ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n075

Internet Message Format | 1998-06-21 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #75
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest       Monday, June 22 1998       Volume 02 : Number 075




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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:22:22 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: UPS & Theft

    I received this in the mail. It contains pointers concerning the
shipment of firearms. I considered the information appropriate
to post to the list.

Regards,
Dennis Baron

Forwarded Mail

>>As a gun owner and an 11-year UPS driver, I get alot of questions
from
people
regarding the safest way to ship and insure firearms through UPS. Theft
of
firearms and other items by UPS employees, though rare, unfortunately
does
occur but there are a lot of surpisingly simple and inexpensive ways to
virtually
gurantee that you wont be a victim. Please pass this information along to
anyone
who may benefit from it.

   There are 2 ways that things get stolen from UPS...pilfering and
overlabeling.
Pilferers are mostly thieves of opportunity. Handguns, jewelry, cameras
and
prescription narcotics are their favorite targets because they are easily
identifiable
and can quickly be shoved into a pocket or inside of a shirt due to the
SMALL
SIZE of the packages they come in. The red and black "adult signiature
required"
(ASR) labels that are legally required to be on these package are often a
dead
giveaway.They are also called "steal me stickers" by thieves. Since most
UPS
facilities are fenced in and require employees belongings to be searched
upon
exiting, the size of the item is critical. The BEST way to protect your
handgun
is to simply put it in a big box. One gunsmith on my route "disguises" his
handguns by putting them in used Amway boxes!! This works VERY
well.
Look at the box you are shipping your handgun in...if you can stick it
inside
your pants or under your shirt easily, it is vulnerable.

   As far as the ASR labels go, you are required by law to have them on
firearms shipments. What many customers dont know, however, is that
they
can get a more "discreet" ASR label that is incorporated into the UPS
tracking
label. These are better because the words "adult signiature required" are
very
small and unnoticeable. More importantly, this barcode will electronically
"prompt" the driver at the other end to get a signiature...if he accidentally
tries
to "release" the package on the customers porch without getting a
signiature
he will be unable to do so since the DIAD (that electronic clipboard that
you
sign)
will read the barcode and will force him to get a signiature in order to
complete
the delivery. You can order these special tracking labels through your
Customer
Service rep, or you can print them yourself with the UPS shipping
software.

   Another more sophisticated method of theft is "overlabeling". This
involves
several conspirators who plan ahead and may get jobs at UPS for that
very
purpose. What they do is to print up a bunch of fake labels, with generic
barcodes and phony return addresses, that are all addressed to a
storage
unit or apartment that they have rented in advance. One or more
employees
who are sorting and processing these packages will then slap the phony

label over the authentic one, and the package will then proceed along its
merry way to the "destination" where an unsuspecting driver will deliver
it
to another accomplice who signs for it using a fake name. This will go on

for a week or so until the thieves move on to another address to avoid
suspicion. Since the original barcode is covered up, it is impossible to
even
trace these packages and they simply "vanish". The theives who do this
will
also target handguns and jewelry, but since they arent trying to sneak it
past
a guard they have the freedom to target larger packages such as rifles,
TV's
and computers.

    How do you avoid this? Its simple...put an address label on ALL 6
sides
of the box. A package so labeled will be passed up by a prospective
thief,
since he must now try to cover up 6 labels instead of only one. This is
too
risky,
since the areas where these packages are sorted are often under
electronic
surveillance.

    If you are a gunsmith or store owner who ships UPS, and the package
you
are shipping is worth over $1000, then inform the driver who picks it up
and
have
him initial the pickup record. These "high value" packages are
audited,segregated
from other packages, they are not sorted or run over conveyor belts,
and they
are subject to a chain-of-custody type procedure that will prevent their
being
stolen.

    I feel 100% safe in saying that a handgun that is shipped in a larger-
than-normal
box of good quality, with a discreet ASR barcode and address labels on
all 6
sides, will NEVER get stolen or lost. Its an unfortunate that a few of the
16
million pieces a day that we ship are in danger of being stolen, but if you
take
these simple precautions you wont be a victim. <<


- -

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:18:29 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: COLT CAUGHT RED HANDED

Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen
Richard Miller -Chairman
P.O Box 345  Holmdel, NJ 07733  Phone: [phone] OR 732-946-3908


***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
June 17, 1998


COLT'S CAUGHT RED HANDED DONATING
TO CHARLES SCHUMER'S CAMPAIGN FUND

At the National Rifle Association annual meeting the Coalition of New
Jersey Sportsmen (CNJS) distributed a flyer which lambasted Colt's
Manufacturing for it's "anti gun" lobbying activities.  CNJS leaders
were approached by outraged Colt's sales personnel who claimed we
were not accurate and they were attacked unfairly.  CNJS Legislative
Committee Chairman, Alan Rice received a telephone call from Colt's
lobbyist, Beth Lavach who complained loudly about the flyer.  Ms.
Lavach asserted that Colt's is not anti gun and supports individual rights.

It seems that our target, Colt's President Ron Stewart was correct,
based upon his remarks on ABC News Nightline and as published in
American Firearms Industry Magazine.  We can only surmise that Colt's
employees were upset because we published the truth!  If our first
publication about the truth behind Colt's upset their salesmen, they will be
very upset when they learn that CNJS researchers have discovered that
the owner of Colt's, investment bank Zilkha and Company and one of it's
principals, Donald Zilkha have donated at least $1500.00 to the notorious
gun prohibitionist and criminals best friend, Congressman Charles
Schumer.  CNJS researchers have also learned the Mr. Zilkha has
donated at least $10,000.00 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee.  This is the committee which provides funding to candidates
like Senators Frank Lautenberg, Daniel Moynihan, Diane Feinstein,
Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy!  This is an outrage! *

Mr. Zilkha and Charles Schumer are both hypocrites, Congressman
Schumer wants to ban all guns and has introduced legislation to do so;
Mr. Zilkha's company owns a firearms manufacturer.  His company's
civilian products would be outlawed if Mr. Schumer has his way.
Anyone who has purchased a Colt's product in the last few years has
helped Congressman Charles Schumer!

Firearms owners across America should know that Mr. Zilkha resides in
New York City, Charles Schumer's home town!  We can only assume
that his goal is to ruin America by making it as gun free as New York
City.  In New York City self defense against predatory criminals is
impossible.  We are reliably informed that Colt's is spending huge sums to
develope and market a so called "smart gun".  This gun will not fire
unless a special bracelt is worn.   Self defense will be impossible
without the special bracelet!

The actions of Colt's officials are detrimental to American style  freedoms
and liberties!

Firearms owners should beware, in our previous flyer we urged a
boycott of Colt's, our call for a boycott has taken on a new sense of
urgency.

Colt should also be called;  at their expense, 1-800-962-2658, express
your outrage and anger that a firearms company and it's principals would
donate to these notorious gun prohibitionists.  On Federal Election reports
Mr. Zilkha lists his employer as Colt's Manufacturing.

* SOURCE: Federal Election Commission Reports as collated by the
Center for Responsive Politics.

- --------------------------
GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List


- -

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:31:08 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Advice

larry ball <[e-mail]> writes:
>>I do not see my effort as destructive.  I see what the NRA is doing as
destructive.  Something has to change.  Can't you see this?<<

    OK My 15 cents and you can crucify me all you like. This is the
last I will post on the NRA situation. The elections are OVER.
The membership has spoken. You don#t like it, cry all you want.

     I'll tell you what I see Larry. I see you becoming a demagogue
of the Olsen/Gross/Griz stripe without the militia component

     I see you seated on your moral high horse, totally oblivious
toward the concerns of others and blind to the realities of life
and politics outside your own sphere of operation.

     I agree totally with your "Rights" concept as it applies to rights
in general and gun ownership in particular. Unfortunately, the
vast majority of American voters, and a goodly number of gun
owners have no idea of the concepts you are proposing. To use
the gun issue as a vehicle to promote the "inalienable right" concept
at this time, is, IMO, suicidal to our cause.

     You've got the cart before the horse. It is similar to asking people
who cannot do simple arithmetic, to accept the concepts of solid
geometry. When they don't understand, don't teach them arithmetic,
keep pushing the specialized concepts. While you attempting to undo
decades of liberal indoctrination, the gun grabbers are laughing at us,
and using emotion and practical political methods to fulfill their agenda.

      Here you are in 1998, attempting to compel your "rights agenda" on
a population that has been inculcated with just the opposite, from almost
all quarters, for the last 100 years, and you are using the gun issue to
do so. And you'll start by demanding that the NRA follow your lead.
The NRA is NOT working to convince YOU of  anything. They are
dealing with a public that cannot differentiate between an auto and
a semi-auto rifle, a press that reinforces the public#s misconceptions,
and politicians that depend on that public for their votes.

     The "N" in NRA stands for National; not Nebraska, not Neal, and
not New York City.

     One of Charlton Hestons original intentions was to use the NRA stage

as a mechanism to educate children on the true meaning of the Bill of
Rights,
especially the Second Amendment. Dammit, Larry some history books
used
in schools today, actually state the 2nd Amendment applies only to state
militias. Most newspaper editorial boards promote the same thing.

     To use your concepts, as a inviolable dogma for political activism
against
gun controllers, and expect an essentially ignorant public to support that
is unrealistic. You will be branded a lunatic and a 'right wing nut' and
relegated to the dungeons of ineffectiveness and rabble rousing. It is
certainly imperative to understand that what you propose is our ultimate
goal. Had Virginia, held out for "Vermont" carry or insisted on no instant
check, I would not be carrying a gun today. As it is, to get "shall issue
CCW"
the silly alcohol/restaurant ban (which does not and never did apply to
open
carry) was a bone thrown to some anti's to get their vote. I may be
carrying
with permission, but in New Jersey, I did not even have the opportunity
to
get that permission. WHILE I am carrying a gun, I will work to get the silly
ban repealed.

     We are about the same age Larry. We've come a long way in the last
30 years. It is my firm belief, that had the NRA not been there, and
in most cases, acted the way they did, we would be a disarmed nation
today, or at minimum in the same situation the Australians now find
themselves in.

     Let me give a personal analogy. Many things annoy me. I consider
spam and junk mail an invasion of my privacy, especially ones that
are duplicates. I get aggravated at people who post GOA alerts to this list
as if members of Noban don#t get them directly. Your recent long
forward
from #C-News# concerning ESCHELON and social security was SPAM
in my book. I subscribe to ROC. If I want C-news, I#ll get it.

   I get NOBAN in digest form. It averages about 45K of text. After I delete

all the duplication caused by people who do not crop the posts they are
responding to, the file size is usually about a third of the original.  I am
continuously deleting kilobytes of headers footers and entire previously
posted material because some folks just hit reply, write their comments
and send the whole damn thing back again. I am just as busy as
they are. So are the people who DO have the consideration to crop
what they send.

     I've got several choices here:

   I can send the all the offending stuff back to the originators, and annoy
them. That will probably get me put on a kill filter.

   I can cancel my subscription to Noban in disgust, and deprive myself
of even the information that is important.

   I can put up with it, cussing the inconsiderate, yet realizing that what
I get is preferable to nothing. I can hope, and on occasion drop hints
that it might be in everyone's best interest to be a bit more considerate
and
trim what they post to the list. Some may listen some never will, though
the
situation probably will improve.

    I can start a e-mail campaign to others to boycott NOBAN until the
situation changes to my satisfaction. Others are deprived of the input of
the boycotters, and the offenders have free rein to dominate the list.
This runs the very real risk of diminishing or negating the effectiveness
of the list. Along with this I can stop asking people to sign on to Noban
because it does not operate they way I want it to.

    I read about a dozen gun boards a day. I subscribe to several lists.
About half of what I read is pissing and moaning about the NRA.
For some folks, that is ALL they post. They complain that the support
they get is NOT the support they WANT, or they complain that they
do not get support on some personal political crusade or other.

I wonder how much better off we would be if those folks spent their time

calling Congressmen, writing letters to the editor, and working
campaigns.

    I took Bill Vance's advice and bought Heinleins book on taking back our

government. I am doing just what Heinlein said. I joined a party here and
am answering phones. We shall see.

    About a month ago, a fellow who writes for LSAS scheduled a free
2 hour seminar on the Second Amendment. He got a room at a local
library in the evening.. He advertised on local radio and cable TV. He
posted numerous notices on VA-RKBA, our state "hard core" gun rights
discussion list dominated by members of VCDL, the "take no prisoners
Second Amendment advocates". Flyers were available at gun shops.
Quite a few activists live in the Hampton Roads area. Ed gives a great
presentation  with slides transparencies, the whole nine yards. Sections
on media bias, dealing with politicians, history of the BOR etc.

    THREE PEOPLE SHOWED UP.

     Me, my wife and one gun owner from the community. All those
"hard core" activists were to damn busy bitching about the NRA
to come. They are all experts on the Second Amendment and political
activism anyway. They sure as hell know what#s wrong with the NRA
It's damn near all I've read on that list since it formed in February. One
person posts a message about what a creep Heston or Metaksa is and
six
others post #I agree# or #right on# The librarian on duty remarked to me
that not too many people seem to interested in the 2nd Amendment.
I didn't know what to say to her.

    I'm NOT accusing you of this Larry, I know better. I just agree with
Paul Watson and a few others. Your targets are wrong and your
priorities are screwed up. You can flame me till doomsday, but
I've damn near had it.

Regards,
Dennis Baron



- -

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:06:00 -0600
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Advice

DAVID SAGERS wrote:
>
> larry ball <[e-mail]> writes:
> >>I do not see my effort as destructive.  I see what the NRA is doing as
> destructive.  Something has to change.  Can't you see this?<<
>
>     OK My 15 cents and you can crucify me all you like. This is the
> last I will post on the NRA situation. The elections are OVER.
> The membership has spoken. You don#t like it, cry all you want.
>
>      I'll tell you what I see Larry. I see you becoming a demagogue
> of the Olsen/Gross/Griz stripe without the militia component
>
>      I see you seated on your moral high horse, totally oblivious
> toward the concerns of others and blind to the realities of life
> and politics outside your own sphere of operation.
>
[snippage of the social utility of rights argument]
> Regards,
> Dennis Baron


As the world's largest gun control legislation writing organization,
I belive the NRA needs to be starved and brought to it's knees.

The argument that we have to "consider the realities of life" all
the while giving things away in order to be well liked is, IMNSHO,
bullpucky.

The following says it better than I could ever hope to.

Rights vs. Social Utility

(originally published in The Libertarian Enterprise
(http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html))

RIGHTS VS. SOCIAL UTILITY

By Sarah Thompson, M.D. <[e-mail]>

I recently received an e-mail from some gun rights advocates
which proposed the following:

1. The Constitution is the standard argument for the right
   to keep and bear arms.
2. "Joe and Jane Sixpack", not to mention "Joseph and Janet
   Champagne", don't think the Constitution matters.
3. Scholars such as Kleck, Kates, and Lott have demonstrated
   that firearms ownership has social utility.
4. Therefore, we should abandon the Second Amendment as the
   basis of our arguments and attempt to persuade the public to
   accept gun ownership on emotional terms as having "social utility".

My response follows:

It is true that "Joe and Jane Sixpack" don't care a bit about the
Constitution. It is sad, but true, that most of the justices don't
either. But think about what you're proposing. Do you really want
to concede, a priori, that the Constitution is irrelevant, that
all that matters is "social utility"? Do you want to change the
rules of engagement so that pragmatism trumps rights? If you do
so, I maintain that the battle, and the war, are irrevocably lost.

Rights are unchanging and immutable, because they are of nature,
or God, if you're so inclined. "Social utility" is so inconstant
and capricious as to be virtually meaningless. If, someday, someone
comes up with statistics that refute Kleck and Lott, will you then
willingly turn in your firearms?

And who gets to define "social utility" anyway? It was of tremendous
social utility for the British to disarm the lawless and rebellious
colonists. It was of equally great social utility for Hitler to disarm
Jews and anyone else who didn't support him. The current administration
thinks it is social utility to label any and all dissenters
"terrorists",
and then to deprive them of all rights, harass, disarm, and imprison
them. Is thatreally what you want?

Make no mistake: the argument is most assuredly not about the relative
niceties of self-defense against muggers and rapists. I'm not
discounting this aspect; as a woman, and former victim, I know how
important it is. But ultimately the argument is about tyranny; not
just the tyranny of one stronger person against one weaker person,
but the tyranny of any government, state, church or group that wishes
to inflict its will on any other individual or group by force.

There's nothing wrong with Kates's, Kleck's or Lott's work. It's
excellent, but it's totally irrelevant to rights. Its utility is in
demonstrating conclusively that those who favor gun control are
de facto supporting murder, rape and assault against innocent
citizens. However, if you use social utility as your primary argument,
you are playing the enemy's game. But the enemy, and its ministry of
propaganda, the media, are infinitely better at playing it, and have
infinitely more resources, than the right to keep and bear arms
movement ever will. Never, ever agree to play by the enemy's rules!

While it's true, as was stated in the letter, that the law rarely
establishes norms but rather follows cultural norms, this is no
argument for basing laws on opinion polls and then trying to influence
the polls. It's bad enough that Congress operates that way.

Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought the goal of all this was to
create and preserve a culture where respect for the Constitution,
respect for individual rights and liberties is the norm! If, instead,
the goal is for us gunowners to be safe from "bad guys", while we ignore
our neighbors being dragged off to prison in the middle of the night,
maybe we all need to reevaluate what we're doing and why.

Remember that Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted openly that the
disarmament of British subjects had nothing to do with safety and
everything to do with eliminating the influence of the "American gun
culture". He was successful, and the vast majority of British "sheeple"
happily agreed to be disarmed, foolishly believing that they were
creating
a "safer society".

Expect no less here. We are living in a fascist state that is just
beginning to consolidate its powers. I predict that genocide will
be attempted against gun owners here as well. We will be declared
"enemies of the state" and "social utility" will be defined as
disarming, or exterminating, gunowners and anyone else misguided
enough to take the Constitution literally. The reason we are being
"allowed" "permits" is to drug us into forgetting about rights, and
to lure us into putting our names and firearms and fingerprints
into databases.

Legislation is meaningless. The Constitution is all the "legislation"
we need. What we must do is to reclaim our rights regardless of what
Congress does or does not do. An unconstitutional law is no law at
all. We do need to educate the people, but not to accept the social
utility of firearms. Those who would be citizens of a free state
must be educated to understand the concepts of individual rights,
responsibilities and liberties. Any other path is tyranny.
Any other path is doomed.

(c) 1997 Sarah Thompson, M.D.

To subscribe to The Righter column send a message to
[e-mail].  In the BODY of the message put "subscribe
righter-list" (without the "quotes").  Let me know if you have
problems.

Permission is granted for individual distribution of this column as
long as no changes are made, full attribution is given and this
message is left intact.  Re-publication, whether print or electronic,
requires the permission of the author.

⌐1998 Sarah Thompson, M.D.
[e-mail]
http://www.therighter.com

- -

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:09:55 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Poll

>>Forwarded message

At the New Jersey News:   http://www.nj.com/news/

..they are asking the question...

In a recent speech, new NRA president Charlton Heston asked, "I want
to
 know who's with me and who's against me?" What's your answer?

   O With him. I agree with the NRA's agenda
   O Against him. I disagree with the NRA's agenda

..why not let 'em know what you think?



- -

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:26:58 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Volunteers Needed for Primaries

There are a number of great people running in important primaries
Tuesday. If you have the time, they could sure use your help between
now and then. If you'd like to help, reply to me or call my voice
mail at 276-6123 (local from most of Utah) and we'll steer you toward
someone you can feel good about helping.


Mike

========
The Mavis Manool Ridgway Memorial



- -

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 98 22:03:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Press Release by Richard Mack

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:12:18 -0600
To: "New Republican Discussion List" <[e-mail]>
From: spiker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Press Release by Richard Mack

To all,

A real American hero who took the Brady Bill all the way to the United
States Supreme Court and defeated it, is now being harrased by his
political opponents in the Utah County Sheriff's election.

Since when, is it legal and/or correct for your political opponents to
harness federal agencies to raid your job site just before an election,
in order to generate negative publicity for your campaign?

David Parsons
Denver,CO

Information web sites:

Sheriff Richard Mack wins: U. S. SUPREME COURT RULES BRADY BILL
UNCONSTITUTIONAL http://www.tv-u.com/mack.html

No. 95-1503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term,
1995 http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/mack.html

6/18/98

Press Release by Richard Mack

Before I answer any questions, I have a brief statement to make. Today,
6/18/98, at approximately 10 AM, the FBI and IRS served a search warrant
at the offices of AIR where I have where I have been a contractual
consultant for a little less than a year I was interviewed by the FBI
and I also interviewed them. After being involved in my campaign for
Sheriff, and after today's events, the pieces of the political puzzle
have started to fall together.

These are the facts as I know them to be at this point.

1. That this search warrant was aimed at me and would never have occurred
at all if I were not running for Utah County Sheriff.

2. That of all the consultants at AIR, my name was the only one
specifically mentioned in the warrant, even though my involvement with
the company has been much less than the others.

3. The FBI informed me that this case involved a "sealed" affidavit which
means probable cause for this search cannot be independently determined.

4. That my former opponent, Doug Witney, had stated he would do
everything in his power to bring me down before the primary election.

5. That Jeff Robinson, a partner of Doug Witney's at the County
Attorney's office and co-signer on Witney's campaign checking account,
was involved in this investigation and so informed an AIR client.

6. That Sheriff Bateman has publicly stated on more than one occasion
that federal agencies are not willing to work with me and that I have
alienated federal agents because I have been openly critical of them.

7. That the Utah County Attorney, Kay Bryson, has been openly critical of
me, campaigned for Witney and then Bateman, and allowed his investigators
to become involved in a blatant conflict of interest as they campaigned
against me and supposedly investigated me at the same time.

8. That a few members of the Utah County Republican Party hierarchy have
been breaking their own rules by actively campaigning against me. One is
the wife of the County Attorney, Kathrine Bryson. Another is Dean Hawker,
who told State Representative Glen Way that he knew of a plan that would
all but ruin my chances of winning the primary election.

9. That all the agents serving this warrant knew who I was, knew I was
running for Sheriff, and had provided the documentation that this search
warrant could have been served after the primary election had they chosen to.

10. That recently retired FBI agent Don Rogers served on Doug Witney's
election committee.

In summary, I do not believe that these events are coincidental and I do
not believe that the citizens of Utah County could believe that the timing
of this search warrant is coincidental. My promise to the people of Utah
County is that if I am elected Sheriff, I will put an end to such political
corruption and governmental witch-hunts.

Richard Mack


- -

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:07:03 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: FBI & IRS raid Richard Mack

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:12:18 -0600
To: "New Republican Discussion List" <[e-mail]>
From: spiker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Press Release by Richard Mack

To all,

A real American hero who took the Brady Bill all the way to the United
States Supreme Court and defeated it, is now being harrased by his
political opponents in the Utah County Sheriff's election.

Since when, is it legal and/or correct for your political opponents to
harness federal agencies to raid your job site just before an election,
in order to generate negative publicity for your campaign?

David Parsons
Denver,CO

Information web sites:

Sheriff Richard Mack wins: U. S. SUPREME COURT RULES BRADY BILL
UNCONSTITUTIONAL http://www.tv-u.com/mack.html

No. 95-1503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October
Term,
1995 http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/mack.html

6/18/98

Press Release by Richard Mack

Before I answer any questions, I have a brief statement to make. Today,
6/18/98, at approximately 10 AM, the FBI and IRS served a search
warrant
at the offices of AIR where I have where I have been a contractual
consultant for a little less than a year I was interviewed by the FBI
and I also interviewed them. After being involved in my campaign for
Sheriff, and after today's events, the pieces of the political puzzle
have started to fall together.

These are the facts as I know them to be at this point.

1. That this search warrant was aimed at me and would never have
occurred
at all if I were not running for Utah County Sheriff.

2. That of all the consultants at AIR, my name was the only one
specifically mentioned in the warrant, even though my involvement with
the company has been much less than the others.

3. The FBI informed me that this case involved a "sealed" affidavit which
means probable cause for this search cannot be independently
determined.

4. That my former opponent, Doug Witney, had stated he would do
everything in his power to bring me down before the primary election.

5. That Jeff Robinson, a partner of Doug Witney's at the County
Attorney's office and co-signer on Witney's campaign checking account,
was involved in this investigation and so informed an AIR client.

6. That Sheriff Bateman has publicly stated on more than one occasion
that federal agencies are not willing to work with me and that I have
alienated federal agents because I have been openly critical of them.

7. That the Utah County Attorney, Kay Bryson, has been openly critical
of
me, campaigned for Witney and then Bateman, and allowed his
investigators
to become involved in a blatant conflict of interest as they campaigned
against me and supposedly investigated me at the same time.

8. That a few members of the Utah County Republican Party hierarchy
have
been breaking their own rules by actively campaigning against me. One
is
the wife of the County Attorney, Kathrine Bryson. Another is Dean
Hawker,
who told State Representative Glen Way that he knew of a plan that
would
all but ruin my chances of winning the primary election.

9. That all the agents serving this warrant knew who I was, knew I was
running for Sheriff, and had provided the documentation that this search
warrant could have been served after the primary election had they
chosen to.

10. That recently retired FBI agent Don Rogers served on Doug Witney's
election committee.

In summary, I do not believe that these events are coincidental and I do
not believe that the citizens of Utah County could believe that the timing
of this search warrant is coincidental. My promise to the people of Utah
County is that if I am elected Sheriff, I will put an end to such political
corruption and governmental witch-hunts.

Richard Mack


- -

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:18:24 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Callahan

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:11:00 -0600
Received: from legacy.lgcy.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA26736; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:00:41 -0600
Received: from [204.68.24.182] by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id za686711; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 15:59:07 -0600
Received: (qmail 27823 invoked from network); 21 Jun 1998 21:59:03 -0000
Received: from www01.netaddress.usa.net (204.68.24.21)
  by 204.68.24.180 with SMTP; 21 Jun 1998 21:59:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 21056 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Jun 1998 21:59:02 -0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 21:59:02
From: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Callahan
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

When Overson and Horiuchi were giving $10,000 of our money to Planned =
Parenthood, wasn't it Mary Callahan who said "No", and continued saying =
"No" until she prevailed?  A small thing, but she was anything but =
inneffective when it counted.


____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D1=



- -

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:24:12 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Taken from another list...

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 03:42:01 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id DAA27067; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 03:30:25 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id FAA17603; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 05:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 05:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma017538; Mon Jun 22 05:37:30 1998
Message-Id: <v01530506b1b354df47cf@[206.163.5.155]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: [e-mail] (Doug Spittler)
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Taken from another list...
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 23:19:10 -0400
>To: Matthew Gaylor <[e-mail]>
>From: Matthew Gaylor <[e-mail]>
>Subject: J. Neil Schulman's Proof that US Gun Defenses Vastly Outnumber
> Gun Tragedies
>
>Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 23:33:15 GMT
>From: [e-mail] (J. Neil Schulman)
>Subject: Proof that Gun Defenses Vastly Outnumber Gun Tragedies
>
>Do privately owned firearms result in more harm
>or more good? The World Wide Web Gun Defense
>Clock counts up a private defense using a firearm
>every 13 seconds in the United States, using a
>calculation derived from the National Self
>Defense Survey conducted by criminologists at
>Florida State University in 1994. Included on the
>site are references for the gun-defense statistics
>as well as comparisons to accidents and crimes
>involving guns. There is also an extensive quote
>from a prominent criminologist who is himself
>opposed to private ownership of guns who
>nonetheless finds the research on self defense
>with a privately held gun irrefutable. An eye
>opener for anyone whose only opinion on private
>ownership of guns is drawn from current political
>debates and news reports!
>
>Here's the text of the World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock at
>http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html
>
>
>             The World Wide Web
>            GUN DEFENSE CLOCK
>
>                              Every 13 seconds
>                   an American gun owner uses a firearm
>                        in defense against a criminal.
>
>   Criminal Attacks Stopped By Guns This Year:
>
>             (Graphic Counter: Approximate count as
>                     of this time today: 01758190)
>
>                 WANT TO KNOW MORE?
>
>
> Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during
> The National Self  Defense Survey conducted by Florida State
>University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone
>"almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been
>used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once
>every 1.3  minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed
>someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in
>defense.)
>
>In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either
>threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a
>gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
>
> In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound
>or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called
>"newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In
>64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense,
>which means that the media could also find out and report on them if
>they chose to.
>
> In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger
>to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate
>were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept
>for defense will most likely be used against a family member or
>someone you love.
>
> In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing
>two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter
>of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial
>arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent
>chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
>
> In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable
>handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the
>defender's home.
>
>      Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of
>Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal
>of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law,
>Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
>
>      Marvin Wolfgang, Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in
>Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania,
>considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the
>country, wrote in that same issue, "I am as strong a gun-control
>advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If
>I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all
>guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ...
>What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The
>reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clearcut
>case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have
>theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense
>against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for
>the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can
>it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a
>gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to
>believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not
>have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does
>not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart
>Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and
>Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and
>Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the
>elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their
>conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their
>methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in
>advance and have done exceedingly well."
>
>       So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in
>this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and
>even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.
>
>                              By Comparison:
>
>        A fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United
>States only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under,
>it's fewer than one a day -- but still enough for the news
>media to have a case to tell you about in every day's edition.
>                           Source: National Safety Council
>
>     A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United
>States about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities
>are not completely innocent victims but themselves have
>criminal records.
>        Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the
>Chicago Police Department
>
>       Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely
>causes the person seeking death to use another means. While
>gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's handgun ban
>of 1976, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the
>gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types
>of suicide --  mostly jumping off bridges.
>      Source: Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American
>Journal of Psychiatry March, 1990
>
>          Copyright =3DA9 1996 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
> Webmasters: Add A Link to The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock from
>your WWW page by adding this Icon to your page:
>
>(Icon says: Check the Count on the World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock!)
>
>                  Simply copy the following HTML code to your page:
>
><A HREF=3D3D"http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html">
><IMG SRC=3D3D"http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock.gif"></A>
>
>
>**************************************************************************=

>Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
>Send a blank message to: [e-mail] with the words subscribe FA
>on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per =
week)
>Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH  43229
>Archived at http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=3D3DFA@coil.=
com
>**************************************************************************=





- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #75
**********************************