ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n086

Internet Message Format | 1998-07-15 | 46KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #86
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Thursday, July 16 1998      Volume 02 : Number 086




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

Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:08:51 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: BATF Juvy/black market firearms stats (fwd)

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:06:06 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA16152; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:55:25 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA26538; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:04:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:04:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026381; Tue Jul 14 18:59:54 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Paul M Watson <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: BATF Juvy/black market firearms stats (fwd)
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





- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:28:24 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: BATF Juvy/black market firearms stats

Posted to texas-gun-owners by [e-mail]
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone interested in statistics the BATF has obtained regarding black
market guns used by juveniles in crimes in major cities can find them
(mostly in PDF format) at:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/core/firearms/ycgii/ycgii.htm
- --
For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.=
net
with the word help in the message body.



- -

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

Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 22:07:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: UN to Disarm Albanians

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:39:41 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: IP: It Could Happen Here! UN to Help Disarm Albanian Civilians

Source: New York Times

July 14, 1998

U.N. Agrees to Help Albanian Government Disarm Civilians
By BARBARA CROSSETTE

UNITED NATIONS -- At the request of the Albanian government, the United
Nations has agreed for the first time to help disarm a civilian population
that has amassed hundreds of thousands of weapons and a vast supply of
ammunition, a senior official said on Monday.

Albanians, who are among those supplying or selling arms to ethnic Albanian
fighters in Kosovo Province in Serbia, raided weapons depots in the spring
of 1997, after the collapse of a nationwide pyramid scheme wiped out many
people's savings and led to general unrest. Since then, many more arms from
abroad have also been smuggled into the country, to be shipped to Albanians
in Kosovo.

"Even before the Kosovo situation erupted, an estimate of 650,000 weapons
is what we are talking about that had been taken away from government
depots," said Jayantha Dhanapala, undersecretary-general for disarmament
affairs, who went to Albania last month to evaluate the situation.

"An estimate of about 30 percent was given to us of weapons that have
leaked to other parts, not merely to Kosovo but to Macedonia and
elsewhere," he added.

In a report to the secretary-general issued on Monday, Dhanapala, a Sri
Lankan, listed pistols, automatic rifles, machines guns and grenade
launchers among the weapons in local caches. They also hold 20,000 tons of
explosives and more than 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition, including
artillery shells.

Dhanapala and his team met with government and opposition leaders,
including the former president, Sali Berisha, and discussed how to persuade
people to relinquish the weapons, which would then be destroyed.

The U.N. officials rejected buyback plans, which Dhanapala said would be
"highly inflationary" and would in effect reward people who had
unauthorized weapons in their possession. Instead, U.N. officials are
proposing a "development for guns project," in which communities that
turned in weapons would get public works projects that also provided needed
jobs.

"The weapons are largely in civilian hands," he said. "Many of the people
are unemployed, and sought the weapons as a means of some kind of wealth
which they could trade for money or goods at some later stage. In the rural
areas you had some of them burying them underground or keeping them in
trees."

"We were told that the amount of guns that fell into criminal hands is
about 10 percent," he said. "So most are in civilian hands."

Dhanapala said that the United Nations hopes to start a pilot project in
Gramshi, a district with a population of about 50,000 that is thought to
have 8 percent to 10 percent of all weapons commandeered in 1997. Gramshi
also has a 30 percent unemployment rate.

In return for turning in weapons, the district has asked for about 120
miles of rural roads, a small processing plant for agricultural products
and a training center to teach furniture making. The area is heavily
forested.

Dhanapala now has to find money to pay for his project. He said on Monday
that he hoped for help from the poverty-alleviation programs of the U.N.
Development Program, from small-scale credit projects at the World Bank and
from country donations.

In some areas, there is imminent danger of catastrophe, he said. Some arms
depots have been mined and are unapproachable, he said. "They could explode
in the summer heat."

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company
- -----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.
- -----------------------

******************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
[e-mail]
with the message:
(un)subscribe ignition-point email@address
******************************************
www.telepath.com/believer
******************************************




- -

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:04:17 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: RE: GSL> Bibliographic Minigun

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:08:51 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA16419; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:58:11 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id BAA13188; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 01:07:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 01:07:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma013083; Wed Jul 15 01:05:32 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: "William C. Walden" <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: GSL> Bibliographic Minigun
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


A "collective right" is no right at all  -  period.

- -----Original Message-----
From:    Grubb, Ken [SMTP:[e-mail]]
Sent:    Tuesday, July 14, 1998 22:30
To:    'GSL'
Cc:    'Noban'
Subject:    GSL> Bibliographic Minigun

- ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
May I suggest reading a review of Dennis Henigan's futile attempt at
writing, "Guns and the Constitution : The Myth of Second Amendment
Protection for Firearms in America" at:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1880831147/gunssavelives/002-
> 0802953-6210460
>=20
Dr. Edgar A. Suter, Chairman, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
http://www.dipr.org writes:

"Since 1980 there have been 62 articles in the peer reviewed legal
literature discussing whether or not the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is
an individual or a states right. Of the 11 articles claiming the Second
Amendment is a collective states' right, 5 are by employees of Handgun
Control Inc or the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and 3 are by
students. Of the 51 articles noting that the Second Amendment guarantees
the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, 4 are by
attorneys employed by the National Rifle Association. Excluding students
and employees of lobbying organizations then, 47 support the individual
right view and 3 support the collective right view."

> Ken Grubb
> Miami, FL
> ***** If arms are a token of power, then they belong in the hands of
> the people. *****
>=20


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

This list is governed by an acceptable use
policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html
or available upon request.

To unsubscribe send a message to
[e-mail]

with the following line in the body:

unsubscribe gsl

GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST.
THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.



- -

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:50:55 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: NewHoo

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:43:16 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA17121; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:32:36 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id SAA24548; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:41:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:41:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024402; Wed Jul 15 18:36:55 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Richard Hartman <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: NewHoo
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

I just finished checking out http://www.newhoo.com. I have no idea whether
this will catch on or not, but their willingness to accept volunteer =
editors
for any category is an opportunity. I agree those of us who have the time
should volunteer.

For example, the Sports section has roughly three dozen categories... but
only one related to firearms, "Hunting". I don't know about you, but I
participate in quite a few firearm hobbies: Plinking, pin shooting, and
other stationary target sports with both handguns and long guns; sporting
clays, skeet, trap, and other shotgun sports; etc. There are numerous =
other
categories that I haven't even gotten into yet, including DCM, reloading,
extreme accuracy, practical pistol, cowboy action... the list is long. =
Seems
to me that we ought to be able to create 8-12 firearm related categories =
in
the Sports section alone, all of which will be entirely legitimate sports =
in
their own rights.

Then there's the Politics area. Self-defense, hunting, CCW, interstate
CCW... get the idea? Our chosen hobby/profession is extremely broad
spectrumed, yet the only thing anyone has bothered to include is "Hunting".=

How different would be the impression given to visitors if 20-30% of the
Sports and Politics topics were related to firearms. Not "invented" =
topics,
but serious, honest categories and issues facing the RKBA community. =
Perhaps
we'd increase our profile just a little, and not be dismissed as oddballs
and weirdos who dream of nothing but slaughtering children on playgrounds.
Perhaps visitors would become more aware that there are numerous good,
entertaining, healthy uses for firearms. And the hyperlinks would allow =
them
to learn more if their interest was piqued.

A few volunteers are needed. All it costs is time. Isn't your
hobby/profession, and your rights, worth at least that?

RLH



- -

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 18:39:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Learn an exciting new language! 2/2

Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as
distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private
or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or
association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not
necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases,
include artificial persons See also Person.

As an adjective, "individual" means pertaining or belonging to, or
characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm,
association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto.
_________________________________________________

So it would appear that an "individual" is:

a) a single "person" - meaning any one or more of the ten
different definitions listed above that do not mean "human being"

b) "very commonly" (whether that means in English or Legalese is not
known) but not inherently or primarily, a "private" or "natural person"

The reader should note that the words "include(s)" and "including" are
used extensively in the Legalese language. This is a powerful and often
frustrating term in Legalese. Primarily, it means "to shut in," or to
"keep within" (as in the English word "only") and is restrictive, but
may have EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE meaning (as in the English word and phrase
"and" or "in addition to,") and becomes expansive depending on the context
in which it is used. In most cases, this opposite usage will be revealed
in cases where it is politically expedient or if there is money or power
to be extracted from the unwitting.

Since it is apparent from the previous paragraph that words in Legalese
may mean exactly the opposite of what they mean in English, or Legalese
(usually depending on whether the reader has something of value that he
may be relieved of), surely some generalizations may be made regarding
wording in Legalese by a careful statistical analysis of usage. For this
the author will turn to the Taxxachusetts General Laws.

A careful study of the usage of the word "person" where it is
specifically defined in Taxxachusetts General Laws revealed the
following interesting statistics.

1) The term "person" was specifically defined in
twenty-two (22) different places.

2) Of the twenty-two (22) places the word "person" was defined,
in only eleven (11) instances was the phrase "natural
person" in the list of terms defining the word. In other words, half
of the time that the term "person" was defined, the term
"person" clearly did not apply to a single human being.

3) In those twenty-two (22) different instances where the term
"person" was defined, it was defined a total of fifty-three
(53) different ways.

4) The fifty-three different definitions were used a total of one
hundred and fourteen (114) times.

5) Of the one hundred and fourteen (114) times those definitions were used,

a) the term "natural person" was used eleven (11) times,

b) the term "individual" was used one (1) time

c) the remaining forty-one (41) different terms used to define
"person" clearly did not refer to a single human being.

6) As a percentage of the fifty-three (53) different definitions,
"natural person" represents 1.89 percent.

7) As a percentage of total usage, "natural person"
represents 11/114 or 9.6 percent.

8) The terms "man/woman" were not used.

What conclusions can we draw from this analysis?

1) There is one term that can always reasonably be construed to
mean a single human being and that phrase is "natural person."

2) In the cases where the term "person" is specifically defined,
only half of the time does the term mean a "natural person."

3) In cases where the term "person" is not specifically defined,
as a function of total usage, the statistical likelihood that the
term "person" means a single human being is no more than ten (10)
percent.

4) In cases where the term "person" is not specifically defined,
the statistical likelihood that the language is referring to a
single human being is slightly less than two (2) percent.
_________________________________________________

Sample exercise.

Consider the following examples of Legalese usage where the term
"person" is NOT specifically defined and determine whether they apply
to you as a single human being, not acting in "commerce," "traffic,"
"trade," or "transportation,"or a commercial or corporate capacity
(terms defined in the Legalese dictionary)

a) "Any person who..."
b) "The individual required...shall..."
c) "Persons subject to this statute may apply for a license to..."
d) "Every person required under this chapter to...shall..."
e) "Violators are subject to..."

Hint:

How much money do you have ?
_________________________________________________

The author hopes you have enjoyed this brief foray into the exciting
world of Legalese although the reader may want to consider their
financial situation before engaging in an exhaustive study.

Documentation of statistical analysis available on request in MSExcel format.
_________________________________________

http://agitator.dynip.com



- -

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 18:39:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: United Nations

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 03:25:00 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: spiker <[e-mail]>
Subject: United Nations: Big, Urgent PUSH to take guns away from Citizens,
worldwide

Dear Citizens:

As we have been informing you for the past year, the United Nations is in
its last stage of confiscating ALL guns from civilians all over the world.
The U.N. hs stepped up its push and even has stated that knives and clubs
are now on their list too as weapons that MUST be confiscated from
civilians (see earlier post).

The following post is how the United Nations is pushing very hard to start
its world-wide program to take weapons of protection from citizens in ALL
countries.  Please read this post and project in your mind what stepped up
plans the U.N. and Clinton has for U.S. Citizens.

Thanks to [e-mail] (spiker) for forwarding this post.

USCMike1

HERE IS THE POST:

Subj: GUN GRAB....UN Advises Albanian Weapons Program
Date: 98-07-14 09:49:30 EDT
From: [e-mail] (spiker)
To: [e-mail] (New Republican Discussion List)

To All,
This UN Gun Grab if successful, could be a precursor to what will happen
in the USA if our traitorous politicians continue to turn over our hard
earned taxes to the communist controlled United Nations.

GET THE UN OUT OF THE USA!!!!!
GET THE USA OUT OF THE UN!!!!

UN Advises Albanian Weapons Program
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19980714/V000868-071498-idx.html

By Nicole Winfield
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, July 14, 1998; 5:58 a.m. EDT

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- A U.N. team has recommended a program to
collect tens of thousands of guns and ammunition rounds that fell
into civilian hands during the unrest that rocked Albania last year.

Many of the weapons have found their way to Albanian separatists in
neighboring Kosovo. The team leader, Undersecretary-General Jayantha
Dhanapala, acknowledged there would be resistance to weapons
collection in the Albanian border areas through which arms are smuggled.

Nevertheless, the team's report said Monday the Albanian government
viewed the conflict in Kosovo, where ethnic Albanians are fighting for
independence from Serbia, ``as an additional reason to retrieve weapons
from the civilian population.''

Dhanapala and a U.N. delegation recently traveled to Albania at the
invitation of the Albanian government to evaluate prospects for a
collection program.

Similar programs have been launched in Angola, Cambodia, Guatemala,
Mali and Somalia, among others. Albania represented a unique situation
because the guns were largely in the hands of civilians, not combatants,
Dhanapala said at a briefing Monday.

An estimated 650,000 guns were looted from army and police depots
during riots last year after the collapse of widely popular pyramid
investment schemes. Also stolen were 1.5 billion bullets and artillery
shells, and 20,000 tons of explosives -- detonator capsules,
anti-personnel and anti-tank mines.

The team recommended that a pilot program be launched in the
south-central district of Gramsh, which accounts for an estimated 8-10
percent of the stolen goods.

If successful and if funding was available, the project would be
expanded. Job training and development-related benefits, such as road
building, would be offered as incentives to turning in guns and
ammunition.

The team recommended against a cash buy-back, which has worked elsewhere,
because it would lead to high inflation and would send the wrong message,
the report said.

The evaluation team, funded by Italy, recommended Albania pass legislation
to delineate legal gun ownership and publicize the benefits of turning
over weapons.

Though an estimated 30 percent of the looted goods have `leaked'' into
Kosovo, Macedonia and elsewhere, the collection program will focus on
collecting weapons still in Albania, Dhanapala said. In Gramsh, 65 miles
south of Tirana, villagers ``notwithstanding the Kosovo situation, stood
ready to collect weapons,'' Dhanapala said.

``Clearly closer to the Kosovo border, that possibility may be reduced.''
The evaluation team didn't go to northeastern Albania, which borders
Kosovo.

The weapons, of Albanian, Chinese, Italian, Russian and Yugoslav origin,
included rifles, pistols, revolvers, mortars and grenades, automatic
rifles, machine guns and anti-tank grenade-launchers.

Copyright 1998 The Associated Press


- -

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 18:39:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Learn an exciting new language! 1/2

Learn an exciting new language!

Legalese!

Learn to speak a fascinating foreign language. It's called "Legalese"
and it's spoken by people who live in a mysterious land. This place
seems to be populated by people who weren't born there but actually
make an adult decision to live where they must become bilingual and
the primary method of making a living involves becoming parasites,
con-men, and extortionists.

Curiously, the language they speak sounds very much like English but more
often than not, a word used in Legalese does not have the same meaning as
its English counterpart! In fact, they have developed a giant dictionary
that parallels the English dictionary to explain all of the obscure and
often arcane translations for a word commonly understood in English. Even
accomplished students of this language find that the definitions and
usage in this language are constantly shifting like the desert sands. At
times, the meanings of its words slip in and out of English, their use in
context may or may not determine whether the English or Legalese
definition applies, and the proper definition to infer seems to roughly
correlate to whether there is money or power at issue, although this is
not always the case. In addition to there being similarities with English
definitions, there is a bewildering array of levels of commonality or
priority of common usage and understanding which also seems to vary
depending on whether there is money or power at issue.

The Land of Legalese is also the only place on Earth where the word
being defined can be defined by the word being defined.

Unfortunately, while there are definitions to be found, there doesn't
seem to be any hard and fast rules regarding usage or construction. The
man or woman attempting to speak Legalese in the land where it is used is
often required to retain the services of a professional interpreter. This
practice carries considerable risk, in that as mentioned earlier, they
are by default placing themselves at the mercy of parasites,á con-men,
and extortionists.

As an example of this challenging and rewarding language, I'd like to
examine the word "person." The English dictionary defines the word this way:

_________________________________________________

person

1: human, individual - sometimes used in combination esp. by those who
prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes 'chairperson'
'spokesperson'

2: a character or part in or as if in a play: guise

3 a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as
understood by Christians
  b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human
natures

4 a: archaic: bodily appearance
  b: the body of a human being; also: the body and clothing 'unlawful
     search of the person'

5: the personality of a human being: self

6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is
recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to,
or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many
languages by verb inflection

per son hood \-'hud\ noun
in person: in one's bodily presence
_________________________________________________

Notice how in the English definition, six out of seven of definitions
relate to men and women. Note also the order of priority in the object
of the definition. Five definitions later we get to something that isn't
a man or a woman. It's not a stretch to presume that in common English
usage the definition of "person" means a man or woman to most people.

Now let's look at Legalese. Author's notes are in brackets ([ ].)
_________________________________________________

Person. In general usage,

[It is not clear whether the phrase "in general usage"
refers to general usage of Legalese or English]

a human being (i.e. natural person),

[It is not clear whether the term "natural person" must be
used to describe a human being]

though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships,
associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in
bankruptcy, or receivers See e.g. National Labor Relations Act, º 2(1),
29 U.S.C.A. º 152; Uniform Partnership Act. º 2. I Bankruptcy Code.

"Person" includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but
not governmental unit 11 U.S.C.A º 101.

Corporation. A corporation is a "person" within meaning of Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection and due process provisions of United States
Constitution. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, Ala., 470 G.S. 869,
105 S.Ct. 1676, 1685, 84 L.Ed.2d 751. The term "persons" in statute
relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to
defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation Alamo Fence
Co of Houston v U.S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181. In corporate law,
"person" includes individual and entity. Rev.Model Bus.Corp.Act, º 1.40.
_________________________________________________

It would appear that in Legalese, the term "person" means:

a) a "natural person" [the word "natural" is not defined in Legalese]
b) an "individual,"
c) labor organizations,
d) partnerships,
e) associations,
f) corporations,
g) legal representatives,
h) trustees,
i) trustees in bankruptcy,
j) receivers,
k) not necessarily governmental units,

or

l) an entity.

In English, only two of these terms might be construed to mean human
beings; i.e., "natural person" and "individual."
Since "natural" is not defined in Legalese, the reader must
draw his own conclusions. Let's look at the word "individual"
as defined in the Legalese dictionary.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:24:45 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Welcome once again!

Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com
    ([206.53.160.3])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 06:17:35 -0600
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA05266;
    Thu, 16 Jul 1998 05:19:51 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [149.174.217.134])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA05263
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 05:19:51 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
    by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.12) id IAA25115
    for [e-mail]; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:15:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:15:17 -0400
From: David Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Welcome once again!
To: "INTERNET:[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Thought the members of the list would be interested in today's (July 16)
Wall Street Journal.  The Marketplace Section has several front page
articles under the heading "Kids & Guns"

The first is one that deals with parents of Johnnie asking the parents of
Johnnie's friends if they have guns in the house before Johnnie can cross
the threshold.

The second deals with copy cat killings, the third with "Kid-proof Gun
Locks" and the forth with today's new toy guns - Laser Tag.

Check them out.  The interesting thing in the gun lock article is the
assertion that Gun-Control advocates aren't impressed with the "growing
array of locks on the market."  I find that statement odd because that is
one of Sarah Brady's, Chucky Schumer's and Bill Clinton's current pet
projects.

David Adams
[e-mail]
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/
The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
To subscribe of unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
[e-mail]
******* Victory 1998! ***************



- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:58:15 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: FEAR: Denver, Co.

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:38:36 -0600
Received: from bmd2.baremetal.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA17401; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:27:50 -0600
Received: from localhost (mapinc@localhost)
    by bmd2.baremetal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA07013;
    Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:41 -0700
Received: by bmd2.baremetal.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:31 -0700
Received: (from mapinc@localhost)
    by bmd2.baremetal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA06957
    for [e-mail]; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:31 -0700
Message-ID: <006a01bdb073$437af0a0$3f868cd1@tim>
From: "Tim Brooks" <[e-mail]>
To: "fear-list" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FEAR: Denver, Co.
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:11 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: "Tim Brooks" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights  http://www.fear.org/
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



The following was initially posted to the IDPA list by Michael Bane,
 who attended the Denver City Council meeting last night.=20
I obtained permission form Michael to forward it along.

Last night, the Denver City Council voted to make the "public nuisance
abatement" ordinance permanent, despite 100s of gun owners and other
critics
of the ordinance (including the ACLU) who filled the Chamber Council and
nearby rooms to overflowing.

To borrow a phrase from the Grateful Dead, "it's even worse than it
appears."

Briefly, for gunowners, what this means is that if you're caught in Denver
for
any reason (say, a minor traffic stop, an accident, a roadblock, a
seat-belt
check, drunk driving enforcement stops, etc.) and there is a gun in your
car,
your car WILL be confiscated, your weapons WILL be confiscated and you
WILL go
directly to jail.

According to the Denver PD, hunters, target shooters on the way to and =
from
the range, buyers and sellers of firearms and people "whose lives are
directly
threatened" will be able to make an "affirmative defense," that is, tell
the
police that you're legit, and MAYBE they'll let you go.However,  Assistant
Denver City Attorney Keith Steigelmeyer expressed repeatedly his plan to
"push" the affirmative defense arguments "up the line," that is, you still
get
the affirmative defense--in court. In the meantime, your car and
everything in
it is confiscated; your weapons are confiscated; you're booked, processed
and
have to make bail and the city charges you a towing fee of $80 and an $8 a
day
storage fee.

The average "storage time" right now for vehicles WHERE THE DRIVER WAS
FOUND
"NON-CULPABLE" (newspeak for "totally innocent") is 30 days.

Your guns? According to the Denver PD officer directly in charge of
administering the program, "IT IS THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF DENVER TO
NEVER
RETURN WEAPONS THAT HAVE BEEN SEIZED FOR CAUSE." You may get you car back,
but
you're going to have to go to court to get your guns back--even if you are
TOTALLY innocent.

And you may not get the car--if your car is leased, or has a loan or lien
on
it, Denver informs your leasor or lienholder. The small print in your loan
or
lease allows the car to be repossessed IMMEDIATELY if it is seized by a
governmental agency. According to the Denver PD, this is what is actually
happening.

Again, all this happens BEFORE your guilt or innocence is established.

Assistant City Attorney Steigelmeyer insists that hunters and shooters in
"complete compliance" with Denver ordinances have nothing to fear.
However,
Denver ordinances are complex (the city has its own "assault weapon" and
lookalike ban, for example), vague and apparently designed to trip up the
unwary. The ordinances provide that any weapon in a car either be unloaded
and
locked in the trunk or somewhere "out of the passenger compartment." If
the
weapon is in the passenger compartment, it must be TOTALLY UNCONCEALED,
unloaded and "incapacitated" (which, apparently, means a trigger lock). If
the
gun is not totally visible, it is CONCEALED, and you will be treated
accordingly. BTW, if the gun is totally visible, it is "probable cause"
for
you to be stopped by the Denver police.

According to the lawyer I spoke with, even a valid, statewide CCW is only
considered "affirmative defense." At the discression of the officer on the
scene, you may be arrested, your car and your legal gun confiscated, even
if
you have a valid CCW. Again, according to what was stated at last night's
council meeting, your gun will not be returned to you.

THE BOTTOM LINE: If you travel with guns in Denver, YOU ARE AT RISK. The
vehicle provisions of the "nuisance abatement act" are apparently
SPECIFICALLY
TARGETED AT LEGAL GUN OWNERS. The ordinance HAS BEEN USED AGAINST LEGAL
GUNOWNERS ALREADY, and, now that it's permanent, the Denver PD has already
said they will be stepping up enforcement.=20

My personal advice is avoid DENVER. Do not book hunts in Colorado; do not
attend matches that require to to fly into DIA or travel through Denver =
and
SKI
IN UTAH.

Tim Brooks =20
- -T.& R. Brooks Construction, Chino Valley, Arizona  :-p
"Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional."
www.bslnet.com/accounts/trbconst/www



- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:02:30 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: second amendment

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 07:02:44 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id GAA17677; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 06:52:03 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA16567; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:01:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:01:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma016341; Thu Jul 16 08:56:43 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: larry ball <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: second amendment
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

An Open Letter To The Japanese Ambassador*

by L. Neil Smith
[e-mail]

Kunihiko Saito
Ambassador to the United States
Japanese Embassy
2520 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

Sir:

I'm writing to inform you that you and your government are in the process =
of
mortally offending more than a quarter of the people of this nation,
representing about half the households in America.

I refer to the 70 million decent and honorable men, women, and children =
who
choose to exercise their
unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain,
own, and carry weapons -- and to the dishonorable and despicable effort of
your United Nations delegates to pressure member nations into suppressing
that right.

Americans have fought many international conflicts over the past couple of
centuries.  In each, they've been convinced -- with whatever degree of
justification -- that they were fighting essentially to preserve the first
ten amendments to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the =
Bill
of Rights, one article of which directly addresses the right to own and
carry weapons.

Most Americans are unaware of what you and your government are up to so =
far,
but I want you to imagine what could happen once they learn how you're
trying to deprive them of their rights.  I want you to imagine even those
Americans who don't presently choose to own personal weapons, angrier at =
you
than at any time since World War II.

As one of my correspondents recently put it, during the Cold War, =
Americans
represented a sort of "thin khaki line" between your people and Soviet
domination, defending rights and values you're now attempting to deprive =
us
of.  Perhaps, he offers, we shouldn't have gone to all that effort.  =
Imagine
what would have happened if we hadn't.  Imagine what would happen now if =
we
just pulled out, sending you a bill for the entire 50-year period.

Imagine what could happen if Americans perceive this attempt to abrogate
their rights as the moral
equivalent to your attack on Pearl Harbor. Imagine thousands of angry
letters appearing in newspapers and thousands of calls to radio stations,
informing even more readers and listeners of your determination to destroy
the Bill of Rights. Imagine a flood of letters and calls to your embassy =
and
consulates. Imagine hordes of pickets marching back and forth in front of
every Japanese diplomatic and corporate estabaishment in America.

Another thing you need to imagine is the diplomatic repercussions. Most
Americans are fed up with the very idea of diplomatic immunity. Imagine
widespread demands to revoke yours, on the grounds that you're tampering
with the internal politics of a nation in which you have heretofore been a
honored guest?  Imagine being open to injunctions, civil suits, demands =
for
restitution, even criminal prosecution under a future administration more
amenable to the concept of Bill of Rights enforcement than the present one
happens to be?

Imagine the success of efforts presently underway to prevent the United
States from handing another penny to the United Nations, and to terminate
American membership in that organization altogether?

More to the point, in a country that's never been very comfortable about
purchasing expensive foreign goods -- and where feelings run so high that
Japanese cars used to be smashed and burned in Detroit parking lots --
imagine deferred purchases of Japanese products such as automobiles and
trucks, including those manufactured here. Imagine:  how many percentage
points must Japanese auto sales drop before you decide that your attempt =
to
disarm Americans is too expensive?   Two percent?  Five percent?  Ten
percent?  Imagine how many billions of dollars that represents, how many
trillions of yen.

Now imagine a boycott aimed at a single product-type like cars, trucks,
vans, and SUVs, spreading to others:  stereos, TVs, cameras, and computers.=

How many more billion dollars?  How many more trillion yen?   There are =
many
other countries you don't _have_ to imagine -- Germany, China, Taiwan, and
Korea come to mind -- eager to fill the gap created by such a boycott.  =
Even
once it ended, you'd have lost customers permanently to your international
competitors.

Wouldn't you say Japan is in enough economic trouble already? Imagine how
many Americans are angry over the billions our government is giving you
now.  Imagine how they'll feel when they learn what you're "giving" them =
in
return.  Why go looking for more trouble on the infantile whim of the
politically feeble-minded among you?

Your culture is infamous for demanding that others respect its customs and
traditions, however backward and oppressive.  In this century alone, your
nation butchered unarmed thousands in Manchuria, laid waste to most of =
Asia
and the Pacific, even let its soldiers eat their prisoners of war.  The
nation that raped Nanking, Manila, and Singapore, and enslaved then
hysterectomized "comfort women" to make them more available to the =
Emperor's
troops without the inconvenience of menstrual periods, has no right
criticizing our ownership of guns. Between 1935 and 1945 Japan killed =
almost
six million people, dwarfing American criminal violence, rivalling that of
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and exceeding that of Pol Pot.

Recently, you've been denying these crimes that millions were witness to,
but that only makes Japan look more ridiculous and guilty than it already
is.

Even today, you discriminate viciously against the Ainu, the Burakumin, =
and
non-Japanese living in Japan, especially Koreans and ethnically mixed
individuals.  Japan's culture is so intolerable to its own people  that =
they
kill themselves at a rate almost double that of the United States.  Your
police search people's homes whenever they wish; so many arrestees confess
that your interrogation methods must surely be of  interest to Amnesty
International.  Yet you have the nerve to try to take the moral high =
ground
with us.

Perhaps you should reflect carefully on whether the world should emulate
your ways, including your gun laws, or ours.

The fact is, your attempt to interfere with the more refined and libertaria=
n
traditions of our culture is,
at the least, hypocritical. And since you can hardly be unaware that guns =
in
private hands save between two and four million American lives every year, =
I
can only conclude that you're willing to sacrifice those millions to =
further
this evil, halfwitted, and thoroughly discredited scheme which we have
learned to call by its right name, "victim disarmament".

Americans are presently burdened, from the city to the national level, =
with
the most corrupt and brutal
government in our history -- a government that agrees with you that =
concepts
like the Bill of Rights are as disposable as used toilet paper.  But if =
you
understand anything about us, understand that this only means we'll work
harder to assure stringent enforcement of the Bill of Rights, not only in
our country, but (with the precedent of interference provided by your
government) to encourage the birth of a radical individualist movement in
Japan.  If you think that Levis and MacDonald's have captured the =
attention
of your youth, wait until they taste the idea of freedom.

Imagine:  informed by Americans like me that they, too, are the exclusive
owners of their own lives and all the products of their lives, your people
demanding that you recognize their unalienable individual, civil,
Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own and carry weapons.

Don't you imagine that it's time you gave up your attempt in the United
Nations to disarm everyone on the planet?

- --

*Excerpted from The Libertarian Enterprise, June 19, 1998:
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe38-19980619.html

L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of _The Probability Broach_,
_Pallas_,  _Henry Martyn_,  and other novels,  as well as publisher of
_The Libertarian Enterprise_, available free by e-mail subscription or
at http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html.  More of Neil's essays can be
found on the "Webley Page", at
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html.

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author =
- --
provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate
credit given.




- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #86
**********************************