ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n099

Internet Message Format | 1998-09-01 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #99
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest   Wednesday, September 2 1998   Volume 02 : Number 099




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

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:02:49 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: [LPUtah Press Release]

Will,

Having re-read the press release a few times, I believe I see where
your concern lies.  If I were able to re-write this I would omit "a
person legally allowed to carry a gun for self defense in any State"
and replace it with simply "law-abiding citizens" or something
similar.  Clearly the federal government should respect constitutional
rights regardless of whether or not State governments do.

I aplogize that the wording of the release left any room to doubt on
the LPUtah's position regarding the RKBA.  Thank you for your input.
I will try to be even more careful in press release wording in the
future.

In Liberty
Charles.

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Charles Hardy wrote:
>>
>> FYI,
>>
>> ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
>>
>> Libertarian Party of Utah
>> Salt Lake City, Ut
>>
>[...snip...]
>>
>> "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.
>>
>[...snip...]
>>
>Thanks and Kudos to the LPU and Jim for making the statement!  Welcome!
>
>But....
>
>Is it really the position of the LPU that "our most basic right to
>effective, armed defense." can be given or taken away by "the state"
>which issues "concealed weapons permits to any competent, law-abiding
>adult who can show basic proficiency with a firearm." and that the
>state may "allow" ... "a person"..." to carry a gun for self defense"?
>
>Will
>
>-
>
>


- --

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.

"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in
 their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of
 arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of
 taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads of
 provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all the
 weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government." --
 Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 29, 1558, Japan.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:14:55 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Impeachment Blitz 2

Received: from vader.thnet.com
    ([206.98.115.1])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 04:47:15 -0600
Received: from bruce2.thnet.com (bruce2.thnet.com [206.98.115.102]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA09922; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 05:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <[e-mail]>
From: "Distribution" <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Vigo Examiner
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 05:29:19 +0000
Subject: Impeachment Blitz 2
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

LETTER

                            Impeachment Blitz 2

*** Time for PHONE FOLLOW UP of your impeachment post card BLITZ. ***

You sent them post cards. Now give them a phone call to remind them about
them. Ask them, politely, but firmly, "You did receive my post card, =
didn't
you?" "The post card that said Impeach Clinton." "It also said to post
Starr's Report on the Internet."

That will get them hustling. That will tell them you are serious. Please
distribute this letter widely before sending your own cards. Please keep
your groups organized so we can get this very necessary chore done.

For more information, please read Heads Up #99. Simply click the headline
at the top of page at my website at http://www.uhuh.com You can find your
Congress Critters addresses at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Let's
each of us get 100 more people to send postcards. Let's really blitz
Congress! This letter will be posted in Blitz Central at
http://www.uhuh.com Click on Blitz.

     Yours in liberty,
     Forest

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com
                                TEXT VERSION


Enjoy a free 90 day trial subscription to The Vigo Examiner.
You will receive one to three of our top articles each day. =20
Send your subscription request, and all other
communication to [e-mail].


- -

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:26:31 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: (fwd) AB2560 passed (fwd)

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:42:04 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA24955; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:30:32 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA15080; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma014851; Fri Aug 28 10:37:36 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: (fwd) AB2560 passed (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

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware =
tools.
  Send mail to [e-mail] for more info.

- ---559023410-1804928587-904312567=3D:7195
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=3Dus-ascii
Content-ID: <[e-mail]>





- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:10:27 -0500
From: Gary Stocker <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: Texas Gun Owners <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fwd) AB2560 passed

Our friends in California need our assistance.  Call Gov. Wilson and
urge him to veto AB2560.  I don't know if Pete Wilson is still
considering running for President, but we need to watch his actions on
this.

- ---559023410-1804928587-904312567=3D:7195
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-ID: <[e-mail]>
Content-Description:=20

Received: by mailhost (mbox bubba)
 (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Thu Aug 27 23:11:29 1998)
X-From_: [e-mail]  Thu Aug 27 23:09:57 1998
X-Envelope-To: <[e-mail]>
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from prefer.net (prefer.net [192.41.7.162])
    by mailhost.cyberramp.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1/ler-980825-0832-PM) with =
ESMTP id XAA04923
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:09:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from geocities.com (mail9.geocities.com [209.1.224.44]) by =
prefer.net (8.8.5) id WAA00272; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 22:09:48 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from dal-tsa16-6.cyberramp.net (dal-tsa16-6.cyberramp.net =
[207.158.87.70])
    by geocities.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA03191
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 21:09:40 -0700 =
(PDT)
From: [e-mail] (Another Gary)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: AB2560 passed
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:08:47 -0500
Organization: *
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

By a vote of 41 yes,  31 no,      8 abstained
AB2560 has passed and now goes to Governor Pete Wilson's desk for a =
signature
or veto.

This law will unfairly burden law abiding owners of most magazine fed =
firearms.
Requiring us to submit to fingerprinting, registration and user fees on =
items we
legally purchased.=20

Contact Gov Wilson and ask him to VETO AB2560.
I recommend you write an actual letter but followup with Email and phone
calls.   Everyone please get involved in this.

You can contact Gov Pete Wilson at the following.

Governor Pete Wilson
State Capital Building
Sacramento Ca 95814

916/445-2841 (phone)
916/445-4633  (fax)
[e-mail]  (Email)

Remember, he is not running for reelection, so don't bother referring to =
votes
in your letters. We have to appeal to his sense of fairness and common =
sense. We
have to point out what a bureaucratic nightmare this bill will be to =
lawful
owners of these firearms.  Everyone please join the fight against AB2560 =
and
please forward this info to other firearms list.


- ---559023410-1804928587-904312567=3D:7195--


- -

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

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:59:31 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Polls, Polls, Polls

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:29:16 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA27388; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:17:40 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA16272; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma016013; Mon Aug 31 12:25:00 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: "D. Howard" <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Polls, Polls, Polls
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

Sharon,

  First of all, nice grill of the pollster.  Kudos to you...


IMHO, polls work on the same principles as the following sentence:

        Did you steal it?


By changing the emphasis from word to word, the meaning of the sentence =
can
be changed.  For example, the questions

    DID you steal it?
        (As in, "Someone says you did.")
    Did YOU steal it?
        (Going around the room and asking everyone.)
    Did you STEAL it?
        (Versus "Or did you buy it?")
    Did you steal IT?
        (as in "That, too?")

are asking four different questions with four different answers.


This is why I don't value polls, don't reference their data, and don't
respond to political based polls...

Most of them are a crock of sh*t and the entire intention is to give us a
false confidence in the state of our government or a false belief in the
"thinking (for lack of a better term) of the majority of the population.

If you believe in the reults of polls, then according to most of them,
those of us who support and believe in the 2nd Amendment are gun toting
militia wackos...

..and my apologies if you really are one... :-)  just a joke...



At 09:34 AM 8/29/98 -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
>Three years ago, I attended a "candidate development seminar".  Our guest
>speaker was a real live (and somewhat famous) Florida pollster.  During =
the
>"Q&A" section of his talk, I raised my hand.
>
>Me:  What do the telephone pollsters do when they get an answering =
machine?
>
>Pollster:  They are instructed to hang up and go on to the next number.  =
We
>don't have time to leave messages, etc.
>
>Me:  So polling data routinely excludes people who have enough disposable
>income and enough education to buy, set up, and use a telephone answering
>machine to screen their calls and take messages.  Is that what you're =
telling
>me?
>
>Pollster:  Well, no.  We use a formula to extrapolate their responses.
>
>Me:  A formula???  Sir, I'm a PhD candidate in physics and as such have a
>passing=20
>familiarity with statistical methods.  What, precisely, is this formula??
>
>Pollster:  I can't spend all my alloted time on one person.  Next =
questioner?
>
>Munch on this awhile. =20
>
>Sharon Zane
>
>


- -

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

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 21:29:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: No gun safe a felony in Massachusetts

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
X-Originating-IP: [166.55.73.217]
From: "unc billybob" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Veteran's In Massachusetts No Guns During Parades
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:08:40 PDT

Veterans, beware that you can no longer carry real firearms in parades.
The new Gun Ban that was recently voted on says that firearms cannot be
carried on public roadways. Gee I guess you can carry toy guns or maybe
they look too real and you might get arrested anyway. Maybe you can carry
them if you put them in a locked case. All violations in this new law
are going to be prposecuted as Felonys. I wonder why? Maybe it's so all
your guns can be confiscated. Don't take your children to the range or
take them hunting anymore, you can't. Supposedly children are adults
when they are eighteen, but not according to the new GUN BAN. You cannot
even get an FID until you are 21. If your house is searched and you
don't have a gun safe or gun locks, it is a felony.

There has been a real problem with disinterested cowards in Massachusetts.
When it came time to speak up about this GUN BAN you didn't well now do
you all think that you might have a reaction?

What do I tell my children? Oh you guys are criminals now if you shoot
guns, of course you have been shooting safely for several years now,
but that doesn't count.

This law is to go into effect October 23, 1998 or thereabouts. Where
are the lawyers to fight this injustice and unconstitutional act on
the part of the Massachusetts legislature?

Massachusetts is a state run by criminals and the governor took part
in this, of course, "for the children."

In California there is a report of the MJTF in operation searching a
young man's home threatening his wife and child and leaving a flyer on
the counter that begins with the title OPERATION PEACEKEEPER. Isn't
that a UN term? We are all told that the UN doesn't have designs on our
nation, but I don't think that could be farther from the truth. The
truth is constantly in our faces. Are there any men in Massachusetts
that will stand up to this tyranny or must a few of us fight for all the
sluggards that won't? Many of us here are disgusted and rightfully so!

Look at the recent situation in Michigan where people attending a classic
car show had to be managed like cattle by black suited statepolice and
camo covered local police with an APC (armored personnel carrier) nearby.
Read on the net how the people were treated like dogs after the show was
over! Children threatened with arrest and a pregnant woman pushed around!
This is another outrage against the American people. It has to stop!

Where's the NRA? Are they so busy rumpswabing their masters in Washington
District of Criminals so they won't loose their charter, that they
couldn't pool their vast resources, (I forgot they have to have pretty
buildings and expensive suits)that they couldn't stop this heinous GUN
BAN in Massachusetts? Wake up people. We are it!

unc


- -

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

Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 15:47:58 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: NRA backed SKS surrender in Kalifornia?]

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 06:49:15 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id GAA26516; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 06:37:39 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA07138; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 08:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 08:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma006912; Sun Aug 30 08:44:24 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: NRA backed SKS surrender in Kalifornia?]
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.
- --------------289F4A4CA0F155123025FBDA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Can anybody verify, is this true?

Larry Ball
[e-mail]

- --------------289F4A4CA0F155123025FBDA
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from mailing-list.net (mailing-list.net [192.41.59.89])
    by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA09919
    for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 22:34:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (mlist@localhost) by mailing-list.net (8.8.5) id =
VAA16386; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:34:14 -0600 (MDT)
Received: by mailing-list.net (bulk_mailer v1.9); Sat, 29 Aug 1998 =
21:34:14 -0600
Received: (mlist@localhost) by mailing-list.net (8.8.5) id VAA16371; Sat, =
29 Aug 1998 21:34:13 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from insync.net ([e-mail] [204.253.208.10]) by =
mailing-list.net (8.8.5) id VAA16355; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:34:11 -0600 =
(MDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: mailing-list.net: Host [e-mail] =
[204.253.208.10] claimed to be insync.net
Received: from 209-113-86-224.tnt1.houston.tx.insync.net (209-113-86-224.tn=
t1.houston.tx.insync.net [209.113.86.224]) by insync.net (8.8.8/8.7.1) =
with SMTP id WAA09018 for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 29 Aug =
1998 22:34:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: [e-mail] (schuetzen)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: NRA backed SKS surrender in Kalifornia?
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 22:34:19 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to texas-gun-owners by [e-mail] (schuetzen)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:40:00 -0500, [e-mail] [e-mail]  =
at
[e-mail] wrote:

Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: Dennis <[e-mail]>


>From TPG.........again... Verification anyone?
************************************************

The NRA is backing a California bill to require all SKS owners to =
surrender
their rifles to police!   Mandatory state confiscation of legal rifles --
brought to you by the NRA! =20

AB 48 began as an effort to grant imunity to SKS owners because the CA
Attornegy General Lundgren said they were legal and then flip-flopped =
under
pressure from the anti-gunners.  That put gun owners at risk.

But the state NRA, California Rifle and Pistol Associatoin, published an
article in their newsletter "Firing Line" that they would support a
buy-back instead and the antis jumped on it.

Now the bill includes a MANDATORY state "buy-back."  Just like the
confiscation laws in Australia and England.  You have to turn your rifles
over to the police in return for a paltry $200, less than they are worth.
And the NRA is actualy lobbying FOR it.  Twisting arms of pro-2nd =
Amendment
legislators to vote for a gun confiscation measure.  Brought to you by the
"Winning Team" and "Charlaton" Heston.

Remember when "Charlaton" said on the radio that AK47s were not appropriate=

for law abiding citizens like us.  Well here it comes folks. =20

To make matters worse, while the NRA was lobbying hard to confiscate our
SKS rifles, the anti-gunners passed a broad new "assault" weapon ban and a
new ban on affordable handguns.

Who's in charge at NRA these days?????
 Dennis

- --
Charles L Hamilton    Houston, TX   email: [e-mail]
X-No-Archive: Yes
- --
For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.=
net
with the word help in the message body.


- --------------289F4A4CA0F155123025FBDA--



- -

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

Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 15:53:23 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deep down Hatch is a liberal??

It's a long road to limelight for Hatch=20
Senator has taken many steps to powerful post since career began=20
August 30, 1998=20
By RALPH WAKLEY Standard Examiner staff=20
Sen. Orrin Hatch is back in the spotlight with President Clinton's =
troubles, but politicians say he's taken many steps from his conservative =
beginnings to get there.=20
When Hatch was first elected to the Senate in 1976, he took on the GOP =
fight against the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, government funding of =
abortions and labor unions and was the favorite new guy among conservatives=
.=20
But his work on child care block grants, the Orphan Drug Act, the Job =
Training Partnership Act, and help for AIDS victims and other similar =
issues have convinced many conservatives that he sold out along the =
way.=20
Former Salt Lake Mayor Ted Wilson ran against Hatch in 1982 and remembers =
him as a tough opponent.=20
"He was on the ball. He left no stone unturned. And he's intelligent and a =
tough de bater," said Wilson, who was mistakenly viewed as the organized =
labor's candidate because national unions were hoping to get rid of =
Hatch.=20
"He started out as the darling of the extreme right and he played that =
role for a while," Wilson said. "But now he's become a big enough guy that =
he can reach out, and at times he has a tough time being a conservative. I =
think under his deepest layer, he's a liberal."=20
Wilson said Hatch is among the half-dozen most powerful people in the =
Senate and the dozen most powerful in Congress.=20
"He may be the first Utahn to maybe have a shot at the presidency. =
(Democratic Govs.) Cal Rampton and Scott Matheson were favorite-son =
candidates but they were never serious candidates. However, being Mormon =
and being anti-abortion will not help Orrin on the national stage," the =
Democrat said.=20
As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and senior Republican on =
the Finance and Intelligence committees, Hatch is more and more in demand =
for national TV shows such as "Face the Nation."=20
"It's partly because I have all the tough issues right now, I'm in the =
middle of everything, and because I'm not afraid of them," Hatch said. =
"There was a time when most conservatives hated the media and wouldn't =
talk to them," and some of that has carried over.=20
Hatch said he also believes the television news hosts like his tell-it-like=
- -I-see-it attitude "and that I'm not as dumb as I look. I can usually tell =
it in a way that's understandable for the listeners and I can justify my =
criticism."=20
Wilson left the mayor's office and now heads the U of U's Hinckley =
Institute of Politics, where Hatch is a regular speaker.=20
"We get along great because Orrin genuinely likes people. He always stops =
by my office when he's up here."=20
Hatch's friendly relationships with political opponents like the Rev. =
Jesse Jackson and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., angers GOP conservatives, =
said Spencer Stokes, ex ecutive director of the Utah Republican Party.=20
"Many people have said he's too close to Sen. Kennedy. They've been upset =
with that and with some of the compromise legislation he has sponsored," =
Stokes said.=20
But Stokes said Hatch is also practical. "He realized there are things =
that have to get done. He understands that and he's willing to take the =
heat from conservatives to get things done. That's the nature of a =
statesman."=20
Hatch grew up in poverty in Pennsylvania and worked his way through =
Brigham Young University and attended Pittsburgh Law School on scholarship.=
=20
"I feel very deeply about civil rights, about treating everyone fairly," =
he said.=20
Including the long-time civil rights leader, Jackson, who Hatch admits, =
"We go at each other all the time."=20
But Hatch would never turn his back on Jackson when he needs help.=20
Jackson's son, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., and daughter-in-law, Sandi, =
were at Deer Valley earlier this month for a youth leadership conference =
when Sandi was rushed to the University of Utah Hospital due to complicatio=
ns from her pregnancy.=20
Two days later, on Aug. 22, her baby was delivered about three months =
prematurely and died a short time later.=20
The next day, Hatch and Jackson were both on the political issues show =
"Face the Nation." During the television program, Jackson privately phoned =
Hatch, who was participating from the Utah studios.=20
"He said, "My daughter-in-law just lost a baby,' and he asked if I would =
give them a call and encourage them," Hatch said.=20
Hatch did far more. He dropped everything he was doing, including =
organizing his annual Utah Charities Golf Challenge, to visit Sandi and =
Jesse Jr. in the hospital. He then picked up Rev. Jackson at the airport =
and drove him to the hospital, where they participated in a family =
prayer.=20
"Jesse is a great human being, a person of dimension and guts, so I never =
thought of calling on someone else. I do a lot of this myself. Sometimes =
you just have to," Hatch said. "And, you know, his son and daughter-in-law =
were the nicest kids you've ever seen."=20
"I've been working for Sen. Hatch for a long time now and I haven't =
figured him out yet," said Heather Barney, Hatch's Utah press secretary.=20=

When Hatch is back home during congressional breaks, Barney said Hatch =
often will read a newspaper story about someone who has been injured or is =
suffering from a critical health problem and will visit them in the =
hospital to wish them well.=20
"I do know he has this need to help people," Barney said.=20
When things are real hectic in the office, Barney said, Hatch will try to =
break the tension by calling everyone in while he plays the piano and =
tries to get them to sing along with him.=20
"He's got more energy than anybody I know," she said.=20
Hatch's fourth term ends in two years, and he doesn't sound like he's =
anywhere near retirement.=20
"I have really enjoyed being a senator," he said. "I've reached the point =
where I can get things done in the Senate, and I still feel young."=20
But on whether he would run for president or seek the vice presidency or a =
cabinet post, Hatch is noncommittal.=20
"I don't look for them, but I feel I still have a lot of service left," he =
said.=20


- -

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

Date: Tue, 01 Sep 98 22:51:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Early American "Gun Control" 1/2

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:46:41 -0400
From: Patricia Neill <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Fw: Early American "Gun Control"

From: Anthony K. Pritchard <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Early American "Gun Control"
Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 9:46 AM

Early American "Gun Control"
The following essay originally appeared in the April, 1997 issue of
AMERICAN SURVIVAL GUIDE

(used with permission of author)

By Howard J. Fezell, Esq.

We approach the 21st Century saddled with a federal government
that has evolved from an institution intended to protect its citizens'
lives and property into one whose primary function is redistributing
wealth via middle-class welfare programs. (To avoid embarrassing anyone
they are called "entitlements".) Statist politicians in both major
parties view the minority of people who actually produce wealth as
nothing more than a source of tax revenue. Promises of more and better
benefits for an increasingly dependent constituency is how statists
win reelection. Making good on those promises requires the federal
government, over time, to appropriate a greater percentage of whatever
wealth is produced in the private sector.

That the United States was born out of an armed rebellion fueled,
in large part, by resentment over excessive taxation is a bit of history
that makes statists extremely uncomfortable. It should, therefore, come
as no surprise that congressmen and senators who dream of an ever-
expanding welfare state consistently vote to restrict individual gun
ownership or even ban the production of certain classes of firearms.

Claims by extremist groups such as Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) that
"just one more" gun law is necessary to "fight crime" or "reduce the
level of violence" are simply a smoke screen. HCI is run by statists
whose objective is the total disarmament of ordinary people. They are
savvy political professionals with enormous patience who are willing
to disarm you in increments, if need be. However long it takes, to
HCI the best "gun control" is gun prohibition.

In the minds of people who promote the expansion of government power
at the expense of individual liberty, gun prohibition makes perfect
sense. In fact, it is essential. Middle class welfare programs (e.g.,
Medicare and Social Security) along with interest payments on the
national debt currently consume more than half of all federal
expenditures. It is only a matter of time, perhaps less than a decade,
until "discretionary" spending on defense, law enforcement, parks,
roads, etc. is relegated to less than one-third of the total. Sooner
or later something has got to give. Either the federal welfare apparatus
will have to shrink dramatically or taxes will have to go up. But what
would happen if 50,000,000 Americans "just say no" to forking over more
of their hard-earned money? Massive civil disobedience by ordinary
people who, if necessary, could defend themselves is a statist's worst
nightmare. On the other hand, the populace will be much easier to
intimidate if it has already been disarmed.

Disarmament of people kept (or to be kept) in servitude has historical
precedent dating back to ancient times. The history of "gun control"
in America shows that is has been used repeatedly as an authoritarian
and elitist device to favor the powerful and politically well-connected
and keep supposedly less worthy people "in their place."

Restrictions On Slaves, Freed Negroes & Roman Catholics

The State of Maryland (where I practice law) offers a good example of
how "gun control" has been used to keep people in their place. Maryland
was first settled by English colonists in 1631. Within a few decades,
numerous plantations had been established which required a substantial
amount of manpower. Much of the labor was provided by African slaves
who, doubtless, would have preferred to be free. A rebellion of armed
slaves could have laid waste to the plantation system, jeopardizing
the economic viability of the entire colony. This possibility was not
lost upon wealthy planters. To help keep slaves "in their place" the
colonial assembly (comprised largely of slave owners) passed Maryland's
very first gun control law. Chapter XLIV, Section XXXII of the Acts of
1715 provided:

That no negro or other slave within this province shall be permitted
to carry any gun, or any other offensive weapon, from off their master's
land, without license from their said master; and if any negro or other
slave shall presume to do so, he shall be liable to be carried before
a justice of the peace, and be whipped, and his gun or other offensive
weapon shall be forfeited to him that shall seize the same and carry
such negro so offending before a justice of the peace.

During the French and Indian Wars, Roman Catholics (referred to
disparagingly as "Papists") were suspected of having sympathies with
the French. In 1756, the colonial government in Maryland ordered the
surrender of all arms or ammunition in their possession. 52 Maryland
Archives, 454. In 1806, Maryland passed a law making it unlawful for
"any negro or mulatto within this state to keep any dog, bitch or gun,
except he be a free negro or mulatto, and in that case he may be
permitted to keep one dog, provided that such free negro or mulatto
shall obtain a license from the justice of the peace for that purpose,
. . ." Acts of 1806, Chap. LXXXI. Although a "free negro or mulatto"
(as distinct from those held as slaves) could apparently possess
firearms, it became unlawful for them to "go at large with any gun,
or other offensive weapon". Id., Section II. It is interesting to note
that the keeping of dogs was also restricted. As any police K-9 unit
can demonstrate, a properly trained dog can be a formidable weapon.
Restrictions such as those imposed by the Acts of 1715 and 1806 were
part of widespread efforts in the South to limit the availability of
firearms to blacks, both slave and free. See Robert J. Cottrol &
Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward An Afro-Americanist
Reconsideration, Vol. 80 Georgetown Law Journal, 309, 335-338 (1991).


- -

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

Date: Tue, 01 Sep 98 22:51:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Early American "Gun Control" 2/2

Black Civil War Veterans

Victory of Union forces in the War Between The States and ratification
of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 brought an end to slavery in the
United States. The Union's victory was due, in no small part, to the
efforts of approximately 180,000 to 200,000 blacks who had served in
the Union Army and comprised about 10 percent of the grand total. Parish,
The American Civil War, 259. At least two-thirds of these troops had been
slaves at the beginning of the war. Id. They were now free and trained in
the use of arms. Needless to say, their former owners were not thrilled
at this development. Black soldiers, once mustered out of the Union Army,
were not well received by Southern whites, and were frequently the victims
of assaults. Glatthaar, Forged In Battle, The Civil War Alliance of Black
Soldiers and White Officers, 252-53. Many whites viewed these veterans as
"runaways" who had been fighting against their old masters and now returned
"full of the impudent notions of a freeman". Id. Southerners no longer
had a need to disarm slaves who otherwise might use force to secure their
freedom. However, the idea of former slaves bearing arms was cause for
considerable dismay among whites. Cottrol & Diamond, supra, at 342-46.
Southern whites also realized that it would be far easier to discourage
blacks from acting upon the "notions of a freeman" if they were unarmed
and had no effective means to resist intimidation by their former masters.
Not long after the War Between The States, Maryland adopted a new
constitution. During the constitutional convention of 1867 the right to
keep and bear arms was debated in the form of an amendment to what is now
Article 28 to Maryland Declaration of Rights. Many delegates to that
convention, who were either former slave owners or had served as officers
in the Confederate army, were not about to guarantee the right of freed
blacks to own guns. According to Debates of the Maryland Constitutional
Convention of 1867, 150-51:

Article 28 was read as follows: "That a well regulated militia is
the proper and natural defense of a free government."

Mr. Giddings moved to amend by adding after the word "government"
the words, "and every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense
of himself and the state."

Mr. Garey moved to amend the amendment by inserting the word "white"
after the word "every".

After some discussion, Mr. Giddings' amendment failed. White fear
over free blacks owning guns was the critical factor in defeating the
adoption of a right to keep and bear arms in Maryland's Constitution
of 1867. Maryland was not alone in seeking to prohibit blacks from
having access to firearms. During Reconstruction, "black codes" were
enacted in the former Confederate states to make it difficult for newly
freed slaves to possess firearms, vote, or own property. Halbrook,
That Every Man Be Armed, The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, 108.
As but one example, within six months of the war's end the State of
Mississippi passed an "Act to Regulate the relation of Master and
Apprentice Relative to Freedmen, Free Negroes, and Mulattoes." This
made it unlawful for any "freeman, free negro or mulatto" who was
not in the U.S. military or licensed by the police to "keep or carry
fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition". Id. In 1865, however,
police in Mississippi were not about to issue firearms licenses to
anyone who was not white.

Immigrants

African slaves, freed blacks, and 18th century Roman Catholics were
by no means the only targets of "gun control", nor were such measures
limited to Southern states. In 1911 New York State enacted the Sullivan
Law, which required a license to possess a handgun. At the same time
the New York Tribune complained about the carrying of handguns by
"ignorant and quarrelsome immigrants of law-breaking propensities".
Kopel, The Samarui, The Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America Adopt
The Gun Controls of Other Democracies?, 342-43. Many of these
"quarrelsome" immigrants were nothing more than honest, hard-working,
Italian shopkeepers who refused to be shaken down by the New York City
Police, who were predominantly of Irish descent. Irish immigrants to
the United States had been on the receiving end of terrible
discrimination since their arrival in large numbers in the 1840 and
1850s. However, after 70 years in Americas they had become firmly
entrenched as part of New York's political establishment. It was their
turn. By denying handgun licenses to people from immigrant groups the
police deemed "quarrelsome," the Irish political machine made it easier
to impose its will on more recent arrivals, such as Italians and Eastern
European Jews. In the early 20th Centruy other states, notably, Oregon,
California, and Hawaii enacted restrictions on the purchase or possession
of handguns by immigrants. Kopel, supra, at 343. "Gun control" in America
has often meant gun prohibition for people who, because of their race,
religion, ethnic origin, or condition of servitude, were considered a
threat to those in power. As we enter the 21st Century, rates of taxation
have reached oppressive levels. To statists (who seek only to expand
government power), growing resentment on the part of people who work,
produce wealth, and pay oppressive taxes presents a serious threat.
Disarming ordinary Americans who will be called upon to pay ever higher
taxes is seen by them as necessary to minimize that threat.
⌐ 1997 Howard J. Fezell

[Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed By
The Sender - A.K. Pritchard]

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

A.K. Pritchard
http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/

"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."



- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #99
**********************************