ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n130

Internet Message Format | 1999-03-09 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #130
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Wednesday, March 10 1999     Volume 02 : Number 130




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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 99 14:39:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: The Firing Line Possible USA Today Ad

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 06:33:21 -0800
From: InTheRiver <[e-mail]>
Subject: >>> The Firing Line Possible USA Today Ad

The folks at http://www.firingline.com have an idea. They
want to place an ad similar to the following in USA Today:

To Whom it May Concern,

No More. Not one more type of firearm, variant of a firearm,
or individual firearm. Not one class of ammunition, caliber nor
type of bullet. Not a single accessory, tool nor book related
to firearms. No more limits on the types of guns, the number
of guns, nor the amount of ammunition that I can own. Nor any
restrictions on the frequency with which I can add more of the
aforementioned to my collection. If you want them, come take
them, all at once... otherwise, Leave us the Hell Alone.

The actual discussion is at

http://www.thefiringline.com/NonCGI/Forum10/HTML/000279.html

I think this is an excellent idea. Mosey over and read the discussion.

!!!

- - Monte

   ------------------------------------------------------
        "Black Holes are where God divided by zero"
   ------------------------------------------------------


- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 99 16:14:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: "The Best Defense"

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:55:53 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote:

> You have an interesting, and troubling concept of "charity" Scott.
> Being trained to use a gun in self defense and being trained in the
> safe, legal apprehension of criminals are two VERY seperate issues.

Nolo contendere

> The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense
> is that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or
> physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared
> to other forms of self defense or combat.

Also agreed, so make sure your training is adequate and appropriate.

> Do you suggest that only those
> able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense?

Not at all. However, they should only draw it if they are prepared
to use it. If telling the criminal to depart is insufficient, then
only allow the gun to speak for you if you intend that literally.
Otherwise, why bother with a gun or CCW permit? Quite realistic
appearing imitation, or for that matter, disabled, guns are available.
And FYI, Governor Jesse Ventura is in the habit of making Citizen's
arrests of speeders.

> A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing
> would-be carjacker and apprehend him.

Then don't brandish. If the carjacker makes a move to harm you
despite your first telling him to depart (unqualified with "or
I'll shoot"), shoot to kill without first telegraphing your move,
unlesss your command immediately upon drawing was "Freeze!" or
don't carry a gun at all and handle the situation without one.

> The law, and I believe most people's morals, prohibit the use of
> deadly force unless there is reasonable belief your life, or the
> life of another innocent person is IMMEDIATELY threatened.

Likely true. However, loosing a proven carjacker on unarmed victims
is reckless endangerment, IOW, "aiding and abetting", IMO.

> Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief, rapist, etc, in the
> back is legally (civilally and criminally) dangerous, and morally
> questionable.

If the law prohibits Citizens from shooting a felon fleeing from
the act, and resisting a Citizen's arrest, then the law is an ass.
Don't let the situation go there.

> The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be
> displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy
> yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him.

Display !== brandish

My opinions are unchanged whether the gun is carried concealed or
openly. However, pointing or even waving it at someone is brandishing.
Don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him immediately
or if he fails to obey your command made after drawing, which may be
implicit, but does not include departure. Saying "no" is sufficient to
make a point legally. A fleeing criminal means you allowed him to escape
arrest. OTOH, if he left because he saw you were carrying openly, then
you never commanded him to leave or submit to arrest, and you probably
never noticed any threat or his departure.

> Some 90% of the times a gun is "used" to prevent a crime, it is never
> fired and in the vast majority of those cases, the criminal flees.
> Your thinking would elminate the vast majority of the times a person
> protects themselves witha gun.

Then the battle was lost though the attacked survived. I have no
objection to your carrying openly so the attack is never made, but
beware of pickholsters.

> Apply this same faulty logic

Sez you.

> to other situations.  I have an alarm system on my car and house.
> I drive an old, ugly car without a stereo.  I have stickers and lights
> on both indicating to potential criminals that alarms are present.

If you must carry concealed, perhaps you should wear your permit
on your hat or lapel, and put a warning sign on your car door. Then,
if you must still draw your concealed gun, the need to shoot will
be unequivocal. Comparing a gun to an alarm system, this would be
like an "alarm" that when activated causes a shotgun or antipersonnel
mine to pop up and threaten to discharge if the intruder doesn't
immediately vacate the premises.

> I have a large dog at home.  I am
> also fanatical about locking my doors (home and car) and taking my
> keys with me.  Does this not encourage thieves to avoid my car and
> home in favor of the newer car with a stereo and without an alarm,
> with the keys in the ignition, or the home without an alarm, with the
> doors unlocked or garage door open, and without a dog?

Certainly, but none of this save perhaps the dog approaches
brandishing, unless your "alarm" appears life-threatening to
intruders. Skip the gun and carry a personal alarm. Perhaps you
could take the dog with you, and leave an intrusion-activated
recording of a barking and clawing dog at home.

> By adding alarms (and a dog) and locking doors I've made no attempt
> to even identify a criminal, much less apprehend or kill him.  Gads,
> just driving with your doors locked and windows up is one first step
> to avoiding car jackings as someone with windows rolled down and
> doors unlocked is a much easier tarket.

Correct. Restrict yourself to passive defenses if active defense
bothers you. I suppose I can be assured you won't install one of
those flamethrowing carjacking deterrent systems on your car? :)

> Do you not lock your bike when leaving it in public?

Car too, sometimes with a dog in it.

> Did you ever consider that by properly locking your bike you are
> encouraging thieves to victimize someone who hasn't locked their
> bike?

No. I increase the general difficulty of bicycle theft. They must
at least walk to more bikes, or spend time defeating my lock. My
lock does not threaten to shoot them if they persist.

> Do you feel any responsibility because you have not taken additional
> measures to apprehend the person who would have otherwise stolen you
> bike?

Funny you should ask. I have some guilt feelings that I did not
obtain identification information such as descriptions and car tag
number of some thugs who, in retrospect, were attempting to steal
my next door neighbor's jeep and who then proceeded to steal my
parents' van 4 1/2 miles away.

> Does this make me "uncharitable"?  Of course not.  It means I've taken
> responsibility for myself.  Others would be wise to do likewise.  But
> their lack of preparation does not shift a burden onto my shoulders to
> take extraordinary (and potentially illegal) measures to apprehend or
> kill a criminal.  That remains true whether we are talking about
> locking doors and adding alarms to discourage criminals or whether we
> are talking about "brandishing" a weapon to end a crime before it begins.

Brandishing without ability or intent to follow through and apprehend
or dispatch the criminal indicates irresponsible lack of preparation.
Don't do it. If you must scare the criminal, brandish your CCW permit.
If the crime has not begun, your brandishing a weapon is a crime, just
as brandishing a guillotine in your doorway would.

> And thank you for posting the article.

You're welcome.

   If you think "militia" applies to the National Guard, then you must
   think "Freedom of Speech" applies to the Government Printing office.


- -

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:30:24 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: "The Best Defense"

On Fri, 05 Mar 99 16:14:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) posted:

>> The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense
>> is that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or
>> physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared
>> to other forms of self defense or combat.
>
>Also agreed, so make sure your training is adequate and appropriate.

Adequate and appropriate to prevent or stop an attack is far different
than adequate and appropriate to effect an arrest of someone who
immediatly flees when he sees your gun.

>
>> Do you suggest that only those
>> able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense?
>
>Not at all. However, they should only draw it if they are prepared
>to use it. If telling the criminal to depart is insufficient, then
>only allow the gun to speak for you if you intend that literally.
>Otherwise, why bother with a gun or CCW permit? Quite realistic
>appearing imitation, or for that matter, disabled, guns are available.

Being prepared to use it--if a criminal continues to advance or
otherwise presents an immediate threat to your well being--is
different than playing quick-draw and shooting immediately.  Neither
do I believe there is any proper requirment to not draw until one must
shoot immediately.  See below for brandishing.


>And FYI, Governor Jesse Ventura is in the habit of making Citizen's
>arrests of speeders.

And his military training and physical ability put him in the top 1%
of all living humans.  The rest of us need effective defense WITHOUT
you adding burdens of having to apprehend someone when that may be
beyond our ability.

>
>> A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing
>> would-be carjacker and apprehend him.
>
>Then don't brandish. If the carjacker makes a move to harm you
>despite your first telling him to depart (unqualified with "or
>I'll shoot"), shoot to kill without first telegraphing your move,
>unlesss your command immediately upon drawing was "Freeze!" or
>don't carry a gun at all and handle the situation without one.

I believe most of us believe in the concept of "escalation of force."
I do not intend to move from perceived threat immediatly to shooting.
If brandishing is enough to end a threat, I would rather not take
someone's life--even if they decide to flee the scene.  And if it
isn't, the act of "brandishing", puts my gun in a much better position
to shoot than if it were still sitting in a holster.  In fact, the act
of getting in position to shoot is, in itself, brandishing.

>
>> The law, and I believe most people's morals, prohibit the use of
>> deadly force unless there is reasonable belief your life, or the
>> life of another innocent person is IMMEDIATELY threatened.
>
>Likely true. However, loosing a proven carjacker on unarmed victims
>is reckless endangerment, IOW, "aiding and abetting", IMO.

Your opinion is worthless in a court of law unless you've recently
been elected a judge or seated on a jury.  And your proven track
record of seeing things in far different ways from almost everyone
else means you do not even qualify as that legal myth of "a reasonable
man."  And how can a person "loose" someone they have never contained?
We are not talking about opening cell and letting someone go, we are
talking about split second decisions with major legal repurcussions.
Those decisions are tough enough when it is JUST about ending an
immediate threat.  I contend they are beyond what we should expect of
non-police when it comes to forceably detaining someone who intends to
flee.

The MOMENT someone turns their back on you and starts to
leave--REGARDLESS of any "commands" you have given them--your legal
and moral right to shoot them are, at best, in serious doubt in
virtually every case a citizen is likely to face.

>
>> Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief, rapist, etc, in the
>> back is legally (civilally and criminally) dangerous, and morally
>> questionable.
>
>If the law prohibits Citizens from shooting a felon fleeing from
>the act, and resisting a Citizen's arrest, then the law is an ass.
>Don't let the situation go there.

You better not have to ask "if" when it comes to the law before you
start employing deadly force if you want to retain your freedom
afterwards.  And, while "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried
by 6," unless my life is in jeopardy, I am not going to do anything to
potentially end up in court.  Change the law and we can all start
playing John Wayne, until then, my first obligation is to prevent
immediate harm.  Once the immediate danger is passed, my obligation,
and right, to shoot someone, is in grave question.

>
>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be
>> displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy
>> yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him.
>
>Display !== brandish

Display with intent to frighten DOES == brandish.  And whether I
pointed it at him or merely pull back a coat or shirt to expose the
gun, if my intend is to scare him--as in "scare him away" I have
brandished a weapon.  Actually pointing a loaded gun at someone may
well move from brandishing up to assult.  (NOT assault and battery,
but merely assault.)  ALL of which is justified if you reasonably
believe you are about to come to harm.


>
>My opinions are unchanged whether the gun is carried concealed or
>openly. However, pointing or even waving it at someone is brandishing.

See above.

>Don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him immediately
>or if he fails to obey your command made after drawing, which may be
>implicit, but does not include departure.

Sez you.  Don't draw a gun unless you are prepared to shoot.  Don't
point it at anyone you are not willing to kill.  But I defy you to
make your "immediatly or if he fails to obey [even implicit] commands"
argument fly for 1 second in front a judge or jury.

Drawing a weapon and aiming it at a criminal makes a strong statement.
It also makes it possible to get your first shot off VERY quickly IF
it is still needed at that point.  It may be.  It may not be.  I'll
leave that to a QUALIFIED weapons instructor to advise on and for each
individual to decide for themselves.

>Saying "no" is sufficient to
>make a point legally. A fleeing criminal means you allowed him to escape
>arrest.

There is no law or moral requirement to make an arrest.  I have no
objection if someone thinks that is the right thing to do.  And if
they are lucky enough to get me sitting on their jury, they'll
probably end up with at least a hung jury, if not an acquittal, if
they shoot the perp EVEN if they are not fully justified under current
law.  But the odds of getting me on your jury are pretty slim so don't
make anylife decisions based on that.  :)

The basis of your objection is that by not effecting an arrest, you
have doomed someone else to certain harm.  First of all, you have no
evidence this is true.  Lott's study indicates crimes against person's
decrease in areas where people CCW but that property crimes increase.

It is entirely rational that the carjacker, upon looking down the
barrel of a gun, decides that carjacking is now too dangerous for him
and either gives up crime altogether, or at least drops back to
stealing parked, unattended cars.

Second of all, if the potential next victim had taken responsibility
for himself and been armed, he would not be an unarmed victim.  Many
of these people who do not carry, are the same ones who vote and lobby
to restrict my ability to RKBA.  They can fend for themselves.

I refuse to get into any more long exchanges with you.  I've made my
point.  The last word on this topic is yours if you want it.

- --

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.

"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It
 is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds,
 death, and destruction in the minimum amount of time." -- General George
 S. Patton

- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 23:50:40 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "The Best Defense"

At 11:55 AM 3/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Thu, 04 Mar 99 18:43:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
>posted:
>
>>THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 2, 1999
>>
>>Stories of Saved Lives aim to Erase Gun-Owning Stigma
>>-------------------------------------
>>By Robert Stacy McCain
>>-------------------------------------
>
>[...]
>>
>>The stories were chosen "for dramatic effect," Mr. Waters said, even
>>though he explains that most instances of armed self-defense end
>>peacefully as soon as a criminal sees that his intended victim has a
>>gun. [Brandishing, IMO, unless the criminal is apprehended. Otherwise
>>this merely advises the escaping criminal to conduct the next crime
>>more stealthily and prey upon the unarmed. Very uncharitable. - Scott]
>>
>>"There are a lot of stories where someone would come up to try to carjack
>>a car, and the driver would pull a gun and the guy would run away," Mr.
>>Waters said. Having a gun "may have saved [the driver's] life, but there's
>>not much drama in that." [And killed the next guy.]
>[...]
>
>You have an interesting, and troubling concept of "charity" Scott.
>Being trained to use a gun in self defense and being trained in the
>safe, legal apprehension of criminals are two VERY seperate issues.
>The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense is
>that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or
>physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared to
>other forms of self defense or combat.  Ask a cop how many hours of
>training he needed to become profficient at using his gun vs how many
>hours of training (and how much physical ability) he needed in order
>to learn how to apprehend a criminal without simply killing the crook
>or subjecting himself to grave harm.  Do you suggest that only those
>able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense?
>
>A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing
>would-be carjacker and apprehend him.  The law, and I believe most
>people's morals, prohibit the use of deadly force unless there is
>reasonable belief your life, or the life of another innocent person is
>IMMEDIATELY threatened.  Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief,
>rapist, etc, in the back is legally (civilally and criminally)
>dangerous, and morally questionable.
>
>The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be
>displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy
>yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him.  Some
>90% of the times a gun is "used" to prevent a crime, it is never fired
>and in the vast majority of those cases, the criminal flees.  Your
>thinking would elminate the vast majority of the times a person
>protects themselves witha gun.

<snip>

Thanks Charles and Scott.

This is actually an interesting and difficult question.  No less an
authority than Col. Jeff Cooper advises that you should never draw your gun
unless you intend to fire it immediately.  OTOH, I agree with Charles that
shooting a fleeing carjacker would be morally and legally suspect.

The real problem is that brandishing, even justifiable brandishing, is
illegal, and the law needs to be fixed.  Having to choose between shooting
and not drawing one's gun at all is altogether untenable.  Fortunately,
Rep. Wright's brandishing bill never saw the light of day, as it would have
made things worse than they already are.

I don't think it's too soon to start working on legislation that will
protect people who brandish, or who shoot, for legitimate self-defense or
defense of others.  As the law stands now, the criminal has the right to
sue YOU for injuries or for "emotional distress".

Sarah



- -

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 99 07:47:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Cops with Guns!

Like I said, never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot him.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 08:46:00 -0500
From: Mark A. Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Cops with Guns!]

And they want to take away our hunting rifles & shotguns!

3/6/99 -- 1:15 AM

Prosecutor says trooper forgot gun was loaded in fatal shooting

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - A state trooper was shot and killed during
a self-defense exercise by a fellow officer who forgot his gun
was loaded, a prosecutor said.

Mark Wagner, 37, was shot once in the chest Thursday at the
patrol's station in North Platte.

According to Lincoln County Attorney Kent Turnbull, officers had
completed one defensive training segment when a trooper loaded
his weapon.

After a break, officers began another training session that also
involved pointing unloaded weapons, but the trooper forgot his
weapon was loaded, Turnbull said Friday.

No charges will be filed against the trooper, whose name was not
disclosed, because the shooting was an accident, Turnbull said.

``It's just a terrible tragedy, not only for Mark Wagner and his
family but for the other trooper involved as well,'' Turnbull said.

State Patrol Maj. Bryan Tuma said Thursday that Wagner, a 12-year
veteran, was taking part in annual training when shot with either
a Glock .40-caliber or .45-caliber semiautomatic.

No civilians or officers from other departments were in the room
when the shooting happened, Tuma said.

Tuma said troopers are not required to wear bulletproof vests
during the training. He did not think Wagner was wearing one.

North Platte is about 220 miles west of Lincoln.

Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.tampabayonline.net/news/news1024.htm



- -

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 99 01:04:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: "The Best Defense"

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Charles Hardy wrote:

> Adequate and appropriate to prevent or stop an attack is far
> different than adequate and appropriate to effect an arrest
> of someone who immediatly flees when he sees your gun.

You stop an attack by disabling the attacker. Scaring him off
merely postpones/shifts the attack. So don't conceal your gun.

> Being prepared to use it--if a criminal continues to advance or
> otherwise presents an immediate threat to your well being--is
> different than playing quick-draw and shooting immediately.
> Neither do I believe there is any proper requirment to not draw
> until one must shoot immediately.  See below for brandishing.

If apprehension is not an option, yet you desire to venture out
armed with a concealed weapon, perhaps you need one that can be
aimed and shot while remaining concealed.

> >And FYI, Governor Jesse Ventura is in the habit of making Citizen's
> >arrests of speeders.

> And his military training and physical ability put him in the top 1%
> of all living humans.  The rest of us need effective defense WITHOUT
> you adding burdens of having to apprehend someone when that may be
> beyond our ability.

And note that his arrests are for infractions that do not put
others in immediate jeopardy. Those attempting to kill, maim
(rather more directly than the nebulous threat minor speeding
poses) or rape others need to be stopped, not merely diverted.

> I do not intend to move from perceived threat immediatly to shooting.

You shouldn't, so long as that is merely a potential threat.
An actual attempt to commit a life-threatening crime calls
for immediate termination of the attacker, in my view. That
the courts may not uphold such a position is a serious moral
indictment on them.

> If brandishing is enough to end a threat, I would rather not take
> someone's life--even if they decide to flee the scene.

If by threat you mean actual attempt, I consider this a moral
abdication on your part.

> And if it isn't, the act of "brandishing", puts my gun in a much
> better position to shoot than if it were still sitting in a holster.

Get an aimable concealed holster? In the case of carjacking,
one of those flamethrower devices is a functional equivalent.

> In fact, the act of getting in position to shoot is, in itself,
> brandishing.

Only if telegraphed to the one you're in a position to shoot.
Or does Utah have some contrary legal definition?

> Your opinion is worthless in a court of law unless you've recently
> been elected a judge or seated on a jury.

Doesn't happen. Ray Uno was the last. If you argue that the
prudent action is strategic retreat, since the legal system
won't support moral actions, that is moral only in a very
local sense of living to fight another day.

> And your proven track record of seeing things in far different ways
> from almost everyone else means you do not even qualify as that legal
> myth of "a reasonable man."

Nor anyone who believes in the NIOFP. Candidates supporting same
rarely get the proportion of votes that would be required to hang
a jury.

> And how can a person "loose" someone they have never contained?

In the crime scene? Analogous to a chemical "reaction cage".
If you're afraid of the courts punishing a reasonable defense,
get a realistic-looking toy gun and scare criminals off.
Perhaps a starter pistol so they think you're just a lousy shot.

> we are talking about split second decisions with major legal
> repurcussions.

Thus the need for the training I recommended. If you don't have
the training, don't go armed, as you may not have the reflexes
to take a prudent action. Or better yet, get trained.

> Those decisions are tough enough when it is JUST about ending an
> immediate threat.  I contend they are beyond what we should expect of
> non-police when it comes to forceably detaining someone who intends
> to flee.

Perhaps so. So don't "brandish" until you are immediately threatened,
and shoot immediately before he flees. If you can shoot from
concealment, the brandishing doesn't begin until your attacker
perceives the discharge.

> The MOMENT someone turns their back on you and starts to
> leave--REGARDLESS of any "commands" you have given them--your legal
> and moral right to shoot them are, at best, in serious doubt in
> virtually every case a citizen is likely to face.

May be the case in our questionable legal system. Don't wait that long.

> unless my life is in jeopardy, I am not going to do anything to
> potentially end up in court.

Good reason not to brandish, which is a crime in its own right.

> >Display !== brandish

> Display with intent to frighten DOES == brandish.  And whether I
> pointed it at him or merely pull back a coat or shirt to expose the
> gun, if my intend is to scare him--as in "scare him away" I have
> brandished a weapon.

So why bother to carry concealed, if ending concealment is your plan?

> Actually pointing a loaded gun at someone may well move from
> brandishing up to assult.

Threatening constitutes assault, brandishing merely intensifies it,
and escalates it to an actual attack if you point the gun at someone.

> Don't draw a gun unless you are prepared to shoot.  Don't point it
> at anyone you are not willing to kill.  But I defy you to make your
> "immediatly or if he fails to obey [even implicit] commands" argument
> fly for 1 second in front a judge or jury.

So don't openly point it at anyone unless and until you intend to shoot
him. This "advice" does not apply to anyone prepared to apprehend.

> There is no law or moral requirement to make an arrest.

I suppose we'll have to differ on this, but I have heard
of a "law" making "misprision of felony" a crime.

> It is entirely rational that the carjacker, upon looking down the
> barrel of a gun, decides that carjacking is now too dangerous for
> him and either gives up crime altogether, or at least drops back
> to stealing parked, unattended cars.

Or moves to a venue with strict victim disarmament.

> I refuse to get into any more long exchanges with you.  I've made
> my point.  The last word on this topic is yours if you want it.

This strikes me as a rather coy response, since you chose to respond
to my editorial asides. Perhaps you should instead write a response
to 13-year-old Christy House' letter "Limit Gun Ownership" in today's
Tribune, conveniently placed right next to their editorial "Still
Crazy About Guns", in which she uses the argument that "I never hear
stories about how someone's life was saved because that person had a
trusty gun right then and there" in support of making guns harder to get.
- ---
"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind."-Ghandi

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is a lot more polite."
- -Clint Johnson <[e-mail]>

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights
of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
 - Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816.


- -

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 99 09:57:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Charles Scumbag strikes again

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 00:47:38 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: US Senate gun suit bill--ICK!!!

Senate bill designed to spur more city suits over guns

By Vicky Stamas

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - Three Senate Democrats introduced
legislation Thursday designed to give cities, counties and states more
financial incentives to sue gun manufacturers.

The bill offered by Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Dick Durbin
of Illinois, and Charles Schumer of New York, would let localities
challenge gunmakers in court for federal as well as local costs
associated with treating crime victims.

Examples of federal costs that cities could recover would be
disability, unemployment, Medicaid and other aid to shooting victims.

"If enough cities successfully sue the industry it could be brought to
its proverbial knees," Lautenberg said. He said the bill would fortify
cities that already have filed gun suits and encourage more cities to
do the same.

The bill comes on the heels of another Democrat-backed bill sponsored by
New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli and Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy.

That bill would allow the U.S. government to regulate the manufacture,
sale and distribution of guns like it does toys, toasters and other every
day consumer products.

A host of proposals to restrict guns have died in Congress amid fierce
Republican opposition since the 1994 passage of the Brady law requiring
federal background checks for anyone purchasing a weapon from a licensed
gun dealer.

Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, blasted the Lautenberg/Durbin/
Schumer bill and two mayors who backed it at Thursday's press briefing --
Atlanta's Bill Campbell and Miami-Dade Mayor Alex Penelas.

Both mayors have filed suit against the gun industry.

"Doubtlessly, this promise of more easy money is the reason why several
big-city mayors are lining up to support this bill," charged Barr, whose
state recently passed a law that prevents any of its local governments
from suing the gun industry.

Lautenberg struck out at Barr and the National Rifle Association (NRA)
for trying to preempt cities' efforts to seek compensation for costs
related to gun violence.

"It is wrong for the NRA or any of their agents to try and preempt these
suits," Lautenberg said. "I will use any and all possible means to kill
federal legislation blocking the suits in the United States Senate."

"The gun lobby right now is trembling in its boots," Schumer added.

"The problem for the gun lobby is that there are 50 states and 440 large
cities with big crime problems and even the NRA cannot get their hooks
into every state legislature to bar their right to seek damages," Schumer
said.

Under the Lautenberg/Durbin/Schumer bill, localities recovering federal
dollars could keep two-thirds of the federal portion, with one-third of
that share going toward law enforcement, one-third toward education and
one-third toward discretionary spending.

The other third of the federal portion would be returned to the U.S. for
crime prevention, injury prevention research and similar programs, under
the bill, dubbed "The Gun Industry Accountability Act."



- -

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

Date: Tue, 09 Mar 99 21:23:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Goodbye Gun Shows?

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 12:50:10 -0500
From: Mark A. Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goodbye Gun Shows ?

http://www.sofmag.com/1999sof/0499/cg.html

COMMAND GUIDANCE

SOLDIER OF FORTUNE, April, 1999
PAGE UPDATED: 3/2/99

Good Bye Gun Shows?

by Robert K. Brown

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

Gun shows are the latest bugbear of the
anti-gunners. Chicago Con-gressman Rod
Blagojevich (D-IL) is pushing HR 109 to
impose massive new federal controls on gun
shows. Anyone intending to put on a gun
show would be required to submit an
application, including all sorts of
personal information, and a fee, to the
ATF for a federal license.

Within 30 days after the show, the
licensee must then submit to the ATF
copies all records and documents involved
in firearms transfers at the show,
including the names, addresses and ages of
all purchasers, including the make, model
and serial number of all weapons
transferred. In short, the whole panoply
of background-checking, record-making and
reporting is extended to (1) the gun-show
operator, and (2) collectors and other
private citizens not now so oppressed. It
is claimed that a significant percent of
guns used in crimes change hands at gun
shows. This is merely the excuse for yet
another axis of attack on private
ownership of firearms. A study by the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the
research arm of the U.S. Department of
Justice, released in December 1997, shows
that only 2% of criminal guns come from
gun shows. Most of the exhibitors at gun
shows are already Federal Firearms License
(FFL) holders subject to the existing
background-check and recording
requirements, and it is a felony for
anyone knowingly to sell a firearm to a
felon or other disqualified person, so
apparently even this minute percent
represents sales to a "straw man" with a
clean record who then transfers the gun to
the criminal. "Straw man" transactions are
also already illegal. In short, laws
already in effect, if enforced, are quite
adequate to deal with this non-problem.

Clearly, then, the real objective here is
to extend the whole apparatus of
background checking, record-keeping and
reporting to gun collectors and ordinary,
law-abiding private citizens outside the
rather vague statutory definition of a
"dealer." There is no such thing as a
"private dealer;" this is a myth invented
by the gun-grabbers.

If a person falls within the statutory
definition of a "dealer," he or she must
get an FFL or go to jail. Attacking gun
shows is a first step toward abolishing
all privacy regarding firearms, on the way
to universal gun registration, to be
followed, no doubt, by confiscation.

Or, I should say, attempted confiscation,
followed by armed resistance, bloodshed
and tragedy. The gun grabbers try to paint
the picture of gun shows as being a sort
of "Tupperware party" at which anything
goes. This is simply not true. Attendees,
buyers, sellers and dealers are still
subject to federal laws forbidding sale of
guns known to be stolen, sale of guns to
known felons, and so on, as well as
whatever state and local laws apply.

In short, HR 109 is another hypocritical
"feel-good" bill that will accomplish none
of the objects it seeks to promote, but
will certainly drive yet another nail in
the coffin of our Second Amendment and
other rights. You do nothing for the
prevention of crime by taking the means of
self-defense away from the intended
victim. Phone your congressmen now:
202-224-3121. Write them too: U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510; U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515.
Do it today.



- -

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

Date: Tue, 09 Mar 99 21:23:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun makers feel they're under a state of siege

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:07:10 -0500
From: Mark A. Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun makers feel they're under a state of siege

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/qlobby9.htm

Gun makers feel they're under a state of siege

March 9, 1999

BY MELANIE EVERSLEY
Free Press Washington Staff

With more and more lawsuits attacking
gun manufacturers, the people who make
firearms and the people who shoot them
are starting to feel like targets.

Lawsuits in New Orleans, Chicago and
other cities seeking to hold
manufacturers financially responsible
for gun violence -- the sort of
lawsuits that Detroit and Wayne County
are mulling -- are not fair, said Jack
Adkins of the American Shooting Sports
Council, an Atlanta-based organization
that represents gun makers.

"The firearm industry is feeling that
they're under a state of siege," Adkins
said.

For almost a year, the group has tried
to carve an agreement with members of
the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The
conversations have not gone well.

Among changes cities want are new
safety devices that permit only a gun's
owner to shoot it.

One industry insider says the
technology to personalize guns has been
around for some time, in the form of
locks, which are available with any
gun.

"Frankly, that technology has existed
for decades," said Jeff Reh, general
counsel for Beretta USA, in Accokeek,
Md.

The industry believes gun limitations
should focus on criminals, not all gun
buyers, Adkins said. That theme runs
strong through the entire gun-advocate
community.

The suits do not take into account that
hunters practice safety, or that guns
usually only hurt or kill people when
they get into the hands of criminals,
said Jo Swartz, board member of the
Wayne County Sportsmen's Club in Huron
Township.

Swartz has been shooting skeet for
about six years and hunting for about
three. Her husband, David, and
18-year-old daughter, Jennifer, are
hunters too.

"I just enjoy being outdoors," said
Swartz, who lives in Brownstown
Township.

People who use guns legally, for sport,
believe in safety, advocates say.

Swartz said her group, which has 200
members, teaches youngsters about guns
so that they will not get into trouble.

"We know there have been accidents with
children and firearms. If the kids are
educated, the curiosity is not there
and they don't think it's a toy," she
said.

For their part, gun advocates have been
throwing a lot of energy into defending
what they view as their Second
Amendment right to bear arms.

When a news story said that Michigan
Attorney General Jennifer Granholm was
considering suing the gun industry on
behalf of the state, gun advocates
flooded her with calls.

And the Michigan United Conservation
Clubs, a Lansing organization that
represents 500 local groups throughout
the state, recently adopted a
resolution urging the Legislature to
prohibit any lawsuit against the gun
industry.

Said Swartz, "It doesn't make any sense
to go after the gun companies because
once they sell the guns, it's no longer
their responsibility."

- ----------------------------------------
RELATED STORIES
- ----------------------------------------
'Don't feel as though you are invincible'

A mom learns to cope, but 'it's not fair'

Gun makers feel they're under a state of siege

Like to carry a weapon? Tag along to the morgue

With guns, everyone pays


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


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #130
***********************************