ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n127

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-22 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #127
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Monday, February 22 1999     Volume 02 : Number 127




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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 99 23:05:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun makers, foes hail ruling

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:58:21 -0500
From: Mark A. Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun makers, foes hail ruling

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qguns12.htm

Gun makers, foes hail ruling

Jury awards $560,000 to victim, but some manufacturers cleared

February 12, 1999

BY TOM HAYS
Associated Press

NEW YORK -- A federal jury Thursday found several gun makers
responsible for letting guns fall into the hands of criminals
in three New York area shootings. Other manufacturers were
cleared.

The only damages awarded were $560,000 to the sole survivor
of the shootings, who was seriously wounded, and his mother.

Steven Fox, 19, and the relatives of six homicide victims
sued the gun industry in federal court in 1995.

Fox was shot in the head by a bullet accidentally discharged
by a friend, who had bought the gun on the street. The bullet
remains lodged in his head.

The class-action lawsuit sought unspecified damages from
an industry that generates sales of $2 billion to $3
billion a year.

Like some of the lawsuits brought against Big Tobacco,
this one accused the gun industry of negligently marketing
a legal product.

The case also was closely watched by several cities trying
to recover the costs of gun violence.

The jury found that 15 of the 25 gun makers sued -- including
Beretta USA Corp. and Colt's Manufacturing Co. -- distribute
their product negligently.

Smith & Wesson Corp. and Sturm, Ruger and Co. were among
those cleared.

Afterward, both sides claimed victory.

Plaintiff attorney Elisa Barnes said: "It was an incredible
victory."

Industry lawyer James Dorr called the result "a defense
verdict in all respects."

During the monthlong trial, the plaintiffs argued that
handgun makers oversupply gun-friendly markets, mainly in
the South, aware that the excess guns flow into criminal
hands via illegal markets in New York and other states
with stricter laws.

Lawyers for the defendants insisted their responsibility
ends once they sell to licensed distributors.

Legal experts have said that the verdict could set a
precedent for cities trying to recoup the costs of
battling gun violence.

Chicago, New Orleans, Bridgeport, Conn., and Miami-Dade
County (Fla.) are suing the industry.

Detroit is considering such a lawsuit.

Pro-gun groups have responded by lobbying state
legislatures to pass laws prohibiting such suits.


All content copyright 1999 Detroit Free Press
and may not be republished without permission.



- -

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 99 20:37:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: The gun lobby looks South for direction

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:39:35 -0500
From: Mark A. Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: The gun lobby looks South for direction

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/qhugh11.htm

The gun lobby looks South for direction

February 11, 1999

NEWS ITEM: Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, a darling of the National Rifle
Association, signed an NRA-backed bill Tuesday aimed at prohibiting
that state's cities and counties from taking gun makers to court.
The bill is designed to undermine efforts by the City of Atlanta,
led by its mayor, Bill Campbell, who is decidedly not an NRA darling,
to recover costs of gun-related violence. The city plans to challenge
the new law as unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, in the state of Michigan ...

If Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer, who is said to be still mulling his
options, ever gets off the dime and follows Atlanta's lead (and,
incidentally, the lead of leaders in Chicago, New Orleans, Miami-Dade
County and Bridgeport, Conn.) and decides to sue gun makers ...

Or even if he doesn't ...

Well, the gun-nut lobby needn't be nervous. Relief appears to be on
the way.

Pro-gun state Sen. David Jaye, R-Washington Township, of
concealed-weapon fame (Remember? He dropped his piece accidentally
during a 1991 GOP meeting in the Capitol.), says he has already
requested Georgia-style legislation designed to block all lesser
units of Michigan government, including Detroit, from suing gun
makers for gun-related violence.

He says he is optimistic about its prospects for passage.

In a phone interview Wednesday, Jaye said he agrees with Ted Nugent,
Michigan's rocker star, big-game hunter, self-described Motor City
Madman and, of course, NRA board member, who, according to Jaye, has
compared guns to power tools and said it doesn't make any difference
whether it's Black & Decker or Smith & Wesson because "the law should
be concerned with the consequences, not the possession, of such tools."

Jaye even adds this: "What's next? Cities suing McDonald's because
there's too much salt in the hamburgers? Or Dunkin' Donuts because
of too many calories? Where does it end?"

In a way, such arguments are echoes of 1990, when the NRA-backed
Firearms Pre-emption Act, sponsored by state Sen. Chris Dingell,
D-Trenton (son of U.S. Representative John Dingell, D-Dearborn,
a former NRA board member), went through the Michigan Legislature
like a hot knife through butter. The act decreed that local gun
ordinances deemed more restrictive than the relatively benign
state law were -- ta, da -- kaput, thus wiping out ordinances in
some 40 Michigan towns and cities, including Detroit.

So much for local option at the time.

And the presumption is that not much has changed -- at least not
in the state Senate, which approved that 1990 pre-emption bill,
28-5 (with John Engler, then the state Senate's majority leader,
voting aye) and where generally pro-gun Republicans are now a
significant majority.

Of course, the House, which went along with the Senate in 1990,
could be different this time around. There are lots of new members
due to term limits that took effect last year, and nobody's yet
counted noses to see who will or won't genuflect to the NRA and
its Michigan allies.

Yet, with a new House Republican majority in place, with onetime
anti-gun Republican leaders such as Reps. Paul Hillegonds, R-Holland,
and Frank Fitzgerald, R-Grand Ledge, gone and with pro-gun Rep.
Chuck Perricone, R-Kalamazoo, now the speaker, well ...

Nothing, of course, is automatic.

But, if Jaye is any indication, it would seem clear that Michigan's
noisy, relentless gun lobby will be ready for a fight and optimistic
that it will prevail.

After all, as the senator warns, if the grabbers get their hands
on gun makers, can McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts be far behind?

Perish the thought!


All content copyright 1999 Detroit Free Press and may not be republished
without permission.


- -

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 99 08:04:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: SB 122 - "may"

On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:08:55 "S. Thompson" wrote:

> Subject: SB 122 - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

> The bill has been almost completely rewritten.  Substantive changes:
> 1. Adds that "the division" (DPS or BCI) may not deny suspend or revoke a
> concealed firearm permit solely for a single conviction for an infraction
> violation of 76-10-5."  This sounds like it protects CCW holders from
> having their permits revoked for infractions, but I have problems with the
> "may not" which I think should read "shall not".  Otherwise it's still at
> the discretion of BCI.  (Any legal experts out there?)

> 5.  Provides that the Commander MAY provide secure weapons storage areas.
> This is worthless, unless the language is changed to SHALL provide.

> 8.  SURPRISE!  Churches and private residences are back.  The new SB 122
> provides that a "person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed
> firearm after having received notice that firearms are prohibited, may not
> knowingly and intentionally transport a firearms into a house of worship or
> a private residence.  Notice can be verbal or by posting a sign.  Violation
> is an infraction.

> Discussion:
> 5.  "May provide" is nonsense.  It's like saying you "may" pay your taxes
> if you so choose.

I hope a grammatical discussion might be appropriate on a gun list. The
problem with the English modal (defective verb) 'may' is that it subsumes
modals with two or more entirely distinct meanings, and which in other
languages, such as German, are also distinct words. Using German as an
example, since it is the foreign language with which I am most familiar,
these are 'moegen', which indicates both desire and possibility, and
'duerfen' which I believe is etymologically related to the English verb
'dare', and indicates permission. With such disparate meanings it is
semantically unacceptable to use the modal 'may' in statutory language
without specifying the exact meaning intended. Another modal creating
legal problems is 'must', which indicates a requirement. Case law makes
'must' (along with 'shall') legally no more binding than 'may'. Even
worse is its use as a negative: 'must not'. Though commonly understood
by Americans to forbid something, technically it means only that an
action is not required. As we have no exact equivalent of 'duerfen'
(save perhaps in an older sense of 'dare'), bans cannot be stated in
English using modals, but must :) instead be explicitly stated.

> 8.  While I find this language offensive, it does tend to clarify
> existing criminal trespass law, which already provides that a church or
> private residence owner/lessee may ask anyone to leave their property.

It would be a free speech violation to forbid them to ask. The legal
point is that noncompliance with this request constitutes criminally
and civilly punishable trespass. But why single out forbidden
"transport of firearms" from other trespasses?

> Sen. Waddoups introduced the bill by saying that he believes the bill is an
> undue restriction of Constitutional rights, and that he would personally be
> happy if it were killed.  He is sponsoring it because he believes that by
> doing so he can protect gun owners from more restrictive bills.  He also
> mentioned that he had received threats in connection with this bill.

Any indication whether these threats were political or concerned his
personal safety, and their source?

> 4. Governor Leavitt supports gun control.  Please let him know your
> thoughts on this issue.

How does that help? Wouldn't it just get us on his political hit list?

Scott



- -

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 99 08:04:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Letter to the Editor

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:28:57 -0800
From: Ed Wolfe <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Letter to the Editor

To the Editor Arizona Republic P.O. Box 2244 Phoenix, Arizona 85002 >>

January 7th, 1998

Dear Editor,

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

Because these dogs are so readily obtainable on the streets of our
nation, I implore all your readers to immediately deluge their
Congressmen with letters, phone calls, faxes and telegrams to support
the federal "Save the Widdle Childwen Fwom the Vicious Dog-Bite Act of
1998", which would require the following: mandatory muzzles fitted with
muzzle-locks to be kept at all times on all dogs, licensing and
paw-printing of all dogs, fingerprinting and house-monitoring of dog
owners, including mandatory, federally-monitored safe storage of dogs
and an immediate 1,000% tax on all dog food.

This Act is sponsored by Canine Control Incorporated, an organization
dedicated to eliminating canine violence in America by the year 2000.

The Act also provides for the immediate banning of all "assault dogs",
the definition of which term will constantly change according to the
emotions of the board of C.C.I. "Saturday Night Special" dogs, such as
Chihuahuas and other cheap, easily concealed ankle-biters, will also be
banned. In addition, the Act bans all sharp canine teeth, all canine
teeth longer than a federally-mandated length, all spiked collars and
sharp canine toenails.

It also mandates that all dogs be transferred only through federally
licensed dog dealers, and provides for the changing of the BATF to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Assault Dogs, or BATFAD.

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

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

We urgently need your help to get these vicious dogs off the streets
now! Please help end canine violence in America! Send donations to:

C.C.I., 1111
B.S. Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20004.

Make the checks out to me. Tina Terry

(c) 1998 by Tina Terry. This letter may be reprinted in its entirety, as
long as nothing in it is changed, credit is given the author, and the
following is included. Author's note: The author's husband's face really
was mauled at age 4 by a Pitt Bull, an incident in which he almost lost
an eye. He's not in a wheelchair, true, but he also doesn't blame dogs
in general for his early experience and he loves and owns dogs to this
day. He also has never tried to enlist the author to run around the
country trying to ban all dogs.



- -

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:27:49 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SB 122 - "may"

At 08:04 AM 2/14/99 -0700, you wrote:

>I hope a grammatical discussion might be appropriate on a gun list. The
>problem with the English modal (defective verb) 'may' is that it subsumes
>modals with two or more entirely distinct meanings, and which in other
>languages, such as German, are also distinct words. Using German as an
>example, since it is the foreign language with which I am most familiar,
>these are 'moegen', which indicates both desire and possibility, and
>'duerfen' which I believe is etymologically related to the English verb
>'dare', and indicates permission. With such disparate meanings it is
>semantically unacceptable to use the modal 'may' in statutory language
>without specifying the exact meaning intended. Another modal creating
>legal problems is 'must', which indicates a requirement. Case law makes
>'must' (along with 'shall') legally no more binding than 'may'. Even
>worse is its use as a negative: 'must not'. Though commonly understood
>by Americans to forbid something, technically it means only that an
>action is not required. As we have no exact equivalent of 'duerfen'
>(save perhaps in an older sense of 'dare'), bans cannot be stated in
>English using modals, but must :) instead be explicitly stated.
    I don't know anything about German.  But it seems grammar is beyond the
grasp of our legislators.  They can't even figure out "shall not", as in
"shall not be infringed".

>> 8.  While I find this language offensive, it does tend to clarify
>> existing criminal trespass law, which already provides that a church or
>> private residence owner/lessee may ask anyone to leave their property.
>
>It would be a free speech violation to forbid them to ask. The legal
>point is that noncompliance with this request constitutes criminally
>and civilly punishable trespass. But why single out forbidden
>"transport of firearms" from other trespasses?
    Exactly.  Anyone has the right to ask anything they choose already.
Clearly Rep. Jones must think that it's more important to reiterate the
right to ask about guns than it is to reiterate the right of homeowners to
exclude murderers, rapists and child molesters.

>> Sen. Waddoups introduced the bill by saying that he believes the bill is an
>> undue restriction of Constitutional rights, and that he would personally be
>> happy if it were killed.  He is sponsoring it because he believes that by
>> doing so he can protect gun owners from more restrictive bills.  He also
>> mentioned that he had received threats in connection with this bill.
>
>Any indication whether these threats were political or concerned his
>personal safety, and their source?
    I have no idea.  I suspect they were political.  After all, legislators
are "more equal" than the rest of us and there are enhanced penalties for
threatening them.

>
>> 4. Governor Leavitt supports gun control.  Please let him know your
>> thoughts on this issue.
>
>How does that help? Wouldn't it just get us on his political hit list?
    We're already on his political hit list, so it can't possibly hurt.  If he
thinks his national aspirations may be affected, he might change his tune,
given that his most distinguishing characteristic is his total lack of
principles.

Sarah

- -

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:29:32 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Salt Lake Tribune -- Empty Promises

http://www.sltrib.com/02141999/public_f/82849.htm


Sunday, February 14, 1999
>
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -------
>
>  Empty Promises
>
>             David Jones,
[imageField]
>         like virtually all
>         candidates for public office, promises "crime reduction"
>         if elected mayor of Salt Lake City. But he's currently
>         sponsoring HB 92, which should properly be titled
>         "Victim Disarmament." Perhaps Rep. Jones would be
>         willing to explain how disarming law-abiding citizens
>         who would have already passed an extensive criminal
>         background check will reduce crime. Perhaps he could
>         also explain how turning our schools, churches and
>         private residences into disarmed, defenseless, free-fire
>         zones for criminals would decrease crime.
>             Maybe he could even explain why he wishes to disarm
>         tourists attending the Olympics. Florida found it
>         necessary to allow tourists to carry firearms in order
>         to save its tourism industry after criminals began
>         targeting visitors.
>             All available criminologic evidence shows that
>         encouraging good citizens to carry concealed firearms
>         results in a marked decrease in violent crime and a
>         safer environment for everyone. Is Jones offering empty
>         promises, or will he back them with sound policy
>         decisions?
>             SARAH THOMPSON
>             Sandy
>
>
>                                    [Previous Story] [Next Story]
>
>
>
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -------
> ) Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune
>
> All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune
and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused
without explicit
> permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
>
- --------------------------------------------------
>                                                   Contact The Salt Lake
Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.


- -

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:10:19 -0500
From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Salt Lake Tribune -- Empty Promises

Congrats Sarah on a well written letter!

back in 94 I managed to get in the Trib a few times :-)

Here in New Hampshire there are not many (any?) terrible bills that
we are mobilizing over, at least that I am aware of.  But we are not
limited to a 45 day session either.  The GO-NH organization is very
well organized and politically connected.  Though the bad guys try.
And  we get more liberal Mass-holes moving up from Massachusetts
every year too :-(   The head of the NH House Judiciary Committee
carries himself everywhere but in the main House chambers as there is
a house rule that even the cops abide by of no weapons.  The NH
Senate I hear does not have this rule. :-)

I wish the USSC was as organized and connected as GO-NH...

best
Chad


> http://www.sltrib.com/02141999/public_f/82849.htm
>
>
> Sunday, February 14, 1999
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>>
>>  Empty Promises
>>
>>             David Jones,
> [imageField]
>>         like virtually all
>>         candidates for public office, promises "crime reduction"
>>         if elected mayor of Salt Lake City. But he's currently
>>         sponsoring HB 92, which should properly be titled
>>         "Victim Disarmament." Perhaps Rep. Jones would be
>>         willing to explain how disarming law-abiding citizens
>>         who would have already passed an extensive criminal
>>         background check will reduce crime. Perhaps he could
>>         also explain how turning our schools, churches and
>>         private residences into disarmed, defenseless, free-fire
>>         zones for criminals would decrease crime.
>>             Maybe he could even explain why he wishes to disarm
>>         tourists attending the Olympics. Florida found it
>>         necessary to allow tourists to carry firearms in order
>>         to save its tourism industry after criminals began
>>         targeting visitors.
>>             All available criminologic evidence shows that
>>         encouraging good citizens to carry concealed firearms
>>         results in a marked decrease in violent crime and a
>>         safer environment for everyone. Is Jones offering empty
>>         promises, or will he back them with sound policy
>>         decisions?
>>             SARAH THOMPSON
>>             Sandy
>>
>>
>>                                    [Previous Story] [Next Story]
>>
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>> ) Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune
>>
>> All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune
> and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused
> without explicit
>> permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
>>
> --------------------------------------------------
>>                                                   Contact The Salt Lake
> Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.
>
>
> -

- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
Low cost virtual servers.                     DB integration.
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.
***************  Macintosh:  It Just Works  ******************
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

- -

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:47:05 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Betrayed again - HB 237

All of you should already be familiar with HB 237, DPS Fee Increases.  This
bill proposed across-the-board fee increases for background checks and
concealed carry permits.  Even DPS was unable to justify these increases.

The House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee amended the bill
to remove most, but not all, of the fee increases. This left a somewhat
improved, but still totally unacceptable bill, since it allowed DPS to
raise fees in the future at its discretion, without any legislative oversight.

Rep. Blake Chard ([e-mail]) had the bill amended on the House
floor to reinstate higher fees.  So we're back to essentially the same ugly
bill that was originally introduced.

Please contact your OWN representative and let him/her know that this bill
is entirely unacceptable and should be STRONGLY OPPOSED.

General contact numbers:
House voice: 801-538-1029, 800-662-3367
House fax: Rep. 801-538-1908, Dem. 801-538-9505

This bill is just as much a threat to gun owners as the gun bans that have
been proposed.  It would allow DPS to institute _de facto_ gun control by
making it too expensive for all but the rich and powerful to purchase or
carry firearms.  A right you can't afford to exercise is no right at all!

A full analysis is available in my previous alerts, and from GOUtah!.

Please help stop HB 237!

Thanks!
Sarah


leg-alerts is owned and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The opinions in this alert represent those of the list owner only,
unless otherwise attributed or specified.

To subscribe to leg-alerts send a message to:
    [e-mail]
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:
[e-mail]

- -

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 99 08:12:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The Media Is the Message!

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:42:19 -0700
From: Jim Dexter <[e-mail]>
To: LPUtah Forum <[e-mail]>
Cc: Janalee Tobias <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Media Is the Message!

See if you can spot the obvious condemnation of gun owners
- -----------------------------

>>Saturday, February 13, 1999
>>Shootings can change survivors forever
- -----------------------------------------------
>>They recall events, feelings years later
>>By Amy Joi Bryson
Deseret News staff writer
>>A hospital. A public library. A university. A newsroom.
>>All places considered to be safe.
>>In just seconds, however, a gun-toting person consumed with personal
demons can shatter those perceptions,  defiling the sanctity of a hospital,
mocking the solitude of a library, stripping a university campus of its
innocence and thrusting the newsroom into the news.<<

I'll point it out: "a gun-toting person." Why is this wrong? Because there
are at least 22,401 "gun-toting" persons in Utah. It isn't carrying a weapon
that's bad, it's misusing it.



- -

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:50:42 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: This is it - a clear *proven* pro-RKBA Presidential Candidate!

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:53:54 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA07535; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:38:17 -0700
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA09995;
    Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:46:51 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:46:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
From: Jurist <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: This is it - a clear *proven* pro-RKBA Presidential Candidate!
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

Ladies and Gentlemen of the RKBA,

Our opportunity to put a Pro-RKBA Candidate in the White House!

We are angered by Leftists attacking our Right to Arms, and particularly
incensed by 'turncoat' Republicans who suddenly turn on us and vote with
the enemy.

Well here it is... the opportunity to put in a PROVEN Pro-RKBA candidate
into the White House!  This is how it is done.  Find the right candidate
and then put *them* into office. =20

Far too often we sit passively and hope that whichever candidate emerges
will support our pleas for assistance.  As a result, we are saddled with
the likes of Dole, Bush, Warner and Kasich, who all too often fail us.

You will recall Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire valiantly fought and won
for us 69 out of a 100 Senate votes to place his amendment into Brady II
that would have forbidden an FBI registration tax, forbidden gunowner
registration, and best of all, afforded standing to sue against any
public official who disobeyed it's prohibitions. =20

Smith did so (if I recall correctly) against NRA and GOP urging.  He did
this on his own and performed magnificently, only to have his Amendment
and our Rights, killed in Gingrich's committee.

I urge your support for Senator Smith.  Deeds -- not empty words -- have
proven him worthy of our support.  Now our task is to get the 70 million
American Gunowners registered and voting for this man!

In Liberty,

Rick V.
[e-mail]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters [OL] Friday, February 19, 1999 12:24AM
WOLFEBORO, N.H. (Reuters) via NewsEdge Corporation -=20

Speaking at the high school where he once taught, conservative New
Hampshire Sen. Bob Smith Thursday announced his candidacy for the 2000
Republican presidential nomination.=20

http://companies.newspage.com/item.cfm/c0219002.500?heads=3Dyes


Letter from GOA=20
http://www.gunowners.org/bilet.htm



- ----------------------------------------------------------------=20

The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental* Human Right - RKBA

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

* Rights, when Fundamental, are subjected to "strict scrutiny" Supreme

Court review, and are almosts always struck down under that standard.


- -

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:55:26 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: eBay Bans Firearm Sales On Its Web Site

Auctioneer eBay Bans Firearm Sales On Its Web Site
2.38 p.m. ET (1938 GMT) February 19, 1999

NEW YORK =97 eBay Inc., the Internet site that pioneered online auctions,=
 said
Friday it will no longer allow its members to buy and sell guns and
ammunition through its service.

The top one-to-one auction site on the Web, where individuals sell items to
each other, took the action as the gun industry has become the target of
lawsuits by several cities in civil actions similar to those taken against
the tobacco industry in recent years.

eBay =97 which allows individuals to sell online everything from "The Best=
 of
Sex and Violence'' on video and hand-dipped marijuana incense =97 said the
Internet was the wrong place for selling firearms.

"It was the right thing to do because firearms and ammunition do not have a
place on the site,'' Steve Westly, vice president of marketing and business
development, said.

"Initially, the category was created for antique and collector guns, but
standard issue firearms are being posted and it became clear that it is hard
to draw a line that fits with our brand image.''

eBay, based in San Jose, Calif., said gun and ammunition sales account for
less than 0.25 percent of its total revenue. The company had total sales of
$47.3 million last year.

Beginning March 5, firearms will not be listed in any of its 1,000-plus
categories, including the "Firearms,'' "Antique,'' ''Collectibles'' and
"Sport'' categories. Since items can be listed for up to seven days, eBay
will stop accepting listings on Feb. 26.

The ban on gun sales comes amid a turbulent time for gun manufacturers. They
industry has been sued by major cities across the nation for allegedly
failing to provide adequate safety features or for irresponsible marketing.

This month a federal jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., found 15 gun manufacturers
guilty of negligence in their marketing and distribution practices. Gun
manufacturers are pursuing appeals in the case.

eBay currently has more than 2 million users and lists more than 1.5 million
items ranging from Beanie Babies to "X-Files'' collectibles.

Firearms-related items =97 such as holsters, literature, clothing and scopes=
 =97
may still be sold on eBay, but only listed in the "Collectibles: Western
Americana,'' ''Collectibles: Militaria'' and "Miscellaneous: Sporting Goods:
Hunting'' categories, the company said.

eBay said it had no plans to eliminate or change other categories.

In Nasdaq trading Friday eBay shares were down 94 cents at $236.06 on the
Nasdaq market .


[e-mail]
=A9 1999, News America Digital Publishing, Inc. d/b/a Fox News Online.
All rights reserved. Fox News is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox
Film Corp.
=A9 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved



- -

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:42:56 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Firearms Lawsuit - Web Site -FYI  [Lawyers, Guns, and Money]

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:53:08 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id VAA06839; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:37:32 -0700
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA22703;
    Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:47:08 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:47:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <003301be5bbc$ef359cc0$40b356d1@dellxpsd300>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
From: "Richard M. Odom" <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Firearms Lawsuit - Web Site -FYI  [Lawyers, Guns, and Money]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This is a new web site you may find to be of interest.  Posted to Noban
at the request of John Posthill.

Richard Odom
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -----
- -----------------------


To RKBA activists and interested parties everywhere:

 This is to announce a new web site dedicated to providing information and
 discussion on this new phenomenon of using the courts to economically
 cripple the gun industry and thereby put a deep chill on the lawful
 production and distribution of firearms.

 The site is aptly named:  http://www.lawyersgunsandmoney.com

 We hope that you bookmark it and visit it often.  If you like the site,
 please cross post/copy this message to other places on the internet where
 like-minded people "hang out" -- particularly your local and state-wide
 RKBA
 email lists.

 Questions can be addressed to the individuals listed at the web site, or
 feel free to ask me off-line at: [e-mail]

 Thank you.

 John Posthill



- -

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:14:49 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALERT! RKBA bills

ALERT!  SB 122 and HB 237

Two important votes on your right to keep and bear arms are expected
tomorrow, Feb. 23.  Please make your voice heard!

1. SB 122 (2nd subs) is currently #2 on the list for a Senate vote.  The
bill is circled, which means a vote will not occur until the sponsor, Mike
Waddoups, "uncircles" it.  This could be as early as 9 AM tomorrow, or at
any other time that Sen. Waddoups thinks we're "not watching".  Several
senators have not yet decided how they will vote on this bill, so your
input is very important!  PLEASE keep the pressure on your Senators to
OPPOSE SB 122 in ANY form!

Unfortunately, both the media and quite a few legislators mistakenly
believe that USSC speaks for ALL gun owners on this bill, and that all gun
owners support it.  With all due respect to USSC, this is simply not true.
USSC supports the bill.  The NRA has taken no position.  Gun Owners of
America is strongly opposed to the bill.  (Their alert will follow
separately.)  Locally, GOUtah!, Women Against Gun Control, Nolympics,
Grassroots, and the Libertarian Party of Utah all OPPOSE SB 122.  Most of
the gun owners I've spoken with also oppose this bill.  This doesn't sound
like the "unanimous support" USSC would like you to believe exists.

SB 122 is what I call the "immunization theory" of gun control.  The idea
is that if we accept "a little bit" of gun control now, it will prevent us
from getting "worse gun control" in the future.  The problem with this
theory is that it has already been proven not to work.  The Gun Control Act
of 1936 did not prevent the Gun Control Act of 1968.  Brady I did not
prevent Brady II, and Brady II doesn't look like it's going to prevent even
worse gun control.
Our enemies don't compromise - they'll come back every year with "newer"
and "better" and more restrictive gun control until there's nothing left.

Please contact ALL members of the Senate (by phone if possible!) and let
them know that SB 122 must be KILLED.

2. HB 237 - DPS Fee Consolidation will be heard by the Senate
Transportation and Public Safety Committee Tuesday Feb. 23, at 4 PM, Rm.
403, State Capitol.  If you can be there, please attend.  Otherwise please
contact the members of the committee and ask them to OPPOSE HB 237.  DPS
has NOT presented any figures that justify fee increases.  Worse, this bill
will allow DPS to increase fees in the future without any legislative
oversight.  Members of the committee are: Michael Waddoups (Chair), Lane
Beattie, Mont Evans, Peter Knudson, David Steele, Karen Hale, Paula
Julander and Ed Mayne.

Senate contact info follows:

General contact numbers:
House voice: 801-538-1029, 800-662-3367
House fax: Rep. 801-538-1908, Dem. 801-538-9505
Senate voice: 801-538-1035, 877-585-8824
Senate fax: Rep. 801-538-1414, Dem. 801-538-1449

e-mail:
[e-mail] (Edgar Allen)
[e-mail] (Ron Allen)
[e-mail] (Lane Beattie)
[e-mail] (Leonard Blackham)
[e-mail] (Gene Davis)
[e-mail] (Mike Dmitrich)
[e-mail] (Beverly Ann Evans)
[e-mail] (Mont Evans)
[e-mail] (Karen Hale)
[e-mail] (Parley G. Hellewell)
[e-mail] (Lyle Hillyard)
[e-mail] (Scott Howell)
[e-mail] (Joseph Hull)
[e-mail] (Lorin Jones)
[e-mail] (Paula F. Julander)
[e-mail] (Peter C. Knudson)
[e-mail] (Al Mansell)
[e-mail] (Ed Mayne)
[e-mail] (Robert Montgomery)
[e-mail] (Robert Muhlestein)
[e-mail] (Howard Nielson)
[e-mail] (Millie Peterson)
[e-mail] (Steven Poulton)
[e-mail] (Terry Spencer)
[e-mail] (David Steele)
[e-mail] (Howard Stephenson)
[e-mail] (Pete Suazo)
[e-mail] (John Valentine)
[e-mail] (Michael Waddoups)

STOP GUN CONTROL NOW!






- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #127
***********************************