ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n131

Internet Message Format | 1999-03-23 | 45KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #131
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Tuesday, March 23 1999      Volume 02 : Number 131




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

Date: Tue, 09 Mar 99 21:23:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Hoplophobe Hypocrites

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeff Penrod <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 7:41 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Hoplophobe Hypocrits

This was in today's Orange County Register:

Book triggers wrath of gun opponents

March 7, 1999

John R. Lott Jr. doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would inspire
death threats. But he's gotten more than his share of them recently,
from a seemingly unlikely source.

You see, Lott gets death threats from people who hate guns.

Lott, 40, is a lanky, soft-spoken, professorial-looking guy which is
appropriate, since that's exactly what he is: a professor of law and
economics at the University of Chicago. Until a couple of years ago
he was simply another anonymous egghead, grinding out arcane research
papers for publication in obscure professional journals. Unless you
subscribe to International Review of Law and Economics or Journal of
Legal Studies, you'd probably never heard of him.

But then Lott published the results of his exhaustive statistical research
on the relationship between crime rates and private gun ownership,
particularly the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens.

Simply put, Lott concluded that an armed citizenry prevents crime
and deters criminals a conclusion summed up in the title of his book,
"More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws."

The national news media picked up on Lott's thesis. And suddenly this
obscure professor who doesn't even have a gun in his home found himself
the prime target in a nasty political gunfight.

From the way many gun-control proponents reacted, you would have thought
that Lott had called for the mandatory arming of preschoolers. On radio
and TV and in the newspapers, they attacked and vilified both Lott and
his study, calling him a tool of the gun manufacturers and his study a
sloppy piece of research sometimes without even having read it.

Lott was generally philosophical about it. As he told me Thursday during a
visit to Orange County, "With most academic work, you're lucky to get 10
people to read it. So it was nice to get the attention."

But perhaps naively, Lott, who is married and the father of four young
boys, never expected the personal hostility he's gotten from some
individual gun control advocates. "We started getting death threats at
home," said Lott. (Presumably, the death would be effected with a knife
or a club.) "People would ask if I had kids, and if they walked home
from school. People would cut out articles from newspapers about gun
deaths and send them to me, with a note saying, 'I hope this is you
next.' ... Tuesday I had a piece in the Wall Street Journal, and I
got about 40 calls. Most of them were very nice, but some ... people
just go bonkers."

Now don't misunderstand. Lott certainly isn't saying that the threats
and personal attacks are representative of all gun-control advocates.
He believes most of them are well-intentioned people who sincerely abhor
violence of all kinds.

But gun control is an emotional issue, nationally and here in Orange
County. (It may become even more emotional here in the coming weeks,
when Sheriff Mike Carona unveils his program to loosen restrictions
on granting permits to carry concealed weapons.)

So maybe it's a good idea for everybody to remember that even though
the news media tend to portray only gun owners as potentially violent
fanatics, there actually are some fanatics on both sides of the issue.

Just ask Professor Lott. Not all "gun nuts" are people who own guns.


- -

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

Date: Tue, 09 Mar 99 21:23:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Are Americans headed for world government?

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 15:56:44 -0500
From: Mark A. Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are Americans headed for world government?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/19990308_xex_are_american.shtml

MONDAY MARCH 08 1999

- ------------------------------------------
[WND Exclusive Commentary]
- ------------------------------------------
Are Americans headed
for world government?
- ------------------------------------------

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
⌐ 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

A few days ago, eight black helicopters
belonging to the elite Delta Force hit
buildings in Kingsville, Texas with real
explosives and live ammunition in a
training exercise that scared local
civilians. Similar events have occurred in
Miami, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Washington,
New Orleans, Los Angeles and other U.S.
cities, including a Chicago suburb where
they bombed an abandoned seminary.

So what's the fuss about a military
training exercise? Well, Tomas Sanchez in
Texas is concerned, and he's no dummy.
Sanchez is emergency management
coordinator for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and head of the military
police unit of the Texas State Guard under
the National Guard. He's also had 30 years
service in Navy intelligence work with a
top secret clearance, and he's one of the
few people who've seen Presidential
Decision Directive 25.

Here's what he said about the Delta Force
special operation: "The scenario if I were
creating this ops plan [is that] martial
law has been declared through presidential
powers and war powers act, and some
citizens have refused to give up their
weapons. They have taken over two of the
buildings in Kingsville. The police cannot
handle it. So you call these guys in. They
show up and they zap everybody, take all
the weapons, and let the local Police
Department clean it up." Sanchez and other
military experts believe PDD 25 is the
document being used to authorize such
military action with the U.S., and he
said, "It's a done deal. I think there's
some UN folks involved in this thing too."

Before you dismiss this as all part of
some conspiracy nonsense, you should know
that on February 20, 1997, Ronnie Edelman
of the U.S. Department of Justice wrote a
letter explaining the Clinton
administration's views on the Second
Amendment and handguns as follows: "The
current state of federal law does not
recognize that the Second Amendment
protects the right of private citizens to
possess firearms of any type." Relevant to
the UN, when Boutros Boutros-Ghali was
secretary-general, he supported the report
of the Commission on Global Governance,
which said: "We strongly endorse community
initiatives to ... encourage the disarming
of civilians." We also know that President
Clinton has been deferential to the U.N.,
saying on Oct. 19, 1993, that his
administration was engaging in a political
process regarding Somalia "to see how we
can ... do all the things the United
Nations ordered to do." And U.S. Army
Specialist Michael New was court-martialed
several years later for refusing to wear
U.N. insignia on his American military
uniform.

Are Americans headed for world government?
Over a century ago, Cecil Rhodes developed
a plan that would bring about a world
government. On July 20, 1992, Bill
Clinton's Rhodes scholar roommate, Strobe
Talbott, wrote an article for Time, in
which he declared: "Perhaps national
sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after
all," and "the case for world government"
is "clinched." President Clinton made
Talbott number two at the State
Department, and in June 1993, the World
Federalist Association gave Talbott its
Global Governance Award for his article.
On June 22 of that year, President Clinton
sent a letter to the WFA noting that
Norman Cousins, a past WFA president, had
worked for world peace and "world
government," and President Clinton
concluded his letter by wishing the WFA
"future success."

All of this in no way means that the
president and the U.N. are going to send
military forces to your home to break down
your door and confiscate your firearms.
But the actions and quotations above are
troubling and do not auger well for the
future of our freedoms, rights, and
national sovereignty.

- -------

Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., is the author of
"Secret Records Revealed," pertaining to
President Clinton and others (Hearthstone
Publishing, 800-652-1144).

- --------------------------------
⌐ 1999 Western Journalism Center
- --------------------------------



- -

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 23:30:24 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRA endorses Olympic Gun Ban

This is enough to make you sick.

Check out http://www.nralive.org for their special endorsement of the
Olympic gun ban, and interview with Elwood Powell, Chair of the Utah
Shooting Sports Council.  (It's the March 11 news story.)

While the NRA was _claiming_ it was neutral on the Olympic ban, it actually
sent an endorsement of the bill to legislators.

Aren't you glad the NRA is "protecting _your_ rights?  UGH!

Sarah


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://www.therighter.com

PROTEST the Gun Ban!
NO-lympics 2002!
Check out http://www.therighter.com/nolympics
And now you can link directly to the Nolympics page
and join the nolympics mail list!

- -

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

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:14:48 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: NRA endorses Olympic Gun Ban

Yet another reason I'm glad that both the NRA and their local
affiliates quit getting any financial support from me several years
ago.

BTW, if anyone can reccomend a good CCW instrutor who does not
financially support the NRA or USSC, I'd sure appreciate it.

Thanks.


On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>This is enough to make you sick.
>
>Check out http://www.nralive.org for their special endorsement of the
>Olympic gun ban, and interview with Elwood Powell, Chair of the Utah
>Shooting Sports Council.  (It's the March 11 news story.)
>
>While the NRA was _claiming_ it was neutral on the Olympic ban, it actually
>sent an endorsement of the bill to legislators.
>
>Aren't you glad the NRA is "protecting _your_ rights?  UGH!
>
>Sarah
>
>
>Sarah Thompson, M.D.
>http://www.therighter.com
>
>PROTEST the Gun Ban!
>NO-lympics 2002!
>Check out http://www.therighter.com/nolympics
>And now you can link directly to the Nolympics page
>and join the nolympics mail list!
>
>-
>
>


- --

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.

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
mouths of labor the bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good
government."  -- Thomas Jefferson

- -

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

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:14:48 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: NRA endorses Olympic Gun Ban

Yet another reason I'm glad that both the NRA and their local
affiliates quit getting any financial support from me several years
ago.

BTW, if anyone can reccomend a good CCW instrutor who does not
financially support the NRA or USSC, I'd sure appreciate it.

Thanks.


On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>This is enough to make you sick.
>
>Check out http://www.nralive.org for their special endorsement of the
>Olympic gun ban, and interview with Elwood Powell, Chair of the Utah
>Shooting Sports Council.  (It's the March 11 news story.)
>
>While the NRA was _claiming_ it was neutral on the Olympic ban, it actually
>sent an endorsement of the bill to legislators.
>
>Aren't you glad the NRA is "protecting _your_ rights?  UGH!
>
>Sarah
>
>
>Sarah Thompson, M.D.
>http://www.therighter.com
>
>PROTEST the Gun Ban!
>NO-lympics 2002!
>Check out http://www.therighter.com/nolympics
>And now you can link directly to the Nolympics page
>and join the nolympics mail list!
>
>-
>
>


- --

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.

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
mouths of labor the bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good
government."  -- Thomas Jefferson

- -

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 99 10:53:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Klinton's policy on the Second Amendment

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:59:08 -0500
From: Mark A. Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Klinton's policy on the Second Amendment

I have a photocopy of this official letter.
Mark

Ms. Deleted
Address: Deleted

Dear Ms. Deleted

     We received your letter of March 12, 1997, and are pleased
to respond to your question about the Second Amendment.

     In your letter, you relate a statement made by Sarah Kemp
Brady to the effect that the Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution does not guarantee the right of individuals
to possess firearms. This is, in fact, correct. Althought those
who oppose any form of gun control commonly assert the the
Second Amendment confers the right to individual ownership of
firearms, this view is not sustained by case law interpreting
that amendment. The courts have uniformly held that the Second
Amendment protects only against federal attempts to disarm or
abolish organized state militia, and does not confer on an
individual the right to own or possess firearms. This has been
the consistent position of the Supreme Court and the eight United
States Courts of Appeals which have considered the issue.

     Thank you so much for your interest in this important issue
and we hope this information is helpful.

                                    Sincerely,

                                    Ronnie L. Edleman (sig.)
                                    Principal Deputy Chief
                                    Terrorism and Violent Crime Section



- -

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

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 99 21:40:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: S. 154 `Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999'

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:48:34 -0500
From: Mark A. Smith <[e-mail]>

Call your Senators about this one.

106th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 154

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the licensing of
ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 19, 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

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

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the licensing of
ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999'.

SEC. 2. RECORDS OF DISPOSITION OF AMMUNITION.

(a) AMENDMENT OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE- Section 923(g) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after the second sentence the
following: `Each licensed importer and manufacturer of ammunition shall
maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, sale, or
other disposition of ammunition at the place of business of such
importer or manufacturer for such period and in such form as the
Secretary may by regulations prescribe. Such records shall include
the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition.'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Each licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition shall annually
prepare a summary report of imports, production, shipments, sales, and
other dispositions during the preceding year. The report shall be
prepared on a form specified by the Secretary, shall include the
amounts, calibers, and types of ammunition that were disposed of, and
shall be forwarded to the office specified thereon not later than the
close of business on the date specified by the Secretary.'.

(b) STUDY OF CRIMINAL USE AND REGULATION OF AMMUNITION- The Secretary of
the Treasury shall request the National Academy of Sciences to--

(1) prepare, in consultation with the Secretary, a study of the criminal
use and regulation of ammunition; and

(2) submit to Congress, not later than July 31, 1998, a report with
recommendations on the potential for preventing crime by regulating or
restricting the availability of ammunition.

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN LICENSING FEES FOR MANUFACTURERS OF AMMUNITION.

Section 923(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) as subparagraphs (B)
through (E), respectively; and

(2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as redesignated, the
following:

`(A) of .25 caliber, .32 caliber, or 9 mm ammunition, a fee of $10,000
per year;'.



- -

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

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 99 20:47:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 3/3

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
KELLERMANN'S CORPSES

In the conclusion of Kellermann's 1986 New England Journal of
Medicine paper (his "43 times" study), he stated the following: "We
noted 43 suicides, criminal homicide, or accidental gunshot deaths
involving a gun kept in the home for every case of homicide for
self-protection" -- presumably deaths of friends and family
members. According to Dr. Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns (1997),
there are between 1,400 and 3,200 "legal civilian defensive
homicides" yearly.

There is a factor in research called "external validity" that
concerns the degree to which the conclusions of a study apply to
populations outside the study population -- in this case, to the
rest of the United States. So we ran the figures to see how they
came out.

In order to get the total number of yearly estimated deaths if
Kellermann's 43-times factor was extrapolated to the rest of the
United States, one needs to multiply the number of "legal civilian
defensive homicides" by Kellermann's factor of 43, and then add in
that same number of "legal civilian defensive homicides."

However, according to the CDC's National Center for Health
Statistics, firearm-related deaths from all causes, in the home and
outside, totaled 35,957 in 1995. Subtracting that figure from
Kellermann's prediction produces a discrepancy of anywhere from
approximately 10,000 (using the low-end estimate) to 67,000 deaths
(using the high-end estimate).

GUNS & AMMO/APRIL 1999
***********************************************************************
Beyond the Mainstream Media's Addendum:

In a review of Robert Waters' book "The Best Defense: True
Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves
With a Firearm" in the Washington Times Weekly Edition
March 8-14 edition: Mr. Waters said "The pro-gun side needs
to debate less about the Second Amendment and more about
issues that really matter to people, such as self-defense."

As much as we wish that simply referring to the Second
Amendment would be enough to disarm gun control advocates,
we agree with Mr. Waters that highlighting a person's ability
to defend [herself] in the manner [she] chooses is the best
angle to use against the anti-gunners.

Below is a letter to the local newspaper by a female
editor here at Beyond the Mainstream Media. Please note
the last paragraph. Woman especially should ask gun
control advocates: "Why are you limiting my options on how
I defend myself?"

Letter to the Editor;

"...considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved
in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve a gun,
gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime - even
if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't." "...a
comprehensive 1993 study covering all forms of gun violence and
encompassing every large city in the nation...gun control laws had
no significant negative effect on violence." "...gun control laws are
more likely to disarm the general public than criminals."

"...Americans use guns of all types to defend themselves 2.5 million
times each year, while guns are used in just over 500,000 crimes
each year." "...evidence suggests that guns are an effective crime
deterrent in the hands of legal owners." "Although government has
taken control of the public criminal justice system, courts have ruled
that it nevertheless does not have a specific duty to protect
individuals. These rulings are probably consistent with the original
intent of the founding fathers. Some legal scholars argue that the
framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed that law-abiding people
would largely be responsible for their own safety."

- -- "Gun Control and Crime", Morgan O. Reynolds, Texas A&M
University and W. W. Caruth III, National Center for Policy
Analysis (1997).

I, personally, am not about to surrender my responsibility to protect
myself to some government entity. If you, as a citizen of a free
country, do not recognize your duty and responsibility to arm
yourself against society's predators, please, do not infringe upon
my efforts to ensure my own safety.

- -- Jill Laughlin
**********************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research
and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
**********************************************************************
HERE COMES THE FLOOD is a First Amendment publication
of 'Beyond the Mainstream Media Services' and is edited
by Scott Laughlin. You are welcome to redistribute this post in
its entirety.

Beyond the Mainstream's objective is to provide timely
information on current issues of the day with an bias
to Free Market economic analysis, anti-statism commentary,
and legal research all with an awareness of the
computer design defect known as Y2K.

We scan many 'outside the mainstream' media publications
(financial newsletters, alternative magazines, patriot
and constitutionalist legal research, libertarian
writings, Bible studies, etc.) to bring you commentary on
items that might otherwise have gone unreported by the
mainstream "journalism" outlets.

**********************************************************
Did someone else forward this post to you? To be certain
of receiving all issues of our E-Journal, please consider
subscribing directly. Currently the service is totally
free and carries no obligation. Your e-mail address
remains strictly confidential. To receive "HERE COMES THE
FLOOD" on a regular basis (up to 2 or 3 times a week) send
the following message "Please subscribe [Your Name] to the
HERE COMES THE FLOOD list: [Your e-mail address]" to:
[e-mail].
To unsubscribe, all you have to do is ask.



- -

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

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 99 20:47:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 1/3

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 22:21:42 -0800
From: Discreet Man <[e-mail]>
To: Comes The Flood <[e-mail]>
Subject: Here Comes the Flood: Guns & Ammo -- Second-Hand Gunsmoke

*******************************************************
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE COMES THE FLOOD    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
*******************************************************
The E-Journal of 'Beyond the Mainstream Media Services'
Edited by Scott Laughlin                 March 12, 1999
*******************************************************
Guns & Ammo April 1999

Second Amendment
Fight for your firearms freedom!

By Drs. Paul Gallant and Joanne Elsen

SECOND-HAND GUNSMOKE

'Cooking Statistics' to Eliminate Freedom and Eradicate the Firearms
Industry.

In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a report about
the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke. That report was prepared
with a singular purpose which was the ultimate elimination of
tobacco products in America. It formed the basis for countless
bureaucratic and legislative rulings about tobacco use throughout
the country. By scaring Americans about the false dangers of
second-hand smoke, anti-tobacco forces could plunder the tobacco
industry through legalized extortion and eventually drive it out
of business.

But there was one small problem. The EPA report was rigged. The
tobacco industry fought back and, on July 17, a United States
District Court in North Carolina ruled in favor of the tobacco
industry.

America's firearm prohibitionists have been trying to pull the same
kind of scam about a different kind of second-hand smoke --
second-hand gunsmoke. Instead of the tobacco industry and cigarette
smokers, the targets are America's gun manufacturers and law-abiding
gun owners. In place of the EPA's junk science on tobacco, they've
cited junk science and falsified "research" on firearms and
firearm-related violence. And, just like the EPA's second-hand smoke
reports, these "scientific" reports are designed to ultimately put
America's gunmakers out of business.

A perfect example appeared in the 1993 New England Journal of
Medicine. In order to inflate his figures and "prove" that the
risks of keeping a firearm in the home outweigh the benefits, Dr.
Arthur Kellermann counted 15 persons 'killed under legally excusable
circumstances" -- i.e. violent criminals -- among his collection of
"victims."

In another study published just one year earlier, Kellermann lumped
together lawful self-defense with outright murder in order to "prove"
that when a woman is armed with a gun, the victim was "five times
more likely to be [her] spouse, an intimate acquaintance or a member
of [her] family than to be a stranger ..." That statistical sleight-of-hand
provided him a pretext to "seriously question" the "wisdom of
promoting firearms to women for self-protection." Kellermann's
research has been funded by American taxpayers through the Centers for
Disease Control.

Unlike most of us, Kellermann is apparently unable to understand that
felons killed by law-enforcement officers in the line of duty are
not "victims." Nor is he able, apparently to comprehend the
difference between lawful self-defense and murder

FIRST-HAND LIES

The plaintiffs in the tobacco lawsuit were six tobacco companies.
The defendants were the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
agency's administrator, Carol Browner. The lawsuit against the EPA
centered around the Radon Research Act of 1986, which required that
the EPA "establish ... an advisory group comprised of individuals
representing the States, the scientific community, industry and
public interest organizations to assist [the EPA] in carrying out
the research program ... for indoor air quality."

However, presiding Federal Judge William Osteen found that the EPA
had failed to establish such an advisory committee. Further, he
questioned whether the findings in the EPA's research report would
have been different if the proper committee had been formed in the
first place. Under such circumstances, Osteen concluded that an
atmosphere more conducive to an unbiased set of conclusions would
undoubtedly have existed. Claiming that the EPA's report was
doctored by the anti-tobacco lobby the plaintiffs challenged the
EPA's evaluation of the respiratory health effects of breathing
second-hand tobacco smoke ("environmental tobacco smoke" or ETS) and
its subsequent classification as a carcinogen. They charged that
'the EPA excluded nearly half of the available studies ..." Even
then the EPA needed to "adjust" its scientific methodology in
order to demonstrate what amounted to only a weak relative risk."

In short, "... the EPA's [second-hand smoke] Risk Assessment was
not the result of reasoned decision making," but of a predetermined
decision based on a dislike of tobacco use, by a hand-picked,
biased, partisan committee.

In deciding in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Osteen cited litany of
abuses perpetrated by the EPA and found that not only had the EPA
exceeded the authority given it by Congress, but it "disseminate[d]
findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to
restrict plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion ...."
[emphasis ours]

DOWN THE SAME CROOKED PATH

There is no more perfect example illustrating the parallel in
tactics used against the tobacco industry and against America's
gunmakers than the actions and ideas articulated by Philadelphia
Mayor Ed Rendell. In early 1998, Rendell set out his plans to file
suit against gun manufacturers and hold them liable for the criminal
misuse of lawfully manufactured firearms. The Washington Times
reported that Rendell's suit would target the nation's nearly
four-dozen gunmakers, arguing that they have created a "public
nuisance" by knowingly flooding cities with more handguns than they
could expect to sell to law-abiding citizens.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



- -

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

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 99 20:47:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 2/3

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Since then, other cities have filed similarly frivolous lawsuits.
Rendell and other like-minded politicians are preparing to soak
firearm manufacturers for all they' can get by using blatantly
doctored scientific reports to advance firearm prohibition in the
process.

Paul Heiruke, mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and president of the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, called Rendell's ideas "interesting and
novel." Helmke told The Washington Times that part of the theory
of the tobacco suits was that tobacco products are dangerous but
the buyer doesn't know it ... everyone knows guns are dangerous."

But the case against "dangerous" firearms is based on the same kind
of flawed, junk-science 'research" the EPA used in making its case
for the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke. For example it's now
common knowledge (isn't it?) that a gun kept in the home for
self-protection is "43 times" more likely to kill a family member or
friend than an intruder. Never mind that the junk-science
'research" which spawned this factoid has been discredited. Never
mind that the one who concocted it was Arthur Kellermann, whose
brand of "science" has been so blatantly inferior that Congress has
cut off funding to both Kellermann and the CDC for future research
on guns and violence.

And never mind that the thousands of corpses of our spouses and
children, inferred from Kellermann's conclusions, are nowhere to be
found.

Still, the damage has been done, and the myth persists and is
repeated ad nauseum. And people like Rendell and Helmke continue to
knowingly use these lies in the formulation of public policy.

In attempting to make its case against second-hand smoke, the EPA
resorted to the same kind of underhanded perversion of the
scientific method. Although the EPA had 58 studies available on
which to base its conclusions, it used only 31 of these. In their
suit, the plaintiffs charged that inclusion of the omitted studies
"would have undermined the EPA's claim of causal association between
ETS exposure and lung cancer." In finding for the plaintiffs, the
court agreed that the EPA's study selection process was "disturbing"
and that the EPA had hand-picked the data it used.

In the tobacco case, the court was unable to conclusively determine
whether the EPA's omissions were intentional or coincidental. When
it comes to firearms and firearm-related violence, however, this
tactic of selective omission is used so routinely by politically
motivated "researchers" that there can be no doubt of its
intentional nature.

THE TRUTH BE DAMNED

People like Rendell and Helnike deliberately ignore any research
that weakens their case and shows the benefits of firearm ownership,
like the research of Drs. Gary Kleck and John Lott.

Kleck is one of the most prominent researchers on defensive gun use
in America. According to Kleck, in a study with colleague Dr. Marc
Gertz published in 1995, ordinary law-abiding Americans use guns
defensively 2.5 million times or more each year. About 75 percent
of those instances involve handguns. Further, use of a firearm is
the safest and most effective means of resisting violent criminal
attack. The presence of a firearm at the time it's needed the most
means that lives are saved, rapes are prevented, injuries are
avoided, medical costs are minimized and property is protected.

Lott is the author of the most exhaustive study to date on the
deterrence of violent crime through the concealed carry of handguns.
His is the first systematic analysis of nationwide crime data from
all 3,054 counties in the United States, between 1977 and 1994.
Unlike the EPA researchers, Lott didn't pick and choose his
numbers.

Before the results of Lott's research became available, firearm
prohibitionists could always point their finger at the dead child
killed by a gun and his grieving family -- all ghoulishly exploited
by a mainstream media committed to civilian disarmament.
Conversely, law-abiding gun owners could only point to the less
sensational account of a would be victim saved by the presence of a
gun -- one who had lived to tell his or her tale of survival.

Showing that "nothing" happened is a tough act! But now we know
with certainty that nothing did happen -- that the violent crimes
that should have taken place didn't -- because Lott's sophisticated
computer-assisted research confirmed that firearms provide a
measurable deterrence to violent crime.

Recent findings like these, ignored by unscrupulous mayors, lawyers
and a corrupt mainstream media, serve to underscore the one major
difference between tobacco and firearms. While second-hand tobacco
smoke may not be dangerous enough to actually cause cancer and may
even be a non-factor in the public health equation, there is
overwhelming evidence of the benefit to society from the possession
and use of firearms by ordinary citizens.

SCIENCE IN THE WITNESS BOX

One of the big differences between the tobacco industry and the
firearm industry is the virtually limitless money pit available to
tobacco. Robert Ricker, director of the Government Affairs
Department of the American Shooting Sports Council, a broad
coalition of industry-related groups, elaborated on that in a
television segment that aired on December 23: "We don't have the
big bucks that the tobacco companies did. The tobacco industry
bought itself out of a difficult situation. We're going to have to
fight."

The firearms industry has all the science on its side to back it up
in demanding court relief for itself at the hands of the same
underhanded tactics. It can prove that falsified research, intended
to harm it, has been systematically used by America's firearm
prohibitionists to implement restrictive firearm laws and to mold
public opinion to their way of thinking. Now, with the decision in
North Carolina against the EPA, it has legal precedent on its side.

Sound public policy can only be formulated when premised on truth
and accuracy. Quietly accepting the continuing pattern of outright
lies and deception from junk scientists, aided and abetted by a
mainstream media bankrupt of all journalistic integrity -- all of
which is calculated to change our actions and attitudes about
firearm ownership -- will not serve us well. A viable firearm
industry is in the interest of all Americans who wish their children
to live in the safest society possible and who care about passing
down their birthright of liberty to future generations.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



- -

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:25:35 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: 1934 Group to challenge CLEO certification for C3 firearms (fwd)

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:07:32 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA13856; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:50:49 -0700
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA27030;
    Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:58:45 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:58:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
From: [e-mail] (Bill Vance)
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1934 Group to challenge CLEO certification for C3 firearms (fwd)
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

On Mar 23, Chuck S wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------=
- -]

Please Repost where it might do some good.  Feel free to copy and leave at =
your
local gun shop or gun shows.

Friends,

I am posting this to inform you of a grass roots initiated legal action, =
which
seeks to overturn the "CLEO Certification" requirement for individual =
ownership
of machineguns and other "NFA Firearms."  I believe this effort will be =
successful
but donations are needed NOW!   For those of us who truly believe that the =
Second
Amendment "ain=3D92t about duck hunting," this represents a solid =
opportunity to
actually win a round in the fight to restore our rights.=20

Background

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but private ownership by =
individuals
of machineguns, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, suppressors, destructive=

devices, and AOWs (Any Other Weapon =3D96 pen guns, some short shotguns =
and the
like) is perfectly legal, except where otherwise prohibited by State law =
or
local ordinance (This leaves you Californians out, btw).  Under the =
National
Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34) such firearms (a.k.a. Title II, Class 3, or =
NFA
firearms) became regulated via a federal tax (similar to liquor taxes).  =
For
most NFA firearms the tax is $200 and for AOWs the tax is $5.  (See Note =
1).


In order for an individual to make or obtain an NFA firearm (See Note 2), =
the
tax payment is sent with two copies of a) ATF Forms 1, 4, or 5, b) recent =
photographs
and c) fingerprint cards to BATF.  All this is very similar to the =
paperwork
requirements for obtaining a concealed handgun license in those states =
that
have "shall-issue" CCW laws. =20

But guess what?  There=3D92s one additional "gotcha" in this process.  On =
the back
of the ATF forms is a section entitled "LAW ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION" and =
this
turns out to be the spoiler for most people interested in NFA Firearms.  =
Currently,
ATF will not approve a transfer (i.e. will not accept the tax payment) =
unless
this section of the form is filled out and signed by the "chief law =
enforcement
officer" (CLEO) having jurisdictional authority (to issue or serve a =
criminal
warrant) for the applicant. =20

The CLEO certification states that the person signing has "no information =
that
the transferee will use the firearm=3D85for other than lawful purposes=3D85=
" and that
"the receipt and/or possession of the firearm=3D85would not place the =
transferee
in violation of State or local law."  Sounds simple, right?  It turns out =
that
Police Chiefs and Sheriffs, particularly in urban areas, will simply not =
sign
the certification.  They are not legally bound to, nor does it make much =
political
sense for them to do so (to them anyway). =20

For those of you out there who are on good terms with your sheriff, police =
chief,
district attorney, or district criminal judge =3D96 then good for you.  At =
least
'til the next election.

For the rest of you, this means you probably aren=3D92t "allowed" to =
obtain some
of the most interesting and unique firearms available in the world.  Too =
bad.


By the way, unlawful possession of one of these things can get you 10 =
years
in club fed and $100,000 lighter in the bank account.  Not recommended for =
the
entertainment value.

Fortunately, there may be some relief on the horizon.

1934 Group

The 1934 Group is a non-profit corporation established to take on legal =
issues
in the NFA arena.  It is entirely donor supported.  Donations are NOT =
tax-deductible
because this IS a lobbying organization.  The corporation was organized =
after
several months of brainstorming and data gathering by an informal group of =
individuals,
dealers, and manufacturers in the NFA world who realized that none of the =
"mainstream"
gun rights organizations were fighting their fight.  So they decided to do =
something
about it. =20

Attorneys Jim Jeffries III and Steven Halbrook have agreed to pursue a =
case
to overturn the CLEO certification requirement - Provided that the 1934 =
Group,
through its contributors, supplies the financial ammo to see this through. =
These
two highly respected attorneys need no introduction to those of us active =
in
the fight to preserve the Second Amendment.  To date, hundreds of =
individuals
or their companies have pledged thousands of dollars to get this started.  =
Thousands
of dollars more will be required to see it through and I urge you to =
provide
support for this effort through your own financial contributions and by =
spreading
the word.=20

Donations in personal or company check, money order (Please make a =
notation
on the "memo" field of your check if you prefer to stay anonymous to the =
CL3
community) or cash can be sent to:=20

1934 Group=20
12701 NE 9th PL Suite #D312=20
Bellevue, WA 98005=20

For more information, check out the 1934 Group web site at=20

http://www.teleport.com/~dkw/1934WWW.htm

_Small Arms Review_ publisher Dan Shea has written about the 1934 Group =
and
their efforts in the March issue of that magazine, which by the way is THE =
journal
to have for those interested in, or involved with, the NFA community.  =
See=20


http://www.smallarmsreview.com/

Jim Jeffries, in a letter to Dan Shea, has outlined the case by the 1934 =
Group.
The letter is posted on James Bardwell=3D92s web site at:=20

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cleo_lawsuit/jeffr=
ies_shea_letter.txt


So there, now I=3D92ve said it.  Here=3D92s an opportunity to win one =
again.  For those
gun owners who believe this doesn=3D92t affect them, well, all I can do is =
paraphrase
Franklin  - We must hang together in this fight, or surely we=3D92ll hang =
separately.


Oh, and I don=3D92t duck hunt either.  But without folks like us, the duck =
hunters
will be toast eventually.

And for those of you who will protest that this effort is wrong because it =
doesn=3D92t
go far enough (NFA34 is un-Constitutional and all that=3D85), I hear you =
and trust
me, you're preachin' to the choir.  But the law is what it is, regardless =
of
eloquent arguments to the contrary.  So I choose, for now, to fight this =
particular
battle within that context.

Finally, I have no financial stake in any of this except that if we win, =
my
boys might get to keep some of their daddy's guns.

Thanks for your time.

Chuck S=20
Spring, Texas=20
March 23, 1999

Note 1: For an interesting and enlightening take on NFA34, take some time =
to
read _Unintended Consequences_, by John Ross.

Note 2: Unlicensed individuals may not obtain machineguns manufactured =
after
May 1986, but this is a battle for another time.

[------------------------- end of forwarded message -----------------------=
- -]

- --
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
- ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
- -
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand =3D Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy =
a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus =
Christ
- ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
- -


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #131
***********************************