ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n095

Internet Message Format | 1998-08-12 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #95
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Thursday, August 13 1998     Volume 02 : Number 095




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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Forbidden Words

On Mon, 10 Aug 98, [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) wrote:
>
>Forbidden Words
>http://www.fatalblindness.com
>
>August 9, 1998 Fulton Huxtable
>
>Here is something you may not know. If you don't, you
>are not alone, since most Americans appear to be
>completely unaware of it. And the reason most do not
>know it is that the media hasn't provided the details.
>
>What is "it"? The fact that legislation recently passed the
>House that would forbid you to use certain words, during
>the 60-day period prior to a general election, in any "type
>of general public communication." It would be illegal for
>you to engage in "a communication that advocates the
>election or defeat of a candidate by-(i) containing a
>phrase such as `vote for', `re-elect', `support', `cast your
>ballot for', `(name of candidate) for Congress', (name of
>candidate) in 1997', `vote against', `defeat', `reject' or a
>campaign slogan or words that in context can have no
>reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election
>or defeat of 1 or more clearly identified candidates;"
>(Title II, Sec. 201 (b) (20) (A).


This is such a gross violation of exactly the kind of speech the First
Amendment was written to protect that I'll go out on a limb and state
up front that it will never pass constitutional muster.  (Then again,
according to "Miller," the assault weapon ban should be clearly
unconstitutional, as well, as that is exactly the class of "arms"
protected by the Second.)

Joe W


- -

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:14:29 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Call your congresscritter SVP

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 09 Aug 1998 21:13:12 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id VAA08339; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:02:03 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA25533; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 23:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 23:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma025463; Sun Aug  9 23:09:12 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: Call your congresscritter SVP
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

Some of us have talked about this on Noban.  My initial thoughts were =
tha=3D
t
the NRA got blind sided, but I think not.  The only two things they are
resisting in this act is the Tax and the Registration.  They do not care
about the long guns; be they shotguns or rifles.

Is it time again to ask the NRA - Are you adrift?  or are you trying to =
t=3D
ake
us to the same place HCI wishes us to go?

Larry Ball
[e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:

> Brady Handgun Law To Control All Long Gun Sales
>
> Industry and Public Basically Unaware of Total Overhaul
>
> [excerpted]
>
> "One thing noted by BATF senior counsel Stephen R. Rubenstein, and
> clearly stated in the first sentence of the Brady law, is that the
> temporary requirements do expire 60 months after enactment (on Nov.
> 30, 1998). If the insta-check isn=3D92t up by that time, as Rubenstein
> noted,
> there will be no Brady requirements in effect at all.
>
> Whether Congress would allow Brady to lapse is a crucial issue, and
> attempts at change are likely.  White House spokesperson Rahm Emanuel
> has already indicated that Clinton will seek some form of extension to
> the expiring first part of the Brady law.  The expiration date provides
> a leverage point for interested parties.
>
> Once the new system (dubbed NICS by the FBI) is up, an instant national
> accounting of gun-sale volume will flow through FBI hands.  Based on
> mandatory direct contact, every single purchase, city by city, will be
> tabulated.  If Cleveland has a big gun show this weekend, it will show.
> Maybe Nebraska is slow right now, and those numbers, like election
> returns, will be available to law enforcement and others privileged to
> view the data.  Manufacturers who would love to track real-time =
nationa=3D
l
> sales activity could conceivably do so=3D97though who will have access =
to
> the information (besides the FBI) is unclear.  Daily and summary =
report=3D
s
> will spew out with digital efficiency. It will be like no other sales
> data collection system in existence. All this commercial data is being
> collected, oddly enough, in the name of stopping crime.
>
> As sales information comes flooding in, the FBI will move into a new
> arena as the largest, most sophisticated warehouse of point-of-sale
> records for any product in the world.
>
> The law requires the Bureau to obtain complete ID on gun buyers, but
> then to destroy this information.  Collecting and maintaining a file on
> the 70 million legitimate gun owners in America has never been done,
> has been prohibited by statute since 1986, and is also prohibited
> under Brady itself.  However, in proposed regs, the FBI has indicated
> that they will in fact record every retail gun buyer in America, once
> the
> system is running, in apparent violation of those laws."
>
> http://www.usajournal.com/brady_law_about_to_affect_long_g.htm
>
> PS: Instructions on joining your listserv would be appreciated.
>
> RV





- -

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:17:47 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 08 Aug 1998 14:12:33 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA07598; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 14:01:20 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id QAA27030; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 16:10:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 16:10:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026982; Sat Aug  8 16:10:12 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: [Fwd: Fwd: POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------5BDCCA46E27A76B30171EF55
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This is in conjunction with the guys who were harrassed in Omaha the
other day for carrying "openly" with a permit.  Bob Taylor and the
others, including the mother and kids of the house they were visiting,
were ordered face down on the ground at gun point.

We may start something against the police and the city of Omaha over
this.  You all out there might be asked to contribute some of your "hard
earned" and help raise some of the same  from others.  If the attorney
decides to proceed with this we should make this an internet campaign
and beat down the forces of tyranny.

Getting Hotter,

Larry Ball
[e-mail]

- --------------5BDCCA46E27A76B30171EF55
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
    by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA27971
    for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 01:53:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: [e-mail]
Received: from [e-mail]
    by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id XSQYa20769;
    Sat, 8 Aug 1998 02:52:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 02:52:53 EDT
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=

        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Fwd: POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
    boundary=3D"part0_902559173_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --part0_902559173_boundary
Content-ID: <0_902559173@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII

hey people.....check this out ......this happened to a friend of mine......=
.


bob

- --part0_902559173_boundary
Content-ID: <0_902559173@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from  relay22.mx.aol.com (relay22.mail.aol.com [172.31.106.68]) =
by
    air16.mail.aol.com (v47.2) with SMTP; Fri, 07 Aug 1998 06:14:15 =
- -0400
Received: from oasis.novia.net (oasis.novia.net [204.248.24.1])
      by relay22.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
      with ESMTP id DAA22277 for <[e-mail]>;
      Fri, 7 Aug 1998 03:22:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mbrain (208-149-120-31.novia.net [208.149.120.31])
        by oasis.novia.net (8.9.1/Novia) with ESMTP id CAA12268
        for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 02:22:45 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: "Mark" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 02:20:20 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Bob, your story Is familiar to what happened to our Paintball team 2
years ago. We were at Humble Park here in Omaha. Our team had just gone =
o=3D
ut
on ambush and the opposing team was giving us about five minutes before
they came hunting for us. All of a sudden we heard brakes screaching, =
doo=3D
rs
closing and alot of yelling, "Get down on the ground!" We came out of the
brush and took a look from far away. We saw about four cruisers, cops
everywhere with their guns drawn and the other paintball team, which were
just kids still In high school, laying on their stomachs with handcuffs =
o=3D
n!
At first we were just going to stay hidden because there's no way they
would find us. However, we weren't sure If the other team would say that =
=3D
we
were out there or not. So instead of the cops coming out there looking =
fo=3D
r
us and being PARANOID, which we all know they are and causing an =
accident=3D
,
we decided to come out. It was actually funny because they didn't see us
walking toward them. There were 12 of us and we all had paintguns that If
they were equivalent to real weapons they would have had firepower of an
M-16. My gun shoots 26 paintballs per second at a range of 300 feet per
second. Anyway, they were acting all tough like they we SO IN CHARGE and
"aware" that It startled them when we spoke. We said stuff like, "Hey?" =
"=3D
We
don't have real guns." "These are paintguns." "Didn't mean to startle =
you=3D
."
The look on most of there faces was funny because we seemed to just come
out of nowhere and we were just 20 feet from them. Then It got REAL. One
cop pulled his gun out and yelled at all of us to drop down on the =
ground=3D


- -

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:46:15 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: "Post Your Opinion"

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with =
sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."
    --Galileo Galilei



- -

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:07:48 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Janet Reno

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 06 Aug 1998 01:59:20 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA05544; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 01:48:16 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA04847; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 03:57:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 03:57:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma004643; Thu Aug  6 03:53:25 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: [e-mail]
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Janet Reno
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

In a message dated 98-08-05 16:21:39 EDT, [e-mail] writes:

<< This is great material.  Can you give me the cite to either download =
this
 report or to be able to go to the library and get a copy?
=20
 This stuff flies directly into the face of what we have been told.<<

    I have made some minimal effort to investigate this.
Evidently, the ICVS report is available from Statistics
Canada for a significant charge. The report received=20
somewhat more attention in England.=20

    Here is the cite that brought it to my attention. I verified
the article last spring. "The Edmonton Journal" does have a web
site as does Statistics Canada.
                                 *******
Canadians suffer as much crime as Americans

by LORNE GUNTER
appeared in the Edmonton Journal 31.3.98

Lost last week by Canadian newspapers and networks, amid their
sanctimonious tut-tutting about the mass killing in a Jonesboro, Ark.
schoolyard, was the release of The Third International Crime
Victimization Survey (ICVS).

In part, this is justifiable. Five simultaneous murders is a bigger
story than the release of yet another dry statistical report,
especially when four of the victims are children and the fifth their
pregnant teacher.

The shortcoming lies in the Canadian moral clucking surrounding the
Jonesboro shootings versus the silence over the implications of the
ICVS.

The CBC English television network directly blamed the National Rifle
Association for the five deaths in Arkansas. To hear its report, one
would think NRA vice-president Charlton Heston had had his finger on
the trigger.

John Bierman of the Financial Post shrieked "It's the gun culture,
stupid," which is true in a way, but not the way Bierman means. Then
he called on the Americans to emulate Canada or Britain and implement
strict controls on guns.

Bierman, and several other Canadian commentators who mimicked his
knee-jerk reaction, ignore at least three significant points. Canada's
gun laws were already quite strict when a madman killed 14 female
students at the Universite du Montreal in 1989, and yet the laws did
not save them (nor will the even stricter laws being implemented this
fall prevent future madmen from committing similar mass killings).
Mass killings are committed with machetes, bombs and other weapons,
too, and their cause perplexes psychologists and sociologists. And, if
the cause of a crime is cultural, a change to gun laws will be
virtually powerless to alter it.

Which is why it was unforgivable that Canadian journalists should have
overlooked the ICVS.

Canadians have smug attitudes towards the United States on a number of
subjects; health care, welfare and crime among them. While in each
case our smugness is undeserved, it is especially undeserved on crime.
Like several studies before it, the ICVS shows that except for murder,
Canadians suffer as much violent crime as Americans, and more
non-violent crime. Our view of all America as the final shootout from
a John Wayne movie and all Canada as an idyllic scene from Anne of
Green Gables is simplistic, arrogant and wrong; it borders on outright
prejudice.

According to the ICVS, which is conducted here by Statistics Canada,
25 percent of Canadians were the victim of a crime in 1996 versus 24
per cent of Americans. Six per cent of Canucks suffered a violent
crime `a robbery, armed robbery, sexual assault or common assault'
versus seven percent of Americans.

The highest incidence of violent crime in the industrialized world was
in England and Wales, where eight per cent of residents were
victimized in 1996 (and total victimization is 40 per cent higher than
in the U.S.) and where gun laws are even stricter than in Canada.

Household burglaries and car thefts were as high in Canada as in the
U.S (in England and France they were 50 per cent higher than in North
America), with the added proviso that burglaries in Canada are more
than four times as likely to occur when the residents are home as they
are in the U.S. Theft of other personal property was 50 per cent
higher north of the 49th parallel, than south.

The vastly higher murder rate in the U.S. is an important difference.
But it certainly does not justify our gun laws, nor discredit theirs.

For more than a century, American murder rates have been three to 10
times higher than those of other western nations. And the differences
in rates have remained reasonably constant before and after the
introduction of strict gun laws in Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan,
New Zealand and elsewhere. Indeed, the murder rates in other
industrialized nations have inched closer to those in the U.S. despite
various attempts to register all guns or license all gun owners, or
even ban guns altogether.

For some reason, Americans see murder as a solution to their problems,
murder with guns, murder with knives, murder with fists, much more
often than do the citizens of other western nations.

The difference lies in their culture, not just their `gun culture'.
Crimes of all sorts, including murder, are lowest in those states with
the highest rates of gun ownership. States such as Vermont, New
Hampshire, North Dakota and Montana, where gun ownership is at least
twice what it is in Canada, have murder rates as low as one-half that
in the provinces which are their immediate neighbours.

The ICVS points out what Interpol and others have also pointed out,
Canadians have no reason to be smug about crime, or about gun laws.
                                      **********

Regards,
Dennis Baron


- -

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:20:25 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: July 19 column - gun registration

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:42:49 -0600
Received: from ez0.ezlink.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA18502; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:32:08 -0600
Received: (from list@localhost)
    by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25544;
    Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:40:17 -0600
Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:40:17 -0600
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <v02130502b1d47629c143@[192.9.150.95]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:35:21 -0800
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Vin Suprynowicz)
Subject: July 19 column - gun registration
Resent-Message-ID: <"NxnU-2.0.YA6.eTihr"@ez0.ezlink.com>
Resent-From: [e-mail]
X-Mailing-List: <[e-mail]> archive/latest/519
X-Loop: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 19, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    They're 'shocked, shocked,' at the FBI's plans

    Nearly every day, it seems, my e-mailbox is flooded with emergency
dispatches from well-meaning but breathless defenders of the Second
Amendment, urging all their friends to write or e-mail the appropriate
congresscritter in opposition to whatever new piece of chicanery the
gun-grabbers have got up to (three-day waiting periods to buy long guns,
$16 background checks before a gunsmith can return your repaired weapon,
1000 percent ammunition taxes, jail sentences for gun owners whose guns =
are
(start ital)stolen(end ital) and used in teenage crimes, et bleeping
endless cetera.)

  Either that, or I'm supposed to frantically weigh in at the latest
on-line media poll asking "Do we need more gun control" ... with the
results thrown out and never publicized, of course, should the majority --
as usual -- answer "No."

  Last week, a pair of faithful correspondents advised:

  "Senator Smith,  R-New Hampshire, is apparently attempting to put the
brakes on the FBI shenanigans regarding the Brady Law. One of his =
proposals
is to defund the ability of the FBI to tax gun owners; another is to =
defund
any attempt by the FBI to use Brady 'instant check' as a mechanism to keep
gun owners' names, and requires 'immediate destruction of all (gun buyer)
information in any form whatsoever.' Another is to allow aggrieved =
citizens
to sue the agency and collect damages and attorneys' fees. He needs to =
hear
from lots of people that he is supported in his stand. Please take the =
time
to e-mail or fax a letter to him."

  I've actually been lobbied on the phone by some gun rights advocates I
respect, this week, ensuring me Sen. Smith is the closest thing to a =
friend
freedom-lovers have in the Senate, and insisting his proposal could indeed
strike a solid blow for the Second Amendment, by giving citizens some
standing to get into court and challenge the coming national background
checks (and resultant national gun registration -- precursor to
confiscation in Nazi Germany, in Australia, everywhere it's been tried.)

  Maybe Sen. Smith means well. I don't know.

  Regardless, I've had enough of this game. I replied to my well-meaning
correspondents:

    #   #   #

  Hi, guys --

  Pardon me, but I grow tired of running first one way, then another, on
treadmills erected by others.

  "Requiring immediate destruction of all (gun buyer) information in any
form whatsoever" is too ridiculous for even a child to fall for.

  Let's say these national background checks for ALL gun sales go into
effect Dec. 1, as scheduled. But the FBI is absolutely forbidden by law to
keep any such records, ironclad, cross our hearts and hope to die.

  Now, a weapon is found at a crime scene. (Notice the careful phrasing.
Most "weapons found at crime scenes" are stolen and thus untraceable. Few
were actually used in any crime, since shooters tend to carry their guns
away with them, rather than dropping these expensive tools like candy
wrappers. If your loser brother-in-law is rousted out of bed at 3 a.m. and
the cops find a bag of marijuana in his cereal box, then your grandfather's=

First World War souvenir Mauser in the attic becomes a "weapon found at a
crime scene.")

  Using the national gun registration computer data bank which they have
illegally established in West Virginia, the FBI traces the owner -- you --
and you admit the weapon was "borrowed" by your loser brother-in-law. You
are then arrested along with him, on charges you "allowed a deadly weapon
to fall into unauthorized hands ..."

  What happens? The suspects are set free -- the evidence and all
subsequent confessions disallowed under the "exclusionary rule" -- because
the G-men violated the "no gun registration data-bank" law, while the =
G-men
(up to and including Louis Freeh) are indicted, tried, convicted, and
locked up in small cells with roommates named Butch. Right?

  Oh, sure. And if you believe this, I can also sell you an address where
you can send care packages at the federal penitentiary in Lewisburg, where
Lon Horiuchi and everyone up the 1992 FBI chain of command are now doing
their 30-year sentences for the murder of Vicki Weaver.

  No, I am not going to express any support for a suit who claims he is
"shocked, shocked to learn" that the FBI and BATF are proposing to violate
our Second Amendment rights ... while snickering behind his hand that any
attempt to DISBAND the FBI and BATF, and to REPEAL the Brady Bill (along
with the Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1968) would be "extreme,
counterproductive, and politically unfeasible."

  The simpering Tories. Let our GOP senators filibuster any bills that =
come
before the Senate, until they win a straight up-and-down recorded voice
vote on REPEAL OF THE BRADY ACT. Nothing else will draw any "fan letters"
from me.

  We're being played like a wheezing calliope, here. We're being set up to
"thank" our masters when they "reluctantly" agree that our gunsmiths won't
have to do a $16 background check on us when they return our repaired
hunting rifles ... THIS year. And this process has now been going on for =
65
YEARS! My CAT can figure out there's no way to get the little bell out of
the cat toy faster than that.

  Next time: what to do.


Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail].

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
"Commentaries on the Laws of England."




- -

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:20:41 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: July 21 column - gun control

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:52:37 -0600
Received: from ez0.ezlink.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id BAA18512; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:41:54 -0600
Received: (from list@localhost)
    by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25597;
    Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:40:46 -0600
Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:40:46 -0600
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <v02130503b1d476fef36e@[192.9.150.95]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:36:14 -0800
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Vin Suprynowicz)
Subject: July 21 column - gun control
Resent-Message-ID: <"KtORr.0.HF6.ZUihr"@ez0.ezlink.com>
Resent-From: [e-mail]
X-Mailing-List: <[e-mail]> archive/latest/520
X-Loop: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 21, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Like a soccer team with only one player - the goalie

    Last time, I was detailing the way cynical "pro-gun-rights" Republican
congressmen play naive freedom-lovers for fools.

  The "bad cop" half of the Incumbent Republicrat Party propose 10 new
infringements on our Second Amendment rights, and pass three, and our
"heroes" get our campaign contributions and our votes for "fighting the
good fight" and "turning back the worst seven parts of that darned,
terrible gun-grabbers' package" ... which only turn up again next year, in
a NEW set of 10 insults to the Bill of Rights, of which only three MORE
will subsequently be endorsed by the lying GOP and their gun club
affiliate, the NRA, as "the best compromise we're likely to get this year
..."

  Meantime, folks on our side run themselves ragged until they finally =
lie,
motionless, stupefied, and resigned, in a fetal position, like the rat
who's been shocked the past 10 times he tried to eat the food.

  I'm already hearing it: "Don't bother fighting the Moynihan 1000 percent
ammo tax. I'm told that one's going nowhere." Just go to sleep, little
ones. The bogeyman will never REALLY come. They wouldn't dare add THAT as =
a
rider to some highway bill in the final hours of the session ...

  Duh.

  The "pro-gun-rights" Republican party has been in charge of both houses
of the United States Congress for three-and-a-half years. In the so-called
Contract with America, Newt Gingrich promised a straight up-or-down voice
vote on repeal of the Brady Bill. It's the only promise he never even
(start ital)tried(end ital) to keep. Why? Because he knows all gun owners
will reflexively vote Republican in 1998, regardless. So why endanger the
support of any marginal, socialist, pro-big-government, urban voters to
please us? We're not "in play." We can safely be ignored.


    #   #   #

  Haven't you ever wondered why the "good guys" never submit a bill which
would repeal 10 bad gun control laws, and then "settle for a compromise" =
in
which the Democrats and Handgun Control endorse three of the 10 as the
"least harmful," whereupon the next year the forces of freedom re-integrate=

the seven remaining steps toward restored Secopnd Amendment freedom in a
NEW list of 10 bad gun laws to be repealed, making the OTHER side scramble
around trying to block seven out of 10?

  With all the money the National Rifle Association has raised, and all =
the
"B-plus and better" rated "pro-gun congressmen" we've elected, how come we
never see Handgun Control on the defensive, running around firing off
desperate e-mails to (start ital)their(end ital) members, going "Ohmygosh,
34 different bills have been introduced this session, attempting to close
down the BATF and effectively re-legalize the public carry of machine guns
without a permit ... even in federal courthouses and airports! Help! Help!
They keep slipping in funding for free distribution of surplus machine =
guns
as riders on farm bills! The DCM is now authorized to sell surplus
full-auto M-14s, BARs, and water-cooled 30-caliber Brownings for $100 to
anyone who sends in a postcard, with an automatic waiver of the $200
'transfer tax.' And we didn't even know about it; turns out it was buried
at page 666 of the Equal Rights for Blind Ambulance Drivers bill. Oh, what
ever shall we do?!"

  How come it never works THAT way?

  Unless, maybe, there AREN'T any good guys.

  Duh.

  Gun owners -- anyone who cherishes the Second Amendment and the Bill of
Rights -- have to stop running this treadmill, immediately. Just step off.
Stop donating to Republicans or to the NRA (sponsor of both the Brady Bill
and the Gun Control Act of 1968). Let them know your vote isn't "a given."
When you can, give your money and your votes to radically
pro-Bill-of-Rights Libertarians, and to the Milwaukee-based Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership (414-769-0760.)

  Failing that, fund and vote for a DEMOCRAT (at least they're reliably
pro-choice on ONE issue), while advising the GOP candidate (and the local
newspaper) in writing that you are doing so to punish the Republican party
for not repealing the Brady Bill, and the National Firearms Acts of 1968
and 1934, which they have the votes to do, TODAY.

  Tell them: "I'd rather vote for an honest gun-grabbing socialist, than
for a lying Nerf Republican who won't even stay bought."


Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail]. The =
web
site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The
column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media
Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
"Commentaries on the Laws of England."




- -

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 98 23:45:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Rep. Cook voted for the anti-freedom Shays-Meehan bill

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:24:17 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Rep. Cook voted for the anti-freedom Shays-Meehan bill

Proof from the House of Representative's website that Representative
Cook joined 60 Republicans plus Rep. Charles Schumer and Rep. Bernie
Sanders to vote in favor of the anti-freedom Shays-Meehan Campaign
Finance Reform bill.

Scooter!

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 405

H R 2183 RECORDED VOTE 6-AUG-1998
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Campaign Finance Reform

        AYES    NOES    PRES-NV
REPUBLICAN    61    164    2
DEMOCRATIC    190    15    1
INDEPENDENT    1
TOTALS        252    179    3


- --- AYES 252 ---
Ackerman    Gillmor     Oberstar
Allen       Gilman      Obey
Andrews     Gordon      Olver
Bachus      Graham      Ortiz
Baesler     Green       Owens
Baldacci    Greenwood    Packard
Barcia      Gutierrez    Pallone
Barrett (NE)    Hall (OH)    Parker
Barrett (WI)    Hamilton    Pascrell
Bass        Harman      Pastor
Becerra     Hefner      Payne
Bentsen     Hill        Pelosi
Bereuter    Hilliard    Petri
Berman      Hinchey     Pickett
Berry       Hinojosa    Pomeroy
Bilbray     Holden      Porter
Blagojevich    Hooley      Poshard
Blumenauer    Horn        Price (NC)
Boehlert    Houghton    Quinn
Bonior      Hoyer       Ramstad
Borski      Hulshof     Rangel
Boswell     Jackson (IL)    Regula
Boucher     Jackson-Lee(TX)    Reyes
Boyd        Jefferson    Riggs
Brady (PA)    Johnson (CT)    Rivers
Brown (CA)    Johnson (WI)    Rodriguez
Brown (FL)    Johnson, E. B.    Roemer
Brown (OH)    Kanjorski    Rothman
Campbell    Kaptur      Roukema
Capps       Kelly       Roybal-Allard
Cardin      Kennedy (MA)    Rush
Carson      Kennedy (RI)    Sabo
Castle      Kennelly    Sanchez
Clay        Kildee      Sanders
Clayton     Kilpatrick    Sandlin
Clement     Kim         Sanford
Clyburn     Kind (WI)    Sawyer
Condit      Kleczka     Saxton
Conyers     Klink       Schumer
Cook . . .



- -

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:19:52 -0600
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: But....it's against the law, it was against the law.....

CELEBRATION, Fla., August 12 (UPI S) _ Osceola County, Fla.,
authorities are searching (Wednesday) for a man responsible for the
first violent crime ever reported in Celebration, Disney Co.'s
two-year- old planned community west of Walt Disney World. Police say
the suspect threatened to shoot a family in their home before making
off with an undisclosed amount of cash.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 07:00:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Colt's CEO likes gun control 1/2

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Patrick Sullivan" <[e-mail]>
Organization: nomotax
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:06:57 +5
Subject: [prj] Colt's CEO likes gun control
CC: PRJ <[e-mail]>

- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: [e-mail] (Patrick Sullivan)
Subject: _THE LIBERTARIAN EN 01/02
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 01:40:01 GMT
Organization: Cajun Clickers Computer Club
To: [e-mail]

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. COLT'S CHIEF STANDS UP FOR FEDERAL GUN CONTROL
By Henry Goldman, _Philadelphia Inquirer_ staff writer*

======================================================================
**********************************************************************
Declare your own website a BILL OF RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT site today!! The
vile reign of state terrorism is drawing to a close at long last. A new
day is dawning for _liberty_. You can share in making history. Go to
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html and click on the scroll.
**********************************************************************

COLT'S CHIEF STANDS UP FOR FEDERAL GUN CONTROL

By Henry Goldman, _Philadelphia Inquirer_ staff writer*

Special to _The Libertarian Enterprise_

WEST HARTFORD, Conn. -- Ronald L. Stewart is unique among the nation's gun
manufacturers. He favors a form of national gun control.

Stewart, the chief executive officer of Colt's Manufacturing Co.,
advocates a comprehensive federal firearms law, including the creation of
a federal gun permit. And he wants gun owners to be licensed, tested and
subjected to mandatory safety training.

These views have made him a pariah in the gun community.

On gun-friendly web sites, there have been calls for a boycott of
Colt's handguns and rifles. "The actions of Colt's officials are
detrimental to American-style freedoms and liberties!" wrote one recent
contributor to the GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List.

In an interview at the headquarters of the 162-year-old company,
Stewart said his views were based on the assumption that increased
government regulation was inevitable. "I'm just searching for a
middle-of-the-road position, and that's why I've taken such a beating from
others in the industry," he said. "They want me to just go along with
something that the public increasingly sees as an extreme view."

For gun manufacturers and distributors, he said, federal regulation
would be far easier to live with than separate laws for each state.
And licensing and testing of gun users, he said, is no more onerous,
and no less reasonable, than licensing and testing of those who drive
automobiles.

"I'm trying to address the question of how do you operate the gun safely
so that you don't injure somebody," he said. "It doesn't make sense to
stake out a position that is perceived by the public to be anti-safety...

"I'm not a gun nut," Stewart said. "I'm not even a member of the NRA."

More often than not, Stewart said, he supports the National Rifle
Association's positions on issues. But the NRA, according to chief
executive officer Wayne LaPierre, has "never been in favor of a federal
permit and never will be."

Some of Stewart's critics say his gun-control proposals are
motivated more to promote Colt than to enhance public safety.

"I think there are many who feel, rightly or wrongly, he has staked
out these positions to curry favor with police departments and with
those in the federal government, who would [be able to] influence the
success of their product," said Dave Tinker, publisher of _Firearms
Business_, a trade publication. Stewart denies such accusations, which
were also made by the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen in a flyer
distributed widely at the NRA convention in Philadelphia last month.

But there is no question that Stewart has developed a business strategy
intended more for insulating Colt from government regulations than
fighting them.

In a highly fragmented and competitive market that has been stagnant for
five years, he hopes to capture an increased share of the law-enforcement
market -- and ultimately the home-user market -- through so-called
smart-gun technology while expanding military sales overseas.

While Stewart sees himself as eminently reasonable, others in the gun
industry depict him as a heretic.

"He's definitely espousing views about our industry that are out of
step with opinions held by manufacturers and gun owners, and it is a
matter of great concern to us," said Georgia Nichols, vice president and
general counsel of Connecticut-based O.F. Mossberg & Sons, which makes
shotguns and other firearms.

In May, Stewart resigned from the board of the American Shooting Sports
Council, an Atlanta-based trade group, after the council attacked the
Clinton administration's ban on imported assault weapons.

What upset Stewart was that the council, in launching its attack, said
that one reason to permit such imports was that they are no different from
domestic products such as the AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle Colt makes.

Stewart's declaration of independence from the rest of the industry came
in December when he wrote a guest editorial in _American Firearms Industry_
magazine. While he attacked the antigun lobby, he also endorsed federal
regulation.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]




- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #95
**********************************