Senators) thinking" when the
time to vote comes, according to Col. David Hackworth, America's most
decorated living soldier and a syndicated columnist.

It did.  The final score was: Death Merchants - 81; Taxpayers - 19.

In other words, it was a blow-out, to borrow a sports term.  Which is why
we, the U.S. taxpayers-losers, need to show our ire by holding the 81
Senators' feet to the fire when they next ask for our votes.  "Remember
your NATO hot potato?" we should respond.  "Well, it burned right through
your right hand, Senator, the one with which you swore to uphold the U.S.
Constitution and vote your constituents' interests in Congress.  Good luck
in your job hunt!"

Sincerely,

Bob Djurdjevic
Founder
TRUTH IN MEDIA


- ----
Bob Djurdjevic
TRUTH IN MEDIA
Phoenix, Arizona
e-mail: [e-mail]

Visit the <http://www.beograd.com/truth>Truth in Media Web site for more
articles on geopolitical affairs.


- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 14:17:10 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Meeting CHANGE!!

Hi all!

The USSC meeting scheduled for THIS EVENING, Monday, May 4, has been
CANCELLED.

The meeting has been rescheduled for THURSDAY evening, May 7.  The location
is the same, 7 N. Main Street in Kaysville.  (Crossroads of the West
offices).  Time is 7 PM.  If anyone needs directions or is interested in
carpooling, please let me know.

I don't have a formal agenda for Thursday's meeting, but we will be
discussing candidate evaluation questionnaires.  Other possible topics
include a proposed change in the date for elections, and proposed policies
and strategies for the remaining interim sessions as well as next year's
legislative session.

Also, if anyone has a complete list of sponsors for last night's NBC movie
"Incident on Long Island", please forward it so I can post and distribute
it.  Thanks!

Apologies for the late notice.  I didn't get the notice of the change until
about two hours ago.

Sarah




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

- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 20:19:34 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Meeting CHANGE AGAIN!

Hi all!

Apologies once again for providing incorrect (or at least not up to date)
information.

The USSC Board meeting scheduled for THURSDAY, MAY 7 has also been
CANCELLED.  The meeting will be held in approximately two weeks, but I have
no information regarding the actual date, place or time.  (At least this is
good news for Jazz fans like me! <g>)

I feel absolutely horrible about providing so much misinformation.  I know
some of you have made efforts to arrange  your schedules to accomodate
meetings and then rescheduled to accomodate changes.

Since the Board appears to be having some communications problems which are
resulting in my not having accurate information to disseminate, my only
option is to close down the USSC e-mail alerts until these problems are
resolved.  So, effective immediately, there will be no further USSC e-mail
alerts originating with me until the problems are resolved.  I hope they
will be resolved quickly so that the alerts can resume.

In the meantime, should you have questions about meeting schedules or any
other USSC business, please contact one of the Board members listed below.

I apologize for the inconvenience, but I believe it is better to provide no
information than to provide incorrect information.  Thanks for your
understanding and cooperation.

Sarah Thompson


The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info
made public.  Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse
their open-door policy.

Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), [e-mail]
Elwood Powell,  426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w),
    [e-mail]
Shirley Spain, 963-0784, [e-mail]
Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (w), 546-2275 (h)
Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, [e-mail]  (I prefer e-mail to phone
calls when possible).
Joe Venus, 571-2223




- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 22:12:24 -0600
From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: The Incident on Long Island

This seems like a good place to spread this very good letter around too.
larry
(fred's address removed by me as courtesy)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Fred Muller
To: larry larsen <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, May 04, 1998 9:30 PM
Subject: Fw: The Incident on Long Island


Larry--
Here is my response to NBC. I really think they can be attacked for their
role in providing soft money support for a candidate to Congress. At the
very least maybe they can be forced into giving equal time to her opponent.
If anyone knows the opponent, pass the idea on.
DOG/DVC
Fred
- -----Original Message-----
From: Fred Muller
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, May 03, 1998 11:26 PM
Subject: The Incident on Long Island


>Your above noted movie is a travesty to every American and a slap in the
>face to, and an attack on, the millions of law abiding gun owners in this
>country. The movie, purportedly to be a "true" story, is filled with lies,
>distortion, deceit, and is a poor attempt at disguising a political
>advertisement in the form of a real life movie. I will write letters to
each
>of your advertisers for this movie so that they will understand why I am
>boycotting their products, and why I am encouraging one and all to boycott
>their products. In fact, I am so angry that I will be writing letters to
all
>your advertisers protesting their support of NBC. Either our Constitution
>means what it says or it doesn't. You either believe in the Constitution
and
>what it stands for or you don't. I will also ask the appropriate federal
>authorities to investigate NBC providing election support to a woman
running
>for Congress. It's what I believe Congress identifies as soft money. I am
>truly sorry to see what was once a fine entertainment network degraded to a
>left leaning organ.
>Fred Muller
>
>






- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #53
**********************************