ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n110

Internet Message Format | 1998-11-17 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #110
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest   Wednesday, November 18 1998   Volume 02 : Number 110




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

Date: Mon, 09 Nov 98 07:52:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Milwaukie Editorial

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:36:26 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Web editor's note:
Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly chose to protect the right to bear arms with
a constitutional amendment - now newspaper editors have their skirts in a
tangle. (11/6/98)
**************************

Gun right mustn't be treated as absolute

From the Journal Sentinel
November 06, 1998

As expected, Wisconsin voters have agreed to insert into the state
constitution the right to keep and bear arms. Does that amendment give
each and every resident the freedom to sport an arsenal without any
regulation whatsoever? Heaven forbid.

Even though the measure enjoyed lopsided approval at the polls the other
day, surely most voters did not intend for the right to be absolute. Guns
are prompting too much havoc on the streets and in homes for the weapons
to escape all controls, most people doubtless recognize.

So in getting the amendment passed, the gun lobby scored a major victory.
But Wisconsin must fight what appears to be the ultimate aim of at least
some members of the gun movement: the eradication of virtually all controls
on buying, owning and handling firearms.

That possibility is why we opposed the amendment. Still, its wide appeal
was understandable. The measure seemed only to affirm a right that already
exists.

Now that the amendment is reality, the trick is to keep it from aggravating
the wild proliferation of firearms in the streets -- a proliferation that
has led to much death and destruction.

The gun lobby has already targeted one regulation it wants to roll back:
the state's prohibition on carrying a concealed weapon. Lifting that ban
is precisely opposite what the state should do. It should work on removing
weapons from the streets, not on permitting more of them.

Besides guarding against the rollback of existing gun regulations, the
Legislature and the citizenry mustn't allow the amendment to block new and
reasonable controls -- such as requirements that guns meet certain safety
standards. The adoption of one safety feature, a trigger lock, would slow
the frequency of news stories about tragedy befalling kids playing with guns.

Though most citizens support the right to bear arms, most also support
reasonable gun controls, opinion polls suggest. The trouble is, lawmakers
hardly hear from them. Rather, legislators hear from the opponents of gun
regulations.

Residents who support the bar against concealed weapons, the imposition of
safety standards and other controls should communicate those facts to their
elected representatives.


- -

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

Date: Mon, 09 Nov 98 07:52:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: 1st Amendment Loophole

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:16:14 -0800
From: Ed Wolfe <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton directed his government Saturday
to find a way to close a legal loophole that allows speakers/journalists
to express their ideas at public places with no questions asked.

In his weekly radio address, Clinton said a ``dangerous trend'' is
emerging at seminars and radio talk shows because the First Amendment
permits people to express their ideas without background checks.

``Some of these talk shows have become a haven for criminals and
hate-speech mongers looking to sway people on a no-questions-asked
basis,'' Clinton said.

He directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno
to report back to him in 60 days with a plan to close the loophole in the
Bill of Rights and to prohibit any free speech without a background check.

``I believe this should be the law of the land: No background check, no
free speech, no exceptions,'' Clinton said.

In a fact sheet, the White House said that every week about 35 million
people regularly listen to an estimated 50 conservative radio
personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy.

On Nov. 30, 1999 the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check
System is set to take effect to allow quicker checks and approve speech
license sales within minutes.

In addition, on Nov. 30, 1999 the law will be strengthened in two ways:
purchases of all speech licenses, not just political, will be subject to
Reno background checks as will Kinko's printing services, which are four
times as likely to involve prohibited printed opinions.

Overall, the White House said, it is estimated that the number of
background checks conducted nationally will increase from 0 million to
between 10 and 12 million. Unregulated speech is ``an open invitation
to criminals and right wing crazies,'' said Janet Reno, who chairs
SpeechControl Inc. The Clinton law was named after the President, who
was wounded in verbal attacks first launched by radio personality Rush
Limbaugh in 1992.

California and Maryland regulate ``hate speech'', said Reno. Florida
voters passed a constitutional amendment Tuesday giving counties the
power to require a waiting period and a background check for speeches at
political rallies and other public places.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/story.html?s=v/nm/19981107/ts/guns_2.html



- -

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

Date: Mon, 09 Nov 98 07:52:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Pig in Chief Speaks on Guns

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 02:21:18 -0500
From: "Mark A. Smith" <[e-mail]>
To: SNET <[e-mail]>, PRJ <[e-mail]>,
    L & J <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: The Pig in Chief Speaks on Guns]

Next it will be private sales of all guns, even
personal sales from your home.

[e-mail] wrote:

Here we go again folks. Mike P

Clinton Urges Gun Show Crackdown

c The Associated Press

By ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton today ordered the Treasury and Justice
departments to recommend ways to stop gun shows from exploiting a loophole in
the Brady gun control law. He said gun shows have become ``illegal arms
bazaars'' for criminals and gun runners.

``We didn't fight as hard as we did to pass the Brady law only to let a
handful of unscrupulous gun dealers disrespect the law, undermine our progress
and put our families at risk,'' Clinton said in his weekly radio address.

The president's message was echoed by Sarah Brady, wife of former White House
press secretary James Brady, who was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt
on former President Reagan. The law, named in Brady's honor, established a
five-day waiting period for hand gun purchases so that background checks could
be performed on buyers.

``In state after state, criminals can now walk into a weekend gun show and buy
a gun with no questions asked from an unlicensed dealer that is selling from
his or her `private collection,''' Mrs. Brady, chairwoman of the advocacy
group Handgun Control Inc., said in a written statement. ``That's an open
invitation to criminals.

``The past five years have demonstrated the importance of observing waiting
periods and doing background checks at gun stores,'' she added, ``but we now
need to extend the Brady law to include all gun sales occurring at gun shows
and flea markets.''

The government estimates that 5 million people a year attend gun shows,
typically held in convention centers, school gymnasiums or fairgrounds. The
Brady law requirement for waiting periods and background checks does not apply
to gun show sales.

Clinton noted that gun shows are popular in his home state of Arkansas, which
he visited Friday after taping his radio address at the White House. ``I have
visited and enjoyed them over the years,'' he said. ``They're often the first
place parents teach their children how to handle firearms safely.''

``But at too many guns shows, a different, dangerous trend is emerging,'' the
president said. ``Some of these gun shows have become illegal arms bazaars for
criminals and gun traffickers to buy and sell guns on a cash-and-carry, no-
questions-asked basis.''

Clinton noted that Florida voters passed a measure Tuesday to enable
communities to require background checks for the public sale of all guns.

``I believe this should be the law of the land: no background check, no gun,
no exceptions.''

Mrs. Brady said several Florida counties are expected to pass local ordinances
regulating gun show sales. Mayor Alex Penelas of Miami-Dade County already has
unveiled a draft ordinance, Mrs. Brady said.

The president directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General
Janet Reno to present to him within two months a plan to close the Brady law
loophole and prohibit any gun sale without a background check.

Clinton said gun control efforts also will be strengthened on Nov. 30 when the
Justice Department implements the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System. This system will give law enforcement officials access to a wider
array of records than is now available.

Also as of Nov. 30, the background checks will apply not only to handguns but
also to rifles and shotguns and firearms transfers at pawn shops. With that
system in place, the number of background checks for gun purchases will
increase from an estimated 4 million a year to 12 million, Clinton said.

AP-NY-11-07-98 1006EST

Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP
news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise
distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press.

=============================================
To unsubscribe, write to [e-mail] with "unsubscribe" in
the body of the message.



- -

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:17:41 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [NRA and GOA]

Anyone have any idea why NRA or Christian Coalition would oppose
ballot access reform?

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

The November issue of Ballot Access News had some interesting
comments about what groups supported ballot access reform in
Florida and which opposed it.

This is related to Revision 11, which changed the Florida state
constitution to require that ballot access for all parties be the
same. Previously, Florida had the most difficult ballot access laws
in the country.

Groups supporting Revision 11 include League of Women Voters
and Gun Owners of America.

Groups opposing it include National Organization for Women, the
Christian Coalition, and the National Rifle Association.

Makes me glad to support the GOA over the NRA!

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

- --

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 object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other
 bastard die for his." -- General George S. Patton

- -

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 06:54:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA and GOA

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:08:41 -0700
From: Jim Elwell <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

The November issue of Ballot Access News had some interesting
comments about what groups supported ballot access reform in
Florida and which opposed it.

This is related to Revision 11, which changed the Florida state
constitution to require that ballot access for all parties be the
same. Previously, Florida had the most difficult ballot access laws
in the country.

Groups supporting Revision 11 include League of Women Voters
and Gun Owners of America.

Groups opposing it include National Organization for Women, the
Christian Coalition, and the National Rifle Association.

Makes me glad to support the GOA over the NRA!

Jim Elwell


- -

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 06:54:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The Siege

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:15:44 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FW: LP RELEASE: "The Siege"

I live in Central Florida. Today, our local TV news proudly showed the armored
personnel carrier the police just got. All nicely done up in black paint. On
the same program they reported some policemen had jumped a man in his yard,
and when he raised a barbecue fork one of the cops shot him dead on the spot.
It was sort of like ho-hum on the news. No big deal. If a cop had been shot
they would have been still talking about it every half hour. Get us used to
the cops drilling citizens. The guy didn't have a gun.



- -

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

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 98 07:56:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Hizzoner Sues Pistol-Makers

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:10:12 -0600 (CST)
From: David Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

"Richie sure ain't da stand-up guy his ol' man was!"

- ---Overheard in the 10th Ward, comparing Mayor Richard M. Daley to
his late father, Richard J. Daley (known as "the *real* Mayor Daley")

Emboldened by federal lawsuits against tobacco producers and a recent New
Orleans suit against gun manufacturers, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley
announced a lawsuit--filed on behalf of the City of Chicago--against
manufacturers of handguns which calls the pistols "a public nuisance" and
seeks $200 million in damages to compensate the city for expenses incurred
in dealing with handgun violence.

It remains unclear if Hizzoner intends to order his police officers to
cease the practice of carrying their own sidearms and/or wearing body
armor---the better to avoid provoking confrontations with armed thugs
(based upon the theory that--since "more missiles mean more risk of a
confrontation--the United States should unilaterally disarm, abandon
research into a missile-defense system, and cut military spending).

No mention was made of a lawsuit aimed at breweries, distilleries, and the
big three auto makers to recover the costs of enforcing DUI statutes and
dealing with the carnage created by alcohol-related traffic accidents.

David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte
Wheeling, Illinois

Replies/Abuse: [e-mail]




- -

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

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 98 07:56:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: LP RELEASE: Gun Lawsuit

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:56:20 -0700
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Politicians attack tobacco and guns:
What product will they go after next?

WASHINGTON, DC -- A lawsuit filed by New Orleans Mayor Marc H. Morial
against gun companies to recover the cost of firearms violence has
Libertarians asking: "Who's next?"

"Which law-abiding industry will be the next target of greedy politicians?"
asked Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director. "Will they force
Budweiser and Heineken to pay for the crimes of drunken, violent criminals?
Will they extort money from McDonald's and Burger King to pay for heart
bypass surgery, and compel Chrysler and Honda to pay the medical bills of
car-crash victims?"

Dasbach's questions came in response to the lawsuit, now moving through
the court system, which seeks to hold 15 major gun companies financially
liable for the medical and police costs related to gun violence.

Morial is also actively encouraging other politicians across the country
to follow his lead, and so far the mayors of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit,
and Miami are weighing similar suits.

Vowing that "guns must now become the next tobacco," Morial has made it
clear that the attack on gun companies will be modeled on the anti-tobacco
lawsuits filed by 41 state attorneys general.

"If you thought politicians would be satisfied after extorting more than
$40 billion from tobacco companies, think again," Dasbach said. "That only
whet their appetite. Now the only question is, which industry will be next?"

Some possible targets:

* Barbecue grills: "It's absolutely clear that charcoal broiling is
carcinogenic," says Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, who predicts
that the manufacturers of barbecue grills may soon be a litigation target.

* Wine and beer: "Every year, tens of thousands of Americans are killed
in auto accidents, half of which are alcohol-related," Dasbach said. "If
politicians can blame Smith & Wesson for murder in the streets, why can't
they blame Busch & Budweiser for carnage on the highways?"

* Fatty foods: Yale University researcher Kelly Brownell warns that the
country is plagued by an "out-of-control epidemic of obesity" that is
causing diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Her solutions including
slapping a "fat tax" on certain foods and funneling the money into nutrition
and public exercise programs, and restricting junk-food advertisements.

* Milk: Last year a Seattle man who describes himself as a "milk-a-holic"
sued Washington state dairy farmers for contributing to his clogged
arteries and a stroke.

"Many Americans never dreamed that the War on Tobacco could lead to a war
on alcohol, fatty foods, barbecue grills, or even milk," Dasbach said. "But
once the government has the power to sue companies in the name of public
health, it's only a matter of time until the product that you like becomes
their next target.

"Yes, violent crime is a serious problem -- but what's really frightening
is politicians using their political power to bankrupt businesses that make
products they don't like, and in the process, destroying your freedom to
use them."

The attack strategy against gun companies also demonstrates another
important fact, Dasbach said. "Filing this lawsuit was a glaring admission
by Mayor Morial that he has failed to perform the most basic function of
government: Protecting people from violent crime.

"But instead of protecting public safety, he's committing a crime of his
own: Extorting money from honest companies in order to pay for the crimes
of street thugs."

#       #       #



- -

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

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 98 21:47:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Beware the Lipidleggers!

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:35:51 PST
From: "Mark A. Smith" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail]
Subject: FW: junk food

The bullies' next target: junk food
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist, 11/12/98

You didn't object when they forced motorcyclists to wear helmets. It's
for their own good, you figured. And it was no skin off your nose, since
you don't ride motorcycles anyway.

You didn't protest when they passed mandatory seat-belt laws. You
couldn't see what the big deal was - after all, you've always buckled up.

You didn't say anything when they pushed tobacco ads off the air, or when
they drove up the price of cigarettes with sin taxes, or when they tried
to classify nicotine as a drug. [It is, and CNS-active and addictive to
boot. Obviously this oppressive effort harks back at least to Prohibition
and the Harrison Narcotics Act. What legitimate power have "they" to
restrict access to drugs? - Scott] Smoking, you believed, is nasty and
unhealthy; why shouldn't the government discourage it?

You kept quiet when they made air bags compulsory. When they passed laws
to keep adults from owning guns. When they tried to censor the Internet.
Yes, all of these eroded Americans' freedom to make decisions for
themselves. And yes, they further empowered the government to regulate
the way we live our lives. But none of them discommoded you personally,
so you didn't see any reason to speak out.

Do you think the lifestyle police will stop goosestepping when they get
to something you do care about?

Meet Kelly Brownell. He directs the Center for Eating and Weight
disorders at Yale, and he doesn't like your diet. "The contribution of
diet to poor health in America is staggering," he says. "It's an epidemic."

Brownell doesn't stop there. He isn't satisfied with trying to persuade
you to eat less junk food. He wants Big Brother to make you eat less junk
food. In a dispatch from New Haven last week, the Associated Press reports:
"Brownell believes the government should subsidize the sale of healthy food,
increase the cost of nonnutritional foods through taxes, and regulate food
advertising to discourage unhealthy practices."

In the name of "public health," the antitobacco bullies have gotten away
with restricting speech, crushing freedom of choice, penalizing the
consumers of a lawful product, and demonizing the sellers of that product.
Brownell thinks the food bullies should be able to do no less.

"To me," he has said, "there is no difference between Ronald McDonald
and Joe Camel." Pause to recall the hysterical outrage that R.J. Reynolds's
cartoon figure evoked - a Washington Post columnist called Joe Camel ads
"as dangerous as putting rat poison in a candy wrapper" - and you get a
sense of just how far Brownell would like to go.

Societies do not usually lose their freedom at a blow. They give it up
bit by bit, letting themselves be tied down with an infinity of little
knots. As rules and regulations increase, their range of action is
gradually compressed. Their options slowly lessen. Without noticing the
change, they become wards of the state. They still imagine themselves
free, but in a thousand and one ways, their choices are limited and
guided by the authorities. And always, there are what seem to be sensible
reasons for letting their autonomy be peeled away - "safety," "health,"
"social justice," "equal opportunity."

It is easy to grow accustomed to docility. That is why eternal vigilance
is the price of liberty. Not because liberty is easy to shatter, but
because it can be softened and dismantled with the acquiescence of the
very men and women from whom it is being stolen.

Many Americans no longer understand this, which is why the government
now dictates everything from the words that may appear on wine labels
to the volume of water toilets may flush. But Brownell and his ilk
understand it very well. To those who snicker at his goal of hitting
snack-food makers with heavy taxes and forbidding the use of Ronald
McDonald in advertising, Brownell has a reply:

"If 20 years ago somebody had said, `I predict that states will recover
health care costs from the tobacco industry for deaths; I predict that an
icon of smoking advertising, Joe Camel, would be banned from billboards,'
people would have said, `Oh, that's horrible government intrusion.' What
is now taken for granted, 20 years ago would have been thought of as
impossible."

Exactly.

Watch as it unfolds. Already other voices have taken up Brownell's call.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest - the food fanatics who
periodically issue reports denouncing movie popcorn and Chinese food -
declares that "diet and lack of exercise kill as many people as tobacco"
and agrees that a tax on Big Macs and Double Stuf Oreos "makes eminent
sense." Hanna Rosin writes in The New Republic that a tax on fatty foods
"can actually be a less intrusive policy than regulating tobacco" and
asks, "Is it really such a crazy idea?" US News & World Report hails
the "Twinkie tax" as one of "16 Silver Bullets: Smart Ideas to Fix the
World."

Soon you'll hear about all the children whose lives will be cut short
because they got hooked on junk fook at an early age. You'll see references
to the 300,000 people "killed" each year by fatty diets. In time there
will be lawsuits and congressional hearings and moving testimony by the
"victims" of chocolate [Tristearin, the major component of cocoa butter,
has been found to be a relatively healthy fat. OTOH chocolate gives
many people migraine headaches. - Scott] and butterfat. Politicians,
sensing another interest group to [which to] pander, will demand strict
controls over candy ads. Ben and Jerry will be transformed from kindly
Vermont hippies to foul peddlers of heart disease.

Preposterous, you say! Laughable! Absurd!

Philip Morris used to think so, too.

Jeff Jacoby is a Globe columnist.



- -

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

Date: Sun, 15 Nov 98 22:21:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: War on domestic violence is one-sided

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:51:47 PST
From: "Mark A. Smith" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail]

Yell, at your wife. Go to jail.
If that isn't one sided, I dont know what is. (Like it never
happens the other way around one a month).
And to show you how these people think, kicking your dog has
actually been mentioned as possible domestic abuse!
And remember the Lautenburg Ammendment? The Gestapo comes and
takes your guns away when you are ACCUSED (not convicted), of
domestic abuse.
The supposedly educated police chiefs, lawyers and judges actually
enforce this ex-post-facto (unconstitutional) law.
What hope do we the people have left?
The bullet box, I guess.
Mark


War on domestic violence is one-sided

By Jerry A. Boggs

In Mars and Venus Starting Over, John Gray writes,
"Ironically, one of the biggest misunderstandings
about men and women is this: Women assume men have
a fear of intimacy, and it's quite the opposite.
It's the women who fear intimacy."

I have news for Gray. His myth buster is soon to
become a myth itself. Men's fear of intimacy --
hence men's fear of commitment to relationships --
may eclipse women's fear a hundred fold once the
collective male grasps where domestic abuse
policies are headed.

Take the case of Susan Finkelstein, a 31-year-old
free-lance editor in a small Michigan town, and her
live-in boyfriend "Jim". The two were arguing as
they drove home from a party. Susan recalls that
both were under a lot of stress. The argument
intensified, and Jim decided it best to pull over.
He tried to get out of the car and walk. Susan tried
to stop him. "I lost my temper, he lost his temper,"
Susan says, "and we got into a mutual scuffle. I may
have scratched him; he may have pushed me. It got
physical, but there certainly wasn't any beating."

Back on the road after they'd cooled down, they were
stopped by a police car. Their scuffling had been
seen by someone who had taken their license plate
number and called the police.

Although Susan assured the officer that Jim hadn't
harmed her and she didn't fear him, the officer
hauled him away. Department policy required an
arrest in a domestic dispute, the officer said.
Susan was upset that no one would listen when she
said she was OK. Her efforts to convince the court
that nothing had happened were to no avail. She was
told abused women may lie out of fear.

"What happened to Jim and Susan," says Detroit News
op-ed columnist Cathy Young, "is ... just another
story from the trenches of what might be called the
War on Domestic Violence. Born partly in response to
an earlier tendency to treat wife-beating as nothing
more than a marital sport, this campaign treats all
relationship conflict as a crime. The zero-tolerance
mentality of current domestic violence policy means
that no offense is too trivial, not only for arrest
but for prosecution."

That's bad news for men because the courts,
influenced by the radical feminist politics of the
battered women's advocacy movement, see only male
perpetrators and female victims. So does the federal
government; it funds booklets that say battering is
the extreme expression of the belief in male dominance
over women."

Ignored is the fact that domestic abuse is an
equal-opportunity recruiter. In 1995, the Journal
of Family Violence reported a study of young
American military couples, possibly the most
patriarchal of all, in which 47 percent of the
husbands and wives had harmed each other to the
exact same degree. Last year on ABC's 20/20,
violence researcher Suzanne Steinmetz, asked if
men were abused by their spouses as often or as
much as women, replied, "When you're looking at
hitting, slapping, pushing, shoving, they're
fairly equal."

Still, the war on domestic violence is decidedly
a war on male partners. Consider the results of
feminist lobbying to prevent women from ever being
arrested in domestic disputes. When a Detroit man
was stabbed in the chest by his wife, the police
refused not only to arrest her but to remove her
from the home. After Susan Finkelstein told the
arresting officer she was as much the aggressor
in their scuffle as Jim, she was told the policy
required arresting the larger of the two parties.

Consider, too, a frightening trend regarding
spousal homicide. In many states, women who kill
their husband are released if they claimed
physical abuse as their reason. In California,
says crime writer Patricia Pearson in When She
Was Bad -- Violent Women & the Myth of Innocence,
husband killers are allowed to apply for release
due to emotional abuse. This opens the door to
risk-free husband killing.

Women will be able to operate the system even
more to their advantage if feminists get a law
modeled on an Australian statute. In Australia,
domestic violence is defined to include a man's
raising his voice to his wife -- "the domestic
decibel rule." But a woman raising her voice to
her husband, says Australian psychologist Frank
Brennan, is viewed as an understandable defense
to male dominance.

"These double standards," says author Warren
Farrell, "have made men in Australia very fearful
of getting married. Men are increasingly feeling
that their only form of relationship power is not
getting into a relationship."

Men may soon know domestic abuse policies better
than the sports page. The only men then willing to
commit to marriage might truly be men from Mars.

Jerry A. Boggs is the Michigan representative of
the National Coalition of Free Men. Write letters
to The Detroit News, Editorial Page, 615 W.
Lafayette, Detroit, Mich. 48226, or fax us at
[phone], or send an e-mail to
[e-mail]

Copyright 1998, The Detroit News


- -

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

Date: Sun, 15 Nov 98 22:21:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: ARMED AND DANGEROUS

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 21:59:04 -0500
From: Leroy Crenshaw <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

FRIDAY NOVEMBER 13, 1998
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.html

ARMED AND DANGEROUS

Police shooting victim files lawsuit Children finally turned over to
grandmother in Sallisaw

By David M. Bresnahan

Copyright 1998 WorldNetDaily.com

The victim of a police shooting in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, has filed a federal
lawsuit to recover damages, and officials still refuse to provide
information to the public.

Press reports and talk-radio hosts across the nation have referred to the
actions of Sallisaw Police on Oct. 23 as "Gestapo tactics." Police stormed
into a trailer home and shot Patricia Eymer while she was holding her
4-year-old daughter. An infant was only a few feet away, and a 13-year-old
daughter passed out in fear and shock.

Eymer was shot in the right shoulder, and is recovering. It is still
unknown whether doctors will be able to perform a shoulder replacement, or
if she will lose her arm, according to Eymer.

"We filed a 1983 civil rights suit in federal court," said Daniel George,
Sallisaw attorney for Eymer. "The officer and city have not yet been
served, nor do they know of it. It's fairly obvious that a .45 caliber slug
in the shoulder will tend to violate your civil rights."

Despite the criticisms being raised, the Sallisaw mayor, the Sallisaw
Police Department, the Sequoyah County sheriff's office, the district
attorney, and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation have all refused
to provide information to WorldNetDaily. Repeated and frequent attempts to
get information have been met with silence.

Mrs. Eymer has not been charged, however her husband, Steven Eymer, and
some guests in her home were arrested on drug charges. The evidence listed
in court records does not identify any "controlled dangerous substance" or
marijuana to support the charges made.

Detective Larry Blount led a team of Sallisaw officers on a drug raid at
the Eymer home. He was assisted by officers Dawn Jerman, David Bethany,
Freeman (first name unknown), and John Owens. Travis Holman is mentioned in
the evidence report, but the police claim he is not an officer and they
will not say who he is.

George has identified Owens as the shooter in his suit.

Police refuse to explain what evidence they had to justify the need for
the search, nor will they explain why it was necessary to conduct a no
knock search in a pre-dawn raid. Neighbors say they believe another
neighbor falsely told police that the Eymers were making methamphetamine
and selling drugs.

The warrant states that Detective Blount showed "probable cause" that there
was evidence at the Eymer home that would result in a charge of "unlawful
possession and/or distribution of controlled dangerous substances."
Specifically, the warrant authorized a search for methamphetamine, and the
items associated with its manufacture and sale.

No such items were listed in court records of evidence found by police.
The fact that they live in a very modest single-wide mobile home with no
telephone is evidence of their income level, according to George. Both cars
owned by the Eymers do not operate and are in need of repair. The family's
income is extremely low. The attorney pointed out that there was no
evidence the Eymers were making money selling drugs. The evidence list
provided by the court does not list any drugs found in the home, although
it does list some marijuana pipes.

Mr. Eymer said their behavior and the evidence obtained did not warrant
the dramatic entrance of the police into the home. He also said there was
no provocation to justify police firing at his wife. Everyone in the home
cooperated with police and offered no resistance, he said.

The Eymers' three children were taken by child protective services.
Grandparents arrived the day of the shooting and were not permitted to take
custody of the children, or even see them. They said they were concerned
about the needs of the children after witnessing a traumatic event, and
they could not find out if the children were getting emotional help.

Three days after the shooting, Mrs. Martha Smyrl, who is Mrs. Eymer's
mother, finally saw the children for a few minutes at a court hearing.
"The 5-year-old, when I seen her in court, she came running to me and said,
"Grandma I want to come home with you." She said, "Grandma, Mama's been
shot." I told her, I said, "Honey, Mama's okay. She's doing fine. I had to
keep her calm," explained Mrs. Smyrl.

"They won't tell us nothing about the kids," said Mrs. Smyrl--more than a
week after the shooting. "They wouldn't tell me where they were at. I
couldn't see them. I'm their grandmother. I practically helped raise these
kids. This is what I don't understand."

Mr. Smyrl said he was told that Oklahoma would not give custody to
relatives who live out of state. The Smyrls live in Texas. After Mrs.
Smyrl began looking for a place to rent, she was told the only place
acceptable for her to have the children would be in Sallisaw.

Mr. Eymer says the traumatic experience the children went through, and the
lack of contact with family members is a form of child abuse.

The children were finally turned over to Mrs. Smyrl earlier this week. She
said a great deal of grief for the family and the children could have been
avoided [had] she [been] given custody earlier.

There are still many unanswered questions about this case, and police
continue their silence. Mrs. Eymer said she and her family are being
followed by police wherever they go. The apparent intimidation has made
her more determined to proceed with her federal lawsuit.



- -

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:18:44 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Information from a friend of a friend of a EMT

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:23:05 -0700
From: "Roxann Garduno" <[e-mail]>
To: [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],
    [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],
    [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],
    [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], [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],
    [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail]
Subject: Information from a friend of a friend of a EMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Be aware!!!
Drug users are now taking their needles and putting them into the coin =
return slots in public telephones.  People putting their fingers in to the =
slots to recover coins or just to check if anyone left some change are =
getting stuck by these needles and infected with hepatitis, HIV and other =
diseases.   Keep this in mind when using a public telephone. =20


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #110
***********************************