ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n100

Internet Message Format | 1998-09-04 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #100
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest    Saturday, September 5 1998    Volume 02 : Number 100




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

Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 17:02:30 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: [AR15-L] Best CA Gov. Wilson Contact Info

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:59:47 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA29478; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:48:08 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id SAA25695; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:58:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:58:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma025513; Wed Sep  2 18:56:48 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Richard Hartman <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: [AR15-L] Best CA Gov. Wilson Contact Info
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 VERY BAD pair of laws. Remember, the 1994 ban started when
Feinstein got one passed in California. Next thing we knew, it passed at =
the
national level. We must stop these things before they start, because they
don't stop at state boundaries.

Why should CA care what someone living outside the state thinks? Because =
you
"visit CA often for business and/or pleasure". Or you "have family or
friends living there" (my family lives there, and they're your friends!!!
<grin>). Or that "you have been considering moving to CA (with your
desirable high-tech skills, perhaps?) but would not be able to if these =
laws
passed because they would impact your hobbies".

Please call immediately. It's sitting on Governor Brown's desk, waiting =
for
approval or veto, RIGHT NOW. There is no time to waste. Thank you.

RLH

>For all of you around the country trying to cut crazy assault
>weapons bans off at the pass, here's better contact info for
>California Governor Pete Wilson.
>
>We want him to veto bill AB2560, the "assault weapons ban".
>
>We also want him to veto SB1500 (bans DAO pistols, and non-drop-safe =
handguns).
>
>CALL NOW, CALL AROUND, CALL OFTEN!
>The rights you save may be your own.
>
>
>Here are the numbers:
>
>916-445-1455 Capitol office (real person)
>916-445-2841 Capitol office (answering machine)
>916-445-4633 FAX
>
>619-525-4641 San Diego office
>619-525-4640 FAX
>
>909-680-6860 Riverside office
>909-680-6863 FAX
>
>714-553-3566 Irvine office
>714-553-3571 FAX
>
>213-897-0322 Los Angeles office
>213-897-0319 FAX
>
>415-703-2218 San Francisco office
>415-703-2803 FAX
>
>Call early, call around, call often.
>
>
>Snail mail address:
>
>Gov. Pete Wilson
>First Floor State Capitol
>Sacramento CA 95814



- -

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

Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 17:20:45 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Can the NRA be reformed? Call for input re: unified letter to NRA BOD from PA-RKBA

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 02 Sep 1998 04:57:52 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id EAA28955; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:46:13 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id GAA21372; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:55:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:55:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma021151; Wed Sep  2 06:51:41 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Edwin Gravitt <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can the NRA be reformed? Call for input re: unified letter to NRA BOD from PA-RKBA
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

Hey guys:
Please allow me to add my signature to the letter to reform the NRA.
They are endorsing Roy Barnes a supporter of fingerprints on driver's
licenses (can't be pro gun) for governor of Georgia as well as Mark
Taylor a supporter of fingerprints on driver's licenses and SB 407 a
lock up your guns bill in Georgia's 1998 general assembly, for Lt. Gov.

To the many in Georgia who have called and e-mailed me questioning these
actions by the NRA, please understand that I do not support them in
these endorsements and help me get the word out.

Edwin

> Head's up all RKBA Defenders:
>
> Discussion list on PA-RKBA proposing a unified letter to the NRA Board
>
> of Directors to develop some spine in defense of the Second Amendment
> or
> face massive exodus to alternative organizations, such as GOA, JFPO,
> etc. Please note, even this aspect is not totally agreed upon, as
> there
> are those who wish to reform from within.  We are seeking input and
> support from all RKBA: do you wish to join us in this effort?  Please
> feel free to pass this letter on to other RKBA organizations
> /individuals not already listed below.
>
> Semper Fidelis,
>
> Rick V.
>
> -------------- back to PA-RKBA discussion list ----------------------
>
> Joe, Chip, Larry, and all you other steely-eyed, barrel-chested
> freedom
> fighters:
>
> Great idea on the give-the-NRA-a-kick-in-the-ass letter -- I'm in.
> Shall we also get some more numbers by contacting as many RKBA
> listserv's as our modems can reach?  For instance...
>
> GOA - [e-mail],
> JFPO - [e-mail],
> Guns Save Lives - [e-mail],
> Second Amendment Foundation - [e-mail],
> Paul Revere Network - [e-mail],
> Free Republic - Jim Robinson's webpage - [e-mail] (might even
> publish the Letter on his site),
> Val Finnell ("that's DOCTOR Evil...I didn't go through six years of
> evil
> medical school to be called MISTER.."), Pres. VCDL - [e-mail],
> Tom Walls - International Gun Rights Directory - [e-mail],
> Kaliber - Germany - [e-mail],
> [e-mail],
> Dr. Tavel - [e-mail],
> Citizen's Committee for RKBA - [e-mail],
> VA-RKBA - [e-mail],
> PA-RKBA - [e-mail],
> CA-RKBA - [e-mail],
> GA-RKBA - [e-mail],
> NJ RKBA - [e-mail],
> [e-mail],
>
> [updates, additions, deletions and corrections are welcome.]
>
> [Chip - you can post your letter on my site.  Just e-mail it to me and
>
> I'll upload it.]
>
> And just to let them know we mean business, we can cc: the letter to
> the
> Washington Times, Drudge, etc.  The Washington Com-Post might also
> give
> us some press, but likely only from the perspective that the mighty
> NRA
> monolith is showing cracks (nonsense... we haven't abandoned it... IT
> has abandoned US).
>
> Semper Fi,
>
> Rick V.
>
> JOE P. wrote:
> >
> > I would offer a thought on the "Unified RKBA Advocates" letter
> > writing campaign.
> >
> > Rather than just writing to NRA Hq., which would only help line
> their
> > recylce paper bin, why not include a copy of the same letter to
> > members of th Board of Directors.  It may be possible to find a few
> > of them who actually have the ability (so far unknown to them I
> think)
> > to develop a backbone and ask some harder questions of the hired
> "help".
> >
> >
> > Thought anyone?
> >
> > Joe Pyrdek
>
> Alpha roster of RKBA organizations/individuals
>
> [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail],





- -

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

Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 18:07:54 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: GTE to Gunowners "Up Yours"

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 02 Sep 1998 17:50:58 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA29508; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 17:39:20 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA29983; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma029832; Wed Sep  2 19:48:17 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: GTE to Gunowners "Up Yours"
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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --------------302346714521
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

RKBA Defenders,

You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE
was now posting "no guns" on the doors of it's retail outlets.  In due
course I sent them a letter questioning whether this was true, and if
so, that I was highly insulted. =20

To further support my argument, I citied the Lott/Mustard/Kleck/Kates
figures showing that CCW holders were proven to be far safer than your
average citizen, that CCW saves lives and reduces crime and that guns
are used to stop crime 2.5 million times each year.

This is GTE's response to us gunowners.  Essentially: "Up Yours." =20

I suggest we cut off our money supply to them and that we also send them
a note telling them that unless and until they respect our Second
Amendment rights, they will be getting cut off at the knees.

Here it is guys and gals.  Let 'em have it.

   [e-mail]

Rick V.

- --------------302346714521
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from pooh.netops.gtefsd.com ([131.131.131.131])
          by mailprime.tidalwave.net (Netscape Messaging Server 3.52)
           with ESMTP id 247 for <[e-mail]>;
          Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:19:45 -0400
Received: from crs.UNIX.CHNT.GSC.GTE.Com (crs.unix.chnt.gsc.gte.com =
[131.131.222.248])
    by pooh.netops.gtefsd.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA11324
    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:24:42 -0400
Received: by crs.UNIX.CHNT.GSC.GTE.Com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id JAA17615; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:20:07 -0400
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:20:07 -0400
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Message/CCW-Sharon Tracking Number: 980821-17-1
Content-Type: text


Dear Mr. Vaughn:

Thank you for your recent correspondence to the GTE Website regarding the =
ban on weapons from GTE Wireless business premises. Your letter was well =
researched and informative and we do not dispute the statistics you =
provided to us regarding persons carrying concealed weapons with a permit. =
 GTE Wireless respects your right to carry a concealed weapon with a =
permit, however, for the protection of our employees and customers we have =
chosen to take a more cautious approach and ban weapons from our business =
premises, a decision which is allowed under state law. GTE Wireless is not =
alone in this decision, for it is my understanding that numerous businesses=
 have adopted such a policy. We certainly do not want you to interpret our =
policy as an attempt to infringe upon a person=C6s constitutional rights, =
for that was not our intent.  After careful consideration of the rights of =
all individuals, GTE Wireless concluded that this policy best protects the =
safety and well being of all concern!
!
ed.
 =20
Again, thank you for contacting the GTE Website and for sharing your =
beliefs in this forum.

Sincerely,
Sharon O'Haver
GTE Internet Response Team



=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
  >From: [e-mail]
  >Date: 1998-08-21
  >Subject: New Message/CCW-Sharon
  >
  >Dear GTE Wireless,

Today I received some disturbing news regarding your retail outlet =
policies.  The message stated in part that:

>GTE Wireless (formerly Cellular One) posts >its retail stores against CCW =
permit holders.

"CCW" refers to Concealed Carry of Weapons via state-issued permits.  If =
this is true, you should know that, for the reasons listed below, I find =
this highly offensive and unwarranted.=20

1) CCW holders have proven themselves to be more law-abiding than the =
average citizen.  Moreover, in order to receive a CCW permit, most states =
require a thorough criminal history check of the applicant;

2) CCW holders have a safety record that surpasses police on the order of =
a magnitude. You stand a far greater chance of being shot by a policeman =
than by a CCW permittee;

3) Smallarms in private hands are used to thwart murders, rapes and =
violent assaults 2,500,000 times each year.  In contrast, there have been =
an estimated 31,000 gun-related deaths last year, a majority attributable =
to intra-gang violence, suicide, and justifiable homicides [self-defense =
and police action];

4) All states that have enacted CCW-reform laws have seen violent crime =
drop sharply in every catagory of criminal statistics collected.  In =
contrast, of the top six cities for murder rates, five have had long-standi=
ng gun bans;

5) The right to self-defense, thus the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is an =
inalienable right recognized in U.S. Constitution as applied to the States =
via the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, =
in many state Constitutions;

6) By stating that no weapons are allowed into your stores, you are =
assuming strict liability for the safety of customers who would otherwise =
have been able to defend themselves;

As the message cited to above has shown, the word is going out nationwide. =
 Word of mouth natually goes along with this.  Rather than select GTE for =
local, cellular, long distance or internet service, I will opt for a =
telephone service provider that honors and respects what is a Constitutiona=
l right. =20

Unless and until you honor the Rights recognized by our Consitution, I =
will see to it that you will get no further income from myself or other =
like-minded individuals.  Please note that there are an estimated eighty =
million gun owners in America - many of whom regularly communicate via the =
internet.


Very truly yours,

Richard E. Vaughan, Esq.


- --------------302346714521--



- -

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

Date: Thu, 03 Sep 98 19:42:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Assault Dogs

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:34:17 -0700
From: Ed Wolfe <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Assault Dogs

To the Editor
Arizona Republic
P.O. Box 2244
Phoenix, Arizona 85002
January 7th, 1998

Dear Editor,

I am gratified to read in this morning's paper that someone has
finally called attention to an urgent situation which I have known
about for a long time: annually 334,000 victims of savage dog bites,
most frequently children, average age 15, are taken to the nation's
emergency rooms. As the article states: "That's more ER visits
than injuries from skateboards, baby walkers and in-line skates
combined." Total annual cost of ER dog bites: $102.4 million.
Twenty or more people killed annually by dogs, almost all of them
children.

Because these dogs are so readily obtainable on the streets of our
nation, I implore all your readers to immediately deluge their
Congressmen with letters, phone calls, faxes and telegrams to
support the federal "Save the Widdle Childwen Fwom the Vicious
Dog-Bite Act of 1998", which would require the following:
mandatory muzzles fitted with muzzle-locks to be kept at all times
on all dogs, licensing and paw-printing of all dogs, fingerprinting
and house-monitoring of dog owners, including mandatory, federally-
monitored safe storage of dogs and an immediate 1,000% tax on
all dog food. This Act is sponsored by Canine Control Incorporated,
an organization dedicated to eliminating canine violence in America
by the year 2000. The Act also provides for the immediate banning
of all "assault dogs", the definition of which term will constantly
change according to the emotions of the board of C.C.I.

"Saturday Night Special" dogs, such as Chihuahuas and other
cheap, easily concealed ankle-biters, will also be banned. In
addition, the Act bans all sharp canine teeth, all canine teeth
longer than a federally-mandated length, all spiked collars and
sharp canine toenails. It also mandates that all dogs be transferred
only through federally licensed dog dealers, and provides for the
changing of the BATF to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Assault Dogs, or BATFAD.

I hope that the physicians' organizations who champion total handgun
banning will rally behind this urgent cause to save our nation's
children. Anyone who opposes this type of legislation obviously
hates children. We need this Act desperately - after all, if it saves
only one life, it is worth it. Not to mention the $102.4 million dollars
in ER charges!

My husband's face was horribly mauled at the age of four by a Pit
Bull; today he is the poster child for C.C.I. Now, when not being
used as a drooling doorstop or for first base, he is routinely
wheeled out at charity fund-raising events at which he repeatedly
mumbles, "Bad dogs! Ban dogs!"

We urgently need your help to get these vicious dogs off the streets
now! Please help end canine violence in America! Send donations to:
C.C.I., 1111 B.S. Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004.

Make the checks out to me.

Tina Terry

(c) 1998 by Tina Terry. This letter may be reprinted in its entirety,
as long as nothing in it is changed, credit is given the author, and
the following is included. Author's note: The author's husband's
face really was mauled at age 4 by a Pitt Bull, an incident in which
he almost lost an eye. He's not in a wheelchair, true, but he also
doesn't blame dogs in general for his early experience and he loves
and owns dogs to this day. He also has never tried to enlist the
author to run around the country trying to ban all dogs.
- --
Join the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by sending a message
to: <[e-mail]> with the words "subscribe mom-l"
in the body of the message. If you have any problems please contact
me and I will do this for you.



- -

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

Date: Thu, 03 Sep 98 19:42:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Marines practicing...

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 12:03:31 -0700
From: Liberty or Death <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Marines Practicing...

My apologies if y'all have already seen this; I've been gone
for a few days and haven't read all my email yet.  But I just
knew you'd want to know...

- -------

Maryland Sheriff Opposes U.S.M.C. House-To-House Confiscation Exercises

Republic Radio Network Intercept
Fax Report Sept. 1, 1998 Robert G. 'Bob' Wheaton

Message:

Ref: Shortwave Radio Intercept from Republic Radio Network, Intelligence
Report, with John Stadtmueller(?) on WWCR 5.070 MHS, 19:10 CDST, 9-01-98.

Subj: Maryland Sheriff opposes U.S.M.C. House-To-House weapons
confiscation training set for Thursday, 3 Sept., at Hebron, Maryland.

Sheriff Nelms, of Wicomico County, Maryland, in conversation by phone
with Stadtmueller(?) today, expressed grave concerns over a planned
U.S.M.C. Training Op this coming Thursday, in which 50-58 Marines will
"invade" the small town of Hebron, Marland, for more "Anti-terrorist"
training, ostensibly a house-to-house weapons confiscation search and
seizure.

Sheriff Nelms has vowed to halt the military operation in his county
if it involves such a house-to-house weapons seizure operation --
training or real.

Hebron is a small town of approximately 665 residents, 10 miles N.W.
of Salisbury, the Wicomico County seat. It was reported Salisbury
city officials had rejected the U.S.M.C. plan for ops in their city.

However, Hebron has no police department and only a local mayor who
apparently succumbed to promised monitary asssistance for his
community and authorized the U.S.M.C.'s planned "Special Operations"
training in the belief it's a patriotic endeavor and necessary for
our safety in world hyped up over terrorism.

Pray for both Sehriff Nelms and Hebron's mayor. We need some divine
intervention for different reasons!

Posted by: Eastbound ([e-mail]) *
09/02/98 02:14:09 EDT

To: Eastbound

This is immensely disturbing! I am a Korean war jarhead vet who
spent 5 years in the Corps. I understand the degree to which the
Army and Navy have become worldwide jokes, but to think that even
the Commandant of The Corps has turned into one of those fascist-
supporting thugs nearly brings me to tears. Hearing about these
kinds of excersizes by the Corps in other states didn't really sink
in, but now that it is happening here in MD it surely does.

Until that treasonous fascist pig was elected into the WH, Marines
had one and only one job. That was to kill enemies of the U.S
efficiently. Not to act as clintonista brown-shirts in citizen-
suppression excersizes. We now know who the clintonistas think are
the enemies of the U.S.

If we (the Republic) have lost the Marine Corps, we have lost it all.
My Father and Grandfather, both ex-marines as well, must be turning
over in their graves.

God help us all!

From: SuperLuminal

- - Monte

- --------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Let the sea roar and its fulness,
               The world and those who dwell in it.
                 Let the rivers clap their hands;
      Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord.
               For He is coming to judge the earth;
            He will judge the world with righteousness,
                   And the peoples with equity.
                           - Psalm 98
- --------------------------------------------------------------------



- -

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

Date: Sat, 05 Sep 98 07:49:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: A one-way ticket to Amchitka 1/2

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 11, 1998
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
A one-way ticket to Amchitka

In my Aug. 25 column, "In fact, real rights ARE pretty much absolute,"
I argued the constitutional right to bear arms is automatically restored
when a prisoner leaves prison, just as is his freedom of religion, his
right to a trial by jury, etc. In response, former policeman W.L. wrote in:

"An interesting and thought-provoking essay.

"I tend to find myself straddling the fence. I don't want 'violent felons'
to have legal access to guns. The 81-year-old non-violent 'felon' certainly
shoots down the conventional wisdom, at least for me.

"But what about the guy who was convicted of aggravated robbery at 17,
23, and 29? Okay, paroling him at the end of two years on each five-year
sentence is insanity. But suppose he served all five years each time, and
demonstrates that when he is free, the temptation to use force to take
whatever he wants is too great to resist? Do you favor three strikes and
you're out? Or one strike?

"As a former police officer, I can tell you that the barring of felons
from being armed was a pro-active tool. Granted, most of my experience was
in small towns. We knew who was trouble.

"And yeah, perhaps they did get stopped when someone else wouldn't. (The
reality is that few can drive a mile in city or town traffic without
violating some traffic law!) I am certain that you will admit that there
are some violent predators in our midst. I will grant that their existence
is often used as an excuse to violate the rights of others.

"When a felony was what most people think of as a felony (murder, aggravated
robbery, sexual assault, burglary, car theft (no longer a real felony in
Texas), aggravated assault, kidnapping, etc.), then laws banning felons from
possessing arms, makes sense to me. When felonies are defined as catching
the wrong kind of fish, shooting a predatory bird to protect you lambs,
or whatever the crime of the month is, then I agree with you.

"How do you balance it? Please don't tell me that the balance comes by
having everyone equally armed so they can resist on the street. I am a
handgun instructor (CHL type, not NRA). I run our local 'combat' matches.
There are very few licensed carriers (who have undergone licensing training)
that I would bet on in a crisis situation. I am not against a citizen
carrying a gun, but if push comes to shove, the mindset is the most
important factor. Regardless of the words that are used in a training
course (Have you made the decision that you could and would use a handgun
in an appropriate crisis situation?), the criminal who has decided to
strike has it all over a person caught flatfooted.

"Unless someone practices regularly and has had top end advance training
(Gunfight, Thunder Ranch, LFI, or something comparable), it is easy to be
a danger to self and others. The greatest advantage of CHL programs is
deterrence. For that reason, I support them. They put some criminals on
notice that anyone may be armed. But for actually using the gun, most
programs are woefully inadequate.

"I guess my bottom line is that I want some people disqualified from
exercising their Second Amendment rights. However, the criteria (felony
record) is most faulty. We will all soon be felons if they keep passing laws!

"But propose a workable solution that addresses the fears of those who know
that simply having a gun in their pocket is not an adequate solution. ...
That law enforcement has become abusive in many areas of life, I will not
argue. I fear a totalitarian state as much as you. At the same time, I am
not ready to give up on all corporate responses to the problem. Bad law
makes the situation worse, but all law is not ipso facto bad."

I replied:

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Perhaps the problem is the degree to which we have become accustomed to
"(young) ex-felons in our midst," so that we are now puzzling over how to
deal with this problem, instead of asking why we face such a problem.

 It seems we agree that far too many things are now called "felonies." If
we repealed 90 percent of the laws now on the books -- mostly the stuff
enacted since 1912 -- the whole issue would become much clearer. (Rape,
murder, and armed robbery were all illegal in every state by 1912. But why
should the same leniency standards apply to a convicted multiple armed
robber, as we apply to someone "caught in possession of the feathers of
a protected raptor," or "convicted of shifting fill dirt into a marsh" on
his own property, or "structuring his cash withdrawals to avoid the cash
transaction reporting requirement," etc.?)

Hand-in-hand with DE-criminalizing huge swatches of the federal register
and the state Revised Statutes (the smallest of the 34 volumes of the
Nevada Revised Statutes is titled "Criminal Laws," which always makes me
wonder, "What the heck are the OTHER 33 volumes for?"), we would indeed
need some kind of harsh new standards for repeat violent felons.

Judges and juries need the discretion to show mercy to some waist-high
kid who's just fallen into bad company, of course. Though I think getting
him out of his current urban environment and associations, by requiring
that he go live for two years on grandpa's farm, should be the minimum to
give such a kid a real chance to change his ways.

But once we're clear that we're NOT talking about folks who have merely
violated some bureaucratic edict, or engaged in some form of controlled
commerce without a federal license, etc., then I fear we need to get
reasonably tough:

1) Libertarians, in general, favor the death penalty. With freedom must
come REAL "responsibility for one's actions" - not the make-believe, free-
of-consequences variety cynically promoted by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

I have a problem with capital punishment only because it seems to get
dissimilarly applied based on race and social class. Also, as currently
"enforced," it's little more than a vastly more expensive form of life
sentence.

However, at the very least we can and should certainly change the way we
treat officers and armed civilians who kill perpetrators IN THE ACT. I'm
thinking of medals, parades, and large cash rewards from the Chamber of
Commerce.

2) End parole and probation. Some statutory sentences would have to be
shortened to account for the fact that we now frequently sentence for 15
years, in hopes the jerk will serve four. But if judge and jury concur that
a crime is worth 30 years, that means we don't want to see this guy outside
again until his hair's white and his arthritis is too bad to allow him to
even THINK of pulling a second-story job.

3) Exile. The notion that a judge should ever have to deal with a defendant
back on a THIRD violent felony strikes me as an admission of systemic
impotence. The lenient sentence for the first offense, it should be made
clear, constitutes "society giving you one more chance to 'get it.' The
second time around, no such "benefit of the doubt" makes any sense. We do
own the Aleutian islands, don't we? Tattoo these guys "Rapist" (the real
thing -- don't give me "date rape") or "Murderer," or whatever, load them
up with a couple months worth of dehydrated food, a knife and a shovel,
and air drop them into a fogbound hell.

Escape? Tell them "We don't care if you escape, but there's a $20,000
reward (the cost of a mere eight months of keeping the loser locked up) for
anyone who ever finds you off this island and shoots you dead through that
tattooed bulls-eye on your forehead, no questions asked."
[ Continued In Next Message... ]




- -

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

Date: Sat, 05 Sep 98 07:49:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: A one-way ticket to Amchitka 2/2

It would be very interesting to see what kind of society would develop on
that island (among those who aren't promptly murdered for their supplies by
the other inmates) after a couple of years. I suspect it would be one that
would make even those fellows yearn for their previous, soft life in the
lower 48 ... or even for the certainties of three squares and a dry bunk in
the Big Hotel.

Would they develop harpoons and kayaks and learn to hunt seal? How many
would die among the ice floes? I seem to recall that after our submarines
cut off their resupply ships, the Japanese we found still occupying a
couple of those islands in 1943 or '44 were little more than living
scarecrows, subsisting on mice, moss, and boiled boots.

The argument will be made that we've got a million people on prison, and
you can't drop a million people on the Rat Islands. But as we've been
discussing, the first half million go away when you legalize and pardon the
pot-smokers, alone. Keeping only those guilty of violating laws enacted
before 1912, you could open the doors of virtually all the /federal/ pens,
and start sending the guards their unemployment checks tomorrow. Even some
professional criminals might find a different line of work, once they
figure out there's no more revolving door.

How many recalcitrant feral retards do we have in this country, who just
plain need killing, and who we would thus be doing a favor if we instead
handed them a parachute, a book of matches, and 30 pounds of dried beans?

It may sound a little far-fetched, but what we've got now is not going to
stand, and if we don't do something a LITTLE more bold and effective, we're
going to see vigilantes lynching 20 at a time, which I do NOT favor, given
the likelihood of mistaken identity, the loss of any shred of due process,
etc.

Finally, I fear we must agree to disagree on Concealed Handgun Permits.
The government CANNOT convert a right into a privilege, available only by
permit or license, and then infringe the rights of the vast majority as
they furiously search for the occasional violator of their unenforceable
new "malum prohibitum." Governments have shown, again and again, that they
will NOT stop at what is "modest and reasonable."

The 1916 Harrison Narcotics Act was moderate and reasonable, as such laws go.
"We're not going to ban anything," the federals said, "because we have no
such constitutional authority. All we're asking is that those who manufacture,
sell, or prescribe opiates or marijuana sign up, get registered, get issued
a license. All perfectly routine -- no one will be turned down. This is NOT
a precursor to regulating this part of medical practice completely out of
existence; trust us. We just want to make sure we can guarantee purity,
safety, and accuracy in labeling."

Yeah, sure. It took just 18 years before they broke every one of those
promises, giving us a "Drug War" which has now been with us for 65 years.

Inner cities more peaceful now? Less crime and drug use? Ha! (And meantime,
dying cancer patients writhe in constant, unendurable pain until they beg
their families to kill them, because their M.D.s are afraid their "DEA
numbers" will be pulled if they write prescriptions for "too many"
painkillers.)

"We're not 'banning' the manufacture or sale of machine guns," Congress
said in 1934. "That would be unconstitutional. What are you Chicken Littles
squawking about? The National Firearms Act simply asks that machine gun
manufacturers and retailers sign up and get a little license, perfectly
routine, no one will be turned down. ..."

Write to the ATF today, tell them you're a law-abiding citizen who doesn't
mind undergoing a background check, and tell them you want to buy a license
to set up a little machine shop to mill receivers for Browning Automatic
Rifles in 30.06, on which you will then build up complete full-auto BARs
from imported spare parts kits, for sale to law-abiding CIVILIAN customers,
including members of the Unorganized Montana Militia, in keeping with the
intent of the Second Amendment and the 1934 National Firearms Act. Promise
to collect and remit their $200 "transfer tax" on each weapon you manufacture
and sell, and tell them your goal is to eventually produce and sell 10,000
new machine guns each year (militia-style, no "legitimate sporting use" that
you know of), to law-abiding American CIVILIANS, at a cost of $900 apiece.
See how far you get.

Barring a War of Western Secession -- which grows increasingly likely --
it'll be the same with handguns, within 10 years. Pretty soon they'll pull
your "firearms permit" for such crimes as trying to pay cash for medical
services to someone other than your "assigned health care provider."

And as for retaining ownership of any firearm NOT on your "concealed carry"
permit ... forget it. After all, no one can legitimately "need" more than
one or two, can they? And therefore we OBVIOUSLY have to do an annual
"courtesy home inspection" to make sure you don't have any extras, which
would only serve as a temptation to burglars ...

Are you ready to defend your freedom? You speak of mindset, of folks being
paralyzed because they really haven't considered the tough questions in
advance. Well: "Have you made the decision that you could and would use
a handgun to shoot and kill a uniformed government officer who was 'just
following orders,' attempting to deprive you or others of your/their Second
Amendment rights?" Would you aim for body mass, or for the bridge of the
nose? Let her lie wounded, or quickly close in to put another round in the
back of the head? Lift the hair, or shoot through it? And has it occurred
to you that when that day comes, the fellow guarding your 6 may be an
"armed former felon"?

The other side wants Total Victim Disarmament. Once we help them disarm
"just a few dangerous ex-felons," they're going to smile and start pushing
that wedge in, wider and wider. Ever been convicted of misdemeanor spouse
abuse? Ever agreed to go to a mental health care facility for 72 hours
observation to calm down a concerned loved one because you got depressed
and hit the bottle for a week after a close friend or relative died? Sorry,
no firearms for you.

Shooting ranges? All shut down due to noise and lead pollution. Ammo? That
box of 20 shells will be $220, thanks to the Moynihan thousand-percent ammo
tax ... but don't worry, the extra money goes to the medical care of gang
members ("little children") recovering in the hospital after being shot
while committing grand theft, while the officers who shot them face
million-dollar civil liability suits.

Pleasant Dreams,

- -- V.S.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail]. The
column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media
Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.

***

Vin Suprynowicz, [e-mail]

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



- -

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

Date: Sat, 05 Sep 98 07:49:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Canadian Gun Control

Jim didn't say where he got this.
Scott

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 15:36:49 -0600
From: Jim Dexter <[e-mail]>
To: LPUtah Forum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Miscellaneous

Misc stuff. The Canadian approach to gun control (last item) was probably
written by the Clinton White House.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

As part of a larger protest idea we are working on with regard to both
Canada and Mexico (that are giving U.S. gun owners problems, sometimes
arresting them and imprisoning them for long periods of time--not to mention
what they are doing to their own people!), we've come up with something
quick, easy, and immediate you can do to help preserve the human right to
self-defense everywhere: TELL the Canadian government know you oppose C-68,
and WILL NOT visit Canada if they pass this terrible victim-disarmament law.

Canadians are organizing to protest this draconian measure (see:
http://www.fedupcanada.org), and, even though most LRTers live in the U.S.,
LRT is an international organization--we should try to help. Also, this law
will affect people travelling to or through Canada.

Here are some measures contained within the new law (non-Canadians take
particular note of #5--and remember that those guys swap data with the U.S.
BATF and other agencies on a regular basis):

1-Enable the Justice Minister to pass further regulations pertaining to
firearms without Cabinet or Senate consultation.

2-Grant warrantless powers to search (euphemistically called inspections)
residences to police or persons designated under the Firearms Act. Who
these people are has not yet been identified.

3-Deny people the fundamental right to remain silent. Gun owners must
"give the police all reasonable assistance" and "provide police with any
information" in the execution of their powers "relevant to the enforcement
of this Act."

4-Deny people the fundamental right to freedom of association by prohibiting
them from owning firearms because they "cohabit with" or are "an associate
of" someone previously prohibited from owning firearms.

5-Create a national registry of ALL firearms. Handguns had been previously
registered in Canada since the 1930s with limited utility. The new
registry will include firearms of those visiting Canada to hunt or shoot
target matches.

6-Ban an entire class of firearms. Those being .25 and .32 caliber or any
handgun with a barrel less than 104mm (about 4 inches) in length.
According to the authors of the new law, these short barreled pistols are
"cheap, inaccurate and good only for self defense" ( taboo!) and "serve no
legitimate sporting or collecting purpose".  Many of the firearms issued
to Canadian police until recently fit this same definition. (Who knew the
SW model 10 was cheap and inaccurate ?)  Current owners of firearms in
this class are grand fathered for possession, purchase, and sale.

7-Tough "new" mandatory sentences of five years for crimes committed with
firearms. This in spite of the fact the tough old "mandatory" sentences
created in Canada's last round of gun control ( mid '80s) are rarely given,
but are instead routinely bargained away for guilty pleas.

So what can you do? You can write to their parliamentcritters and tell
them that you will cancel your plans to vacation (and spend lots of money)
in Canada if C-68, The Firearms Act, is made law. You can tell them that
you are a sportsman who will no longer hunt in Canada. Or just tell them
they are a bunch of weenies. (You may not have vacation plans in Canada, or
may go anyway--they won't know... The important thing is that many hunters
_will_ stop going there, where hunting is Big Business, so if we tell them
our reasons, they will understand the nature of their error when the results
become manifest.)

Fortunately, they've made it easy to send emails directly to the Canadian
Parliament via their bulk email server:

www.earth-net.net/pac/canada/federal/index/html


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #100
***********************************