ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n096

Internet Message Format | 1998-08-16 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #96
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Monday, August 17 1998      Volume 02 : Number 096




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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 07:00:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Trunk Tragedy Reflections

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:50:14 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Trunk Tragedy Reflections

Regarding the terrible deaths of five little girls in West Valley,
the chief of the West Valley Police department says, don't blame
families for trunk tragedy. This case is not about blame or fault.
Nordfelt asked people not to judge the parents of the girls,
stressing that the community needs to help the families heal.

No shit Sherlock, but what if the tragedy had been from a handgun
stored in one of the families' home or what if it was a family of
immigrants living on welfare in a poorly kept house or a situation
where family members were known crack smokers or just out back
having a cigarette on the porch? Would it still remain a case
removed from blame and fault or would the police be seeking some
kind of charges against the parent Dixie Smith for child abuse
and/or child neglect?

Yes, life is a dangerous place to be and even more so when parents
and caregivers fail to keep a vigilante eye out for those in their
charge. In many ways this is typical in and of large LDS families
where children are allowed to run wild ... up and down the streets
in their diapers, drinking out of gutters, causing problems, etc.
This tragedy and similar incidents can be prevented by parents
paying closer attention to their children and those in their care.
Whether one's reading the Bible in a living room or out back having
a smoke, neglect still equals neglect which sometimes equals death
and tragedy for young and old alike.

At any rate, do I believe the parent Dixie Smith should be punished?
I believe she already has been, by her own failure to supervise the
little ones in her care properly and by the personal pain and guilt
she's likely to carry to her own grave. Should Dixie Smith be punished
by the government? No, I think not. Her suffering is great enough
already -- as any person in her position would be.

Certainly, anyone who has ever taken charge of little kids know how
demanding it can be to keep a constant watch on them, as it only takes
one minute (if even that) for the little ones to scamper off and into
harm's way. Yes, this was a tragic accident and even more tragic by
calls for big government to mandate trunk release switches to prevent
this kind of rare occurrence from happening again. Yes, create a public
crisis and impose some more government regulations on big business
because some people are negligent in their duties and actions.

Still, I wonder how the little girls were able to get into the trunk
and close it without anybody helping them, showing them, seeing them
or hearing them? This is the one part missing from this sad and sorry
story that I'd like to know more about.

Don W. Johnstun



- -

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 06:38:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Colt's CEO likes gun control 2/2

Strangely enough, his alienation from the rest of the industry had
its first public manifestation two months earlier, when he appeared
to be taking an anti-safety stance.

There was a ceremony at the White House at which 10 gun executives
told President Clinton they would voluntarily ship child-safe locks
with their products. Since then, 16 more gun-makers have signed on.
But Stewart was not at the White House and has not signed on.

"Why is it that everyone else feels that it's a good idea and he doesn't?"
asked Richard Feldman, director of the American Shooting Sports Council,
which organized the event. "We've given people what they need to help
prevent someone, particularly a child, from negligently using the gun."

Stewart, who called the White House announcement "a dog-and-pony show,"
said such locks are unreliable and give a false sense of security when
used on a loaded gun. He said he expects lawsuits when locked guns
accidentally fire.

The real way to prevent accidents, Stewart said, is the "smart gun,"
designed to prevent a gun from being fired by anyone but the intended
operator.

Stewart claims his company is ahead in developing such a gun, using a
microchip worn on the shooter that will transmit a signal to a receiving
chip inside the gun.

One prototype has been tested with mixed results; a second will be
available by the end of August, Stewart said. If all goes well, the
company will be ready to make the guns available to police departments
for testing within two years, he said.

Colt sees a big market in law enforcement; 16 percent of all shootings
of police officers occur when their guns are grabbed out of their hands
or holsters by criminals. Currently, Colt has almost no share of the
police market.

"It's a technology that you can't ignore, and it has the potential not
just to save a lot of police lives, but to safeguard weapons purchased
for home use, keep them out of the hands of thieves or kids, people who
shouldn't have them," said Paul Bolton, who heads the International
Association of Chiefs of Police.

Gun sales to police departments, usually at cost, do not create profits,
but the prestige of being chosen as a law-enforcement weapon creates
profitable sales in the commercial market, Stewart said.

Why are others in the industry so distrustful of Stewart and so quick
to question his motives?

One reason is that Stewart, 56, is an outsider, according to Tinker,
the publisher of _Firearms Business_. Stewart became Colt's president
in 1996, after 22 years at Chrysler and a working lifetime in the
automobile industry. He was brought in after the company had been in
bankruptcy and had been purchased by a limited partnership headed by
Donald Zilkha, a New York financier.

Since then, Stewart said, a series of management reforms and cost controls
have produced a profit of about $10 million on about $100 million in sales.

The key to sustained profitability, Stewart said, "will be whether we
can insulate ourselves from the turmoil that will exist in the commercial
gun market in the years to come."

He said the fact that he's an outsider had helped him see gun-control
issues more clearly than his competitors do.

"I'm not dealing with the emotions of it," he said. "I can sit back and
see where it's going. The gun industry is where the automobile industry
was in the 1960s -- the same clamor for safety regulations. Seat belts.
Air bags. We are going to go through a period of reform and legislation.
All I'm trying to do is survive and prosper in whatever direction this
thing takes."

======================================================================
* This article appeared in the _Philadelphia Inquirer on July 13, 1998
and was forwarded to _TLE_ from the GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion
List by Bob Phipps <[e-mail]>.

Hungry dingoes near the central Queensland [Australia] coast are
stalking neigborhoods in their hunt for food.

Rockhampton Deputy Mayor Jom Rundel said the wild dogs from the Mount
Archer National Park on the city's eastern boundary were causing
alarm in nearby suburbs. The packs of dingoes are wandering through
neighborhoods in search of food, but the people living there are
powerless to do anything.

"You can't bait within two kilometers of a residence ... you can't
shoot in a residential area," Rundel told the country's ABC radio.

"Plus with the gun laws, no one has a gun anyway."

======================================================================
This item first appeared in the "Earthweek" section of the _Portland
Oregonian_ science page, 15 July 1998. It was sent to us by attorney and
raconteur Tom Creasing, who reminds us, "All animals are created equal --
some just take longer to cook."

===
 _ RM 1.31 3226 _ Windows Error 010 - Reserved for future mistakes

Patrick <[e-mail]>
"In its larger and juster meaning, property embraces everything to which
a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone
else a like advantage..." - James Madison


- -

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:43:59 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] Your turn to play Big Brother (fwd)

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:32:15 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA12305; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:20:53 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA26685; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026532; Fri Aug 14 13:26:47 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: [e-mail] (Bill Vance)
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] Your turn to play Big Brother (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

On Aug 14, Terry Walker wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------=
- -]

- -----Original Message-----
From: ScanThisNews <[e-mail]>
To: Scan This News Recipients List <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 6:47 AM
Subject: [FP] Your turn to play Big Brother


>Tuesday, August 11, 1998
>
>INTERSCOPE
>
>Lisa Ronthal's
>Exclusive commentary
>
>Your turn to play Big Brother
>Audit your representatives through the Web
>
>[The complete article is at WorldNetDaily:]
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ronthal/980811.comlr.html
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
- -
>----
>
>Audit your representatives' finances online
>
>They do it to you -- now you can do it to them. Thanks to the nonprofit
>Center for Responsive Politics, you have quick, easy Web access, right =
now,
>to detailed information about your elected representatives' finances. =
Here
>are just a few of the things you can find out via the CRP site: Examine =
any
>member of Congress' personal financial disclosure forms
>(http://www.crp.org/pfds/) Look up representatives' campaign money =
profiles
>(http://www.crp.org/candidates/index.htm) Find individual contributors to
>federal candidates, PACs, or party committees -- the site lets you look
them
>up by name, ZIP code, employer, or candidate
>(http://www.crp.org/indivs/public/htdocs/) Profile the money breakdown of
>any 1998 House or Senate race (http://www.crp.org/1998elect/index.htm) =
The
>CRP maintains databases on everything from White House coffees to
>Congressional travel to tobacco money -- and it's all online.
>
>All this information is technically available through other channels; the
>difference is that now it's practically and simply available, for the
>taking, to anyone with access to an Internet connection. And that is the
>information revolution in a nutshell. This Web site isn't just an =
important
>political resource in itself: it's also a superb example of the
>still-too-infrequently-realized potential of the Internet for altering =
the
>balance of power in favor of the individual.
>
>If you thought the government's tendency to try to place controls on
>Internet use was really all about child pornography, think again. It's
>certainly not about controlling child porn; I would imagine that it's not =
a
>question of controlling cultural-political content at all -- I've no =
doubt
>the state is perfectly happy to be able to monitor its opponents of all
>sorts through their activity online. No. It's all about the flow of
>information itself.
>
>[snop]
>
>The balance of the article is at:
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ronthal/980811.comlr.html

[------------------------- end of forwarded message -----------------------=
- -]

- --
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
- ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
- -
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand =3D Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy =
a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus =
Christ
- ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
- -


- -

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 21:49:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Beware the USSC

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:34:13 -0700
From: "Richard L. Partridge" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: PAC petitions

The Libertarians are going to have a booth at the Golden Spoke gun show.
Kitty Burton is coordinating. Her number is 1-800-777-3834-access code 21.

Are you aware that the Utah Shooting Sports Council (chaired by Rob Bishop)
and the NRA both supported the measure to increase the requirements for
petitions? Their reason? In Washington State, some anti-gun people got
an anti-gun measure on the ballot by petition. (It was soundly defeated.)
They seem to overlook the fact that when you restrict someone else's
rights, you restrict your own. (It's doubtful we could have had the
individual right to bear arms amendment on the ballot if we had the
tougher standards.)

Beware the USSC. Rob Bishop has replaced the dynamic Scott Engen, and it
appears that Rob's job is to act as a neutralizer. Under Scott, the USSC
was very effective in turning aside criminal protection legislation (gun
control laws). Now the USSC appears to be dead in the water (their web site
is two years out of date, and I get no response to membership inquiries).

Dick Partridge, Libertarian Candidate
Utah State Senate District 24

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:21:13 -0600 Bill Barton <[e-mail]>
writes:

Derailers:

If you are tired of fighting legislators who vote the way of the education
and public employee lobby you will want to help get signatures on the
initiative petition that would put a stop to withholding money from their
paychecks that go to their Political Action Funds to give to candidates
who will vote with them.

Next week we are planning to visit the S L County Fair (in MUrray) on
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday evenings. If you can even come over for
an hour it would help a great deal.

This initiative is key to combating the problems we have been plagued
with for years in electing and reelecting people who will represent good
government. Many get elected but then get defeated by education and public
employee supported candidates because of the money and organization.

Again, we are asking you help. Please E-mail to me or call 968-6964
if you can help.

Bill Barton
===========================================================
William T. Barton
http://www.xmission.com/~bbarton/
[e-mail]



- -

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

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 06:00:30 -0700
From: Joseph Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Beware the USSC

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:34:13 -0700
> From: "Richard L. Partridge" <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: PAC petitions
>
> The Libertarians are going to have a booth at the Golden Spoke gun show.
> Kitty Burton is coordinating. Her number is 1-800-777-3834-access code 21.
>
> Are you aware that the Utah Shooting Sports Council (chaired by Rob Bishop)
> and the NRA both supported the measure to increase the requirements for
> petitions? Their reason? In Washington State, some anti-gun people got
> an anti-gun measure on the ballot by petition. (It was soundly defeated.)
> They seem to overlook the fact that when you restrict someone else's
> rights, you restrict your own. (It's doubtful we could have had the
> individual right to bear arms amendment on the ballot if we had the
> tougher standards.)

I don't know what number of signatures are required in Utah.  In Washington, it
is 7% of the people who voted in the last gubernatorial election, which
means--with a state population of 5.4 million and about 3 million registered
voters--you need 180,000 or so valid signatures.  Figure a 12-15% invalid rate,
and to be comfortable, you need to turn in 220,000-225,000 petition signatures.

In almost every case in recent history, the only way to make that number is by
paid signature gathering.  Doesn't matter what the issue is--if you want to get
on the ballot, figure on paying to get signatures.  "Three strike you're out"
bought about half, as did "Hard time for armed crime"--AND I-676, the gun
control initiative.

Interestingly, no one with the NRA here in Washington has complained about the
number/percentage of signatures required to place a measure on the ballot.  We
have two directors resident in the state, one field services rep, and a
lobbyist working out of ILA-Sacramento (the same one that covers Utah).  I
speak with each of them on a weekly basis, if not more frequently.

I don't know what's driving the issue there in Utah.  Just thought I'd offer
some background.

Joe Waldron
Chairman, WeCARE (the "No on 676" campaign)


- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:17:46 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Metaksa on the way out?

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 01:05:09 -0600
Received: from lists1.best.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id AAA12875; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:53:56 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
    by lists1.best.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/best.ls) id XAA23733;
    Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: Chris Knox <[e-mail]>
Subject: Metaksa on the way out?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:19:45 -0700 (MST)
BestServHost: lists.best.com
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



I have a lot going on right at the moment and hope to get an FCO out
this weekend, however I wanted to alert you to a developing story and
point you to the Firearms Coalition home page (http://www.nealknox.com).
Follow the "NRA Controversy" link from the main page to read what's
going on behind the rumors and anonymous reports.

Chris


- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:26:14 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Executive Orders

Received: from mail.interjetnet.net
    ([208.231.136.27])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 22:09:01 -0600
Received: from default (ppp075.interjetnet.net [208.236.167.75])
          by mail.interjetnet.net (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with SMTP
      id WAA00507; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 22:01:54 -0600
Message-ID: <005801bdc802$83f80040$62a7ecd0@default>
From: "Jackbooted Thug" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Executive Orders
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 22:09:17 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_0155E1B9.147519DC"

- --=_0155E1B9.147519DC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I'm sorry for the redundancy of this message for some of you , but this is =
very important Print  Copies for your friends. =20
The misuse of Executive Orders is the greatest threat to Constitutional =
Government .

H.CON.RES.236


During most of this century, Executive Orders from the President
have been the chief means of by-passing the legislative process of
Congressional approval.  These Orders have been a blatant attempt to =
circumvent the
Separation of Powers, which protect our Freedoms.  If we allow the
President to continue to legislate through Executive Orders, Congress then
becomes a  rubber stamp' for an out of control Chief Executive.

  Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states:

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of=20
the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives." The people of the United States granted certain powers =
to the
Federal Government.  One of these is the lawmaking power which resides =
only in=20
Congress, not with the President.  This lawmaking power has been usurped
by the Presidency through Executive Orders for over 60 years.


Jack Metcalf from Washington has sponsored H.Con.RES.236 which
addresses the problem of Presidential legislation, (copy enclosed).  When =
this
passes, most of the Executive Orders in recent years will be changed =
from=20
being law to being advisory only, meaning they have no function as law.=20
This will resolve EO#13083 which would have put most State functions
under Federal control.  This Executive Order, EO#13083, created such a
public furor that the President postponed implementation, but did not =
rescind
the order.

EO#12919 combines a number of President John Kennedy's Executive
Orders into one.  Under a =3Dnational  emergency', EO#12919 puts all power =
into =3D
the presidency and in effect does away with the Constitution, the Bill =3D
of Rights, and the Separation of Powers.  Metcalf's bill will handle
this travesty as well.

Write, e-mail, or phone your member of Congress and your
Senators.  Ask them to co-sponsor this bill, support it, and vote for it.  =
It will go=20
a long way to restoring the Separation of Powers.  If you need the
e-mail address of your Congressman, e-mail us for it.  Please send this to =
as=20
many people as you can!   If this was forwarded to you and you wish to=20
get future posts directly, e-mail your address to [e-mail].

H.CON.RES.236
SPONSOR: Rep Metcalf (introduced 03/05/98)
TITLE(S):

OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
A concurrent resolution to express the sense of the Congress that any
Executive order that infringes on the powers and duties of the Congress
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, or that would require the
expenditure of Federal funds not specifically appropriated for the =
purpose=20
of the Executive order, is advisory only unless enacted as law.
STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status
House Actions
Mar 5, 98:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
COMMITTEE(S):
COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:
House Judiciary
11 COSPONSORS:
Rep Hyde - 03/05/98 Rep Bunning - 03/05/98
Rep Lucas - 03/05/98 Rep Neumann - 03/05/98
Rep Hilleary - 03/05/98 Rep Smith, N. - 03/05/98
Rep Herger - 03/05/98 Rep Gilman - 03/05/98
Rep Traficant - 03/05/98 Rep Chabot - 03/05/98
Rep Scarborough - 07/15/98
SUMMARY:
(AS INTRODUCED)
Provides that any executive order issued by the President that infringes
on the powers and duties of the Congress under the Constitution, or that
would require the expenditure of Federal funds not specifically
appropriated for the purpose of the executive order, shall be advisory =
only
unless enacted as law.






- --=_0155E1B9.147519DC
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Part.001"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#e0e0d0>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>I'm sorry for the redundancy of this message for some
of you , but this is very important Print  Copies for your friends.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><STRONG>The misuse of Executive Orders is the greatest
threat to Constitutional Government </STRONG>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>H.CON.RES.236<BR><BR><BR>During most of this century, Executive Orders from
the President<BR>have been the chief means of by-passing the legislative process
of<BR>Congressional approval.  These Orders have been a blatant attempt to
circumvent the<BR>Separation of Powers, which protect our Freedoms.  If we
allow the<BR>President to continue to legislate through Executive Orders,
Congress then<BR>becomes a  rubber stamp' for an out of control Chief
Executive.<BR><BR>  Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution
states:<BR><BR>"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of <BR>the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
of<BR>Representatives." The people of the United States granted certain
powers to the<BR>Federal Government.  One of these is the lawmaking power
which resides only in <BR>Congress, not with the President.  This lawmaking
power has been usurped<BR>by the Presidency through Executive Orders for over 60
years.<BR><BR><BR>Jack Metcalf from Washington has sponsored H.Con.RES.236
which<BR>addresses the problem of Presidential legislation, (copy
enclosed).  When this<BR>passes, most of the Executive Orders in recent
years will be changed from <BR>being law to being advisory only, meaning they
have no function as law. <BR>This will resolve EO#13083 which would have put
most State functions<BR>under Federal control.  This Executive Order,
EO#13083, created such a<BR>public furor that the President postponed
implementation, but did not rescind<BR>the order.<BR><BR>EO#12919 combines a
number of President John Kennedy's Executive<BR>Orders into one.  Under a
=national  emergency', EO#12919 puts all power into =<BR>the presidency and
in effect does away with the Constitution, the Bill =<BR>of Rights, and the
Separation of Powers.  Metcalf's bill will handle<BR>this travesty as
well.<BR><BR>Write, e-mail, or phone your member of Congress and
your<BR>Senators.  Ask them to co-sponsor this bill, support it, and vote
for it.  It will go <BR>a long way to restoring the Separation of
Powers.  If you need the<BR>e-mail address of your Congressman, e-mail us
for it.  Please send this to as <BR>many people as you can!   If
this was forwarded to you and you wish to <BR>get future posts directly, e-mail
your address to <A
href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</A>.<BR><BR>H.CON.RES.236<BR>SPONSOR:
Rep Metcalf (introduced 03/05/98)<BR>TITLE(S):<BR><BR>OFFICIAL TITLE AS
INTRODUCED:<BR>A concurrent resolution to express the sense of the Congress that
any<BR>Executive order that infringes on the powers and duties of the
Congress<BR>under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, or that would
require the<BR>expenditure of Federal funds not specifically appropriated for
the purpose <BR>of the Executive order, is advisory only unless enacted as
law.<BR>STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status<BR>House Actions<BR>Mar 5,
98:<BR>Referred to the House Committee on the
Judiciary.<BR>COMMITTEE(S):<BR>COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:<BR>House
Judiciary</DIV>
<DIV>11 COSPONSORS:<BR>Rep Hyde - 03/05/98 Rep Bunning - 03/05/98<BR>Rep Lucas -
03/05/98 Rep Neumann - 03/05/98<BR>Rep Hilleary - 03/05/98 Rep Smith, N. -
03/05/98<BR>Rep Herger - 03/05/98 Rep Gilman - 03/05/98<BR>Rep Traficant -
03/05/98 Rep Chabot - 03/05/98<BR>Rep Scarborough - 07/15/98<BR>SUMMARY:<BR>(AS
INTRODUCED)<BR>Provides that any executive order issued by the President that
infringes<BR>on the powers and duties of the Congress under the Constitution, or
that<BR>would require the expenditure of Federal funds not
specifically<BR>appropriated for the purpose of the executive order, shall be
advisory only<BR>unless enacted as law.<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- --=_0155E1B9.147519DC--

- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 98 08:17:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The reason for the Second Amendment 1/2

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:35:36 -0400
From: E Pluribus Unum <[e-mail]>
To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network <[e-mail]>
Subject: The reason for the Second Amendment

The reason for the Second Amendment

by Alan Keyes

Sen. Bob Smith has succeeded in amending an upcoming appropriations
bill to beat back the latest wave of Clinton administration disrespect
for two key elements of a free citizenry -- privacy and the right to
keep and bear arms. Smith's amendment to the Justice-State-Commerce
appropriations bill would foil FBI plans to keep records of private
identifying information on law-abiding citizens who buy guns. The
amendment also forbids a proposed tax on gun purchases, and authorizes
citizens to sue if the FBI doesn't observe these restrictions.

Senator Smith is to be praised for keeping his eye on some balls that
might have been lost in the smoke of scandal and misinformation that the
Clinton Administration seems endlessly to emit. Actually, few things
could make the need for vigorous defense of 2nd Amendment rights clearer
than the ongoing spectacle of Clinton contempt for the citizens he is
supposed to serve. For the 2nd Amendment is really in the Constitution
to give men like Bill Clinton something to think about when their
ambition gets particularly over-inflated.

The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders
merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our
hearts' content. This is not to say that hunting game for the family
dinner, or defending against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses
for firearms, particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the
real purpose of the Amendment.

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train
of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural
rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That
is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically
violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and
overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always
maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary,
something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the
weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental
DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

In our time there have been many folks who don't like to be reminded of
all this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word
"people" in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn't mean
in any one of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say
that, for some odd reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of
putting in "states" they put in "people." And so it refers to a right
inherent in the state government.

This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of
legitimate historical evidence. At one point in Jefferson's letters, for
example, he is talking about the militia, and he writes, "militia --
every able-bodied man in the state. ..." The militia was every able-bodied
man in the state. It had nothing to do with the state government. The
words "well-regulated" had to do with organizing that militia and
drilling it in the style of the 19th century, but "militia" itself
referred to the able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth --
not to the state government.

It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and
bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our polity
is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government,
at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be
prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses.

But the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to
our capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also
part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human
beings are capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper
reason that the defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense
of liberty.



- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 98 08:17:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The reason for the Second Amendment 2/2

Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for
human self-control, but this approach won't wash. It is the human moral
will that saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons.
We should reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause
of violence.

Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should
be banned because "they have no purpose except to kill people." It is
people that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to
do so, if killing is in their hearts where love of justice should be.
This week a 7-year old boy in Chicago apparently used a pair of
underwear to commit murder, because he wanted a bike.

So let's get down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we
moral children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control
our will even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the
exercise of our natural rights. If we are only children, then all the
particularly dangerous toys must be controlled by the government. But
this "solution" implies that we can trust government with a monopoly
on guns, even though we cannot trust ourselves with them. This is not
a "solution" I trust.

Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that
it can only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That's
why I don't understand those who say "save us from guns," even while
they cling to the coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth
except what they "choose" to assign to it.

If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of all
Americans with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all
human beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of
moral responsibility and self-restraint -- of assuming responsibility
for governing himself. This is the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment,
and indeed of the entire American project of ordered liberty.

It is the business of every citizen to preserve justice in his heart,
and the material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These
things constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty
to maintain. And to fulfill our duty to be such a people we shall have
to return to the humble subjection to the authority of true moral
principle that characterized our Founders, and that characterized every
generation of Americans, until now. We must regain control of ourselves.

Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the assertion
that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral order that
God has decreed must govern our lives. And just as we have no right to
shirk our duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no right to shirk
our duty to preserve unto ourselves the material means to discipline our
government, if necessary, so that it remains a fit instrument for the
self-government of a free people. The preservation of 2nd Amendment rights,
for the right reasons, is a moral and public duty of every citizen.

The Clinton Administration's flirtations with executive tyranny should
remind us that we have a duty to remain capable of disciplining our
government if necessary. Bill Clinton's comprehensive avoidance of
personal responsibility for his own actions, and our revulsion at the
kind of character which that avoidance has produced in him, should be
a kind of horrific preview of the kind of people we will all become if
we continue to let our government treat us as though we were incapable
of moral self-control. And Senator Smith's successful effort to defeat
several policies that treat us that way is precisely the kind of
principled defense of our liberty -- and of the premises of our liberty
- -- that make him so worthy to be a representative of a free people.

Alan Keyes Web Site is http://www.AlanKeyes.com
- --
***************************************************
E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group
P.O. Box 791  Eventline/Voicemail: [phone]
Grove City, OH 43123

Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse
3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.)

http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib [e-mail]
***************************************************



- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 17:02:48 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: CNN Impeachment Poll

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:58:58 -0600
Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA14833; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:47:40 -0600
Received: (qmail 21867 invoked by uid 516); 17 Aug 1998 22:57:40 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 21426 invoked from network); 17 Aug 1998 22:57:01 -0000
Received: from ns2.rockymtn.net (HELO mail2.rockymtn.net) (166.93.8.2)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 17 Aug 1998 22:57:00 -0000
Received: from helmetfish (166-93-57-135.rmi.net [166.93.57.135])
    by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA05877;
    Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:49:50 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:48:57 -0600
From: "Charles 'Chuck' Inston" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Global Neighbourhood Watch, (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; U)
To: Blind-copy list <[e-mail]>
Subject: CNN Impeachment Poll
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Posted to rkba-co by "Charles 'Chuck' Inston" <[e-mail]>
- -----------------------
There is an impeachment poll at CNN's web site:

http://www.cnn.com/


Question: If Ken Starr reports to
               Congress that evidence shows
               President Clinton encouraged
               Monica Lewinsky to lie, should
               impeachment hearings be
               opened?=20


- --=20
                      Charles 'Chuck' Inston

"American patriotism is unique in history; it consists of devotion to=20
the rule of law, rather than personal allegiance to a ruler,
institutional=20
loyalty to a ruling party, or blind support of a government. America's=20
Founding Fathers understood that a free society would require that=20
government be bound by "the chains of the Constitution"; Americans were
to=20
be ruled by law and not by the transitory whims of men." -Uncertain


For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail]
with the word Help in the body of the message


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #96
**********************************