ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n074

Internet Message Format | 1998-06-17 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #74
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Thursday, June 18 1998      Volume 02 : Number 074




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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:41:12 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: WW on unjust laws

From Today's Deseret News.


 Some lawmakers don't understand or respect meaning of Constitution

 Last updated 06/17/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT
 By Walter Williams

       What's the standard battle cry and promise of the Republican
 Party? We've heard it: tax cuts, federalism and limited government.
 I'd really appreciate it if a Republican representative or senator
 could tell me under which of those categories Sen. John McCain's
 so-called tobacco bill falls. If passed, the measure would add about
 a dollar to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, forcing smokers to pay
 an estimated $516 billion more in federal taxes over a 25-year
 period and increasing federal power over our lives.
       Some Republican congressmen don't even understand or respect
 the meaning, purpose and spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Then,
 there are naives who think that the Constitution's "general welfare"
 clause covers their activities.
       James Madison, the "father" of the Constitution, warned: "With
 respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as
 qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them
 in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the
 Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was
 not contemplated by its creators." The "detail of powers" to which
 Madison refers is the Constitution's Article I, Section 8.
       There are other Republicans who fully understand the limit of
 powers granted Congress by the Constitution but are afraid to voice
 it out of fear they will be misunderstood and labeled as big-tobacco
 supporters and anti-children. Their fear may be justified. Whether
 it's primary school, secondary school or college, very little is
 taught about the Constitution's meaning and spirit. Most Americans
 think that Congress has constitutional authority to do anything
 that's "wonderful" and sanctioned by a majority. Little do we
 realize that our constitutional ignorance has allowed us to fall
 easy prey to charlatans, quacks and hustlers.
       Today's Congress and White House have no more moral legitimacy
 than King George III and the British Parliament had in the 18th
 century. They should be held in the same contempt our founders held
 for King George and his Parliament. Oppressive taxation by the
 British Parliament such as the Stamp Act and the Tea Act and
 regulatory oppression through the Trade and Navigation acts
 energized the founders. Leading Americans, including signers of the
 Declaration of Independence like John Hancock, either engaged in
 smuggling or supported it to avoid oppressive taxation and
 regulation. Their open defiance led to Britain's Parliament passing
 the so-called Coercive Act (1774) and Restraining Act (1775) that
 led to our founders saying they had enough ù hence the Declaration
 of Independence.
       We should have the courage of our founders and let Congress
 know that we have a Constitution. Hundreds of thousands of Americans
 have shed their blood to defend it against foreign destruction; we
 should be just as willing to defend it against domestic aggression.
 We are far short of the point where we need to take up arms, but we
 have reached the point where we shouldn't sheepishly obey the
 illegitimate acts of Congress.
       "So what are you saying, Williams?" you ask. I'm saying that
 if a Republican Congress legislates oppressive taxes on cigarettes,
 we should adopt our founders' responses to Britain's oppressive
 acts.
       You say, "Williams, smuggling is against the law." I say not
 every law is deserving of obedience. History shows that considerable
 human suffering and government oppression could have been avoided
 simply by citizens asking whether a law is just before they obey it.
 Before I would have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act, Oriental
 Exclusion Act, apartheid laws, anti-miscegenation laws and alcohol
 prohibition, I would have asked: Is the law moral?





 Creators Syndicate Inc.











- --

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.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

- -

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: So much Due Process

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:35:16 -0400
From: "Mark A. Smith" <[e-mail]>
To: SNET <[e-mail]>, PIML <[e-mail]>,
    L & J <[e-mail]>,
    David Rydel <[e-mail]>,
    Boris Tiraspols <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ray Southwell <[e-mail]>,
    Norm Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: So much Due Process

I have a copy of this letter, and it is available for faxing.
Remember when Comrade Clinton was elected? He fired EVERY U.S.
Attorney in the country, and replaced them with his personally
selected yes men, or should I say henchmen?

The police-state tactics demanded by this US Attorney are in
total disregard of the 4th Amendment. Isn't it too bad that
this bill will put the burden of proof on the government where
it belongs. What is wrong with that?! Isn't that what the
Constitution is about? H.R. 1835 would stop the unconstitutional
seizure and forfeiture of money and property. Just think, they
would actually need real evidence for a change, to stop what
they have been doing now for many years.

Call your elected representatives and support H.R. 1835
as soon as possible.

Mark Smith
__________________________________________________________________

                                        U.S. Department of Justice
 [U.S. DoJ Seal]
 [phone]                         United States Attorney
                                        Eastern District of Michigan
                                        211 W. Fort Street
                                        Suite 2001
                                        Detroit, Michigan 48226

                                        May 15, 1998

Dear Fellow Law Enforcement Officer:

At the beginning of this Congress, Congressman Henry Hyde and John
Conyers introduced a bill (H.R. 1835) which would significantly
curtail asset forfeiture. In response to strong opposition of federal,
state and local law enforcement to this bill, the Department of Justice
worked with Congressmen Hyde and Conyers to produce a compromise bill
(H.R. 1965), which the House Judiciary  Committee approved last summer.
This bill would achieve reforms to civil forfeiture that would be
accepetable to the Department and enhance forfeiture in certain respects.

We now understand that because of vocal opposition to H.R. 1965 from
the anti-forfeiture activists whose goal is to diminish our ability
to use this law enforcement tool, Chairman Hyde has decided to abandon
this compromise bill and advance a version of the original bill. Passage
of a bill based upon H.R. 1835 would be very harmful to law enforcement
at the federal, state and local levels. For example, H.R. 1835 places
the burden of proof on the government to prove forfeiture by "clear and
convincing evidence," places the burden to the government to disprove
the innocent owner defense, gives seized property back to the defendant
pendingtrial (allowing it to be depleted or hidden), and takes money
from the asset forfeiture fund intended to benefit law enforcement and
uses it to pay for defense counsel. Any reduction in federal asset
forfeitures would be reflected in the amount of sharing with state and
local law enforcement.

The Department of Justice continues to favor the compromise bill
and wants to work to ensure that forfeiture is both tough and fair.
You should feel free to contact your elected representatives if you
oppose the passage of a bill based on H.R. 1835.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        <signature>

                                        SAUL A. GREEN
                                        United States Attorney


- -

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Action Requested....  1/2

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:06:21 -0400
From: "John A. Quayle" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Action Requested....

We need letters to Congress on this.

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

TESTIMONY OF TANYA K. METAKSA
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
ON H.R. 3949
THE "NO GUN TAX ACT OF 1998"

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
JUNE 11, 1998

Chairman McCollum, members of the subcommittee, I thank you for inviting
me to testify in support of the "No Gun Tax Act of 1998," introduced by
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

I represent the nearly three million members of the National Rifle
Association. Our members come from all walks of life, and from all
levels of American society. I can certainly testify to you from personal
experience -- answering my phone and reading my e-mail -- that our
members were extraordinarily unhappy when press accounts began to appear
about the FBI's plan to charge a "user fee" for background checks
conducted under the Brady Act's permanent instant check system.

They had good reason to be concerned. The proposed fee is nothing less
than a federal gun tax on the exercise of Second Amendment rights by
law-abiding Americans. It is unauthorized by any applicable law, and it
will have its greatest impact on low-income Americans and on funding for
state conservation programs.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the NRA was very closely involved in the
drafting of the Brady Act's language concerning the instant check
system. During those discussions, the idea of charging a fee for
background checks was not only considered, but rejected on the basis
that identifying the rare criminal or other prohibited person who
attempts a commercial gun purchase is a public good, and paying for it a
public responsibility. As a result, the Brady Act contains no language
authorizing the charging of a fee, nor have Brady Act supporters ever
tried to amend the Act to allow for such a fee.

Instead, the FBI points to appropriations language passed before the
Brady Act, in 1991, which was intended to allow for fees on employment-
or licensing-related background screening through the National Criminal
Information Center (NCIC), which is a separate system from the National
Instant Check System (NICS). Obviously, the 1991 language the FBI refers
to couldn't have been intended to allow for a fee under an Act that
wasn't passed until two years later.

The next question is, who will bear the burden of this new gun tax? At
the individual level, it will fall most heavily on ordinary working
Americans of modest means. For many Americans -- including some who must
hunt for subsistence rather than for sport, as well as those most
vulnerable to crime and most sorely in need of firearms for self-defense
- -- a tax of thirteen to thirty dollars will be a prohibitive addition to
the cost of a simple, affordable hunting rifle or self-defense handgun.

Beyond that, the added cost will likely have an adverse effect on the
overall level of gun sales, which will be a major drain on the funds
collected through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax. That tax, which gun
owners have willingly paid for over sixty years, funds state fish and
game agencies and wildlife conservation programs, which could well
suffer from the imposition of this new tax.

Finally, we have concerns about the tax from administrative and
jurisdictional grounds. The FBI has essentially conjured the authority
to levy a tax. Since it derives its authority for the tax from the
imagination, only the imagination limits the tax we will be charged
today and how much more we might be charged tomorrow. Moreover, the FBI
has also created the authority to obtain and retain the taxes collected
- -- directly -- rather than transfer the funds to the Treasury. The FBI
is a highly respected law enforcement team. It is not, however, the U.S.
Congress. If the agency perceives a need for a budget increase, it
should make its case before Congress, not start collecting new taxes
from American gun owners.

As an aside, I'd like to mention another concern that many members have
brought to my attention. Although I am aware this isn't an FBI matter,
it certainly is troublesome. At some of the federal seminars on the
instant check system, licensees have been told that a background check
will be required for returns of firearms to their owners, both by
pawnbrokers and by gunsmiths.

The law says that a background check is required for a "transfer" of a
firearm. Yet in these cases, there is no change in title or ownership --
that is, no "transfer" -- of the firearm; a pawned firearm is still
owned by the individual while it is held as collateral for a loan, and
of course a firearm that is brought to a gunsmith or factory for
customization or repair is still owned by the individual who wants the
work done. It is a legal absurdity to say that a gun owner who sends a
defective firearm back to the factory, or brings a gun to his local
gunsmith for a minor repair, has performed a "transfer" for purposes of
the Gun Control Act and should have to undergo a background check to get
back his own property. To charge a fee in this situation just adds
insult to injury. We would urge the FBI and the BATF to remedy this
situation administratively, and if it is not remedied, we hope the
subcommittee will consider an appropriate legislative solution.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


- -

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Action Requested....  2/2

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
I would like to turn to the second section of Representative Barr's
bill, which would forbid the FBI to retain records of approved checks.
As I said earlier, the NRA worked very closely with this subcommittee
during the drafting of the Brady Act, and I am sure many of the members
of the subcommittee will remember that maintaining the privacy of gun
owners was of paramount importance to us then, as it is now.

For that reason, the Brady Act clearly states that upon approval of a
firearms transaction, the instant check system "shall ... destroy all
records of the system with respect to the call (other than the
identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records
of the system relating to the transfer." 18 USC º922(t)(2).

The Act doesn't say that the records can be maintained for 18 months. It
doesn't say that the FBI can decide to do whatever it wants to do with
the records. It says the system "shall destroy" the records.

This is consistent with other provisions of federal law, such as the
Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which stated in part, that no
"rule or regulation ... may require that records required to be
maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such
records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or
controlled by the United States, or any political subdivision thereof,
nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or
firearms transactions or dispositions be established." Pub.L. 99-308,
May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 456.

Even more outrageously, the FBI is proposing to violate the Brady Act
itself, which specifies that:

"No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may -

"(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system
established under this section may be recorded at or transferred to a
facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State
or political subdivision thereof; or

"(2) use the system established under this section to establish any
system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm
transactions or dispositions except with respect to person, prohibited
by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United Stated Code State law,
from receiving a firearm." Sec. 103(I), Public Law 103-159, 107 Stat.
1542 (Nov. 30, 1993).

We believe that the FBI would be hard pressed to explain how their
proposed 18-month record retention squares with these prohibitions,
since they clearly are planning to retain portions of required records
in a federal facility, and to establish a de facto system of
registration of firearm transactions and gun owners themselves.

The creation of a gun registration system is possibly the most dangerous
step the federal government can take toward destroying Americans' Second
Amendment rights. The lessons of history are vivid in the minds of gun
owners who value their rights. From gun confiscation schemes launched by
the former Soviet Union against Lithuania to turn-guns-in-or-go-to-jail
policies in California, gun lists become gun losses, and gun owners know
it. In December, 1993, when the gun owner licensing scheme known as
'Brady II' was introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., and Rep. Charles
Schumer, the proposal drew immediate fire from law enforcement.
Fraternal Order of Police President Dewey Stokes said he opposed "a
situation where we have gun registration." Echoing this sentiment was
South Carolina FOP President Charles Canterbury who said, that law
enforcement officers "are adamantly opposed to registration of guns.

Time after time, firearms registration systems have led inexorably
toward firearms confiscation, despite all the promises of anti-gun
politicians, bureaucrats, and media figures. In New York City, for
example, the New York Times editorialized that the city's 1967 rifle
registration law was "... not ... to prohibit but to control dangerous
weapons." In 1991, following passage of a new city gun ban, some owners
of legally registered rifles received letters ordering them to turn in
those firearms. Just last year in Washington state, Initiative 676 -- a
gun owner licensing and registration scheme -- was soundly rejected by
voters 71 to 29 percent. It appears axiomatic that registration is
anathema to liberty.

Mr. Chairman, the NRA has supported instant check systems for ten years,
based on our desire to create an efficient system to effectively screen
criminals from buying guns at the retail level while protecting the
privacy of honest gun owners. In 1993, we believed that the permanent
provisions of the Brady Act had created such a system. But the FBI's
plans to use the system to burden gun buyers with an unjustified and
unauthorized tax on their right to keep and bear arms, and to create
an intrusive and unlawful gun owner registration system, have sorely
strained our support.

In conclusion, I would urge the subcommittee to heed the words of Chief
Justice Marshall, who stated that "the power to tax is the power to
destroy." I would add that the power to register firearms is the power to
confiscate them. Representative Barr's bill would prevent the FBI from
violating the letter and intent of the Brady Act in both of those areas
and restore the instant check to the purpose for which it was intended.

[Neither the National Rifle Association of America nor any entity it
represents has received any federal grant, contract, or subcontract in
the current and preceding two fiscal years.]

===============================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM  Date: 06/14/98 Time: 20:24:06
http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:[e-mail]



- -

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 1/3

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 18:19:38 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Fwd: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order
Text & Letter from Constitution Society Jon Roland to Congressman

Letter from Jon Roland of Constitution Society--

Executive Order a Threat to Federalism

by
Jon Roland
Mon, 8 Jun

Dear Congressman:

This concerns three matters that require urgent action by Congress.
The first is an Executive Order signed by President Clinton in
Birmingham, UK, on May 14, 1998, entitled "Federalism", which is
attached. It was posted on the White House Web site without a number,
but other sources indicate its number is 13083. To the lay reader its
provisions seem harmless. It makes ritual recognitions of the principles
of federalism and compliance with the Constitution, but then, in Sec.
3(d), asserts elements which are not what they seem. I urge you to
initiate rescission of this Executive Order within the 30-day period
provided by statute.

One of the problems with the language of many statutes, regulations,
judicial opinions, and executive orders is the opening they provide
for bureaucrats determined to twist such language to expand federal
power into areas not authorized by the Constitution or intended by
the authors. It is the duty of Congress to be alert to the ways such
language can be abused to subvert the Constitution and, in this case,
the principles of federalism. Upon careful analysis of the language
of this executive order, I have concluded that it will be used by the
federal executive branch to assert administrative control over the
day-to-day operations of every function of state and local government,
by intimidating state and local officials into clearing almost every
decision they make with federal bureaucrats and agents.

My investigations have revealed the operation of a long-term program
by elements of the federal government to infiltrate and control state
and local government. This program involves the placement into key
positions of persons who take their orders not from their nominal
superiors, but from federal agencies. This is being done with state
and local law enforcement agencies, state and local prosecutor's
offices and courts, legislative staffs, and executive agencies of all
kinds. The aim appears to be to gain de facto control of state and
local government, and is being used to block action against high-level
wrongdoing, especially by federal agencies. Its apparent aim is nothing
less than to reduce state and local government to divisions of the
federal executive branch.

I further urge Congress to launch a general review of all executive
orders, and the recission of all those which assert powers not in
compliance with constitutional law.

The second matter concerns information I have received that the Federal
Bureau of Investigation is to be in violation of statute concerning the
maintenance of data on firearm purchases. The name and full ID of every
retail gun buyer in the country will be recorded by the FBI, starting
Nov. 30. Social security numbers will be semi-optional until Oct. 1, 2000,
when they become mandatory. A tax of up to $16 will apply to every purchase,
unless a state's police cooperate with the FBI (in which case the tax is
waived); 19 states are cooperating as of this date. The FBI may lower its
tax, working in concert with membership groups, if they think it will aid
acceptance of registration. The official public comment period has ended.

FBI agents (who have effectively eliminated BATF from enforcement) claim
they have to do all this for security or audit purposes, pursuant to the
instant check provisions of the Brady Act. None of these claims are
compatible with statute. Gun owners will be kept online for at least two
years, and records will be stored permanently. The 2-year revolving online
registry will include between eight and fourteen million people -- all the
most current gun owners. Multiple permanent and quasi-permanent backups are
planned. Testing starts with Oregon and Nevada in June, if the interface
specs are on time.

Congress has not repealed the McClure-Volkmer act, which unequivocally
prohibits recording this information in a government facility. The FBI is
simply ignoring it, claiming it doesn't apply. Saving instant-check data
is contrary to the Brady Act, which provides that if the sale goes through
the records shall be destroyed.

The only data which might be properly stored, pursuant to the instant check
provisions of the Brady Act, would be a record of persons whose rights to
keep and bear arms have been disabled or restricted, in whole or in part,
by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. I urge you to initiate action
to terminate all such illegal actions by the FBI or any other agency or
private organization acting as a contractor of the federal government.

I further urge a third measure, legislation prohibiting the use of social
security numbers for any other purpose than the collection of income taxes
and the payment of refunds and social security benefits. There is an ongoing
effort by the federal government to gain control over the daily lives and
right to work of every person, by creating a national identification system
based on the social security number. This is a power that is already being
abused to suppress critics of governmental abuses. It is a power that the
national government must not be allowed to exercise under any pretext.

Jon Roland




- -

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 2/3

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

(Birmingham, England)

For Immediate Release May 14, 1998

EXECUTIVE ORDER [13083]

- - - - - - - -

FEDERALISM

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, and in order to guarantee the
division of governmental responsibilities, embodied in the Constitution,
between the Federal Government and the States that was intended by the
Framers and application of those principles by the Executive departments
and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is
hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

  (a) "State" or "States" refer to the States of the United States of
      America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to
      State governments, including units of local government and other
      political subdivisions established by the States.

  (b) "Policies that have federalism implications" refers to Federal
      regulations, proposed legislation, and other policy statements
      or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States
      or on the relationship, or the distribution of power and
      responsibilities, between the Federal Government and the States.

  (c) "Agency" means any authority of the United States that is an
      "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered
      to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C.
      3502(5).

Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and
        implementing policies that have federalism implications,
        agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental
        federalism principles:

  (a) The structure of government established by the Constitution is
      premised upon a system of checks and balances.

  (b) The Constitution created a Federal Government of supreme, but
      limited, powers. The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal
      Government are reserved to the people or to the States, unless
      prohibited to the States by the Constitution.

  (c) Federalism reflects the principle that dividing power between the
      Federal Government and the States serves to protect individual
      liberty. Preserving State authority provides an essential balance
      to the power of the Federal Government, while preserving the
      supremacy of Federal law provides an essential balance to the power
      of the States.

  (d) The people of the States are at liberty, subject only to the
      limitations in the Constitution itself or in Federal law, to define
      the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.

  (e) Our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the
      public policies adopted by the people of the several States
      according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. States and
      local governments are often uniquely situated to discern the
      sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly.

  (f) Effective public policy is often achieved when there is competition
      among the several States in the fashioning of different approaches
      to public policy issues. The search for enlightened public policy
      is often furthered when individual States and local governments are
      free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues.
      Uniform, national approaches to public policy problems can inhibit
      the creation of effective solutions to those problems.

  (g) Policies of the Federal Government should recognize the responsibility
      of -- and should encourage opportunities for -- States, local
      governments, private associations, neighborhoods, families, and
      individuals to achieve personal, social, environmental, and economic
      objectives through cooperative effort.

Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the
        fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2 of this
        order, agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to
        the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies
        that have federalism implications:

  (a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles.
      Agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory
      authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the
      policymaking discretion of States and local governments, and
      should carefully assess the necessity for such action.

  (b) Agencies may limit the policymaking discretion of States and local
      governments only after determining that there is constitutional and
      legal authority for the action.

  (c) With respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by
      States and local governments, the Federal Government should grant

      States and local governments the maximum administrative discretion
      possible. Any Federal oversight of such State and local administration
      should not unnecessarily intrude on State and local discretion.

  (d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of
      national or multi-state scope (which may justify Federal action) and
      matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify
      Federal action because individual States, acting individually or
      together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or
      multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety
      of circumstances, including:

      (1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate
          as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries.

      (2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State
          different from the State (or States) where a significant amount
          of the harm occurs.

      (3) When there is a need for uniform national standards.

      (4) When decentralization increases the costs of government thus
          imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer.

      (5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights
          and liberties.

      (6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations
          because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate
          to other States.

      (7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level
          would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands
          for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory
          matter beyond the resources of State authorities.

      (8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or
          natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations.

      (9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects
          Indian tribal governments.


- -

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 3/3

Sec. 4. Consultation.

  (a) Each agency shall have an effective process to permit elected officials
      and other representatives of State and local governments to provide
      meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies
      that have federalism implications.

  (b) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall
      promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that has
      federalism implications, and that imposes substantial direct
      compliance costs on States and local governments, unless:

      (1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State or
          local government in complying with the regulation are provided by
          the Federal Government; or

      (2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation,

          (A) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the
              regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register,
              provides to the Director of the Office of Management and
              Budget a description of the extent of the agency's prior
              consultation with representatives of affected States and
              local governments, a summary of the nature of their
              concerns, and the agency's position supporting the need
              to issue the regulation; and

          (B) makes available to the Director of the Office of Management
              and Budget any written communications submitted to the agency
              by States or local governments.

Sec. 5. Increasing Flexibility for State and Local Waivers.

  (a) Agencies shall review the processes under which States and local
      governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory
      requirements and take appropriate steps to streamline those processes.

  (b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law,
      consider any application by a State or local government for a waiver
      of statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program
      administered by that agency with a general view toward increasing
      opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the State
      or local level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with
      applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate.

  (c) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted
      by law, render a decision upon a complete application for
      a waiver within 120 days of receipt of such application by
      the agency. If the application for a waiver is not granted,
      the agency shall provide the applicant with timely written
      notice of the decision and the reasons therefor.

  (d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements
      that are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency.

Sec. 6. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are
        encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

Sec. 7. General Provisions.

  (a) This order is intended only to improve the internal management
      of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not,
      create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
      enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United
      States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or
      employees, or any other person.

  (b) This order shall supplement but not supersede the requirements
      contained in Executive Order 12866 ("Regulatory Planning and
      Review"), Executive Order 12988 ("Civil Justice Reform"), and
      OMB Circular A-19.

  (c) Executive Order 12612 of October 26, 1987, and Executive Order
      12875 of October 26, 1993, are revoked.

  (d) The consultation and waiver provisions in sections 4 and 5 of
      this order shall complement the Executive order entitled,
      "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,"
      being issued on this day.

  (e) This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE, May 14, 1998.


- -

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:55:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gird Up Thy Loins

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 22:50:24 CDT
From: "Hal Hayes:Williams" <[e-mail]>
To: Advanced Freedom Solutions List <[e-mail]>
Subject: [afs] PRAC... Gird Up Thy Loins

<snip>

Hearthside, June 17, Gird Up Thy Loins!

God said, "Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of
thee, and answer thou me. (Job 38:3 Webster's)

With the usual "hurry up!s" and "would you please!s" we finally left
late for our Sunday morning breakfast on the way to church. It is the
single time in the week when we do not sit together for meals, and
every one of us look forward to it. The kids sit by themselves at the
lunch counter. Helen and I sit alone in a booth. We say two graces.

There was little time to scan the paper, but a quick glance at the
political cartoon in the op/ed section caught my eye. It was big. The
captain read, "Phrases you would not know if there were no guns in
America." It depicted a man standing in front of the liberty bell,
with names and phrases behind and around him: "Grassy knoll." "John
David Hinckley." "Sirhan Sirhan." "Ruby Ridge." "Waco."

You can guess the cartoonist's perspective.

The guns that rang out at Waco rang against the infants and children
at that farm by a tyrant gone mad. Many of those children had not yet
learned to say "gun," and few of them knew what it meant to "gird up
your loins" for battle... but we who survive may learn.

Some other phrases that would be suppressed if there were no guns in
America: "Freedom." "Liberty." "Independence." "Security." "Survival."
"Food." "Concord and Lexington."

Guns never made America free, of course.

Concord and Lexington; inseparable in the minds of free men, and
inseparable from free men's minds: "It was the act more than the
action. It meant resistance; it meant war and not peace --
independence, not submission. The minute-men at Lexington had stood in
silent protest; they dispersed when once they had asserted their
rights even in the face of death. The minute-men at Concord gave back
blow for blow; their guns were the first declaration of independence.
A skirmish? Yes. But a skirmish that was indeed a battle, more
eventful in the history of the world, so Bancroft asserts, than were
Agincourt and Blenheim." (Eldridge Brooks, _The Century Book of the
American Revolution_, 1897)

It is not the guns that made America free. Concord and Lexington
themselves went well for freedom, but it was not enough. Some may
discover it is never enough. It was that long march home...

When the 20 minute conflict in Concord was over, the British soldiers
who had come to "just follow orders" and suppress liberty by seizing
guns were "attacked in flank by the men of Concord and the neighboring
towns and driven under a hot fire to Charlestown." (from a monument at
Old North Bridge.)

None hotter! By the time they got back to Lexington, those men who
made their silent protest were no longer silent. At Fiske's Hill, they
sent the tyrant's soldiers running. It seemed to "rain rebels" for the
remainder of the day, according to one British soldier, and it opened
a 7 year fight.

For freedom.

"Well, all would not die. There were men good as new --
   From Rumford, from Saugus, from towns far away, --
Who filled quick and well, for each soldier that fell,
   And we drove them and drove them and drove them all day,
We knew, every one, it was war that begun,
   When that morning's march was only half done.
                   (Edward Everett Hale, from "Story of
                   Massachusetts")

Guns never made America free. Free men made America free. Thank God,
however, that free men have guns.

They always will. It is part of being free.

"Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak to them all
that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound
thee before them." (Jeremiah 1:17 Webster's)

"Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it,
and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one. "(Luke 22:36)

Gird up your loins.

Dave and Helen Delany
- ---
   "Liberty Begins at Hearthside"
Copyright: Hearthside Family Publications
    PO Box 212  Conklin NY  13748
   http://www.hancock.net/~freedom
            * * * * *
              Free!
 ><>   To Subscribe (or unsubscribe)
 Send request to [e-mail]
    and ask about Hearth Tabs:
regular doses of historical perspective!
              Free!

Freedom implies slavery's existence, and freedom ain't free!
Without wax,

HHW><>



- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #74
**********************************