ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n113

Internet Message Format | 1998-11-30 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #113
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Tuesday, December 1 1998     Volume 02 : Number 113




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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 06:47:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: THE FOLLY OVER GUNS   1/3

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 10:17:57 -0500
From: "Mark A. Smith" <[e-mail]>

http://www.fatalblindness.com/8.htm#8

8

THE FOLLY OVER GUNS

As the blight of crime, brought to us by statism, leaves its ugly mark on
more and more lives, the cries for gun control grow and grow. Many, in their
desperation about crime and in their ignorance of its causes, have been
driven to support gun control but, in doing so, they have been sent on a
fool's errand by statists. Do you possess the right to self-defense? Do you
have the right to defend and save your life if it is threatened? If you do,
then you have the moral right to possess a weapon to defend yourself against
physical assault by some criminal and that includes the right to possess a
gun. If you do not have the right to defend your life, this means you have
no rights at all and that your life has no value, that it is worthless. Are
these the ideas you wish to promote and sanction? If so, you might as well
walk around with a sign on your back, declaring: "My life is worthless. I
am defenseless. Kill me." An obliging criminal will take you up on the
invitation soon enough.

If these statists, mostly the liberals, succeed in outlawing the possession
of guns by honest, law-abiding citizens, we will witness a furious explosion
of criminal behavior burst forth in this country, bringing even more mayhem
and terror than we have today, even though the alleged purpose of this
control of guns is to reduce crime. As with everything statists seek to
prohibit, statists know that the abolition of the right of the individual
to own and possess a gun will not stop the crimes committed with the use
of guns. If statists were so concerned about guns, why aren't they simply
advocating we make it illegal for criminals to own guns? They would laugh
at this, saying it wouldn't work and, for once in their mindless lives,
they would be right: it would not work. Criminals are not going to surrender
their guns, they will still keep their guns even if guns are made illegal.
Criminals do not obey the law. Since criminals are the only ones who commit
crimes, since only criminals are the ones who use a gun in the commission
of a crime, since criminals will continue to keep their guns even if their
possession is made illegal, then just how would crime be reduced by making
it illegal to possess a gun? It wouldn't be reduced: criminals would still
have their guns -- and statists know this. If statists know this, and they
do, if they know outlawing guns will not stop armed assault, and they do,
what are they really after?

What is accomplished when honest, law-abiding citizens have their guns taken
from them by statists? Who stands to gain the most when guns are removed
from your home? Criminals and statists.

Criminals will suddenly have a field day: they will know that almost all of
their potential victims have been disarmed -- defenseless, unless police can
be summoned in time to protect them. Now, the criminal who might have been
afraid to break into your home for fear of being shot has little to fear
from you. And this is precisely why we will see a violent, bloody increase
in crime, once guns are abolished. The removal of guns from honest
individuals will provide an incentive to encourage even more criminal
attacks against you, bringing us an outbreak of violence, the likes of which
we have never seen.

Statists will gain on two fronts. First, as noted earlier, the increase in
crime which will come with disarming honest citizens will spur even more
demands on the part of individuals for the government to "do" something,
leading to further statist measures which gobble up even more liberty.
Second, they gain a crucial instrument they need to make it easier for them
to eventually accomplish what they have in store for you. When statists make
their final thrust to plunge this country into tyranny, they will be faced
with overcoming a disarmed citizenry, which is obviously easier to overwhelm
than an armed citizenry. And if this night of despair descends upon this
country, how will you defend yourself when some armed agents of some future
Gestapo arrive at your door? You won't be able to do so. And if you want a
gauge to measure just how close we are to crashing into the ground of
tyranny, just listen to and watch the demands by statists to outlaw guns:
the louder, more frenetic the demands become, the closer statists will be
getting to making their final push to have absolute power over you.

Fifty years ago, there were few calls for gun control. Why not? After all,
back then, criminals used guns in the commission of crimes, just as they do
today. Back then, guns were all over the place, yet crime was low compared
to what we have today. Back then, it was virtually unheard of to hear about
some psycho opening fire on a group of individuals, killing a score of them.
Now it has become an increasingly common occurrence. In my small town of
around 2,500, there were probably as many guns in town as there were people.
Virtually every adult in town owned a couple of guns and many of them owned
automatic weapons, yet no one murdered anyone and no one committed armed
robbery. Most teenage boys in town owned a shotgun, given to them by their
fathers as a rite of passage into approaching adulthood, yet none of these
boys ever took their guns to school to terrorize students and teachers. Why
do we now have so many more crimes involving guns than back then? Why this
difference? Well, we have already answered this question. Back then, statism
did not have the cultural and political dominance it has achieved today. Back
then, the doctrine of statism was not widespread enough to give birth to the
wave of crime which is now inundating this country. Back then, a liar was
severely condemned by most adults. Back then, most adults did discriminate
against liars: they held it against a liar for lying. And any youngster who
lied, who was on the verge of going bad and taking the first steps to
becoming a future criminal, found little encouragement from the adults
around him or in the media. Back then, it would have been unthinkable to
most to vote for a bald-faced liar and send to their children the kind of
message children are receiving today. Yes, even back then, there were
politicians who dissembled, but few lied about factual matters, as we have
today, few were blatant liars, few would stand before an audience and tell
them that a budget increase is a decrease, that an increase is a cut, that
more is less, as we now have from the person who holds the highest elected
office in this land. Back then, even most liberals morally condemned liars.
And back then, unbelievably enough, even the mostly liberal media would have
nailed such a shameless liar.

If you are a young woman asleep in your apartment and you are suddenly
confronted by a 250 pound brute, wouldn't you be grateful to have a gun at
your bedside to shoot this monster who seeks to rape and murder you? Unless
you have a death wish, you would. Do a bunch of statist politicians have the
right to prevent you from owning a gun to defend yourself? Must you die
because you have been forcibly prevented from owning a gun? Yes, if these
statists have their way. If your life were of any concern to statists, they
would not seek to forcibly deprive you of owning the means of defending it.
No, these statists are not concerned about the preservation of your life or
the life of anyone else (except their own).
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 06:47:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: THE FOLLY OVER GUNS   2/3

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
In the ceaseless efforts of statists to abolish your freedom, they
continuously bring confusion to the minds of many by corrupting the meaning
of words. Look at the controversy which has been stirred up by these statists
when it comes to so-called "assault weapons." For an honest person, an
automatic weapon is a self-defense weapon, not an "assault weapon," as it has
been deceitfully dubbed by statists. Honest individuals do not assault others,
only criminals (and statists) assault others. If a criminal uses an automatic
weapon, or any other kind of weapon, then it has become an assault weapon.
Again, if these statists are so concerned about "assault weapons," why
aren't they simply outlawing the possession of these weapons by criminals?
They aren't because their goal is not to disarm criminals, their goal
is to disarm you, to leave you helpless to defend yourself in an emergency
situation when you are attacked by criminals, those soul mates of statists.

Mercifully, a significant majority in this country still support your right
to own a gun and it will likely take years of statist propaganda to convert
this majority into a minority. However, the greatest threat to your right to
own a gun comes from the confusion created by statists regarding the right
of private individuals to own military weapons -- and this confusion has
enabled statists, as confusion always does, to drive a wedge of doubt into
the minds of many about the right of gun ownership.

Do private individuals have the right to possess military weapons of any
kind? Yes, they do. What if your neighbor is some sort of deranged
millionaire who has enough money to purchase a nuclear bomb and places it in
his basement? Does this individual have the right to do this? No. In a free
society, the state would properly act to prevent this individual from
putting such a bomb in his basement. In order to understand the alleged
problem with individuals possessing military weapons, such as a nuclear
bomb, you must fully understand the following: no individual has the right
to initiate force against another individual, either directly or
indirectly -- and this includes the threat of force, even if it is only
implicit. For instance, if your neighbor went out and purchased a military
cannon, loaded it and pointed it toward your house, this would be the
implicit, if not explicit, threat of force. If his action is accidental,
simply unthinking carelessness, then you can ask him to unload the cannon
and not point it at your home. If he refuses to do this, then he is
explicitly threatening you with the initiation of force. In pointing the
loaded cannon toward your house, your neighbor has put your property and
life in danger of being destroyed. You have a right to live your life
without the threat of force, whether it be intentional or accidental. Your
neighbor does not have the right to threaten you, even implicitly, with the
initiation of force. In a free society, police would properly act to prevent
your neighbor from threatening you with this cannon. However, if that same
neighbor simply put the unloaded cannon in his front yard, he has the right
to do so and is not endangering or threatening anyone.

Now, the same is true with the hypothetical case of your neighbor putting a
nuclear bomb in his basement. Your right to own a gun is, in principle, the
same as your right to own a car (if you have earned the money to pay for it
and someone is willing to sell you one), the same as your right to any thing
or service you can pay for, as long as your use of that thing or service
does not threaten another individual with the infliction of force. In the
case of a nuclear bomb, this is not a weapon of self-defense, except in the
case of a nation defending you and every other individual from an attack
against foreign aggressors -- if you detonated a nuclear bomb to protect
yourself from someone who has broken into your home you would kill yourself,
not defend yourself. Since there is no reason to own a nuclear weapon by an
individual for the purpose of self-defense in one's own home, its possession
by your neighbor can only be for the purpose of implicitly threatening you
with destruction. Even if it is not the intent of the neighbor to threaten
you and he is simply stupid, the fact is his possession and use of such a
bomb is, in fact, a threat to you: its accidental discharge would kill you
and destroy your home. This is the implicit threat of force against you and
this must be outlawed in a free society.

It is very important to not be confused on this issue: it is not the
possession of a nuclear bomb as such which is being outlawed, it is the
threat of force which is being outlawed. It is not the possession of objects
which must be outlawed, it is the act of using of an object in a threatening
manner, the threat or actual use of the initiation of force through the use
of an object which must be outlawed. To further clarify this point, consider
another example. Suppose you and your neighbors pool your money together to
create a company which is going into the business of building military
weapons which will be sold to the United States military forces and all of
you have decided you will build and sell nuclear bombs. In this case, these
nuclear bombs are owned by the individuals who own the company. Their
possession of these nuclear bombs at their manufacturing facility does not
constitute a threat (unless they build their plant too close to your home),
not even implicitly, to anyone, and in this case their possession and use of
nuclear bombs should not be illegal. Only certain acts are properly made
illegal, acts which involve the initiation of force or its threat. The
possession of an object, one an individual has earned, should never be made
illegal.

McDonnell Douglas, the military contractor, has a manufacturing facility
only a few miles from my home. They manufacture F-15s and F-18s, as well
as other military aircraft. This company is owned by a collection of
individuals, its stockholders, and their ownership and possession of these
weapons is not wrong. By owning these weapons and selling them to the
military, they are threatening no one. If the president of McDonnell Douglas
suddenly lost his mind and instructed some crazed pilot to fly over my home
in a menacing manner, then I am being threatened and this should be stopped.
Again, it is the threat or actual use of the initiation of force which must
be illegal, not the possession of objects.

Those who produce certain types of movies either purchase or rent military
weapons of all sorts, such as tanks, automatic weapons, cannons and so forth.
They have the right to own and use these weapons so long as they do not use
them in such a way as to threaten the life and property of another individual,
as long as they do not threaten to use them as an instrument of force.

Statists bamboozle many in their talk about so-called weapons of destruction
in their drive to outlaw guns. Almost any object can be a weapon of
destruction. In mankind's history, innocent individuals have been destroyed
by the use of all sorts of objects. Individuals have been murdered by the
use of baseball bats, knives, metal pipes, heavy stone statues or any other
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 06:47:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: THE FOLLY OVER GUNS   3/3

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
kind of blunt object. You could beat someone to death with a large, heavy,
hardcover book or with a block of ice. You could strangle someone using a
nylon stocking, a rope, piano wire or any other similar thing. Is the
solution to the death brought to the victims of murderers to outlaw the
ownership of books, baseball bats, knives and other objects which may be
used to murder someone? No, the solution is to outlaw the threat or actual
use of the initiation of force, to outlaw this kind of act, not the
possession of objects as such. If an individual stands before you and
threatens you with a baseball bat, it is not his possession of a baseball
bat which is wrong, it is his threatening you with force that is wrong. And
the same is true of a gun: if he stands before you threatening you with a
gun, it is the threat of force that is wrong, not the possession of the gun
as such.

Now what about these militia groups which have sprouted up in this country?
These groups are a product of the advance of statism. Most who join such
groups likely sense this country is heading toward some sort of tyranny, and
they are right. In training themselves in the ways of the military, they are
attempting to prepare themselves to be able to defend themselves and their
families in the future. They have the right to do so, as long as they do not
physically threaten or initiate force against another individual -- and this
includes any representative or employee of government. If there are lunatics
in these militia groups who are plotting to bomb government buildings and
kill government employees, they must be stopped. True enough, our government
has inflicted many injustices on various individuals, but we are not at the
point in this country where it is time for an armed insurrection. The fight
against the injustices of statism must be fought by ideas, not guns. The
only time it is proper to physically fight against a tyrannical government
which rules you is when you are no longer free to speak, when you no longer
have the freedom to fight by means of spreading the right ideas. Military
battles have been fought, throughout the centuries, against statism and
those battles have only gotten rid of statists for an all-too-brief period
of time. Statists keep resurfacing, every generation or so, because their
ideas have never been defeated. The proponents of freedom must have the
right ideas on their side to win, and once they do, statist politicians will
quickly retreat.

The criminal acts by some members of these militia groups are contributing
to the breakdown of law and order in this country and, therefore, hasten the
move toward some future tyranny, the very thing they apparently oppose. Their
acts are also being used by statists to smear gun owners by declarations,
mostly in the media, which vaguely or overtly suggest gun owners are somehow
responsible for the criminal acts of these militia members, inspiring even
more frenzied effort by statists to outlaw guns, to remove from you the
means to defend your life. Criminals, including those among militia groups,
are not the product of those who seek to have the means to defend themselves
against the initiation of force, they are the product of those who advocate
the initiation of force. It is the doctrine of statism which promotes the
initiation of force and it, not gun owners, is responsible for the creation
of criminals, including those in militia groups.

In a free society, guns would be controlled by private property owners
exercising their right to control the use of their property. An individual
could forbid the possession of weapons on his property. In a free society,
the overwhelming majority of owners of property where there are public
gatherings would, in most cases, forbid the possession of firearms on their
property. They would be free, like private schools testing students for
drugs, to check anyone entering their property for weapons. This could
include screening each individual with metal detectors if they thought that
was necessary. In the case, for instance, of airports and planes, rather
than having the state forcing such screening, it would be left to the
property owners to set the rules: the airport owners and the airlines. Since
these owners would have to be responsive to the desires of their customers
and since almost all passengers do not want weapons on a plane they are
flying, you can be sure airports and airlines would forbid weapons onboard
planes or in airports. This would be accomplished without the state
mandating anything and without the violation of individual rights by the
state's initiation of force. In a free society, the role of the state would
be to enforce the rights of the property owners. If an individual attempted
to defy the wishes of airlines and airports, by bringing a gun onto their
property, then the police should properly take action to enforce the rights
of the airlines and airports. An individual does not have the right to carry
a weapon, concealed or not, onto the property of another individual without
that individual's permission.

Those liberals who are loudest in their support of outlawing guns are the
first to sympathetically embrace some foreign dictators, such as the rulers
of communist China. And if it is the violent loss of life brought about by
some lone gunman that is their concern, where is their outrage over the
millions who have been slaughtered by statist dictatorships in totalitarian
countries? Where is their outrage over the killing of thousands by the Castro
regime, the millions in communist China? Their silence and hypocritical
inconsistency is revealing. It reveals the loss of human life is not their
real concern. A tragedy such as we had in Tasmania, in 1996, in which some
crazed gunman killed over 30 people is cynically used by statists to increase
their power over you. They care not about the loss of life in Tasmania. If
they did, they would be screaming their heads off about the loss of life
which occurs on a daily basis under the dictatorships which cover a large
part of this planet.

We urgently need gun control, but not the kind that's being talked about
today. We must control the government gun, which is the statists' assault
weapon of choice. Government must never be allowed to initiate force against
a single individual. The government gun can bring -- and has brought -- more
loss of life and property than a single AK-47 can ever bring in the hands of
a solitary individual. Many individuals have been forcibly prevented by
statists from using certain drugs which might have saved their lives. How
many have died? No one knows and there has been scant mention, if any, of
this loss of life on the nightly news.

In a free society, one which protects the right to life and liberty of each
and all, the initiation of force is abolished. The guns of the state must
only be used in defending you against the initiation of force, not inflict
it upon you. Your life is important, it is yours and you have the right to
defend it with a gun, a knife or any other means at your disposal. If you
surrender your right to own a gun, you surrender your right to your life --
and if this is surrendered by a majority in this country, it doesn't take a
rocket scientist to figure out what will lie ahead for you in the future.

TAKE ACTION!


- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 08:23:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Hypothetical incidents?  Try real ...

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 17:40:51 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Limits on guns may pass in 1999

By Bob Bernick Jr. <http://deseretnews.com/staff/card/1,1228,9,00.html>
Deseret News political editor editor

Another attempt will be made during the Legislature's 1999 general session
to give church congregations and public school administrators the power to
ban all weapons - permitted or not - from their property.

House Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake, will make the latest run at
changing Utah's concealed-weapons permit laws. Current law says people who
get concealed-weapons permits can carry them without restriction except for
several specific areas - such as prisons, courtrooms and airports.

He's optimistic that a change in House leadership will give his gun-banning
side a better shot at success.

"So what else is new?" says Elwood Powell, chairman of the Utah Shooting
Sports Council, which has battled this issue for several years. Such banning
of weapons to law-abiding, permit-carrying citizens "is a violation of the
Utah Constitution's guarantee of the right to defend ourselves," says
Powell.

Jones says it is "overwhelmingly clear" from any number of public opinion
polls that most Utahns want guns banned from churches and schools. A Deseret
News poll conducted earlier this year shows that 93 percent favor concealed
weapons being banned from public schools, 90 percent want them banned from
churches.

"It has been a lack of political will - not public support" that has doomed
the concealed-weapons changes before, says Jones.

House Speaker Mel Brown, R-Mivale, is stepping down from that leadership
role in the 1999 Legislature. While Brown denies it - and Senate President
Lane Beattie won't say it either - it is generally believed that Brown's
opposition to a similar bill drafted by Beattie in the 1998 general session
was the reason Beattie pulled his bill before it was even given a public
hearing.

Beattie, R-West Bountiful, said at the time only that the bill had little
chance of passage in the House, so why waste time on the controversial
measure.

A speaker has the power to hold a bill or send it to a standing committee
where it may have little chance of passage.

"I'm encouraged" that the new House GOP leaders will judge his bill on a
reasonable basis, Jones said.

To give "these two exemptions to the (concealed) weapons law is just plain
common sense," says Jones.

Why should the place where "we take care of the most vulnerable among us -
our children - and the house of the Creator" not be protected from handguns?
Jones asks.

But Powell looks at it differently.

If a constitutional right is denied, someone must step up to ensure that the
right is not needed. And someone must pay the costs if that right is denied.
He asks who is going to pay the cost of a life-long suffering if persons
threatened by others can't defend themselves and are harmed?

"Who is going to pick up the social cost" of someone paralyzed for life when
they could have fought off an aggressor? "Will it be the state, the
taxpayers? I believe people should think about that one."

A number of school districts have already issued personnel rules that ban
all weapons from schools. Exceptions are usually made for law enforcement
officers, and Jones says his bill will allow officers to carry guns on
school grounds.

Gov. Mike Leavitt - through his personnel department - has also issued
regulations banning state employees from carrying weapons, including
properly permitted concealed weapons, from state buildings, grounds and
vehicles. Again, state law-enforcement officers are exempt.

And the State Hospital, where mentally ill people are confined and treated,
this year issued new rules and guidelines on carrying weapons there.
No one has challenged churches that may want to ban weapons from their
buildings.

Some legislators are saying nothing really has to be done - that offended
citizens who don't like state personnel guidelines, school policies or
actions by churches can go to court.

But Jones believes the matter should be clearly outlined in state law.
"Anyone can create a hypothetical incident for any situation - a woman
teacher is attacked by an abusive husband in school or whatever. But why in
the world do we need guns in schools and churches? It makes no sense at all
to say that guns should be allowed to be taken anywhere."



- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 08:23:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Good News! Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) to bid for 2000 Presidency [?]

- ---------- Forwarded message
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 00:24:10 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Good News! Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) to bid for 2000 Presidency [?]

In a message dated 11/27/98 21:45:31 Eastern Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<<
 You may all recall how Sen. Smith did his best to save us from the ill
 effects of Brady II by creating a private cause of action against the
 FBI in the event they abused the 'instant check' by creating a gun owner
 registration database. Against the warnings of the so-called Republican
  >>
Wouldn't it be wise to try and sue HCI and put them out of business, by
making them responsible for the deaths of those who they take guns away from?


- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:59:50 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rise to your mantles of leadership

Interesting editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune on Nov 29, 1998.



Salt Lake Tribune Article:
Do Your Duty
http://www.sltrib.com/1998/nov/11291998/public_f/63873.htm=20

Do Your Duty     =09
    =09
    If the electorate truly thought William Jefferson Clinton should =
be above the law, and be allowed to dictate the ``punishment'' he will =
accept, the Republicans would have been swept out of office in a Democratic=
 landslide this past election.=20

Those Democrats who did manage to unseat or replace Republicans were very =
few. The media and Democratic leadership would have us believe this =
``victory'' indicates a public mandate to retain Mr. Clinton in office. =
=20

Does it really? I think there are millions of us who voted Republican, =
expecting our majority members in the House and Senate to assume their =
sworn responsibility of upholding and protecting the Constitution by =
impeaching President Clinton.=20

Democrats want to waive constitutional law to retain him as leader of our =
country. The fact that a few Democrats won seats in Congress on local =
issues is not the mandate the Democrats and media want us to believe, but =
is clearly our final call to the Republican majority to do their duty. =
Fail our country this time around, and I believe the electorate will =
abandon the Republican Party in droves. =20

What sinister powers do the Democrats have that have managed to hold the =
Republican majority hostage? The consequences of maintaining this power =
are so far-reaching in the future behavior of our citizenry. Leaders lead. =
Can our armed forces be held to standards their commander-in-chief =
despises? If this husband is allowed to perjure himself because his =
personal life (adultery) is only a private matter, we will further strip =
legal protection and further injure our national family structure. =20

In the past we were forced to accept the Chappaquidic affair, then O.J. =
Simpson's acquittal, and now President Clinton's behavior. What virtue =
will be left to defend by shouldering arms in case of war? Could Congress =
even raise an army? When law becomes meaningless to the man on the street, =
and there is nothing to hold dear, we can expect chaos to follow. =20

Hello, Republican congressmen! Rise to your mantles of leadership. We have =
put our trust and hope in you. Be courageous and boldly re-establish the =
rights of truth and justice to our beloved country. =20
GLORIA BARNES
Lindon, Utah  =09




- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:29:51 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: New directions

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:22:25 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA04118; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:09:20 -0700
Received: from  (server@localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA07056;
    Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:20:45 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:20:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
From: Don Loftus <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: New directions
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 from a story on Nando News about the NICKS check:

(snip) Federal law bans gun purchases by people convicted or under=20
indictment
for felony charges, fugitives, the mentally ill, those with dishonorable
military discharges, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, illegal
aliens, illegal drug users and those convicted of domestic violence
misdemeanors or who are under domestic violence restraining orders.
State laws add other categories.<<<<<<

Once again I bring up the idea of a class action suit against the BATF,=20
FBI and other Federal agencies if criminals are not charged with these=20
offenses.  We must get them (lawyers, judges, prosecutors, etc.) from=20
plea bargaining these charges away.

Another thought.  Now that we have the NICKS system, we need to get a=20
Congress person to introduce legislation that would repeal the Gun=20
Control Act of 1968.  Since we will be checked at a national level,=20
there is no reason why we should only be able to buy a firearm only in=20
our home state.  These are two things that gun owners could do to=20
refocus the debate on gun control.

Don Loftus
Gainesville, FL



- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:09:04 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Clinton and gun shows

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:28:52 -0700
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA04125; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:15:51 -0700
Received: (from mail@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA06041;
    Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:20:45 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to [e-mail] using -f
Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [149.174.217.136])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA06037
    for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:20:44 -0800
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
    by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.16) id MAA07329;
    Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:20:21 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:19:58 -0500
From: David Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and gun shows
To: Andy Adams <[e-mail]>,
        "INTERNET:[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
        "INTERNET:[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
        Warren B Jones <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

The following alert was forwarded to me from another list.  As you are =
well
aware, the Clinton Administration wants to strangle gun shows using the
federal agencies.=20
BATF is seeking public comment on gun shows.  Please take a moment to =
write
a well-thought, concerned letter to the BATF.  The address and other
information is listed below.

David Adams
NRA-ILA-EVC, VA 7th
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/
[e-mail]
___________________________________________________________________________=

_________

The Clinton-Gore administration has set its sights on gun shows, and they
will use every means at their disposal to eliminate the rights of gun
owners in America. The BATF has recently issued an open letter requesting
comments from "interested parties concerning gun shows." It reads as
follows:
"On November 7, 1998, the President expressed his concern about the =
numbers
of firearms sold at gun shows and elsewhere without Brady background =
checks
being conducted or the ability to trace the firearms being sold...The
President has asked that the secretary and the Attorney General provide =
him
with recommendations by January 6, 1999.
"The BATF would like your comments and suggestions concerning this matter.
For your input to be considered please include your name and address. We
request that your reply be returned to this office by December 7, 1998. We
appreciate your time and input. Please mail comments to:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Attn: Gun Shows
        '       650 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 7400
                Washington, DC,  20226"


Of course, BATF's expansion of the President's statements to include
regulating gun sales "elsewhere" raises more questions about the ultimate
goals of the Administration. Time is short, so please be sure to submit
your comments as soon as possible if you would like to have them considered=

by the December 7 deadline. If you would like more information on how
protect your Second Amendment Rights, please contact the NRA member =
Council
of King County, WAshington, at [phone], or come to one of our
meetings, The second Friday of every month, 7:00PM at Weapons Safety =
Indoor
Range in Bellevue, 13215 SE 30th St., Bellevue.

Please forward this message to any interested parties-
Ken Houghton

****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


- -

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 12:51:21 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Local gun poll needs some help

All,

There is a "quick poll" on the DesNew's front page today
<http:/www.desnews.com> asking,

"Should the legislature pass a law enabling adminstrators to ban guns
in:

Schools only
Churches only
Both
Neither"


Current vote totals are

Schools only 116  (11%)
churches only 10 (1%)
both 709 (68%)
neither 201 (19%)


Please take a few moments to log in and register an
opinion--espectially in the neither catagory. Let's make sure there
isn't one more poll that can be used as justification for more laws
limiting our RKBA.

FWIW, every proposed bill last year and this year which purports to
"allow" churches and/or schools to ban guns actually bans all (non
governmental) guns from those locations (and usually include colleges
and universities in their definition of schools) and requires the
church or school, via some officer, to grant permission to carry on an
individual basis.



- --

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: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 12:51:52 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [" Fun with statistics"]

- ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
"Top 10 List of Bread Statistics

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming
households score below average on standardized tests.
3. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been
proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to
suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than
that in one month!
4. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
5. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of
bread and given only water begged for bread after as little as two days.
6. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to
"harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even
cold cuts.
7. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in
the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years;
infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died
in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and
influenza ravaged whole nations.
8. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within
24 hours of eating bread.
9. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit!
That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
10. Many bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish
between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical
babbling."



- ----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 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.

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #113
***********************************