From the Cybershooters list. I say congratulations to the citizens of
Austrailia in their saying "up yours" to their government. :-)
Mike P
Queensland "The Sunday Mail"
Buyback blamed for illegal trade
By CHRIS GRIFITH
24jan99
THE $500 million national gun buy-back scheme has failed, Queensland's
foremost police weapons expert says.
Inspector John McCoomb says gun laws introduced after the 1996 Port
Arthur massacre have sent the trade underground.
"Once they're on the black market, they're there for anyone to buy,"
he said.
He said that "with the right contacts", it was still possible to buy
semi-automatic weapons like the Armalite (AR-10) rifle Martin Bryant
used in the massacre.
Inspector McCoomb, who heads the Weapons Licensing Branch, said
Australians had handed in only a fraction of the weapons in the
community.
So far, just over 643,000 guns had been surrendered nationally, about
131,000 of them in Queensland.
It was impossible to calculate the number of guns in Australia but
643,000 was a fraction of just two brands of now-illegal guns in the
country.
"About 800,000 (semi-automatic and automatic) SKK and SKS weapons
came in from China back in the 1980s as part of a trade deal between
the Australian and Chinese governments," Insp McCoomb said.
"And it was estimated that there were 1.2 million semi-automatic Ruger
1022s in the country.
"That's about 2 million firearms of just two types in the country."
Insp McCoomb said police realised there were abundant illegal firearms
for people to commit public atrocities.
On November 1 last year, gang members fired a hail of bullets at a
Sydney police station using high-powered 9mm automatics or
semi-automatics. Five police were inside.
This barrage of shots in a city street was exactly the sort of
scenario the buy-back was supposed to stop.
Insp McCoomb said firearms activity has increased despite the
buy-back, particularly in Sydney.
"There firearms are in the hands of gangs, organised crime syndicates,
the druggies, the bikies, the whole box and dice."
He said he had estimated about half of guns in Queensland were now
illegally held.
"We did a 'guestimate' before all this started and we conservatively
estimated between 1.2 and 1.3 million guns in Queensland.
"We've now got about 520,000 guns licensed. Even when you take into
account 130,000 guns handed in, we're well and truly short."
Insp McCoomb estimated that only 25 per cent of those with guns were
now licensed.
Owners had opted to go outside the system.
Even newly licensed owners had not declared their full arsenal.
"When we have checked after an incident, we've found they've got five
guns registered to their licence, when they actually have 10.
"The perception in the shooting community is that 'if you know all
about my guns, you'll soon take them all off me'."
Insp McCoomb criticised courts which had not revoked licences of
dealers who traded on the black market.
"In one case, a dealer sold a firearm to an undercover agent and was
prosecuted. But the magistrate ruled that it was no offence because
the undercover agent was a police officer who was exempt from the
provisions of the Act."
An appeal had been lodged in the District Court.
Crimes involving guns had soared during and since the buyback, Insp
McCoomb said.
In 1997, the year the buy-back was completed, robberies involving
guns leapt 39 per cent, and assaults involving guns 28 per cent.
Australian Customs acknowledges only a fraction of containers entering
the country are searched for illegal weapons.
Customs spokesman Leon Bedington said one inspector would need
eight days to check a container load thoroughly.
"Nobody here likes Sara Lee!" -- www.wagc.com
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:01:27 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <righter@therighter.com>
Subject: FWD: First Gun Rights Victory
Following is a note I received today from Shirley Spain. The message spe=
aks for itself.
I would add only two things - This is a victory not only for gun rights a=
ctivists, but for everyone who believes that all people are equal under t=
he law, that laws apply to all citizens, and that there should not be "sp=
ecial" categories of people with "special privileges".
Second, this emphasizes that individual citizens who are informed, concer=
ned, and take the time to communicate with legislators really can make a =
difference. So don't despair - we CAN do it!
Sarah
The remainder of this message was written by Shirley Spain or Scott Engen=
, as noted. Also, Shirley's e-mail address is agr@aros.net.
FIRST GUN RIGHTS VICTORY
Utah's gun rights activists got their first victory today (interestingly,
no thanks to any gun lobby).
Scott Engen, former lobbyist for the Utah Shooting Sports Council drafted
an incredibly powerful and convincing piece on the dangers of HB26 -
Retired Police Officer Weapons Exemptions and why it should be opposed.
(Copy of Scott's position is within this email.) Then he emailed it to th=
e
bill's sponsor, Rebecca Lockhart.
Scott's piece so educated Rep. Lockhart that she agreed to hold the bill =
in
committee, which effectively "kills" the bill for the session. (Copy of
Rep. Lockhart's response to Scott also follows.)
WAY TO GO SCOTT!!!
Now Scott needs YOUR help. We need to let Rep. Lockhart know that we
appreciate her wisdom in holding the bill. PLEASE email a thank-you to
her, address:
blockhar@le.state.utah.us
ABOUT THIS ALERT
As many of you know, I, (Shirley Spain) have resigned my position with th=
e
publication of American Gun Review in September of '97. I also resigned =
as
Vice Chair of the Utah Shooting Sports Council this summer. I am no longe=
r
affiliated with any organization. Thus, you are receiving this (and
future) gun rights alerts from me as a private citizen; a fellow pro-gunn=
er
active in the political process.
If you do not want to receive gun rights updates, or if you know someone
who would like to be added to my list, please advise me.
Until next time...
As always, yours in freedom,
Shirley A. Spain
SCOTT ENGEN'S POSITION PAPER ON HB26
HB 26 Retired Police Officer Weapons Exemptions
Sponsor: R. Lockhart
Position: Strong Opposition
Overview: This bill eliminates the requirement for a retired peace office=
r to
apply for and be granted a Utah Concealed Firearms permit in order to car=
ry a
concealed firearm, and exempts them from the Brady Background Check when
purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer.
There are several glaring flaws with the concept and execution of this
legislative proposal. Foremost among them is that the bill creates the co=
ncept
that a retired police officer is a member of some special or protected cl=
ass
of individuals within our society. A law enforcement officer, while they =
are
employed by a law enforcement agency, is a public employee, vested with
specific law enforcement authority and the power of arrest, as limited by
their agency and POST certification status. Once that individual leaves s=
worn
service through separation, termination or retirement, they become a priv=
ate
citizen, with no more special privileges or authority in use of force tha=
n any
other private citizen.
While many if not most active and retired law enforcement officers are
exemplary citizens, a percentage are not. Occasions of individual miscond=
uct
do arise in which the officer is offered retirement instead of terminatio=
n by
his or her employing agency, in order preserve the officer=92s retirement
benefits and pension, and avoid adverse or damaging publicity for the
employing agency and law enforcement as a whole. An officer separated und=
er
these circumstances may have been a party to unlawful violence or brutali=
ty,
ethical or moral lapses or otherwise egregious behavior, yet would have t=
he
ability to purchase or carry a concealed firearm without restriction, and
without any background check whatsoever.
Further, by eliminating the requirement for a periodic review as a part o=
f a
Concealed Firearm Permit renewal, there is no mechanism by which the ongo=
ing
behavior or conduct of the officer may be monitored. A retired officer ma=
y
become involved in criminal activity, threaten or use unlawful violence,
become a danger to themselves or others, be adjudicated mentally incompet=
ent,
engage on acts of substance abuse, moral turpitude or be subject to court
orders related to domestic violence. By providing a lifetime exemption to
these ongoing checks and balances, a situation which may endanger the pub=
lic
or the individual in question. The same concerns apply to compliance with=
the
Brady Act's background check for purchase of a firearm.
Finally, many senior law enforcement officials, particularly political
appointees, were the most antagonistic and vocal group in opposition of r=
eform
and liberalized concealed carry laws and most supportive of intrusive Bra=
dy
background checks on law-abiding firearms purchasers.
It is clearly hypocritical for those who so vocally supported such measur=
es as
a part of their official duties would seek to exempt themselves from thes=
e
requirements once they again become private citizens. What's good for the
goose is good for the retired officer as well.
It is suggested that, rather than the current language of HB 26, legislat=
ion
be adopted to allow a retiring law enforcement officer to be granted an
exemption from the background check, training requirement and associated
application fees for a standard civilian Utah Concealed Firearms permit. =
To
qualify for this one-time exemption, the officer must apply within 30 day=
s of
their retirement from full-time sworn duty, and supply to the issuing sta=
te
agency, by way of written certification from their former employing law
enforcement agency, that they have no criminal record, history of substan=
ce
abuse, moral or ethical lapses, or other disqualifying behavior, and they=
are
familiar with the Utah laws regarding use of force by a private citizen a=
nd
the safe use of a firearm. This secures the retiring officer a carry perm=
it at
no out of pocket cost to the officer. Costs may be covered by the employi=
ng
agency or absorbed by the issuing agency. The initial permit is valid for=
5
years, with a renewal fee currently set at $5.00 every five years.
Assuming an officer joins an agency at age 25, serves for 20 years until
retirement at age 45, and is issued at retirement a Utah Concealed Firear=
ms
permit valid for 5 years until their death at age 75, the total costs of
permit renewals during his or her lifetime would not exceed $20.00, a cos=
t
well within the budget of most individuals, including the average retired=
law
enforcement officer.
In conclusion, while the sponsors' intent is no doubt sincere, the concep=
t and
execution are deeply flawed. Police officers are by and large good and de=
cent
individuals, but as retired private citizens they have no more rights or
privileges that any other tax-paying private citizen, who paid their sala=
ry,
supports their pension and benefits, and whom they once swore an oath to
protect.
Thank you.
REP. LOCKHART'S RESPONSE
Scott,
Thank you for your concerns.
First of all, let me tell you that the idea for this bill is in no way se=
rved
by the drafted legislation. The bill does not do what was the intended, =
for
the exact reasons you mentioned. I have asked that the bill be kept in
committee, hopefully to never again see the light of day.
I appreciate your concerns as they were the same ones I had.
Let me state again, this bill would do things I am vehemently opposed to.
This was not the intent. Therefore, I have requested that it not be brou=
ght
out of committee. If you have any questions about where this bill idea =
came
from, please feel free to contact me or Rep. David Ure. Thanks for your
input.
Rep. R. Lockhart
leg-alerts is owned and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The opinions in this alert represent those of the list owner only,=20
unless otherwise attributed or specified.
To subscribe to leg-alerts send a message to:
majordomo@aros.net
in the body of the message put:
subscribe leg-alerts
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT POST TO THIS LIST!
Send comments, alerts, suggestions, etc. to:
righter@therighter.com
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 99 21:35:00 -0700
From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW:Steve Sady's DN letter
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:12:53 -0700
From: Jim Dexter <jimdex@inconnect.com>
To: LPUtah Forum <lputah@qsicorp.com>
Cc: Steve Sady <ssadycpt@allwest.net>
Subject: FW: Second Amendment CONSIDERATIONS?
Steve Sady just sent the following to the DesNews. Well done, Steve!
- ----------
Your Jan 18 editorial trivializes constitutional civil rights.
The second amendment is not merely a 'CONSIDERATION' for
legislators and bureaucrats like Utah's Dave Jones when they
decide the law-abiding masses of citizens are blundering fools,
incapable of exercising their constitutional right to keep and
bear arms. Some elitists in the legislature and on your editorial
board don't trust the average citizen with rights secured to us
by the Constitution. Tough. It's not a negotiable point!
Hitler's Nazis first registered guns, later confiscated them;
the aftermath is well known. No American worthy of the freedom
bought by patriots' blood will consent to registration or
prohibition of personal arms. The US Constitution's second
amendment and Utah's constitution FORBIDS the prohibition or
regulation of adult citizens' guns.
This Constitution is the oxygen of our freedom and the Second
Amendment is our 'Canary in the mine shaft' showing the
condition of the 'air' we breathe. The air is being poisoned.
Steve Sady, 1687 West SR 32, Peoa UT 84061 435-783-5889
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 99 21:35:00 -0700
From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW:Bishop Oks Oly Gun Ban
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:32:54 -0700
From: Jim Dexter <jimdex@inconnect.com>
To: lputah@qsicorp.com
Cc: Janalee Tobias <gunflower@lgcy.com>
Subject: Bishop OKs Oly Gun Ban
Today it was reported that Bishop Rob, acting as the executive director of
the Utah Shooting Sports Council, said the proposed ban on guns at the
Olympics was OK with him but a few details needed to be worked out.
Bishop is a traitor and the USSC worthless if this is the best they can do.
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 99 22:57:00 -0700
From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Olympic Gun Ban
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:54:29 -0700
From: Jim Elwell <elwell@inconnect.com>
Bcc: lputah@qsicorp.com
To: mcarlson@le.state.ut.us
Subject: Olympic Gun Ban
Dear Ms. Carlson:
Since you are a Democrat, you probably will not agree with my point
here, but I would like to make my views known to you anyway.
The Salt Lake Tribune reports today on efforts to stop legitimate
concealed-carry permit holders from having their guns at the Olympics.
As far as I am concerned, this is a travesty. A law-abiding citizen who
has taken a course and test and who has had a background check and
received a concealed-carry permit is *not* a threat to anyone except a
criminal.
By prohibiting concealed carry by decent Utah citizens at the Olympics,
we are merely posting "Rape Me, Rob Me" signs all over the venue. A
criminal, who will not respect the prohibition anyway, will know that they
are safe to practice their crimes, as the "state" will have conveniently
disarmed all citizens.
There have been numerous recent studies and books that have
demonstrated unequivocally that *concealed carry saves lives.* (Lott,
Kleck, et. al.)
When are you going to start helping our fellow citizens protect
themselves from those who would prey on them?
Jim Elwell
2522 Chadwick Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
801-483-2890
elwell@inconnect.com
- -
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:13:52 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <righter@therighter.com>
Subject: Re: FW:Bishop Oks Oly Gun Ban
I can't speak for Rob Bishop, but USSC has expressed its absolute opposition to this bill. We'll see....
Sarah
PS: Don't flame ME. I'm no longer on the Board of USSC.
At 09:35 PM 1/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:32:54 -0700
>From: Jim Dexter <jimdex@inconnect.com>
>To: lputah@qsicorp.com
>Cc: Janalee Tobias <gunflower@lgcy.com>
>Subject: Bishop OKs Oly Gun Ban
>
>Today it was reported that Bishop Rob, acting as the executive director of
>the Utah Shooting Sports Council, said the proposed ban on guns at the
>Olympics was OK with him but a few details needed to be worked out.
>
>Bishop is a traitor and the USSC worthless if this is the best they can do.
>
>
>
>-
- -
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:14:41 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <righter@therighter.com>
Subject: URGENT ALERT! SB 122 Olympic Gun Control
We need your help to stop Olympic Gun Control! Sen. Mike Waddoups has introduced SB 122, Controlled Access Areas in Olympic Venues. You can read the bill at: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1999/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0122.htm
(Yes, this is the SAME Mike Waddoups who sponsored Utah's concealed carry and state pre-emption laws, although it appears that he may have an "evil twin". <g>)
The Olympics language in this bill is IDENTICAL to that contained in David Jones's more ambitious gun control bill, HB 92.
Objections to the bill:
1. The bill gives complete authority to an "Olympic Law Enforcement Commander" who may set whatever "rules" he likes. The person in charge of Olympic law enforcement should be a specifically designated person within a legally-constituted and accountable law enforcement agency, not some mysterious "commander". Non-legislative "rules" which restrict constitutional rights are entirely unacceptable. Any restrictions (all of which should be opposed anyway) should be passed by the legislature which is directly accountable to the people.
2. There is no provision for a starting date. This means gun control could be enforced at future Olympic venues as early as July of THIS year.
3. The bill should sunset IMMEDIATELY after the Olympics, not many months later on Dec. 21, 2002.
4. There is no provision for secure storage. People attending the Olympics need to be able to carry firearms for their own protection up until they enter the "secure area", if the legislature designated such an area. (I oppose prohibiting firearms in the secure areas too, but that's a separate issue.) Utah law requires safe storage at secure facilities.
5. The locations and areas of secure facilities are determined by the mysterious Olympic Commander. Theoretically the commander could enact secure facitlities _anywhere_, and make them as large as he wished. Thus anyone within a 10 mile radius of a venue could find that he LIVES in a "secure area" and must remove all firearms from his home. The specific land areas included in "secure areas" must be specified by the legislature.
6. People who drive to the Olympics must be able to store their own firearms in their vehicles. Parking lots must not be included in "secure areas".
7. "Dangerous weapon" in Utah includes such things as pen knives, nail files, rat tail combs, etc. Should such items be excluded from Olympic venues? If so, how do we communicate that to spectators so they aren't arrested? Should bringing such items into a venue be a felony? Thus...
8. There should be provisions for persons who simply "forget" they are carrying a "dangerous weapon" to store or check that weapon within walking distance of controlled access sites.
9. If the Olympics choose to forceably disarm spectators and visitors, they must accept full and unrestricted liability for any person killed or injured as a result of criminal activity within the secured area.
10. The language of the bill changes state law to say that a person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm may not carry concealed firearm in "CERTAIN LOCATIONS INCLUDING"... This open up exceptions to the law so that just about anyplace can be added to the list of excluded locations in the future.
PLEASE DO THE FOLLOWING:
1. Contact Senator Waddoups and request that he withdraw this bill in its entirety.
Senator Michael G. Waddoups
2005 W 5620 S
Salt Lake City UT 84118
H 967-0225 O 355-1136
You may also leave a message via the Senate switchboard:
801-538-1035 or 877-585-8824 (toll free)
2. Contact your own Senator and request that he not support this bill, and that he request it be withdrawn.
3. Write letters to newspapers, call radio shows, etc. and voice your opposition to this legislation and to all legislation that would restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners. (Newspaper articles will follow this alert, as soon as I can get them posted.)
PLEASE REMEMBER TO BE POLITE!
Thanks, as always, for your assistance. This is going to be a very difficult bill to defeat, so your help is truly needed.
Twice in the past month, the Deseret News has drawn policy conclusions based on a study by Wintemute, et. al., in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Based on this study, you advocate barring persons convicted of a misdemeanor from legally purchasing firearms.
What you apparently have not taken into consideration is that this is a seriously flawed study, conducted by a notoriously biased "researcher" who openly advocates gun control, funded by several of the largest gun control advocacy foundations in the nation, published in a journal noted for its advocacy of gun control and other "politically correct" liberal agendas, under the direction of an editor who was recently fired for confusing politics with science. Another clue was that the article was accompanied by an editorial by Sarah Brady (of Handgun Control, Inc.) who has no scientific or medical expertise whatever.
No right-thinking person would take such an obvious piece of propaganda seriously.
Wintemute's study does not even attempt to show that persons with prior misdemeanor convictions actually commit more firearms crimes. The end point for the study was being charged with a crime. Being charged does not make one guilty, and people with prior criminal records are more likely to be arrested as suspects.
Second, the study did not determine whether legally purchased firearms were used to commit crimes. This data is necessary to draw any conclusions about who should be allowed to purchase firearms legally.
Third, depriving people of basic rights based on statistics is legally and morally unsound. Young males commit more violent crimes than any other group. Should all young males be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms? Should all minorities be denied the same right because crime rates are often higher in minority neighborhoods? How far do we go with this? Gun bans based on education, income, gender, or race? Gun bans for people who are diabetic or nearsighted? Should we perhaps limit gun ownership to a "master race"? What ever happened to individual responsibility?
Fourth, applying such a law retroactively would violate the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws. Applying it proactively would swamp the courts, since few people would plead guilty to a misdemeanor knowing they would be forever barred from possessing a firearm.
Most important, the study ignored critical information. We know little about the misdemeanants who went on to commit crimes. Were they charged with minor offenses such as loitering? Or were they actually accused felons who plea-bargained their violent offenses down to misdemeanors? Wintemute notes that 52.1% of the "misdemeanants" originally were charged with felony offenses and 18.4% had been charged with a Violent Crime Index offense. Then he willfully ignores this data and lumps these criminals in with those who were never charged with a felony.
Is it possible that the 50% of people convicted of misdemeanors who went on to commit further crimes were essentially the same ones originally charged with felonies? Wintemute didn't think this was important enough to warrant investigation, since his intent was to add misdemeanants to the growing list of people barred from firearms ownership. I disagree. It stands to reason that people who commit violent felonies, and are allowed to plea-bargain their way out of felony convictions and incarceration, are much more likely to commit a second violent crime. At the very least, such a study should be performed before policy decisions are made.
I agree with the Deseret News that the current system doesn't work. In fact, no criminologic study has ever shown that background checks or waiting periods work. A program or policy that doesn't work will continue not to work no matter how widely it is expanded, or how many editors shout its praises.
Rather than further restrict the rights of citizens by penalizing misdemeanants without regard for the offense, the legislature should consider eliminating the pernicious plea-bargain system which allows violent predators to get off with just a slap on the wrist and a misdemeanor conviction. This would keep the real criminals off the streets, as well as prevent them from obtaining firearms in the future, without the need to change existing firearms laws.
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
902 Johnsonway Drive
Sandy, UT 84094
801-566-1067
- -
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:05:07 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <righter@therighter.com>
Subject: Gun Control at Olympics a Done Deal?
According to the Deseret News, a gun ban at the Olympics is a "done deal". I guess we need to work harder...
> debate over banning concealed weapons in Utah schools,
> churches or even private residences. The only gun bill
> leaders want to address is a widely supported ban on
> concealed firearms at Olympic venues in 2002.
> Beyond that, "I don't think the other issues will
> be addressed this year," said Senate President Lane
> Beattie, R-West Bountiful. "The Olympic issue is urgent.
> And there are legitimate debates for restricting weapons
> in other areas. Personally, private-property rights
> should take precedence over the right to carry a
> concealed weapon.
> "But," he said, ". . . this is not the year."
> House Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake, is
> loading up nonetheless. On Friday, he introduced a bill
> that would limit where those who have permits can carry
> their concealed weapons.
> Current law says the only places you can't pack
> your pistols are courtrooms, jails, mental hospitals and
> the airport.
> "You'd think it was a no-brainer, that people
> would have the right in their own homes to say 'no
> guns,'" said Jones. "They all seem like no-brainers.
> Schools? Churches? Come on . . . ."
> Under Jones' bill, permit holders would be banned
> from packing heat to:
> Schools except under special circumstances
> authorized by the school district.
> Churches if the churches wanted them banned.
> Private residences where the homeowner didn't
> want visitors packing guns into the house.
> It would also allow the commander of public safety
> for the 2002 Winter Games to ban weapons of all kinds at
> Olympic venues. Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, has
> a similar bill addressing only the Olympics question.
> Waddoups' ban of weapons at Olympic venues has the
> support of just about everybody on both sides of the
> debate. Its passage is a sure thing.
> Meanwhile, there is no legislation that deals with
> the perennially thorny issue of banning concealed
> weapons on university campuses, allowing businesses to
> ban weapons on their own private property or banning
> guns from government buildings, including the Utah
> Legislature.
> Lawmakers' unwillingness to tackle gun issues irks
> Jones, who has tried legislation in past years regarding
> negligent storage of a firearm. He is frustrated that
> Utah's powerful gun lobby has repeatedly thwarted what
> he sees is common sense.
> Beattie sponsored a bill last year to ban guns
> from schools and churches. He killed his own bill the
> night before a public hearing because of opposition in
> the House.
> "If not this year, then when? When is it going to
> be a good year to debate it?" Jones said. "It is
> strictly common sense that we don't want guns carried
> into public schools. Some churches feel it a sacrilege
> to have guns inside the house of the Creator, and they
> ought to have the ability to say 'no.' "
> Waddoups said he has been assured Jones' bill
> "will be taken care of" in the House, a conservative
> body that has resisted changes to Utah gun laws in the
> past. "There is no good reason to bring the issue to the
> floor. There is just not a compelling issue," he said.
> Maybe it's not a compelling issue to Waddoups, but
> Utahns have strong feelings about guns.
> According to a Deseret News poll conducted in late
> December, 90 percent of those questioned favored banning
> guns from public schools; 86 percent wanted them banned
> from churches, 86 percent from colleges and
> universities, 76 percent from Olympic venues and 58
> percent from businesses open to the public.
> That doesn't matter, Waddoups said, adding he will
> likely be criticized by some gun-rights enthusiasts for
> sponsoring the bill that allows guns to be banned from
> Olympic venues. There are some, he said, who feel there
> should be no restrictions whatsoever including packing
> at the Olympics.
> Still, Waddoups sees no contradiction in
> sponsoring the ban on weapons at Olympic venues.
> He said Utah's liberal concealed weapon laws were
> instituted because people did not feel protected by
> police, and they wanted to protect themselves. During
> the Olympics, the security provided by thousands of
> city, county, state and federal law-enforcement officers
> will provide an unprecedented level of public safety
> that will eliminate the need for concealed weapons.
> "It is the high level of security that justifies
> it," Waddoups said, noting his bill would apply only to
> that time period when the Olympics and related events
> are actually held.
> Then it's back to business as usual.
> [[I[Image] [Image] [Image] [Image]
>
> [Image]
>
> World & Nation + Utah + Sports + Business + Opinion + Front page
- -------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to nolympics-request@aros.net
with the line unsubscribe nolympics in the body.
- -
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:08:48 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <righter@therighter.com>
Subject: Radio appearance
Steve Stromness of GrassRoots has asked me to fill in for him on the Jack Stockwell show tomorrow morning on KTKK (K-Talk) 630 AM. None of this is verified, and is thus subject to change, but I expect to be on starting at 8 AM.
Please listen (those of you who are local, anyway) and feel free to call in. I'll be doing legislative updates on bills relating to gun control, asset forfeiture and maybe a few others. The call-in number is 801-254-5855.
Sarah
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 99 21:41:00 -0700
From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Colby, the FLIR tape, and a new Waco documentary 1/2
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:54:44 -0800
From: Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org>
To: prisonact-list@igc.org, Rightor1@aol.com
Cc: justice@scn.org
Subject: Colby, the FLIR tape, and a new Waco documentary
In response to a message I forwarded from Ian Goddard, in which he cited
an article from _American Freedom_ magazine, Vol. 1, No. 7, October,
1996, consisting of a report by Gordon Novel of an interview with former
CIA Director William Colby, and in which Goddard recalls Novel to have
claimed to have received the FLIR footage that appeared in the Academy
Award nominated documentary _Waco: the Rules of Engagement_ from Colby,
who is also supposed to have said that President Clinton was "behind"
the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, I received an email message
from Michael McNulty, a producer of the Waco documentary, asking me to
call him to get some corrections on that initial report. I called him
January 29, 1999. The following is extracted from my telephone
conversation with McNulty:
In late 1993 the Davidian defense team received a copy of the FLIR
footage from the FBI through discovery, but they were unable to play it
in their machines. McNulty says he got the tape several months later,
about April, 1994, after the Davidians had been convicted and while they
were awaiting sentencing. The defense team had been unable to play the
tape because it was in a super VHS format that was unlabeled. McNulty
says the lack of a label was at least unprofessional, and at worst an
attempt at obfuscation. McNulty provided a lengthy analysis of the tape
in June, 1994, and returned the tape, after making a dub of it with the
permission of the defense team, onto a digital D2 format. The defense
team sent McNulty's analysis to the U.S. prosecutor, although McNulty's
analysis did not identify the flashes as automatic firearms fire.
It was about 18 months after McNulty got the tape that former CIA
Director William Colby contacted Gordon Novel, who said that Colby sent
two men to show Novel a high-quality, probably 1st-generation copy, of
the FLIR footage, who pointed out to Novel what to look for on the tape
and where to find it. However, they did not leave a copy of the tape
with Novel at that time. What they pointed out were the signatures of
automatic gunfire by assaulting troops directed at the only exits of the
buildings, which the Davidians would have had to use to escape the fire.
At that point McNulty had the only copy of the tape, a 3rd-generation
digital D2 copy, other than the one retained by the Davidian defense
lawyer he had obtained it from, and he refused to release it to anyone.
He had already become friends with Gordon Novel, who had begun working
as an investigator for the firm of Ramsey Clark, who had become one of
several law firms representing the Davidians in their civil case.
Novel told McNulty what Colby's men had told him, and McNulty then took
his tape and the information delivered from Colby through Novel and
sought an expert in interpreting FLIR footage who was not associated
with the government in a way that the expert would not have wanted to
work with McNulty. He found one in Dr. Edward Allard, who appears in the
documentary with his analysis.
In the meantime, Novel got himself in trouble and was put in jail in
Ohio, and was interviewed by Don Weideman for a series of articles. It
was during these interviews that Novel revealed he had a copy, probably
a 3rd- or 4th-generation copy, of the FLIR footage.
McNulty's 3rd-generation copy is the FLIR footage that was used in the
documentary. Another dub was made of the 2nd-generation copy the defense
attorney had, and it was that copy which was later passed on to the firm
of Caddell and Chapman, and from them to the firm of former Attorney
General Ramsey Clark. Novel got his 3rd- or 4th-generation copy from Jim
Brannen, one of the civil litigation attorneys.
Impatient with the delay in getting the footage to the public through
the documentary, Novel took his 3rd- or 4th-generation copy of the FLIR
footage to CBS Sixty Minutes, who sought their own expert analyst in the
firm Infraspections, and that analyst confirmed Allard's analysis of the
flashes as automatic weapons fire. Later, CBS Sixty Minutes personnel
went to members of Congress on the committee investigating the incident,
and misrepresented the results of their expert's analysis to those
congressmen, saying the analyst found no sign of gunfire. They did not
provide a copy of the tape or the analysis of their expert to those
congressmen, who obtained the short segments they viewed during the
hearings from Paul Gray and James Quintiari, federal arson investigators
