ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n133

Internet Message Format | 1999-04-25 | 44KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #133
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Monday, April 26 1999      Volume 02 : Number 133




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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:18:32 -0800
From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective

Scott Bergeson wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500
> From: [e-mail]
> To: Multiple recipients of list PRN <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective
>
> Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA,
>
> This message is intended for Mr. Alan Gottlieb.  If this should arrive
> at the wrong address, please pardon the error and kindly delete the
> message.
>
> Dear Mr. Gottlieb,
>
> I understand you are supporting a Bill supporting gun locks on weapons
> in an effort to head off more onerous legislation.
>

This is NOT true.  "Preemptive concession" is not the basis for support of the bill.
As others in the gun lobby already acknowledge, Washington's EXISTING reckless
endangerment law (RCW 9A.36.050) can and has been used to prosecute individuals who
allow a minor unauthorized access to a firearm.  HB 1424 NARROWS that prosecutorial
option.


The remainder of the message being answered is inaccurate drivel totally irrelevant to
th efacts in this case.  This issue is being promoted by GOA in an attempt to attack
another member of the gun rights community.  By all means visit the GOA web site
addressing the issue.  The please show the courtesy to visit the CCRKBA web site at
http://www.ccrkba.org and read the other side of the story.

Joe Waldron
Executive Director, CCRKBA


- -

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:21:35 -0800
From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective

Scott Bergeson wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500
> From: [e-mail]
> To: Multiple recipients of list PRN <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective
>
> Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA,
>
> This message is intended for Mr. Alan Gottlieb.  If this should arrive
> at the wrong address, please pardon the error and kindly delete the
> message.

Interesting, too, that the message is supposed to be directed at Mr. Gottlieb and
CCRKBA, but it seems to be making it's way through the various gun list on the 'net.
That may say more about the real motives of the message than the words indicate.

Joe Waldron
Exec Dir, CCRKBA


- -

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

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:26:10 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LPU: DesNews editorial

I wrote to the Deseret News and asked for a copy of the survey and the
final results.  They never responded.  The Trib has refused to make survey
info available and claims "all the information I need" is in the article
and/or graphs. =20

Sarah


At 09:49 PM 3/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>While I don't support the contention that rights are totally dependent
>on the will of the majority, the DN and the Trib keep saying this, but
>how accurate and unbiased are the polls on which these statistics are
>based? Does anyone have access to the raw data, such as date, polling
>firm, exact questions asked, who responded as compared to who was
>approached in addition to the actual numbers of total and specific
>responses, etc.?
>
>Scott
>
>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [e-mail] provided:
>
>> Keep schools, churches gun-free=20
>> Deseret News editorial
>
>>       An overwhelming number of Utahns advocate the obvious =97 guns
>> should be kept out of schools and churches. We concur.
>SNIP
>>       90 percent of Utahns believe
>> all weapons should be banned from public schools. Eighty-six percent
>> think guns =97 including concealed weapons =97 should be kept from
>> churches. Three-fourths want firearms prohibited from Olympic venues in
>> 2002. While 58 percent feel they should be kept out of private
>> businesses open to the public.
>SNIP to end
>
>
>-


- -

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

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 06:28:06 -0700 (MST)
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DesNews editorial

Thank you. I will consider this refusal of the papers to answer
a tacit admission of their prevaricated use of "statistics".

Scott

"Statistics don't lie, but liars sure can use statistics."

- ----------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:26:10 -0700
From: S. Thompson <[e-mail]>

I wrote to the Deseret News and asked for a copy of the survey and the
final results.  They never responded.  The Trib has refused to make
survey info available and claims "all the information I need" is in the
article and/or graphs. =20

Sarah


At 09:49 PM 3/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>While I don't support the contention that rights are totally dependent
>on the will of the majority, the DN and the Trib keep saying this, but
>how accurate and unbiased are the polls on which these statistics are
>based? Does anyone have access to the raw data, such as date, polling
>firm, exact questions asked, who responded as compared to who was
>approached in addition to the actual numbers of total and specific
>responses, etc.?

>Scott

>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [e-mail] provided:

>> Keep schools, churches gun-free=20
>> Deseret News editorial

>>       An overwhelming number of Utahns advocate the obvious =97 guns
>> should be kept out of schools and churches. We concur.
>SNIP
>>       90 percent of Utahns believe
>> all weapons should be banned from public schools. Eighty-six percent
>> think guns =97 including concealed weapons =97 should be kept from
>> churches. Three-fourths want firearms prohibited from Olympic venues in
>> 2002. While 58 percent feel they should be kept out of private
>> businesses open to the public.
>SNIP to end


- -

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

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 07:18:10 -0700 (MST)
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Pre-emptive concessions?  Let's hear your side of it.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 08:55:53 -0500
From: Jurist <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
     [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Pre-emptive concessions?  Let's hear your side of it.

Say it ain't so, Joe,

No, Scott did not write this letter, it was I who penned this -- warts
and all.  I have to admit, the grammar was not the best I have ever
composed, but on closer examination of the facts, I have seen nothing --
other than indignant denials -- to prove it wrong.  Scott just did me
the favor, I suppose, of reposting my article to a wider audience.

Now, please keep in mind that I have no intention in joining or forming
a new circular RKBA firing squad.  We have plenty of enemies already,
both foreign and domestic, to keep our bloodpressures up and our
keepboards smoking.  You may not have noticed, but I did couch my terms
in the tentative fashion, as I did not want to start shooting before I
understood the whole story.

At this point I have visited both the CCRKBA website AND GOA's website
to try and get both sides of the story.

[http://www.ccrkba.org/]   [http://www.gunowners.org/]

I found very little on the CCRKBA's website that directly addressed this
issue, [as a matter of fact, I DID call the 1-800 number to give the
U.S. Attorney in question a ration; but the receptionist hadn't a clue
of what the message posted on the site referred to].

GOA's site at http://www.gunowners.org/swadocs.htm, on the other hand,
has about six files that document the back-and-forth between Larry Pratt
and Alan Gottlieb.

In one section, Mr. Gottlieb is quoted as saying:

>"A pro-active approach to the child safety issue is more than damage
>control. It is about reaching out to legitimately concerned citizens
>with the message that gun rights are not incompatible with safety and
>responsibility. If we allow our enemies to hijack the issue of child
>safety, we put ourselves on the losing side of a battle that could
>decide the war."

Perhaps you interpret it differently than I do, but in this particular
instance, it stinks very strongly of "pre-emptive concession."

In case you have been paying attention over the past 20-odd year years,
THAT TACTIC HAS NOT WORKED FOR US!  It HAS worked to salami-slice away
our Second Amendment rights.

I, for one, have no intention of cooperating with the Executioners of
the Constitution.  I want to expose them as the liars they are.  I want
to get a COMPLETE ROLLBACK of all gunlaws until we have nothing left but
the Second Amendment, okay?  That's where I am coming from.  Concessions
aren't part of my vocabulary.

In my letter, I suggested we go on the counterattack and demand the
repeal of the NAZI LAW that is the Gun Control Act of 1968.
http://jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm  I hope that isn't part of the 'inaccurate
drivil' you were referring to.

Now, between SAF, CCRKBA, NRA and GOA, I know of no organization in the
USA who has had the gumption to use this excellent club that is
available to us and shame the Left into repealing this NAZI LAW.  None
have come forward and taken action.  None have demanded that they wanted
the Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution and NOTHING LESS than the
Constitution.  Instead, we're constantly backpeddling, cringing, and now
- -- so it would seem -- all too eager to commit suicide rather than allow
someone else to shoot us.  I'm sick of it.

Now, I HOPE we are all on the same team.  Larry has put up facts on his
website, to include reposts of your (?) organizations' transmissions to
him.  The way I see it, he has introduced evidence sufficient to show
that Alan is making pre-emptive concessions.  I now invite your, level-
headed, factual response rebutting what has been proferred.

As far as the supporting information included with my initial letter, by
calling it "inaccurate drivel" you attack every major argument we have
against the introduction of mandatory gunlock legislation.

Okay Joe, I yield back my time and the floor over to you.  Let's hear
the facts, as you see them please.  Let's try to keep the bloodshed
within the family to a minimum.

Best regards,

Rick Vaughan, Esq.
[e-mail]


Joe Waldron wrote:

> Scott Bergeson wrote:

> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500
> > From: [e-mail]
> > To: Multiple recipients of list PRN <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective

> Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA,

> Dear Mr. Gottlieb,

> I understand you are supporting a Bill supporting gun locks on weapons
> in an effort to head off more onerous legislation.

> This is NOT true.  "Preemptive concession" is not the basis for
> support of the bill.  As others in the gun lobby already acknowledge,
> Washington's EXISTING reckless endangerment law (RCW 9A.36.050) can and
> has been used to prosecute individuals who allow a minor unauthorized
> access to a firearm.  HB 1424 NARROWS that prosecutorial option.

> The remainder of the message being answered is inaccurate drivel
> totally irrelevant to the facts in this case.  This issue is being
> promoted by GOA in an attempt to attack another member of the gun
> rights community.  By all means visit the GOA web site addressing the
> issue.  The please show the courtesy to visit the CCRKBA web site at
> http://www.ccrkba.org and read the other side of the story.

> Joe Waldron
> Executive Director, CCRKBA

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


- -

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

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 99 22:41:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: It doesn't take much to shoot down this anti-gun propaganda

It doesn't take much to shoot down this anti-gun propaganda
Charley Reese
The Orlando Sentinel
March 21, 1999.

The ignorance and inability to think of many Americans is appalling.
The choice is either to believe that or to accuse them of something
even worse -- deliberate lying and propaganda.

This is plainly evident in the current propaganda campaign being
directed against the private ownership of firearms.

Let me quote from an article published in the New York Times. The
headline states, "To rejuvenate gun sales, critics say, industry
started making more powerful pistols."

The story is based on assertions by Tom Diaz, who is described as
a "former congressional expert on handgun control." Now, first of
all, congressional expert is an oxymoron.

Here is an example of Diaz's propaganda:

"The increase in pistols that are more deadly began with a shift in
design from revolvers, which generally hold six rounds, to faster-
firing semiautomatic pistols with larger magazines capable of
holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition . . . ."

Now, what's wrong with that? First, magazine capacity has nothing
to do with the power of a pistol. That is a factor of the cartridge.
Second, semiautomatic pistols were invented in 1899 by George Luger,
a German. There has not been a "shift in design" from revolvers to
semiautomatics. Semiautomatics and revolvers both have been around
for virtually all of this century. Finally, revolvers can be fired
as rapidly as semiautomatics or close enough to make no difference.
Again, rapidity of fire has nothing to do with the power of the gun.

Diaz then makes a totally false statement, if the reporter has
accurately summarized his argument. Here it is: "The next step was
the introduction of higher-caliber ammunition, moving from the older
and smaller .22- or .38-caliber pistols to the larger 9-millimeter
or .40-caliber handguns."

Maybe they just don't know math. They sure know nothing about the
history of firearms. Caliber refers to the diameter of the bullet.
A .38 caliber, which is expressed in inches, is the same as a 9
millimeter, which is expressed in the metric system.

Furthermore, calibers of pistols in the 19th century tended to be
larger -- .50 caliber in some cases, .45 caliber or .44 caliber.
Apparently, this congressional expert never saw many cowboy movies
as a child.

Then he tries to blame manufacturers for producing very small,
lightweight pistols. That's also nonsense. Small pocket pistols
have been in production for more than 140 years. Has he never heard
of the Lincoln assassination? Lincoln was killed with one shot from
a tiny pocket pistol, popularly referred to as a derringer. Though
many manufacturers made them, Henry Deringer invented the first one
in 1852. Notice that his name, misspelled, became the generic name
for pocket pistols.

Diaz' thesis, which is false, is part of trying to rationalize suing
gun manufacturers. He purports that they are making more powerful
pistols to combat lagging sales. As I've pointed out, that's total
nonsense. Americans, for historical reasons, traditionally favor
revolvers while Europeans traditionally favor semiautomatics. Until
recently, the .38-caliber revolver was the standard police weapon in
America -- the 9mm semiautomatic is the standard police and military
weapon in Europe. The 9mm cartridge is only marginally faster than
the .38 police special and the same diameter.

The most widely used 9 millimeter cartridge today is the 9 millimeter
Luger introduced in 1902. The .357 Magnum was introduced in 1935.
Heifer dust can't trump the facts.

[Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed
By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard]

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

A.K. Pritchard
http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/

To subscribe to "The Republican"  email list - just ask!

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction."

- -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
"Commentaries on the Laws of England."



- -

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

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 99 22:41:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: "Atlas Shrugged" banned in Sweden?

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:05:57 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: Multiple recipients of list PRN <[e-mail]>
Subject: Okay, let's put a stop to this! (They wouldn't do that, woul

Stan Moskal wrote:

> Will these special units, when the chips are down, follow orders and
> actually carry out actions against American civilians? Granted many
> of the Nazi's acted because they were just following orders, but I'd
> like to think that in general the American military is different.
> Especially an all volunteer force made up of Americans. Will these
> professional "super soldiers" actually attack and kill Americans?
> I mean they are not FBI or BATF thugs are they?

ARE THEY? (Good question Stan)

QUESTION 46

- - Would you shoot and kill American Civilians Resisting Disarmament?
The Combat Arms Survey: Question 46
http://www.covertops.com/news.htm#scenario
About the Combat Arms Survey that contained Question 46, U.S. troops
attitudes towards firing on U.S. citizens.

>"46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale,
> transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty
> (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned
> over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number
> of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms.

The statement that the U.S. Marines were asked to respond to:

I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of
firearms banned by the U.S. government.

(   )       (   )              (   )     (   )  (   )
No opinion  Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree

The Responses

Of the 300 U.S. Marines asked this question, 264, or 88% of them responded.
The outcome of the survey was as follows:

Strongly disagree 127  42.33%
Disagree           58  19.33%
Agree              56  18.67%
Strongly agree     23  07.67%
No opinion         36  12.00%

          Total:  300  100.00%

Summary of the responses to question 46.

The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would
refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated
they would fire. According to Lt. Cdr. Guy Cunningham, the author of the
thesis and designer of the survey questions;

>"This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent
> of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil remarks
> on their response or written comments in the margin space."

>Is there a problem here?

What troubles Lt. Cdr. Cunningham and other opponents of using U.S.
military forces for U.N. peacekeeping and non-traditional missions
within United States territories is the 26.34% indicating they would
fire.

> In another scenario, such a significant minority could be separated
> from those unwilling to shoot their fellow citizens, and easily
> organized into a unit that would obey such orders.
> http://www.covertops.com/news.htm#scenario

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

OKAY AND HERE'S HIS EXCUSE FOR THE PURGE OF THE MILITARY:

Left setting Conservatives in the military for a purge and redefining
Conservatives as 'Terrorist.' http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/presley.htm
Don't be fooled. They LABEL and thus EQUATE Conservative, patriotic and
Constitutionalist with "KKK," "Nazi," "Facist" and soon "Terrorist."
- ----------------------------------------------

AND HERE'S HIS (CLINTON'S) HAND-PICKED HENCEMEN

"I can tell you specifically. In my humble opinion, based on my
background, the scenario if I were creating this ops plan... 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 [kill] everybody, take all
the weapons, and let the local P.D. clean it up," "Presidential Decision
Directive 25 is the authority given to them to operate and to be not
covered by posse comitatus. ...

"Some military sources, too, are concerned with the way the CAG has
evolved, and he is very concerned about the way the group has been
granted authority to do just about anything with total immunity from the
law, including the Posse Comitatus Act...."

"They will follow and do whatever the president tells them to do. In
that regard, they are somewhat dangerous."

"Everything is training for them. You train like you fight and you fight
like you train. There's very little distinction between the two."...
[T]hey were under the direct control of the Department of Justice,"...
"If they are told to shoot somebody they will shoot them, you know,
without question," claims the source."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990225_xex_the_military.shtml

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

OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS

Remember hearing anything about the U.S. experiments when people were
ordered to give electrical shocks, with increasing severity, to other
people? Well, even Americans continued to administer shocks up to very
high levels.
 - Milgram's study on Obedience to Orders
http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~cultsock/MUHome/cshtml/Obed.html
http://www.cyber.vt.edu/mbo/commres/lectures/ethics/milgram/obediance.html
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jcook/milgram.htm
- ---------------------------------------------------

THEY'RE ALREADY KILLING AMERICANS

- - Bonus Marchers
- - Kent State ("Four Dead in OH-HI-OH")
- - Ruby Ridge
- - Waco
- - Sallisaw
- - Taft
- - All the unreported incidents.....

Police are receiving military-style training, which is great for the
battlefield, but not appropriate for a traffic stop for exceeding the
speed limit - and Citizens are getting slaughtered. Govt. says "it's
okay"

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo102.htm
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/policeguns.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/dcpolice/deadlyforce/police1page1.htm
http://civilliberty.miningco.com/msubmenu5.htm
http://www.bakersfield.com/special/taftshooting/
- -----------------------------------------------

Who's behind all these so-called "laws?" Not Americans! (for the most part)

Surplus Weapons and the MicroDisarmament Process
- - "Increase in U.N. Involvement in the MicroDisarmament Process"
Essentially, the excuse to divide humans into two groups:
those government-armed humans and suubject-unarmed humans.

Like Clint Eastwood said:
>"Ya know Tuco, there are two kinds a' people in this world...
Those who have guns, and the kind who dig... now DIG!"

More - yes you guessed it, U.N. involvement in domestic disarmament
http://bicc.uni-bonn.de/weapons/events/micro/laurance.html
http://bicc.uni-bonn.de/weapons/brief3/chap5.html

And just in case you *still* aren't depressed enough already, I got this
tidbit in from Sweden this morning. Sounds like the United States is
the last holdout. Once the RKBA/Freedom goes in the United States, who
is left to rescue us? Where is there a place simply to flee to?

Nowhere. It is up to us.

>"Those Swedes not accepting the system are leaving. In a few years they
> will have very big problems here, as not only big companies are leaving
> Sweden, but also well educated people. Somehow this all reminds me of
> Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged". Do you know that book? It is forbidden here
> in Sweden!"

Please contact your Congresscritter and demand a Rollback.

In liberty,

Rick V.

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



- -

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

Date: Sat, 03 Apr 99 22:34:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: WHY I HATE THE NRA

 * Forwarded message

- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 13:28:02 -0800
From: Ed Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: WHY I HATE THE NRA

From: wolfeyes <[e-mail]>

Ladies & gentlemen:

There is a lot of talk about treason these last few months, mostly
centering on our president and those gutless cowards we call our
representatives and senators.

Real treason is an act most foul. It isn't really treason when a
no-good, son-of-a-bitch like President Clinton betrays us, because
hey!, you knew he was a snake when you elected him, so don't bitch
when he bites you! The same can be said about our representatives
and senators.

But when a body like the NRA betrays you .... that cuts right to the bone.

How many Americans have asked; "Why doesn't the NRA pursue a legal
challenge based purely upon the Second Amendment?" Why indeed?!!

I have patiently watched the NRA gather billions in contributions to
fight local and state gun issues here and there and everywhere. They've
collected a lot of money these past years, and in fairness, they've
spent it on the fights ... they picked. But every time the NRA had the
opportunity to bring a federal lawsuit to challenge an errant federal
law on purely Second Amendment grounds, their legal staff remained mute.
This troubled me greatly, and it caused me to question the integrity of
the NRA. Why in the world would they keep missing these opportunities
to, once and for all, set this issue to rest?

The very fact that I would ask such a question demonstrates my own
foolishness.

We've all seen it: A group of laborers is treated unfairly, they form
a union to force the employers to treat them fairly, they succeed, and
then what happens? The Union begins to operate as a separate entity,
often acting in it's own best interest in matters where the interest
of the union member should be held most sacred. The NRA has devolved
into the same animal. Face it, as they have: If a solid United States
Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear
arms is either denied to, or guaranteed to, the individual citizen, the
NRA is out of business. The game is over. No more cushy jobs, no more
television appearances, no more income, no more controversy ... NO MORE.

That was before a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, by the name of Sam
Cummings slammed federal prosecutors -- and the NRA -- back into reality.
It seems a man going through a divorce was served a temporary restraining
order -- even though he'd never threatened his soon-to-be-ex-wife. What
he didn't know was that, buried in Clinton's massive and complicated 1994
Crime Bill, was a prohibition against possession of a firearm by anyone
served with a restraining order! When the feds found out he still had
possession of firearms, he was indicted. The accused' attorneys presented
a defense based upon both Article II and V of the Bill of Rights. Fat
chance, right? Not this time!

In his decision, Judge Cummings, who sits on the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, wrote this:

" A historical examination of the right to bear arms ... bears proof
that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should be,
construed as an individual right."

And:

"The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded
as the other individual liberties enshrined in the bill of Rights."

And:

"It is absurd that a boilerplate state court divorce order can
collaterally and automatically extinguish a law-abiding citizen's
Second Amendment rights..."

The judge's decision goes even farther in support of the individual's
right to keep arms, including the individual's right to keep so-called
"assault weapons", based upon the case of Miller vs US, 1939, but that
is not the point of this article. The point of this article is to
illustrate the damnable and treasonous failure to act on the part of
the National Rifle Association, an organization I belonged to and
contributed to for over twenty years.

The NRA didn't bring this case to Judge Sam Cummings, but they should
have. The NRA should have brought similar cases to federal judges on
Second Amendment arguments all across this nation as they presented
themselves over the years, but they didn't. We now have tainted and
corrupt federal judges all across this nation, and only now will a case
bearing strictly Second Amendment issues be subjected to a federal
appeals court, and you can bet that by the time this case reaches their
ears, the appeals "court" will be well-prepared to support the corrupt
federal government side of this issue.

If you ever give another dime to the NRA, you're a damn fool.

Carl F. Worden
Liaison & Intelligence Officer
Southern Oregon Militia



- -

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:30:38 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Respond to AJC poll

>Time to speak out.....
>NH
>===========
>
>
>>In a ground-breaking move, Saturday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>>actually
>>mentioned John Lott's Chicago study which shows that areas with
>>concealed
>>carry laws have less violent crime than those which restrict the
>>possesion
>>of firearms.
>>
>>They have asked readers to respond to the question "Should people be
>>allowed to carry concealed firearms?" at the website
>>http://www.accessatlanta.com/community/talk/ .
>>
>>Please log on and make your voice heard!
>>
>>Spread this message to everyone you can! It's about time the voice of
>>reason was heard in Atlanta's paper.
>>


- -

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

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 99 20:00:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Guns and the Constitution--Wall Street Journal

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:36:10 -0400
From: "Alexandra H. Mulkern" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Guns and the Constitution--Wall Street Journal

April 12, 1999

Rule of Law

Guns and the Constitution

By Eugene Volokh, who teaches constitutional law at UCLA Law School.

A federal judge in Texas has just done something no federal
court had done in more than 60 years: On March 30 he held
that the Second Amendment protects people's right to keep
and bear arms. If this decision is affirmed by the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, the case has a very good chance of
going to the Supreme Court, which hasn't yet resolved this
issue. And behind the narrow Second Amendment matter lies
a deeper question about the utility of a written Constitution.

As in many constitutional cases, the defendant--Timothy
Emerson, a San Angelo doctor--isn't the best of fellows.
During Dr. Emerson's divorce proceedings, his wife claimed
he had threatened to kill her lover. The state divorce court
apparently made no findings on this, but entered a boilerplate
order barring Dr. Emerson from threatening his wife.

Though this state order said nothing about firearms, a
little-known federal law bars gun possession by people
who are under such orders. Dr. Emerson not only failed to
dispose of his guns, as the law required, but eventually
brandished one in front of his wife and daughter. He was
then prosecuted under the federal law, though for gun
possession rather than gun misuse.

The instinctive reaction here is that Dr. Emerson is the very
sort we'd like to disarm, trouble waiting to happen. But when
the divorce court issued its order, Dr. Emerson hadn't been
found guilty of anything. Had he been convicted of a felony,
all agree he would have lost his right to keep and bear arms
as well as his right to remain at liberty. Here, though, there
was no trial, no conviction, no finding of misconduct or future
dangerousness. So when the federal law barred Dr. Emerson
from possessing guns, he was a citizen with a clean record,
just like you and me. Hence his Second Amendment defense.

The hot constitutional question is whether the Second Amendment
protects only states' rights to arm their own military forces,
or whether it protects an individual right. If the states-rights
view is correct, Dr. Emerson could have been disarmed with no
constitutional worries--and so could anyone else. But the Second
Amendment's text and original meaning pretty clearly show that
it protects individuals. The text, which is reprinted nearby,
says the right belongs to people, not states. And in the Bill
of Rights "the right of the people" refers to individuals, as
we see in the First and Fourth Amendments.

Moreover, the Second Amendment is based on the British 1688 Bill
of Rights and is related to right-to-bear-arms provisions in
Framing-era state constitutions. The British right must have
been individual; there were no states in England. Same for the
state constitutional rights; a right mentioned in a state Bill
of Rights, which protects citizens against the state government,
can't belong to the state itself. So in the Framing era, the
"right to bear arms" meant an individual right.

What about the militia? The Second Amendment secures a "right
of the people," not of the militia; but in any event, as the
Supreme Court held in 1939, the Framers used "militia" to refer
to all adult able-bodied males under age 45. Even today, under
the 1956 Militia Act, all male citizens between 18 and 45 are
part of the militia. (Women are probably also included, given
the Supreme Court's sex-equality precedents.) "Well-regulated
militia" in late 1700s parlance meant the same thing--"the body
of the People capable of bearing Arms," which is how an early
proposal for the amendment defined it. And the individual-rights
view is the nearly unanimous judgment of all the leading 1700s
and 1800s commentators and cases.

Based on this evidence, federal Judge Sam Cummings concluded
Dr. Emerson's gun possession (though not his gun misuse) was
constitutionally protected. If the Second Amendment is to be
taken seriously, then Judge Cummings was right, and the other
lower court cases holding the contrary were wrong.

If, that is, the Second Amendment is to be taken seriously.
The notion of a written, binding Constitution tells us it
should be, but cases like this lead some to wonder. Why, they
ask, should today's decisions be bound by the dead hand of the
past? If we have a "living Constitution" onto which courts may
graft new rights, why can't they prune away obsolete ones?

These are genuinely tough questions, which go far beyond just
the Second Amendment, and which have been raised in past
controversies by conservatives as well as liberals. Let me
give a few responses.

First, government entirely by the sometimes hyperactive hand of
the present also has flaws. The benefits of liberties, however
real, are often less visible than the costs. When we see Dr.
Emerson before the court, accused of making violent threats,
it's tempting to treat the right to possess guns as a nuisance.
But we don't as easily see the hundreds of thousands of people
who use guns each year in self-defense, including separating
spouses who defend themselves against would-be abusers.

Second, modern innovations that restrict traditional liberties
are often oversold. Realistically, people willing to violate
laws against violent crime will rarely be deterred by laws
against gun possession. Conversely, if Dr. Emerson is the
poster child for why some shouldn't have guns, he is equally
an example of how the law could effectively punish people
for misusing guns (by brandishing them in a threatening
way) rather than just for having them. Maybe ignoring the
Constitution is neither so valuable nor so necessary.

Third, while some think gun rights are "obsolete," others
disagree. Since 1970, 15 states have enacted new state
constitutional rights to bear arms or strengthened old ones;
44 constitutions now have such provisions. In the mid-1980s,
nine states let pretty much all law-abiding adults get a
license to carry concealed weapons; now the number is 31. A
conclusion that the right is obsolete thus doesn't rest on
any unambiguous consensus; it can rest only on the judge's
personal policy preferences. Do we trust judges that much?

And finally, do we trust judges to determine when other
provisions--the Establishment Clause, the privilege against
self-incrimination, the jury trial, the freedom of speech--
become obsolete, too?



- -

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

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 99 20:00:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Pres. Hinckley's Remarks

Original spelling preserved

Excerpted from http://www.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/shxhinck.htm

L.D.S. Church President's Remarks at Thomas Funeral

Unofficial Transcript

"It becomes apparent to all that a way must be found to keep
the mentally ill from senseless acts of violence. You cannot
have an indiscriminate allowance of firearms without abuses.
All of us cannnot be held hostage by a few whose minds are
sick and who lack judgement and reason. We cannot live and
work in a bunker mentality. The very nature of our lives is
based on our freedom to go and come while doing our work."


- -

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

Date: Sun, 25 Apr 99 17:48:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: FW: Colorado Incident

For distribution. Note that the original author, whose identity
Jim Dexter has concealed, misuses the term "liberals" as a
euphemism for 'totalitarian tyrants'.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 22:27:43 -0700
Subject: LPU: FW: Colorado Incident -LONG
From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>

MORE ON COLORADO SHOOTINGS

As anyone with an ounce of sense could have predicted, the debate
following the Columbine High School shootings now centers on gun control.

Those of you who listened yesterday might have caught a short interview
with John Lott Jr, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." He brought up two
very interesting facts concerning the affect of making it easier for
law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

First --- some additional research Lott has done shows that there is an
81 percent decrease in shootings with multiple victims when people are
allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Another interesting fact. Two of the school shootings that happened in
recent years were stopped by civilians with guns =D2 not by the police.
In one of these cases an Assistant Principal of the school had a permit
to carry a concealed weapon. He kept that weapon in his car while at
school and parked his car off school property so that he would not
violate laws concerning guns on school grounds. When the shooting
started he ran a quarter-mile to his car to get the gun, ran back to the
school and held the shooter for the cops. In another case a passer-by
heard the gunshots in the school. He grabbed the gun he kept in his car,
ran into the school, and stopped the gunkid before he could shoot anyone
else.

Study after study after study has shown that crime rates go down, murders
go down, aggravated assaults go down ....when law abiding citizens are
allowed to carry guns for protection. In spite of the facts we still have
the left screaming for more gun control.

The Colorado legislature put off deliberations yesterday on a bill that
would make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get gun permits. It makes
no sense. A law that just might have prevented the tragedy is delayed ---
while people discuss and promote the idea of disarming victims.

Remember --- when these liberals start talking about gun control, they're
only talking about keeping guns out of the hands of people who obey the
law. Ask them what their plan is to get the guns away from the criminals
and they'll return a blank stare.

Fact .... 96 percent of the guns used in crimes in this country are NOT
bought through retail outlets. Waiting periods and other regulations have
NO EFFECT on these sales.

The lesson here is clear: Gun control laws only succeed in making it more
difficult for law-abiding people to protect themselves from criminals ---
and it emboldens the criminals with the realization that their victims are
probably unarmed.

THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO HERE IS .....

........put the blame where it actually belongs. On the two kids who did
the shooting.

In case you haven't noticed --- and Lord knows I've done my best to bring
it to your attention, liberals, and that includes the mainstream media in
this country, just absolutely hates the idea of holding individuals
responsible for their actions.

Remember, if you believe that people should be free to make their own
decisions, and should be held responsible for the consequences of those
decisions, then how do you promote the idea of an all-powerful government
that manages every aspect of our daily lives? The liberal dream of a
paternalistic, womb to tomb government can only be supported by promoting
the idea that individuals are not to be held responsible for their actions
or their status in life. What we are, what we think, what we do, and what
we become is all dependent on outside influences that control our lives
- -- not on our own decisions. Since these outside influences are so
overpowering the only way they can be managed -- for the benefit of us
all, of course -- is through government.

So --- for the actions of the two shooters --- who do we blame? The guns!
That certainly works for a lot of liberals. But let's also throw in video
games, violent movies and the Internet. Since it is impossible for
individuals to stand up to these negative forces in their lives --- the
government must do it.

Face it, folks. These two kids were deranged, evil people. They are to
blame for the shootings. They committed a deranged, evil act. Deranged,
evil people have been, and will continue to commit acts of unspeakable
evil throughout history. And every time one of these deranged, evil
persons commits a deranged and evil act there will be some despot out
there who will see the event as a perfect excuse to enhance his own
power over the people he pretends to "serve."

WHEN NUT-CASES BRING GUNS TO SCHOOLS

As you know, most schools around the country have a "zero-tolerance"
policy on weapons. If you bring a gun to school you get kicked out.
Expelled. No questions asked --- you're gone.

But --- there's a catch.

What if you're certifiably crazy? What if you have some pretty severe
personality disorders? What if you're not wound too tight, and you get
caught with a gun at school. Are you permanently expelled? Are you kicked
out for the rest of the school year?

Probably not.

You see, these kids are disabled. They're mentally disabled. That means
they can claim protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Check it out. If someone -- or someone's parents, want to claim
protection under the ADA the government will step in and tell the school
district that these kids have to be put back in class.

So, what do we have here. Sane kids get expelled for the remainder of the
year. Those not-so-sane are back in a few weeks.

Now which group do you think might present the biggest threat?



- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #133
***********************************