ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n097

Internet Message Format | 1998-08-23 | 45KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #97
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Monday, August 24 1998      Volume 02 : Number 097




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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:14:58 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: HCI Alarm bells going off - National Reciprocity CCW Bill in the Works

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:17 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id DAA15262; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:48:57 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id FAA26537; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 05:52:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 05:52:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026304; Tue Aug 18 05:49:32 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: HCI Alarm bells going off - National Reciprocity CCW Bill in the Works
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

"Have Gun, Will Travel"

Hey, I kinda' like the sound of that.  Giddyup.

Rick V.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:=20
August 14, 1998

CONCEALED DANGER: Evaluating the Potential Impact of the "Have Gun, Will
Travel" Amendment. =20

Nearly 3,000,000 people will be able to carry concealed handguns across
state lines and into most states if Congress passes the "Have Gun, Will
Travel" Amendment to H.R. 218, according to data released today by
Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). The amendment, introduced by Rep. Bill
McCollum (R-FL), was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on August
5, 1998; the full House of Representatives is expected to vote on the
entire bill when Congress reconvenes in September.

The passage of this Amendment is particularly ironic, coming as it does
only a few weeks after an Illinois resident -- who had been
involuntarily committed to a mental institution in Montana -- allegedly
brought his gun halfway across the country, ultimately to murder two
Capitol Hill police officers. Despite Congress=C6 demands for more
expensive security installations to protect their own lives and safety,
the members of the
Judiciary Committee found it expedient to make interstate gun carrying
even easier for thousands of potential security risks.

[You hear that guys and gals? - You CITIZENS are 'security risks!']

In an effort to evaluate the potential impact of the "Have Gun, Will
Travel" Amendment, Handgun Control, Inc. collected data about the number
of licenses to carry concealed weapons that have been issued in 40
states. (These are the states that allow the carrying of concealed
weapons and for which statistical data was reasonably accessible.
Because statewide data was not available for Georgia, New Hampshire and
Vermont, which all allow the carrying of concealed weapons, it can be
assumed that
the actual number of license holders nationwide is larger than this
report estimates.) HCI researchers found that an estimated total of
2,903,502 licenses to carry concealed handguns have been issued in the
40 states for which data was available. =20

With few exceptions, it is currently illegal for licensees to carry
concealed handguns out of the state that issued the license. If this
amendment becomes law, however, it would allow all licensees to carry
concealed handguns in at least 29 other states across the country. The
legislation would mandate unrestricted reciprocity between 28 states
that
allow anyone who does not fall into a prohibited category (such as a
convicted felon) to get a license to carry a concealed handgun1.
Reciprocity would also apply to Vermont, where it is not necessary to
obtain a license to carry a concealed gun.=20

The "Have Gun, Will Travel" Amendment could also supersede state laws in
14 states that have strict standards and police discretion in issuing
concealed-carry licenses to residents2. These states give local law
enforcement discretion in issuing licenses and usually require
applicants to demonstrate a specific need to carry a concealed handgun.=20
This amendment would allow the Governors of each of these 14 states to
sign a waiver to allow out-of-state licensees to carry a concealed gun
in the state, even if the standards for granting licenses are weaker in
the licensees=C6 home state than in the states with much stricter
standards.

The "Have Gun, Will Travel" Amendment could potentially impact all
states except the seven that prohibit the carrying of concealed
handguns.3

http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/august14-98.htm


- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:09:28 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Current Federal Legislation?

Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name,
number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out
of State  concealed weapons permits?

Thanks.

- --

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who
 approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
 downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." --
 Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification
 of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:30:08 -0700
From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Current Federal Legislation?

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name,
> number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out
> of State  concealed weapons permits?

H.R. 218 would allow both active and retired peace officers to carry
nationwide.  It would also require "right to carry" states to recognize
licenses from all other R-T-C states.  It passed out of the House
Judiciary Committee late last month and is awaiting floor action.

H.R. 339 would have mandated recognition of all CCWs by all states and
established minumum carry restrictions for those states who do not
currently have CCW statutes.  It also has the police carry provisions.
It is (probably) dead in the House Judiciary Committee.

H.R. 2722 is similar to the "civilian" portion of H.R. 339.  Dead in
committee?

S. 816 is a Senate counterpart to H.R. 339.  Dead in committee?

S. 2175 would "safegiard the privacy" of certain identification records
and name checks for ther purchase of a firearm.  Dead in committee?

 There are a couple of bills that would repeal all or part of Brady.  I
don't have the numbers in front of me.

At this point, with less than 30 "work days" left in the 105th Congress,
very few bills will come out of committee, much less pass both
chambers.  Our best bet is to have pro-gun legislation attached as
"riders" to fast moving bills such as appropriations bills.

A good example of this is the amended version of S. 2260, the Commerce,
State, Justive et al Appropriation Act.  Before this bill passed the
Senate last month, it was amended (the "Smith Amendment") to include
language that would prohibit the FBI from charging a feww for Brady
instant checks, would require the FBI to "immediately destroy" any
identification data on approved instant checks, and would allow a
citizen whose rights were violated in this regard to sue in the nearest
federal district court.

The House passed a similar Commerce-State-Justice appropriation, but
without the amended language.  We have to ensure that the amendment
stays IN the final version of the bill.

Joe Waldron

- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:30:08 -0700
From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Current Federal Legislation?

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name,
> number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out
> of State  concealed weapons permits?

H.R. 218 would allow both active and retired peace officers to carry
nationwide.  It would also require "right to carry" states to recognize
licenses from all other R-T-C states.  It passed out of the House
Judiciary Committee late last month and is awaiting floor action.

H.R. 339 would have mandated recognition of all CCWs by all states and
established minumum carry restrictions for those states who do not
currently have CCW statutes.  It also has the police carry provisions.
It is (probably) dead in the House Judiciary Committee.

H.R. 2722 is similar to the "civilian" portion of H.R. 339.  Dead in
committee?

S. 816 is a Senate counterpart to H.R. 339.  Dead in committee?

S. 2175 would "safegiard the privacy" of certain identification records
and name checks for ther purchase of a firearm.  Dead in committee?

 There are a couple of bills that would repeal all or part of Brady.  I
don't have the numbers in front of me.

At this point, with less than 30 "work days" left in the 105th Congress,
very few bills will come out of committee, much less pass both
chambers.  Our best bet is to have pro-gun legislation attached as
"riders" to fast moving bills such as appropriations bills.

A good example of this is the amended version of S. 2260, the Commerce,
State, Justive et al Appropriation Act.  Before this bill passed the
Senate last month, it was amended (the "Smith Amendment") to include
language that would prohibit the FBI from charging a feww for Brady
instant checks, would require the FBI to "immediately destroy" any
identification data on approved instant checks, and would allow a
citizen whose rights were violated in this regard to sue in the nearest
federal district court.

The House passed a similar Commerce-State-Justice appropriation, but
without the amended language.  We have to ensure that the amendment
stays IN the final version of the bill.

Joe Waldron

- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:29:03 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Current Federal Legislation?

Thank you Joe.

On Tue, 18 Aug 1998,  Joe Waldron <[e-mail]> posted:

>Charles Hardy wrote:
>>
>> Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name,
>> number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out
>> of State  concealed weapons permits?
>
>H.R. 218 would allow both active and retired peace officers to carry
>nationwide.  It would also require "right to carry" states to recognize
>licenses from all other R-T-C states.  It passed out of the House
>Judiciary Committee late last month and is awaiting floor action.
>

- --

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"To avoid domestic tyranny, the people must be armed to stand upon
 [their] own Defence; which if [they] are enabled to do, [they] shall
 never be put upon it, but [their] Swords may grow rusty in [their]
 hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable
 of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least
 occasion to make use of it." -- John Trenchard & Walter Moyle, "An
 Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army is Inconsistent With a Free
 Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the
 English Monarchy" [London, 1697] ("An Argument")

- -

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:08:25 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Texas CHL Holders Arrested

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:54:06 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA17050; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:42:46 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA15326; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma015025; Wed Aug 19 10:48:20 1998
Message-Id: <A23F70F99FF9D011816A00805F19613902AAC413@ccl_exchange.carnival.com>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: "Grubb, Ken" <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Texas CHL Holders Arrested
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

The extremist AGF Violence Policy Center had been bemoaning arrest rates =
of
Texas CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders.  Here's a clip to dispel =
the
nonsense.

http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=3D370798002&CONTEXT=3D903534686.1022885=
917&h
itnum=3D17

>Arrest statistics fuel fears over gun laws.
>Cases involve 1,600 Texans with permits to carry concealed arms.
>by John W. Gonzalez
>Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
>
>AUSTIN -- More than 1,600 Texans with permits to carry concealed handguns
have
>been arrested for state crimes since the "right-to-carry" law went into
effect
>in 1996, the Department of Public Safety said Friday.

An issue was made of this previously by the Violence Police Center. Note
that these numbers give permit holders an arrest rate of 8/1,000 permit
holders. The arrest rate for Texas as a whole is 59.5/1,000 (17,993,000 =
pop.
1,071,300 arrests, FBI UCR 1995) ... and 1,600 is for two years, not one.

Ken Grubb
Miami, FL



- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:50:43 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Jim Brady Op/Ed

Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com
    ([206.53.160.3])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:33:32 -0600
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA10916;
    Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:34:07 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from hil-img-4.compuserve.com (hil-img-4.compuserve.com [149.174.177.134])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA10913
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:34:06 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
    by hil-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.12) id JAA18177
    for [e-mail]; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:31:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:30:56 -0400
From: David Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jim Brady Op/Ed
To: "INTERNET:[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by kendaco.telebyte.com id GAA10916
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

For those of you who do not have ready access to the Washington Post, I
thought you would be interested in this article.  I would like to know
where he got the figure of "5000 children killed every year with guns" =
came
from.  I sure looks like a number pulled out of the air to me.

David Adams
NRA-ILA-EVC, Virginia 7th
NRA Second Amendmement Task Force Member
[e-mail]
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8358/

___________________________________________________________________________=

_____

Still Hostage to the Gun Lobby
Shouldn't schoolchildren be as safe as Congressmen?
By Jim Brady

Monday, August 10, 1998; Page A17=20

I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of an assassin's bullet. =
I
know the importance of providing protection for public officials and those
around them, and I grieve for the families of the two Capitol Police
officers who were slain in the heroic performance of their duty.

Should we take additional steps to protect "the People's House" and those
who serve in it? Absolutely. And if it takes $120 million to build an
underground visitors' center to afford that protection, let's do it.

But what about the children of America? If the "People's House" deserves
protection, what about the schoolhouses of America? Are we going to
construct underground playgrounds to protect our children? I think not.

Building fortresses may protect our government from gun violence, but it's
not going to save children like Britthney Varner, one of four young girls
shot to death on the school lawn by two of her classmates in Jonesboro,
Ark.

So what is Congress doing to protect America's children from gun
violence?The answer is nothing. A few days before the shooting on Capitol
Hill, the Senate voted against an amendment that would have required the
sale of a child safety lock with every handgun and rejected a "safe
storage" proposal that would have imposed criminal sanctions on gun owners
who allow children to gain access to a loaded firearm. As if that was not
enough, the Senate also passed an amendment by Sen. Bob Smith of New
Hampshire that substantially will weaken the new background check system
that is to go into effect this fall when the Brady waiting period expires.

Then, a few days after the Capitol shooting, the Senate voted to allow the
continued importation of "grandfathered" large-capacity ammunition clips =
- --
manufactured before the federal ban on assault weapons took effect -- that
are designed to hold 15, 20, 30 or even 50 bullets. God forbid that the
school assassins and drive-by shooters of America should run out of
ammunition. And now the House is considering a bill that would make it
legal and easy for millions of Americans to carry concealed pistols from
state to state.

None of this comes as a surprise. Earlier this year, Senate Majority =
Leader
Trent Lott told the National Rifle Association that the answer to gun
violence in America is "a well-armed public." But isn't there something
terribly wrong here? If the shooting of two Capitol police officers
deserves a response, what about the more than 5,000 children killed every
year with firearms? Can't we do something?

This is not, as kids say, rocket science. Many of the guns that harm our
children come from private homes. An estimated one out of four children
between the ages of 10 and 17 have access to a loaded, unlocked gun in the
home. One report estimates that nearly 1 million children carried a gun to
school at some point in the past school year. And more than 5,000 children
were expelled from school for carrying a gun.

Responsible gun owners, and there are many, are ready to accept
responsibility for the safe storage of their firearms, but Congress =
doesn't
see it that way. It might, it is argued, interfere with "the right to keep
and bear arms."

If we can't do the decent thing and require gun owners to keep loaded
pistols out of the hands of young children, can't we at least give gun
owners some assistance in locking up their guns? Yes, $120 million will
build a fine visitors' center. But at a wholesale cost of less than $6
each, it also could be used to buy and distribute about 20 million child
safety locks to gun-owning households, with instructions about the proper
storage of firearms. But that, of course, would offend the gun lobby, =
which
insists that guns kept for self-defense should be kept loaded and ready at
all times.

The answer, it seems, comes down to this. The representatives who serve in
"the People's House," already protected by one of the best-trained =
security
forces in the world, deserve an additional measure of security. Good for
them. But as for the young children who get on a school bus every day and
walk into the classroom carrying an armful of books, they should be
satisfied with the occasional metal detector and what some school
administrators now call "bullet drills."

My sympathies and prayers are with the families of Jacob Chestnut and John
Gibson. And with America's children.


The writer was White House press secretary under President Ronald Reagan;
he was shot during the attempt on Reagan's life in 1981.=20


=A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company


****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    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 or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


- -

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

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 98 18:12:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Jim Brady Op/Ed

On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 David Adams <[e-mail]> asked:

>For those of you who do not have ready access to the Washington Post, I
>thought you would be interested in this article.  I would like to know
>where he got the figure of "5000 children killed every year with guns"
>came from.  I sure looks like a number pulled out of the air to me.

Apparently it came from the Children's Defense Fund Website or their
sources for American children and teens from birth to age 19 who died
from gunfire in 1995. Their number is 5,254.

>Still Hostage to the Gun Lobby
>Shouldn't schoolchildren be as safe as Congressmen?
>By Jim Brady

>Monday, August 10, 1998; Page A17

<snip>

>If the shooting of two Capitol police officers deserves a response,
>what about the more than 5,000 children killed every year with firearms?


- -

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

Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 06:24:45 -0700
From: Joseph Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Jim Brady Op/Ed

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 David Adams <[e-mail]> asked:
>
> >For those of you who do not have ready access to the Washington Post, I
> >thought you would be interested in this article.  I would like to know
> >where he got the figure of "5000 children killed every year with guns"
> >came from.  I sure looks like a number pulled out of the air to me.
>
> Apparently it came from the Children's Defense Fund Website or their
> sources for American children and teens from birth to age 19 who died
> from gunfire in 1995. Their number is 5,254.
>
> >Still Hostage to the Gun Lobby
> >Shouldn't schoolchildren be as safe as Congressmen?
> >By Jim Brady
>
> >Monday, August 10, 1998; Page A17
>
> <snip>
>
> >If the shooting of two Capitol police officers deserves a response,
> >what about the more than 5,000 children killed every year with firearms?
>

Scott is correct.  The 5,000+ figure was lifted from a "study"  by the
Children's Defense Fund published in the Spring of 1996.  The "study" used
raw numbers from the Center for Health Statistics, the highest possible
number available.  It included all "children" through age 19. I wrote an
op-ed piece in rebuttal to the CDF piece that was published in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer.

I don't have it at home with me, but as I recall, the number is cut by about
1/3 when you remove the 18-19 year old young adults.  A significant
percentage were suicides--and there are several studies available showing the
instrument used is NOT a factor in overall suicide rates.  Most of the
homicides included (muchof the remainder) were of individuals themselves
involved in criminal activity.

The same age breakdown is true of accidental shootings:  take away 18-19 year
olds and the figure is cut by nearly half; half again without 16-17 y/o's.
The other dynamic to remember in accidental shootings is the horseplay
factor.  From age 2-10, the number of accidental shooting deaths in the U.S.
annually is about 60-80 (7-9 per year for each year of that age group).  At
11 we see a jump to 30-35, at 12 to 40 or so, and up into the 50s for 13-15
y/o's--the ages where young teenagers want to apply all the lessons they've
learned watching garbage gun handling on TV and the silver screen.

They continue to use the 1995 figures, even though more current (and lower)
figures are available,  because 1995 represents the high point for the
decade. That 5,000+ plus figure is also the one divided by 365 when they talk
about "15 children per day killed," etc, etc.

Hope this helps put things in perspective.

Joe W


- -

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

Date: Sat, 22 Aug 98 07:25:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA Action Alert: "No Gun Tax"!!!

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:31:40 -0700
From: Mike Moxley <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRA Action Alert: "No Gun Tax"!!!

FYI:

NRA-ILA FAX ALERT
11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA  22030
Phone: [phone] * Fax: [phone] * [e-mail]

Vol. 5, No. 33
8/21/98

TELL THEM "NO GUN TAX!"

The official comment period is underway for the FBI's proposed
$16.00 federal tax on gun purchasers. Gun owners are urged to
take action now to stop the FBI from levying this tax. Before
September 16, 1998, write a letter stating your opposition to
the federal gun tax and recommending that the necessary funds to
operate the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS) be appropriated by Congress. Send your letter to: Mr.
Emmet A. Rathbun, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
CJIS Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia
26306. For a copy of the proposed gun tax regulations call
[phone] or visit the Government Printing Office web site at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html and do a
search for NICS. NOW is also the time to call your U.S.
Representative and Senators while Congress is recessed and they
are home in their local offices. Urge them to co-sponsor Rep. Bob
Barr's "No Gun Tax Act of 1998" -- H.R. 3949 -- and to send their
own comments against the tax to the FBI at the address above.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act" -George Orwell
**********************************************************
Michael Moxley        The Patriot Resource Center:
[e-mail] http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6627/
**********************Live Free or Die!**********************<><


- -

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

Date: Sat, 22 Aug 98 23:45:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Jim Brady Op/Ed

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 10:45:50 -0400
From: David Adams <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Jim Brady Op/Ed

> Apparently it came from the Children's Defense Fund Website or their
> sources for American children and teens from birth to age 19 who died
> from gunfire in 1995. Their number is 5,254.

Thanks Scott.  I sent an email yesterday regarding an article that
appeared in "School Board News", August 18, that used the figure of
approx. 3000 kids each year die from gunfire.

Rush Limbaugh is right, these guys pull numbers out of thin air and the
general public are either not interested enough to question them or are
simply too lazy.

David Adams
NRA-ILA-EVC, Va 7th
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Member
[e-mail]
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/


- -

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

Date: Sun, 23 Aug 98 08:07:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Men Biting Dogs

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: J. Neil Schulman <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 4:15 PM
Subject: Men Biting Dogs

It's the "Man Bites Dog" factor.

Remember the old anecdote? A reporter comes to his editor with a story
about a dog biting a man. The editor says, "When a dog bites a man,
that's not news. When a man bites a dog, _that's_ news."

Now, a newspaper reader living in a city where nobody's even allowed to
_own_ a dog wouldn't know much about dogs from personal experience. All
he'd know about dogs is what he reads in the newspaper and sees on TV.
And the _only_ stories he'd read in the newspaper or see on TV are about
men biting dogs. He would never know that dogs bite men. His perception
of reality is reversed by the editor's filtering out all "dog bites men"
stories.

If you said to him, "Dogs bite men 2.5 million times each year" he'd
respond, "Well, I've never even seen a dog, and all I know about dogs is
that men bite them."

News editors decide what's news and what's not.

When guns are used to kill and hurt innocent people, news editors decide
it's news.

When guns are used to defend innocent people, editors decide it's _not_
news.

When a couple of kids in Jonesboro, Arkansas used guns to shoot up their
school and murder their classmates, it was news.

When, on September 16, 1993, at 8:30 PM in Palmdale, California, Jeffrey
Storm, Jr. got his dad's gun out of his bedroom and chased away a
burglar who had just shot his mom and dad, it wasn't news. Jeff's mom
and dad, and the rest of Jeff's family, are alive today because Jeffrey
Storm, Sr. believed in the Second Amendment, and taught his two sons,
Jeff and Matthew, how to use a gun properly.

And until either the news editors are convinced to change that policy --
or until we can get around the establishment news filters with the truth
- -- we will never win the battle for the Second Amendment.

J. Neil Schulman, Webmaster
The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock
http://pulpless.com/gunclock/
http://www,netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html

> On 10 Jul 98 at 9:20, [e-mail] wrote:

> > Larry Pratt said, "Guns save lives."

> > Sara Brady responded, "If guns saved lives, this would be the safest
> > country on earth."

> > What would be a witty riposte to Sara Brady's soundbite?

> How about, "It is." We haven't been invaded since 1812 and our
> violent crime figures compare favorably with those of most countries.
> The only hotspots are prohibition related gang warfare in cities with
> strict victim disarmament laws.

> I saw figures the other day to the effect that violent crime is
> dropping year by year but REPORTING of it is up. The fuss is all
> over a mistaken perception generated by the media.

> In Liberty,

> Rich
>         Guns save lives - maybe yours.

> --------------------
> Rich Loether            University of Pittsburgh
> EMail: [e-mail]    Computing & Info Services
> Voice: [phone]   600 Epsilon Drive
> FAX:   [phone]   Pittsburgh, PA 15238
> Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
> finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
> Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14  D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0

> ---------------------------
> The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
> Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear
> arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of
> Citizens to bear arms in defense of
> themselves and the State shall not
> be questioned."

- --
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, THE SIGN OF
FOUR

J. Neil Schulman / Pulpless.Com
Voice & Fax:       (500) 44-JNEIL
Internet:          [e-mail]
Personal Web Page: http://pulpless.com/jneil/

Browse sample chapters of new books by bestselling authors, pay
online with a credit card, then download books in HTML or Adobe
Acrobat format from the web at http://pulpless.com/



- -

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:33:22 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [LPUtah Press Release]

FYI,

- ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Libertarian Party of Utah
Salt Lake City, Ut

For Immediate Release:

The Libertarian Party of Utah today commended Utah Representative Jim
Hansen (R) for his candid and honest remarks made last Tuesday (11 August,
98) at the Logan Lions Club expressing his personal desire to have a gun
in his possession while in Washington D.C. They also praised him for
admitting the so-called Brady law is an abject failure and called on him
to put legislation where his mouth is and work to protect citizens'
right to armed self-defense.

"Rep. Hansen seems to be right in touch with the majority of Utah's
electorate on this issue," said Libertarian Party state chair Jim
Dexter.   "Utahns have always rejected waiting periods as
unconstitutional infringements of our most basic right to effective,
armed defense.  We also require the state to issue concealed weapons
permits to any competent, law-abiding adult who can show basic
proficiency with a firearm."

The Libertarian Party called on Rep. Hansen to sponsor legislation to
repeal the Brady law and to guarantee that a person legally allowed to
carry a gun for self defense in any State could legally do so in the
District of Columbia and federal territories.

"While we are pleased with Rep. Hansen's comments," said Dexter, "it is,
frankly, time for elected politicians to start walking the walk rather
than just talking the talk.  The federal government must honor all the
rights of all citizens, including the right to armed self-defense.
While certain buildings may require limited access--and weapons to be
secured with security personnel before entering--it is unconscionable for
the federal government to provide vast areas including Washington D.C.,
National Parks, and federal territories which are really safe zones for
criminals where they know their intended victims have been disarmed.
We implore Congressman Hansen to now introduce and vigorously support
legislation to allow citizens to take the common sense measures he,
himself, has said he would like to take.  If a Congressman, entitled to
federal police protection, doesn't feel safe in our nation's capital,
how does he think common citizens must feel? "

- ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

- --

"To avoid domestic tyranny, the people must be armed to stand upon
 [their] own Defence; which if [they] are enabled to do, [they] shall
 never be put upon it, but [their] Swords may grow rusty in [their]
 hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable
 of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least
 occasion to make use of it." -- John Trenchard & Walter Moyle, "An
 Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army is Inconsistent With a Free
 Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the
 English Monarchy" [London, 1697] ("An Argument")



- -

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

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:01:13 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Mrs. Clintons 1974 report on impeachment of Nixon

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 07:00:41 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id GAA20878; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 06:49:15 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA21052; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma020844; Mon Aug 24 08:57:12 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: Mrs. Clintons 1974 report on impeachment of Nixon
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: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 07:05:07 -0400
From: Mary Lynn Bailey <[e-mail]>
Subject: CAS: Bob Barr:  An open letter to Hillary=20

               An open letter to Hillary=20
              =20

               Dear Mrs. Clinton:=20

               In February 1974 the staff of the
               Nixon impeachment inquiry issued a
               report produced by a group of
               lawyers and researchers assigned
               with developing a scholar
               memorandum setting forth the
               "constitutional grounds for
               presidential impeachment."=20

               You were a member of that group of
               lawyers and researchers, barely, I am
               sure, able to conceal your dislike for
               President Nixon. Within the year,
               Nixon would leave office disgraced ,
               having witnessed articles of
               impeachment voted against him by
               the House Judiciary Committee,
               based in part on your report.=20

               Relevant Today

               I must give you and your colleagues
               credit. You did not appear to have let
               personal animus influence your work
               product, at least not the final,
               published report. In fact, the report
               you and your colleagues produced
               appears objective, fair, well
               researched and consistent with other
               materials reflecting and commenting
               on impeachment. And it is every bit
               as relevant today as it was 23 years
               ago.=20

               I presume -- but I must ask whether
               -- you stand by your research and
               analysis today. You said in 1974 that
               impeachment, as understood by the
               framers of our constitution, reflected
               the long history of the term used at
               least since late-14th-century England:
               "one of the tools used by the English"
               to make government "more
               responsive and responsible" (page 4
               of your report). You also noted then
               -- clearly in response to those who
               mistakenly claimed impeachment as
               a tool to correct "corruption in office"
               that "alleged damage to the state,"
               was "not necessarily limited to
               common law or statutory ... Crimes"
               (page 7)=20

               You quoted James Wilson, who at the
               Pennsylvania ratification convention
               described the executive (that is, the
               president) as not being above the
               law, but rather "in his public
               character" subject to it "by
               impeachment" (page 9)=20

               You also -- quite correctly -- noted
               then that the constitutional
               draftsmen chose the terms describing
               the circumstances under which a
               president could be impeached very
               carefully and deliberately. You noted
               that "high crimes and misdemeanors"
               did not denote criminal offenses in
               the sense that prosecutors employ
               such terms in modern trials. Rather,
               in your well-researched
               memorandum, you correctly noted
               that the phrase "high crimes and
               misdemeanors" was substituted for
               George Mason's less precise term in
               an earlier draft of the Constitution:
               "Maladministration" (page 12 of your
               report). Not only that, but your
               further research led you to quote
               Blackstone's "Commentaries on the
               Laws of England" in support of your
               conclusion that "high crimes and
               misdemeanors" meant not a criminal
               offense but an injury to the state or
               system of government (page 12). I
               applaud the extent and clarity of
               your research. You even note that the
               U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding
               questions of intent, must construe
               phrases such as "high crimes and
               misdemeanors" not according to
               modern usage, but according to what
               the framers meant when they
               adopted them (page 12 once again).=20

               Magnificent research!=20

               Even Alexander Hamilton finds a
               place in your research. You quote
               from his Federalist No. 65 that
               impeachment relates to "misconduct
               of public men, or in other words,
               from the abuse or violation of public
               trust" that is "of a nature ...
               POLITICAL [emphasis in original]"
               (page 13 of your report).=20

               Finally, in bringing your research
               forward from the constitutional
               drafting documents themselves, you
               find support for your properly broad
               interpretation of "high crimes and
               misdemeanors" in no less a legal
               scholar than Justice Joseph Story. I
               was in awe of your use of Justice
               Story's "Commentaries on the
               Constitution" (1833) supporting your
               proposition that "impeachment ...
               applies to offenses of a political
               character ... [that] must be examined
               upon very broad and comprehensive
               principles of public policy and duty"
               (pages 16 and 17 of your report). I
               could not have said it better.=20

               You even note that the specific
               instances on which impeachment has
               been employed in our country's
               history "placed little emphasis on
               criminal conduct" and were used to
               remove public officials who had
               "seriously undermined public
               confidence" through their "course of
               conduct" (page 21).=20

               Clear Basis=20

               Mrs. Clinton, when I first raised the
               notion last month that the House
               should take but the first step in
               determining whether impeachment
               might lie against President Clinton
               for a pattern of abuse of office and
               improper administration of his
               duties, little did I realize your
               scholarly work 23 years ago would
               provide clear historical and legal
               basis and precedent for my
               proposition.=20

               Amazingly, the words you used in
               your report are virtually identical to
               those I use today. For example, you
               said in 1974, much as I did in my
               March 11, 1997, letter to Judiciary
               Chairman Hyde, that
               "[i]mpeachment is the first step in a
               remedial process" (page 24 of your
               report) to correct "serious offenses"
               that "subvert" our government and
               "undermine the integrity of office"
               (page 26).=20

               Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for giving
               Congress a road map for beginning
               our inquiry.=20

               Sincerely,=20
               Bob Barr (R., GA.)=20
               Member of Congress=20



=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If
you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to
[e-mail].  In the message body put: unsubscribe cas




- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #97
**********************************