ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n137

Internet Message Format | 1999-05-31 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #137
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest       Tuesday, June 1 1999       Volume 02 : Number 137




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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:34:49 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scary study

Check out the president's and military's power to disarm you.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990521_xex_clinton_and_.sht
ml
==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

- -

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 18:59:48 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Totally outlaw guns

I'd suggest that we start a letter-writing campaign to Sen. Hatch.  Feel
free to distribute this.

>Senator Orrin Hatch
>[e-mail]
>
>Dear Senator Hatch:
>
>Congratulations on the passage of S. 254.  However, I would respectfully
>suggest that this bill doesn't go far enough towards addressing the current
>controversy over civilian-owned firearms. In fact, it confuses the issue
>with unnecessary arguments over who should be allowed to own firearms and
>what types of firearms should be allowed.
>
>We both know that the real goal of such legislation is to completely disarm
>all American civilians.  Why else would the bill be so complex that
>absolutely no one knows anymore what is legal and what isn't?  Therefore, I
>suggest that you take a true leadership role and introduce new legislation
>that is simple and straightforward.
>
>Such a bill would repeal the Second Amendment and ban the possession of any
>firearm and any ammunition by civilians, i.e those not currently members of
>law enforcement agencies or the military.  Make any offense punishable by
>death.
>
>Such a law would make everyone happy.  No doubt your good friends and
>colleagues, Senators Schumer, Feinstein and Lautenberg would be ecstatic,
>as would be President Clinton.  And if any of your fellow Congresspeople
>still believe in the Constitution, they would have the opportunity to stand
>up for what they believe.
>
>The polls all show that Americans want more gun control.  The federal
>government has already successfully usurped all state laws.  The people
>have overwhelmingly accepted complete federal control of all aspects of
>their lives.  We're already slaves, and slaves don't need guns.
>
>A true statesman could settle this matter once and for all.  Who knows -
>you might even be elected President!
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Sarah Thompson, M.D.


- -

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 99 09:15:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Denver Rocky Mountain News Poll on Firearms

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bernie Herpin (by way of Douglas Davis <[e-mail]>)
<[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Date: Saturday, May 22, 1999 9:37 AM
Subject: GSL> Denver Rocky Mountain News Poll on Firearms

http://resistance.to
http://thePentagon.com/FullBookJacket
http://GunsSaveLives.com

I hope you had an opportunity to read Carla Crowder's column in
today's Denver Rocky Mountain News (available on-line at:
http://InsideDenver.com/shooting/0520gun0.shtml). This poll
shows that people's attitude about firearms and gun control have
not changed much since the terrorist attack on Columbine High
School. The poll shows that 65% of those surveyed still favor
shall issue concealed carry (down from 66% prior to the attack).
Also, 75% of those polled said they believed gun ownership was a
basic American right UP from 70% prior to Columbine.

I think these figures show us that the media distortions have not
swayed thinking citizens who realize that no number of laws would
have stopped a suicide terrorist attack. These figures also show
that legislators shouldn't fear a voter backlash by standing up
for law abiding citizens and the right to keep and bear arms.

Thank you for your support in the last session and I hope that we
will be able to complete the work began then.

- -- Bernie Herpin Colorado Springs, CO http://www.whit.org/herpin
******************
Why do liberals trust the bad guys to be good and expect the law-
abiding to be bad?

******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda
Latest additions are found in the group NEW with alerts under
the heading ALERTS. Previous E-mail message are being archived.
********************

- --------------------------
GUNSSAVELIVES(TM) IS A PRIVATE, UNMODERATED LIST GOVERNED BY AN ACCEPTABLE
USE POLICY AVAILABLE FROM [e-mail]. SUBSCRIPTION CONSTITUTES
CONSENT TO RECEIVE SOME EMAIL THAT IS UNSOLICITED. THE OWNER TAKES NO
RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TO SUBSCRIBE, SEND EMAIL
TO [e-mail] WITH "SUBSCRIBE GSL" IN THE MESSAGE.



- -

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:22:59 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Great pro-gun article in WSJ

The Friday, May 21st edition of the Wall Street Journal contains an oped
piece (page A12 lower right corner) by Massad Ayoob entitled, "Arm
Teachers to Stop School Shootings."  It is a great read and should
probably be shared with legislators.  For any who have access to the WSJ,
I reccommend it.  If anyone has e access and can post an e-version of the
article, that would be great.  Or, if anyone has a scanner and OCR
software they want to try on this, I can fax or mail a copy to you.
Finally, as a last resort, I may try to get my scanner/OCR up and running
or even just type it in by hand.  But it will be the weekend at the
earliest before I get to it.

charles

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

- -

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 17:08:43 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Re:Great pro-gun article in WSJ

Text of the previously mentioned article follows:

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

- --------- Forwarded message ----------
As Chas requested, here 'tis

> The Friday, May 21st edition of the Wall Street Journal contains an
oped piece
> (page A12 lower right corner) by Massad Ayoob entitled, "Arm Teachers
to Stop
> School Shootings."  It is a great read and should probably be shared
with
> legislators.  For any who have access to the WSJ, I reccommend it.  If
anyone
> has e access and can post an e-version of the article, that would be
great.
> Or, if anyone has a scanner and OCR software they want to try on this,
I can
> fax or mail a copy to you. Finally, as a last resort, I may try to get
my
> scanner/OCR up and running or even just type it in by hand.  But it
will be
> the weekend at the earliest before I get to it.




Commentary

Arm Teachers To Stop Shootings

By Massad Ayoob,
director of the Lethal Force Institute in Concord, N.H.,
which trains police officers and military personnel in self-defense
techniques.

The echoes had barely faded from the gunfire at Columbine High School in
Littleton, Colo., before the gun-control lobby began shouting for more
restrictive laws, a chorus that is sure to grow in the wake of
yesterday's
shooting in Conyers, Ga., in which six students were wounded.

This week the Senate responded, approving a measure that would require
handguns to be sold with child-safety devices as well as mandatory
background checks for gun sales at gun shows and pawn shops. What will
these
bills do to prevent a mass murder like the one in Colorado? Not much. But
one of the few immediate steps that could stop killers in the school yard
is
deemed beyond the pale. I'm referring to arming schoolteachers.

To many people, that suggestion sounds absurd; gentle molders of young
minds
should not carry lethal weapons. Yet there is good precedent for the
idea.
In Israel armed teachers are common, and terrorist attacks at schools
nonexistent. Indeed, it was only during a 1997 visit by Israeli
schoolgirls
to the "Island of Peace" along the Jordanian border, in which the
teachers
had been asked to leave their weapons behind, that an Arab gunman took
advantage of an easy opportunity to open fire, killing seven children and
wounding another six.

Similar precedents exist in the U.S. In 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham
entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., armed with his estranged
father's
hunting rifle and dozens of cartridges. When Woodham opened fire, vice
principal Joel Myrick sprinted to the parking lot, grabbed a Colt .45
automatic pistol from his truck and forced the gunman to surrender by
pointing the gun at his head. This limited the casualties to two students
killed and seven wounded. In 1998, Andrew Wurst, 14, opened fire on an
eighth-grade graduation dance in Edinboro, Pa. The owner of the banquet
hall
where the dance was being held grabbed a shotgun from his office and
quickly
confronted Wurst, who dropped his gun. The toll was thus limited to one
slain teacher and two wounded students.

The Columbine massacre brought to eight the number of highly publicized
"school shootings" in recent years. Of these, two were brought to an end
by
responsible adults who had access to weapons of their own. Another
two--in
Jonesboro, Ark., and Bethel, Alaska--ended with no further bloodshed
after
armed police arrived and confronted the killers at gunpoint. Three more
incidents concluded when the perpetrators were forcibly confronted by
brave
individuals acting without the benefit of a gun. Finally, it should be
noted
that the Columbine killers turned their guns on themselves almost as soon
as
they realized a SWAT team was in the building and closing in on them.

Those who are aghast at the thought of arming school personnel say that
the
presence of an armed school officer made no difference in the Littleton
tragedy. They are wrong. The officer, a Jefferson County deputy sheriff,
engaged the gunmen very early in the shooting. Firing at a distance of
some
70 yards (almost three times the range at which police qualify with their
pistols), and armed only with a 9mm handgun, the officer was nonetheless
able to keep the better-armed killers at bay long enough to reduce the
death
toll significantly.

It is true, however, that if the school officer had not been initially
alone
the assailants may well have been more effectively confronted. If, for
example, Dave Sanders, the brave teacher who was killed trying to save
his
students, had been armed and trained. he might have been able to put an
end
to the violence and save his own life in the bargain.

To be sure, arming school personnel does not by itself guarantee an end
to
school violence; any long-term solutions must embrace a variety of
measures,
and not just pat answers such as banning violent movies, videogames or
guns.
But in the near term, trained and responsible adults armed with concealed
weapons and likely to be in a position to interdict potential gunmen are
in
fact a viable solution.

This is not as drastic a measure as it may seem. No school has its own
fire-fighting battalion on the grounds, but all adult employees of the
school know how to operate fire extinguishers and supervise an orderly
fire
drill. A school nurse is generally on hand, but virtually all teachers
and
school administrators have learned basic first aid and CPR. It is but a
small step from here to train school personnel in the use of firearms,
and
to arm at least some of them.

For the concept to work, armed teachers would have to be volunteers who
pass
strict psychological testing, and go through at least as much training in
firearms and the judicious use of deadly force as current laws demand of
armed security guards. The weapons would have to be discreetly concealed,
and which personnel are armed should be revealed only on a need-to-know
basis.

Yes, professional educators carrying lethal weapons is probably
unthinkable
to some. But previously unthinkable dangers can sometimes only be
neutralized by previously unthinkable defenses.



___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

- -

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 17:17:35 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The TIME gun poll returns!

I've lost track of how many times Time has reset its gun poll hoping to get
results the gun-grabbers like better.

They've done it yet again, but now it's down to two questions.

Vote again at:
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/poll/archive/



- -

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

Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 09:35:41 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Saving flags, burning rights

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:28:36 -0600
Received: from ci.west-valley.ut.us by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id JAA23760; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:09:39 -0600
Received: from WVCDomain-Message_Server by ci.west-valley.ut.us
    with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:28:34 -0600
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 09:28:24 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Saving flags, burning rights
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Saving flags, burning rights=20


By James Bovard
=A9 1999 WorldNetDaily.com=20

Congress is launching a new campaign to save America from burnt flags. =
Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are charging forward with a =
constitutional amendment to allow flag burners to be punished -- as if =
this is the most important legislation Congress could consider.=20
Yet, at the same time it wraps itself in the flag, Congress continues =
criminally negligent in defending the Bill of Rights. Federal, state, and =
local law enforcement are confiscating property from citizens without any =
evidence of wrongdoing, without a trial, and without the slightest concern =
for due process.=20
Nowadays, a person has a right to his property, unless and until some =
government employee makes an accusation against him; then the government =
can take the title. Federal seizures of private property have skyrocketed =
in the last two decades. Federal agents have gone overboard: a September =
1992 Justice Department newsletter noted, "Like children in a candy shop, =
the law enforcement community chose all manner and method of seizing and =
forfeiting property, gorging ourselves in an effort which soon came to =
resemble one designed to raise revenues." Just last year the Justice =
Department confiscated 42,454 cars, boats, houses, stacks of cash, and =
other items of private property -- booty valued at $604,514,733.=20
Hearsay evidence is all that is required: A mere rumor or scrap of gossip =
can justify government seizure of a person's most valuable belongings. =
Last December, the Drug Enforcement Agency confiscated $19,000 from a =
professional basketball player who was stopped and searched while driving =
in Ohio; a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the money a state highway patrol =
officer found in the car. (The DEA was brought in because state law did =
not allow the highway patrol to directly confiscate the money; forfeiture =
routinely involves collusion between multiple law enforcement agencies to =
evade restrictions on their power). However, studies have shown that up to =
70 percent of all currency is tainted with some type of drug residue. But =
such taints are sufficient pretext for government agents to seize the =
wallets of anyone carrying more than a few hundred dollars.=20
Victims of government confiscation have scant hope of justice. A Washington=
, D.C., policeman arrested Carolyn Mefford in 1993 and seized $3,709 from =
the Kentucky woman who was carrying a protest sign in a Washington park. =
After Mefford was released from a mental hospital three months later, she =
sought to get her money back. But the policeman who arrested her stole the =
money from a police storage area and, after the theft became known, =
committed suicide. Lawyers for D.C. government successfully argued in =
small claims court that the city owes Mefford nothing, since stealing was =
not part of the lawman's job description.=20
Asset forfeiture abuses have been a national scandal for almost a decade. =
A federal appeals court complained in 1992, "We continue to be enormously =
troubled by the government's increasing and virtually unchecked use of the =
civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process that is buried =
in those statutes." Yet, because many congressmen fear taking any action =
that might offend law enforcement agencies -- the primary profiteers of =
the abuses -- the outrages continue.=20
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has done little to curb these abuses. The =
Court decreed in January that innocent owners have no right to information =
on how to recover cash or other property wrongfully seized by government =
agents. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a unanimous court, declared =
that "the Constitution does not demand that the owners be given help on =
retrieving their money or property." Justice Kennedy stressed that the =
police had "lawfully seized" the cash at issue from a California couple =
during the search of their home. (The homeowners were not accused of =
violating any law and had no criminal records.) But all this means is that =
the cops saw the money, they took it, and since they were law enforcement, =
the seizure was automatically lawful. According to the Supreme Court, a =
list of what is confiscated is all that the victim is entitled to.=20
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers do not =
even need to get a warrant from a judge before confiscating a car =
suspected of having been used to deliver narcotics. In the case of Florida =
vs. Tyvessel White, Bay County, police were allowed to confiscate White's =
car more than two months after the alleged crime had been committed -- =
even though the police made no effort to charge him with that crime. It =
would be difficult to craft a better license-to-steal for law enforcement.=
=20
Forfeiture is increasingly corrupting law enforcement. The Justice =
Department announced in 1996 that local and state law enforcement agencies =
would be permitted to use money they received from forfeiture funds to pay =
police salaries. The decision was harshly criticized by some law enforcemen=
t officials who believe it would spur "bounty hunting" forfeitures -- =
policemen devoting their time to seizing private property rather than =
protecting private citizens. Scandals have occurred across the country =
after discoveries that seized money was pocketed by cops.=20
House Judiciary chairman Henry Hyde is sponsoring a bill to trim some of =
the worst abuses of forfeiture; Hyde has an array of conservative and =
liberal co-sponsors. Hopefully Hyde will stick to his bill this time -- =
and at least begin the process of reform. In the last Congress, Hyde =
abandoned his own forfeiture reform bill after the Justice Department =
protested that it would reduce lawmen's power to seize property. Hyde then =
obligingly championed a Justice Department-written bill to expand =
government's confiscatory power. Hyde later again took up his own bill but =
made little or no effort to shepherd it into law. Forfeiture reform =
supporters were dumbfounded at Hyde's flip-flop and many questioned =
whether the congressman had the courage to carry forfeiture reform to the =
end.=20
The House of Representatives is expected to soon vote on forfeiture =
reform. No amount of flag-waving can compensate for congressmen's failure =
to protect citizens from the rapacity of law enforcement. Hopefully the =
forfeiture reform effort heralds a brave new era in which congressmen =
actually begin noticing how government abuses private citizens.=20

James Bovard is the author of Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State & =
the Demise of the Citizen (St. Martin's Press, 1999).=20



- -

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

Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:55:10 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: EMERGENCY ALERT!! Congress Set to Abdicate

MEDIUM RARE
By Jim Rarey
May 23, 1999
EMERGENCY ALERT!!


Congress Set to Abdicate

In the guise of fighting terrorism, the Congress is rushing through =
legislation that would delegate to the executive branch unprecedented (and =
unconstitutional) powers.


On Wednesday, May 19th at a hearing by the House Commerce Health and =
Environmental Sub-committee, legislation drafted by the administration  =
was discussed. The bill deals with hazardous materials and both accidental =
catastrophic spills and those caused by terrorism. The bill has been =
introduced by Republican (!) Representative Thomas Bliley of Virginia. The =
Republican leadership has scheduled the legislation to be cleared through =
the House and Senate for the president's signature by June 21st.

Among other things, the legislation would:

        1    Preempt (strike down) all state and local laws on =
availability of government records to the public.
2    Preempt all state and local Freedom of Information Acts (FOIA'S)=20=

3    Give the executive branch the authority to decide which requests =
for information from the federal government it would honor.
4    Give the executive branch the authority to issue "guidelines" as =
well as criminal penalties for violation of those "guidelines".
5    Prohibit the public from obtaining (in either written or electronic=
 form) information about "offsite consequences" of accidental catastrophic =
chemical incidents as well as those that might be caused by terrorists.
6    Allow the executive branch to establish (by executive order) =
criminal penalties for any state or local official who allows such =
information to reach the public in printed or electronic form.
7    Prohibits even federal officials from making such information =
available on the internet.=20

Additionally, Congress has given the authority to the president to write =
"privacy" laws if congress does not come up with acceptable legislation by =
August of this year. The president mentioned this in his public speech =
about his "privacy" agenda. My congressional representative verified that =
congress had indeed given him that authority. Her staff is in the process =
of hunting down the specific legislation that granted that unconstitutional=
 power.

Undoubtedly this same tactic is being used by the administration in other =
areas of proposed legislation. We must mount a massive protest to the =
congress to stop this dangerous and unconstitutional delegation of power =
to the executive branch.=20

Please forward this piece to every E-mail address you have. Then write =
your representative in congress and both of your senators expressing your =
outrage that they would even consider such actions. This is not a partisan =
issue. Both Republicans and Democrats on the sub-committee expressed =
"reservations" about some of the provisions. However the Republican =
leadership seems determined to rush the bill through the House and Senate.

If we lose this one, then congress has become irrelevant!

permission is granted to reproduce in its entirety or call Jim Rarey at
[phone]


- -

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

Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 11:00:04 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finally something gun owners can support rather than oppose

Admittedly, this will probably end up being tied to an aweful lot of
garbage that should be opposed.  But, if the garbage is going to pass, it
would be nice to get something good out of it.

Cannon Introduces Legislation To Ban
  Legal Gun-Owner Records



       BY JOHN HEILPRIN
       THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

           Rep. Chris Cannon plans to introduce legislation in Congress
that would
       bar federal authorities from keeping any "permanent government
record" of
       law-abiding citizens who own guns.
           The Utah Republican says the measure is a response to worries
among his
       conservative district's constituents. He supports mandatory
background
       checks on all gun buyers, he says, but the fear is that federal
officials will be in
       a position to confiscate everyone's guns.
           Cannon said the Brady Law that cracked down on firearms is
meant to
       keep dangerous people from owning guns, not for the government to
keep a
       record of legal gun owners.
           "The Second Amendment right to own a gun is tied inherently to
the right to
       not have the government know who owns a gun," Cannon said in a
statement.

           "Republicans and Democrats agree that criminals should not be
able to
       purchase guns," he said. "At the same time, the federal government
should not
       keep permanent records of law-abiding gun owners after they have
been
       cleared," he said.
           His spokesman, Rusty Payne, said: "We haven't been lobbied [by
the gun
       lobby] on this at all. . . . This is what gun owners are saying in
his district."
           With the use of new technology, the checks should be done
without any
       information being downloaded by a computer onto its hard drive,
Cannon
       said.
           He noted that when the Brady Law was passed, gun show sales
were
       excluded from background checks because the check took several
weeks.
           "We now have an automated data base that allows background
checks to
       be done in a couple of minutes so we can screen out felons
attempting to
       purchase guns at shows," Cannon said. "With a fully operational
data base of
       felons and other classes prohibited from buying guns, we can
eliminate any
       federal record about gun owners."
           At a House Judiciary crime subcommittee hearing on gun-control
       proposals Thursday, Cannon, who is not a member of the
subcommittee,
       asked how long the checks take to process. He was told the average
check
       takes between three and 10 minutes.
           Todd Taylor, state Democratic Party executive director, said
Cannon's
       proposal might help define the congressional debate.
           "There's been no legislation to date that's required any sort
of registry for
       guns. And before we go there, there ought to be some serious
debate on it.
       So, to the extent that this moves the debate along, that's a good
thing."
           Cannon's proposal mostly likely will be offered as an
amendment to the
       House version of the Senate-passed bill in June. The amendment
could come
       either on the House floor or in committee.
           "When there is a question as to whether a gun buyer is a
law-abiding
       citizen," Cannon said after the hearing, "there must be a process
where
       innocent people can easily clear their names. If a person passes a
check, his
       paperwork should be handed back and no records should exist
anywhere --
       even unindexed on a hard drive."
==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

- -

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 12:22:15 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Today's Washington Times Article

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:52:46 -0600
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA27594; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:33:42 -0600
Received: (from petidomo@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27824;
    Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:46:40 -0700
Received: from dub-img-11.compuserve.com (dub-img-11.compuserve.com [149.174.206.141])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27821
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:46:39 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
    by dub-img-11.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.18) id NAA05496;
    Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:44:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:43:57 -0400
From: David Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today's Washington Times Article
To: Andy Adams <[e-mail]>,
        Gary Akers <[e-mail]>,
        Brett Feinstein <[e-mail]>,
        Hank Ford <[e-mail]>,
        "INTERNET:[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
        Warren B Jones <[e-mail]>,
        NRA-ILA-EVC List <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Thought you would be interested in this.

David Adams
NRA-ILA-EVC, VA 7th
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/
____________________________________________

NRA sets sights on gun-show measure
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

- -----
By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

- -----
     The National Rifle Association is proposing legislation to require
background checks on every gun sold at gun shows, which it says will
eliminate "the red tape" in the gun bill passed by the Senate.

     James J. Baker, the NRA's chief lobbyist, says as many as 211 House
Republicans and between 30 and 55 Democrats could support the NRA's
legislation.

     "I'm cautiously optimistic," he says in an interview.

     The NRA was "disappointed with the results" of the May 20 Senate =
vote,
Mr. Baker says, but cites only two provisions of the legislation that the
NRA opposes.

     One is the Lautenberg amendment that the NRA chief lobbyist says =
would
be a "bureaucratic nightmare" and would shut down most gun shows because =
of
the paperwork the law would require.

     "The other issue we oppose is the large-magazine issue, which would
ban importation of ammunition-feeding devices containing more than 10
rounds," Mr. Baker says.

     Currently, there are no analyses suggesting there is more crime from
larger magazines, he says.

     But Mr. Baker says the magazine issue may be "tougher" to derail than
the Lautenberg amendment, so named for its sponsor, Sen. Frank R.
Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat. "It's more of a marginal issue that has
less impact on the average gun owner."

     The NRA opposes the Lautenberg amendment, which passed the Senate on
Vice President Al Gore's tie-breaking vote, because it "registers gun
owners, gun collectors, and gun-show promoters," "penalizes gun-show
promoters" and "invades the privacy of honest citizens."

     Under this measure, the NRA argues, a "person sitting at home
discussing the sale of a personal firearms collection of 50 or more
firearms would be required to have first registered his home as a 'gun
show' with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" and pay a
registration fee set by the bureau.

     The NRA also objects to the "massive record-keeping" requirements the
amendment would impose on gun-show promoters. "In addition to being
required to register and pay a fee to hold a gun show, gun-show promoters
would also be required to check the identification of every show attendee
who even discusses a gun sale," NRA spokesmen say.

     The NRA says the Lautenberg amendment "penalizes gun-show promoters"
by "forcing them to pay fees with no set limits, forcing them to register
with the government, forcing them to perform duties for the government, =
and
exposing them to civil liability for acts by third parties over [whom] =
they
have no control."

     The 2.8 million-member gun-rights organization holds that the
legislation would invade privacy, since it would allow the federal
government to retain for 90 days information about a person who clears an
instant check. "Current law demands that information be destroyed
immediately," the NRA says.

     "And it would be another handoff of legislative responsibility to the
Treasury Department," because registration regulations would be promulgated=

by the Treasury secretary, Mr. Baker says.

     The NRA, he says, is promoting a "much more reasonable provision to
substitute" for the Lautenberg measure that "still provides background
checks on every firearm sold at any gun show" --whether the purchaser is a
dealer or a private individual.

     "We think we have a better way to do this without all the bureaucracy"=

and "without the additional red tape that would be put on law-abiding
people," he says.

     House leaders have said the House will take up the gun-control bill =
in
mid-June, and the NRA says its lobbying efforts already are well under =
way.

     "We talked to a lot of members before the recess, and NRA members =
will
be talking to them at town meetings they hold in their districts," says =
Mr.
Baker.

     In addition, he says, the NRA mailed requests to all its members,
asking that they write or call House members and express their opposition
to the Lautenberg amendment.

     Mr. Baker scoffs at speculation that the NRA has lost its influence
with Republicans in Congress. "Our obituaries have been written for 10
years, maybe 20 years," he says.

     Members of Congress "respect the voice of constituents who own
firearms" and who are concerned about excess bureaucracy and regulation =
and
more executive-branch control," he says. He counts "at least 11 Republicans=

in the House that we might lose" in its fight against the Lautenberg
amendment, based on their prior voting records.

     He declined to identify all but Rep. Constance A. Morella of =
Maryland.
"She's a Republican who votes with the Democrats on a lot of social
issues," he says.

     He thinks the NRA legislation can pick up 30 to 55 Democrats, based =
on
previous voting records of Democrats. NRA spokesmen will appear on talk
radio to increase pressure for their legislation.

****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Established 1998 ***************


- -

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 12:51:57 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cook's Office

Just got off the phone with Ray at Cook's office, these guys are getting =
hammered by the calls expressing outrage at Cook's comments in the Trib =
over the weekend that he will support the latest round of gun control.

Ray even admitted that he didn't know why Cook had turned around and =
decided to vote for more gun control when all along Cook has been saying =
that we aren't enforcing the existing laws, so why pass more laws.

Please take a minute to call Cook's office at 524-4394, let Rep Cook know =
how you feel about him voting for more gun control.  The fax number is =
524-5999.


- -

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 14:06:48 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: The Back Door

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 31 May 1999 13:35:03 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA26476; Mon, 31 May 1999 13:16:01 -0600
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA04755;
    Mon, 31 May 1999 15:26:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:26:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
From: [e-mail]
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Back Door
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

WHERE'S THE BACK DOOR?

We all know there are two powerful things that always=20
get a politician's attention: money, and votes.

But there's a third item, not discussed as often, called
the "Back Door." It's a very useful tool as well as a powerful
metaphor. It is an ingredient that has been MISSING in our
battle against the latest wave of gun control. When
this item is missing, it's like a gun without ammo --=20
it invariably guarantees we're going to lose.=20

Simply put, a back door is the excuse(s) or reason(s) a=20
politician gives when he/she votes for or against=20
something that will upset a segment of their constituency.

A number of Republicans are now writing gun control laws,=20
and voting for them. They could not do this unless they had=20
a back door: they use the excuse of Littleton and Georgia,
and they also use the back door that these new laws
are "reasonable" and "appropriate." Another back door=20
is that "the people want it."=20

A lot of politicians are so dumb and lazy that you have to
explain in full detail the back door they can use before they=20
will consider voting the way we want them to.

The old back doors that "gun control doesn't work"
or that "we already have enough laws" were beaten out by
our opponents' arguments: "In the wake of Littleton,"=20
or "Let's do it for the children," or "How many more
have to die?" Powerful, emotional cliches repeated over
and over. For weeks the public was shown thousands of=20
images of anguished, hysterical faces, and then shown=20
images of guns -- on tables at gun shows, or lining the
walls of gun stores. Logic went into meltdown. Fear ruled.
The "connection" or "link" between guns and unbearable pain=20
was seared into the collective conscious.=20

So what can we do? Well, we can start searching for and=20
hopefully find a fresh, good, and usable new back door for=20
the Republicans who are now pushing gun control. If we can
find and deliver one, some of these Republicans might change=20
their position. We might even persuade a few Democrats, too.=20
We should also keep in mind that the best back doors may not be=20
waiting to be un-covered or dis-covered; they might have to=20
be "invented" from scratch.

A great back door is, of course, also a great sound bite.
Too many Republicans who have decided to vote for gun=20
control are saying, "Littleton clinched it for me," followed by,=20
"We have to do something -- anything."=20

Bottom line: Our side has failed to come up with the=20
sound bites/back doors that could beat our opponents'=20
"arguments." Voting against gun control by saying "The=20
Constitution clinches it for me" is not enough (even=20
though it should be enough). The back door that the
Colorado killers already broke about 20 gun laws
clearly did not cut it. The back door that none
of the new batch of proposed laws would have affected
the Littleton tragedy also is insufficient. And, sorry, but
the NRA's back door that all the current laws are just not=20
being rigorously enforced doesn't have enough juice, even=20
if it is absolutely true.

Basically, the Republicans who go on TV and face the=20
nation have been *disarmed.* By default, they only have an=20
excuse or reason to vote FOR gun control, not AGAINST it.=20
We did not give them an obvious, viable, and believable=20
back door, and they certainly were not able to figure one out
for themselves.=20

Personally, my response has been to use the old method:=20
I e-mailed, snail-mailed, and phoned my party's politicians=20
and officials to let them know I am withdrawing my=20
VOTE and my MONEY.

For me, the back doors my elected officials are using are=20
stupid, unreasonable, and emotional -- they are=20
patently absurd excuses to pass even more laws that=20
can only affect people who obey the law in the first place.=20

But I failed. WE failed. Our side is FAILING.=20

We were unable to offer them what they really needed. I
could not give them what might have worked and made the=20
difference: I could not offer them a powerful back door.

I don't know what this new back door might look like. I have
no idea of its shape or color. But I know that I don't know,
and that's a good start. If we don't know that something is=20
missing, we're not going to be able to solve the problem.=20
I am saying the back door is missing. But I am also
wondering to myself what I am trying so hard NOT to say.
=20
It is very obvious to me that next time there is another
Littleton -- and it is inevitable -- we had better have a=20
brilliant, slam-dunk new back door figured out and already=20
in place.  =20

If we don't, I am afraid that the next Littleton and subsequent=20
wave of gun control may well be the last.

- [e-mail]


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #137
***********************************