ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n149

Internet Message Format | 1999-07-28 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #149
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Thursday, July 29 1999      Volume 02 : Number 149




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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 99 22:16:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: The Filibuster Is * On *

- -----
From: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 6:37 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Filibuster Is * On *

Senator Smith Throws Down the Gauntlet!
 -- Stands up to Trent Lott by forcing filibuster on anti-gun crime bill

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org

(Friday, July 23, 1999) -- Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has set
the Senate wheels in motion for a series of votes to stop Senator
Bob Smith's filibuster on the juvenile crime legislation.  The first
vote has been set for Monday, July 26.

So far, Senator Smith (I-NH) has prevented any progress on the
anti-gun crime bill by promising to use the ancient art of
"filibuster."  Yesterday, that promise became reality when Smith
objected to a motion by Sen. Lott to move the bill along.

This is truly a David v. Goliath stand-off.  The Senate leadership,
led by the Majority Leader, is trying to roll Senator Smith and
bring his delaying tactics to an end.

Of course, Senator Lott must first clear at least six parliamentary
"hurdles" that have been erected by Senator Smith.

The key vote will occur on Wednesday or Thursday when the Senate
will determine whether the Gore/Lautenberg gun control crime bill
(S. 254) will move forward.

That vote will be on an effort to shut down debate on Sen. Smith's
filibuster-- known in Washington as "invoking cloture" on the
filibuster-- and will decide whether Sen. Lott can substitute the
virulently anti-gun crime bill (S. 254) in lieu of the crime bill
that was passed by the House.

Eventually, Senator Lott wants to send the crime legislation to a
House-Senate conference committee to iron out the differences
between the two bills.  But that can only come after he's cleared
the Smith "hurdles"-- a process that should take several days.  Lott
can clear each one of these hurdles with a 60-vote majority in the
Senate.

If that happens, President Clinton will be one step closer to
signing a crime bill that is replete with gun bans and gun owner
registration.

But if our side gets 41 votes at any point along the way, then
Senate rules will allow Smith to continue filibustering the bill--
which could entail his standing on the Senate floor and reading long
passages from a library of pro-gun literature.  You may want to tape
this from C-Span and label it "Second Amendment books on tape by
Senator Smith."

Smith is willing to do that.  He is committed to doing whatever it
takes to defend the 2nd Amendment.  But he needs 40 other Senators
to stand with him!

Again, Monday's vote will begin a whole series of votes on this
issue.  Each one is slightly different, and GOA will do its best to
keep you informed as to what is coming down the pike.

Until then, please start asking your Senators to support the Smith
filibuster.

Senator Smith is without question THE defender of 2nd Amendment
rights in the Senate.  Tell your Senator that you would like him or
her to follow Smith's lead on the upcoming series of votes.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

* Toll-free at 1-888-449-3511.  [Please be patient when calling this
number; sometimes it rings for quite a while.  But they will answer!]
* The regular Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.
* Fax and e-mail contact info is available at
http://www.gunowners.org/s106th.htm on the GOA webpage.

P.S.  There has been quite a bit of confusion in the media as to
what is actually transpiring on Monday.  Some in the media are
reporting that Monday's vote is about the appointment of Senate
conferees.  This is incorrect.  Technically speaking, the purpose
for Monday's vote in the Senate is to bring up the House crime bill
(H.R. 1501) for debate.  As stated above, Lott eventually wants to
appoint conferees, but that will only happen if he can overcome
every Smith filibuster.

Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if you
use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online store.

Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to
date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail
Alert Network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the
volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to
[e-mail] and include the state in which you live, in
either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert
and ask to be removed.



- -

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 99 22:42:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: How gun show was shut down

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/19990716_xnjdo_how_gun_sh.shtml

[WorldNetDaily]

FRIDAY JULY 16 1999

[WND Exclusive ]

How gun show was shut down
FBI turns off insta-check
system, halts business


By Jon E. Dougherty
=A9 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

Despite a turnout of "record numbers" of
people at the Crossroads Gun Show in
Phoenix, Ariz., not one gun dealer sold a
single firearm.

That's because earlier in the day on
Sunday, July 11, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation turned off its instant
background database system for, according
to a source who spoke with FBI officials,
"routine maintenance." As a result, dealers
were not able to perform the required
background checks on potential customers
and, hence, could not sell any guns.

"In what seemed like an arbitrary and
capricious attack on U.S. commerce, the
FBI, without warning, closed gun shows and
the firearms business in general," said
<http://www.gunlaws.com> Alan Korwin, noted
gun law expert and an opponent of the FBI's
background check system, who attended the
Phoenix event. Korwin is the author of "Gun
Laws of America," a reference almanac that
lists every state and federal law pertaining
to firearms in the country.

The move sparked widespread anger and
resentment from local Phoenix firearm
dealers and patrons alike, as well as
charges of an anti-gun conspiracy by the
federal government.

Though Korwin admitted the move was
dubious, he told WorldNetDaily there was
"absolutely no evidence" that the FBI
"maliciously" turned off NICS "for the
sole purpose of thwarting national gun
sales."

However, he said, "Did the FBI know such a
move would thwart gun sales? Of course
they had to know that because they're not
stupid. I'm just saying I don't know if
the move was malicious or conspiratorial."

The system, which is known as the National
Instant (Background) Check System, or
NICS, is a result of the Brady Law, which
mandated such a system by Nov. 30, 1998.
Specifically, it is a computer database
located in Clarksburg, W.Va., and is used
to "check available records on persons who
are disqualified from receiving firearms."

Clinton administration advocates have
touted the system as a legitimate
crime-fighting tool. Critics of the
system, however, claim that NICS is a
waste of taxpayer money and violates
Second Amendment restrictions on the
"infringement" of the right to keep and
bear -- and purchase -- firearms.

At the Phoenix event, Korwin said that
although licensed dealers were unable to
sell firearms, private transactions
between individuals occurred. "And as you
know," he added, "there currently is a
move to close that so-called loophole in
the law as well." President Clinton, Vice
President Al Gore and a number of
Republican lawmakers have recently said
they will seek legislation mandating that
all firearms transactions -- including
those at gun shows -- also be subjected
to a NICS check. Korwin said the most
frustrating aspect of the July 11 incident
was that gun dealers "had no prior knowledge"
that the system would be shut down.

"That was quite a surprise" to dealers, he said.

But he added, "I don't think any attention
was paid, that I'm aware of, that this
action could put people out of business by
stopping commerce. It was government
regulation of free enterprise in a way
that had never been done."

According to the FBI's own "fact sheet" on
the NICS system, "In accordance with the
Brady Act, the NICS shall allow Federal
Firearms Licensees ... to contact the
system by telephone or by other electronic
means in addition to the telephone, for
information, to be supplied immediately."
If the gun buyer has no disqualifying
criminal record, the transaction is
approved and a "NICS transaction number"
(NTN) is assigned to the purchase.

"If the FBI determines that disqualifying
information exists on the prospective
purchaser," the rules state, "the Federal
Firearms Licensee (FFL) will be advised
that the transfer may not proceed and will
be given an NTN to record on the ATF Form
4473 and retain the form for auditing
purposes."

States can also decide if they want FFLs
to contact a state agency for sales
approval instead of the federal government.


Korwin said that in the event the NICS
system is down for any reason, the Brady
law "only requires its use if it is up and
running." He said gun dealers may sell
guns without a background check if the
system is down, "but dealers don't do that
because they are terrified of reprisals by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms"
- -- the agency primarily responsible for
regulating firearms sales.

He also said the NICS system "has been
temporarily down before, but never for a
full day."

"I've asked them for information on their
down time," he said, "but so far I haven't
gotten any." Typically, he said, the
system "glitches" from time to time, which
does not suggest any duplicity on the part
of the FBI. On the other hand, he added,
when the system is down it is costly for
gun dealers.

"There are some 23,000 guns sold daily in
this country, so you can imagine the
economic impact" of repeated system
glitches or prolonged down time, Korwin said.

He also said the Arizona show promoter,
Bob Templeton, "spoke with the FBI (on the
day of the Phoenix show) and Templeton
told me the FBI had shut off the NICS
system for the day."

Templeton could not be reached for
comment. Also, an attempt was made by
WorldNetDaily to fax a list of questions
to the FBI facility in West Virginia, per
the agency's request, without success.

Korwin questioned the necessity of the
NICS system on the whole, and said the
weekend shut down illustrates why it is
important to prevent the government from
overregulating the firearms industry.
- -------

Jon E. Dougherty is a senior writer and
columnist for WorldNetDaily, as well as
a morning co-host of Daybreak America.



- -

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:27:13 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun turn-in in SLC

I wonder if any effort will be made to make sure a gun isn't stolen and
to return it to its rightful owner before it is destroyed or how many
murderers will have their evidence destroyed for them, no questions
asked?

From today's DesNews:

S.L. residents get plea: Turn in surplus weapons

                     The Salt Lake Police Department is launching a
campaign to get as many guns off the street as possible.
                     Residents are urged to bring unwanted and unused
weapons to the Public Safety Building at 315 E. 200 South to turn them
in.
                     All weapons will be destroyed to decrease the
availability of firearms for unlawful use or accidental injury by
mishandling.
                     The police department joins other agencies that in
the past have initiated gun relinquishment campaigns in an effort to
deter street violence.
                     Guns remain a popular item stolen in burglaries of
homes and cars. In many cases, they are later sold or traded on the
streets for drugs.


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

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:02:36 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kids and Guns

- --=====================_35679208==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560452277-cb4

How can this be?  Vermont isn't a safe place for raising children -
people there carry GUNS!  Wouldn't kids be safer someplace like Washington,
D.C. with its strict gun control laws?


- ----------


10:45 AM ET 07/27/99

Maine Is Best for Raising Children

  Maine Is Best for Raising Children
  By CHRIS GOSIER=
  Associated Press Writer=
            PORTLAND, Maine (AP) _ Compiling data on factors ranging from
  immunization to juvenile crime, a national advocacy group concluded
  that Maine is the best state in which to rear a child.
            Maine advanced from eighth place last year, when Iowa was No. 1
  in the rankings compiled by the Children's Rights Council.
            Behind Maine were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New
  Hampshire. Bringing up the rear, in descending order, were
  California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana and Washington,
  D.C.
            The council, based in Washington, was announcing the rankings
  today.
            The report measured rates of abuse and neglect; the rate of
  immunizations under age 2; the dropout rate; children in poverty;
  the child death rate; the infant mortality rate; those not
  receiving natal care; total juvenile crime; the divorce rate; and
  the teen birth rate.
            The states were ranked by calculating the average of all 10
  factors for each. The report draws on data from public and private
  sources including the FBI, the Department of Health and Human
  Services, The Annie E. Casey Foundation and state law enforcement
  agencies.
            An increase in the high school graduation rate and decreases in
  the child poverty and teen birth rates helped Maine take the top
  spot, said Maryellen Dougherty, legislative assistant at the
  council.
            The top five slots shifted to New England in part because the
  council changed its calculation methods to focus more closely on
  the factors that directly affect children, she said.
            Data on deaths from drugs and alcohol were dropped because not
  all affected children, and data on the ones that did were not
  available. Also, data on single-parent households, unwed births and
  teen births were found to overlap last year, so the teen birth rate
  was the only one of the three included this year, she said.
            ``We felt that that unfairly weighed one area of raising a
  child,'' she said.
            Figures on the rates of immunization and prenatal care were
  included for the first time this year, she said.
            Maine officials took pride in the No. 1 listing but acknowledged
  that there's still room for improvement.
            ``It's nice to be recognized. We're going to pat ourselves on
  the back a little bit,'' said Dennis Bailey, spokesman for Gov.
  Angus King.
            He said King has made child welfare a top priority with programs
  such as the Children's Cabinet, formed in 1994 to let the heads of
  five state agencies collaborate on policies affecting parents and
  children.
            But he also noted that some areas for improvement aren't shown
  by the figures, such as those showing a low high-school dropout
  rate.
            ``What we don't do well in is the number of graduates going on
  to college or technical school,'' he said.



- ----------

- --=====================_35679208==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<a href="http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560452277-cb4" eudora="autourl">http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560452277-cb4</a><br>
<br>
How can this be?  Vermont isn't a safe place for raising children
- -<br>
people there carry GUNS!  Wouldn't kids be safer someplace like
Washington, D.C. with its strict gun control laws?<br>
<br>
<hr>
<br>
<br>
<pre>10:45 AM ET 07/27/99

Maine Is Best for Raising Children

 Maine Is Best for Raising Children
 By CHRIS GOSIER=
 Associated Press Writer=
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) _ Compiling data on factors ranging from
 immunization to juvenile crime, a national advocacy group
concluded
 that Maine is the best state in which to rear a child.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
Maine advanced from eighth place last year, when Iowa was No. 1
 in the rankings compiled by the Children's Rights Council.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
Behind Maine were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New
 Hampshire. Bringing up the rear, in descending order, were
 California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana and Washington,
 D.C.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
The council, based in Washington, was announcing the rankings
 today.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
The report measured rates of abuse and neglect; the rate of
 immunizations under age 2; the dropout rate; children in poverty;
 the child death rate; the infant mortality rate; those not
 receiving natal care; total juvenile crime; the divorce rate; and
 the teen birth rate.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
The states were ranked by calculating the average of all 10
 factors for each. The report draws on data from public and
private
 sources including the FBI, the Department of Health and Human
 Services, The Annie E. Casey Foundation and state law enforcement
 agencies.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
An increase in the high school graduation rate and decreases in
 the child poverty and teen birth rates helped Maine take the top
 spot, said Maryellen Dougherty, legislative assistant at the
 council.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
The top five slots shifted to New England in part because the
 council changed its calculation methods to focus more closely on
 the factors that directly affect children, she said.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
Data on deaths from drugs and alcohol were dropped because not
 all affected children, and data on the ones that did were not
 available. Also, data on single-parent households, unwed births
and
 teen births were found to overlap last year, so the teen birth
rate
 was the only one of the three included this year, she said.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
``We felt that that unfairly weighed one area of raising a
 child,'' she said.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
Figures on the rates of immunization and prenatal care were
 included for the first time this year, she said.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
Maine officials took pride in the No. 1 listing but acknowledged
 that there's still room for improvement.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
``It's nice to be recognized. We're going to pat ourselves on
 the back a little bit,'' said Dennis Bailey, spokesman for Gov.
 Angus King.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
He said King has made child welfare a top priority with programs
 such as the Children's Cabinet, formed in 1994 to let the heads
of
 five state agencies collaborate on policies affecting parents and
 children.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
But he also noted that some areas for improvement aren't shown
 by the figures, such as those showing a low high-school dropout
 rate.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
``What we don't do well in is the number of graduates going on
 to college or technical school,'' he said.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
</pre><hr>


</html>

- --=====================_35679208==_.ALT--


- -

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 99 12:15:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Communications with Phyllis Sorensen on Guns.

- -----
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:57:50 -0600
From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: FW: Communications with Phyllis Sorensen on Guns.

This is an interesting exchange.

Start at the bottom

- ----------

To All:

Perhaps my recent communications with UEA Pres. Phyllis Sorensen will be
helpful to you as you deal with others of this mindset.  Maybe I have no
tact or discretion, but I think it is time to call the sick bluff of these
lunatics and let them begin to feel the heat.

Mr. Black

>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:09:21 -0600
>To: Phyllis Sorensen <[e-mail]>
>From: "Mr. Black" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: A Concerned Parent Who Can't Understand What You Are Doing.
>In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

>Sorensen,

>Agree to disagree?  AGREE TO DISAGREE?!  Have you ever sent one of your
own children to a dangerous school?  Have you ever been robbed or otherwise
molested?  Have you ever personally felt helpless when confronted by
violence directed at you or your children?!

>I was the second person on the scene of the Murray bank robbery a few
weeks ago and spent several minutes trying to keep a "licensed, trained law
enforcement officer" from bleeding to death because he couldn't stop 2
punks from filling him full of bullet holes.  I held his guts in my hands
and watched his face turn white because the ambulance and his back-up
weren't getting there fast enough!  Where were your precious law
enforcement officers to save the day, hmm?!

>If this had occured in a school, what would you and your angelic squad of
unarmed nurturers have done?!  You would have done the same thing the
teachers did in Colorado -- run like hell while they gunned down our
children!  And, like at Columbine, you would probably wait outside singing
hymns for 4 hours while listening to the screams of children being
butchered.  Why?  Because the police would probably again be too stupid to
let anyone with a gun go into the building and try to rescue them; and also
too stupid to trust law-abiding, responsible teachers and adults with
firearms to deter crime and protect our children in the first place!!!

>I can tell you with 100% certainty that even when police ARE there, they
often can't stop violence by themselves (my father was a police officer in
this state for several years and I also have law enforcement experience).

>But you would leave our children utterly defenseless, and publicly
proclaim our public schools a relatively risk-free bloodfest for any whacko
out there who wants to go in and start shooting them up.  You are worse
than an idiot in an ivory tower!  You are purposely callous and oblivious
to human life and common sense!  You are sick and demented!  Make
absolutely certain I am no longer on your e-mail list(s)!

>Mr. Black


>At 11:08 PM 7/26/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>>Thank you for your comments.  We'll have to agree to disagree on the
>>concealed weapons in schools issue.  I have no problem with licensed,
>>trained law enforcement officers being in schools and having these
>>weapons, but teachers are there to nurture, teach and create a secure
>>and safe environment for children.  I apologize that it took me so long
>>to return an email.  I've been out of town.  Thanks again.

>>--- "Mr. Black" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Phyllis Sorensen,

>>> How can you say that guns have no place in schools?
>>> Police can't be
>>> everywhere.  Do you seriously want potential
>>> criminals and mental cases to
>>> know that our children are unprotected in this day
>>> and age?  Would you
>>> seriously announce to all the nuts of the world that
>>> your own home is
>>> completely unprotected?  Of course not.

>>> You are a school teacher and I know you pride
>>> yourself on concerning
>>> yourself data and facts, right?  Phyllis, you need
>>> to get the facts about
>>> concealed weapons permit holders (by the way, I am
>>> NOT one).  The fact is
>>> that they have never committed a violent crime in
>>> the history of the
>>> program, but on the other hand, they have stopped
>>> thousands of crimes from
>>> being committed in Utah and also in other parts of
>>> America.

>>> Why can't you see that THE MERE CHANCE that a
>>> trained, law-abiding adult
>>> with a concealed weapons permit MIGHT be at a school
>>> is a SERIOUS DETERRENT
>>> TO VIOLENT CRIME.  Objective research has proved
>>> that this deterrent saves
>>> the lives of men, women, and children.  How can you
>>> ignore the research and
>>> turn your back on the facts that can save the lives
>>> of our children?

>>> If you are willing to put aside the fears and
>>> emotions that have been
>>> ingrained in you long enough to get the very best
>>> facts, I am very willing
>>> to share them with you.  I believe I have made my
>>> point and am not
>>> interested in arguing.  If you are truly an open and
>>> honest person, this
>>> will be enough for you to investigate further.  I
>>> hope, for you even more
>>> than this issue (I mean that), that you are humble
>>> enough to investigate
>>> and -- after you have seen the unassailable facts --
>>> that you are also
>>> humble enough to publicly reverse your position on
>>> concealed weapon permit
>>> holders in our schools.

>>> Why is this so important to me?  Because if you are
>>> successful from banning
>>> guns from law abiding citizen-adults in Utah,
>>> statistics show that your
>>> actions will eventually cause the deaths of
>>> children.  You will then be
>>> personally liable for that inevitable tragedy.

>>> Mr. Black
>>> Salt Lake City

>>===
>>Phyllis Sorensen
>>Utah Education Association


- -

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:05:26 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Guns and mental illness

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Russ Laing's case...

Mr. Laing is a firearms enthusiast and collector who lives in
Pennsylvania.  In April, 1996 he was involuntarily committed to a
psychiatric hospital by the local sheriff's department, and his gun
collection was seized.  The basis for the commitment was that he had failed
to show up for work on time, and hadn't called in, and was therefore
"suicidal and dangerous".  Under Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act, he
was barred from ever possessing a firearm again.  That multiple
psychiatrists testified that Mr. Laing had no evidence of any mental
illness, and that the commitment was improper, was irrelevant; the law said
that he couldn't own firearms because he had been committed.

This is why we need to be fighting both Gov. Leavitt's gun control
proposals and his "mental health" proposals.  I suspect that Leavitt knows
that he won't get very far with outright gun bans, and is trying to do an
end run around our rights by simply disqualifying everyone from owning
firearms based on dubious claims of "mental illness" or "violent
misdemeanors" (most of which aren't even remotely violent).  If he
succeeds, what happened to Mr. Laing can (and likely will!) happen to each
and every one of us.

The good news is that Mr. Laing has won his case, the PA law has been
amended, and he has regained custody of his firearms collection.  His
"victory announcement" follows.



        *************RUSS LAING RESPONSE: Victory Announcement*********

        July 27, 1999

      Chris Stark
      Director, Gun Owners Alliance


      In Re: Russell Laing Case (Gun Confiscation Based on Non-Adjudicated
      Detention for Psychiatric Observation)

      Dear Chris,

      Last night I picked up my entire, totally intact gun collection from
      the local township police station, where it had been held for the past
      three years while I fought my way through eight different court
      systems, and three different criminal prosecuting attorneys from the
      Allegheny County District Attorneys Office here in Pittsburgh
      Pennsylvania. I fought for the return of my property, and the right to
      keep and bear arms, which had been taken from me under the pretext of
      an involuntary mental health commitment which I was subjected to in
      April 1996 by a local township policeman acting without a warrant.

      The return of my property was the final step in a hard-fought battle
      waged against the Allegheny County District Attorney's  Office,
      represented by Assistant DA Dan Fitzsimmons. Three years ago my first
      attempts to obtain justice were rebuffed, as DA Fitzsimmons
      characterized my gun collection as a "veritable arsenal" and argued
      that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms did not apply to
      private citizens. Subsequent appeals to higher courts were denied
      without ever being heard, based on procedural filing technicalities.
      An initial attempt to legally challenge the mental health commitment
      actions by the police was at first rejected by the courts, and then
      pended for more than a year while deciding whether my petition had
      been filed on a timely basis.

      Completely frustrated by a court system that was alternatively hostile
      or indiffferent to my case, I turned to the grassroots supporters of
      freedom. Gun Owners Alliance joined the cause by posting several
      Alerts on the GOA website, which culminated in a flood of e-mails to
      Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge urging justice for my case; I have
      received copies of such messages from virtually every state in the
      union, and some from overseas. What followed was nothing less than
      miraculous:

      1. Pennsylvania amended its Uniform Firearms Act (Act 17 of 1995) with
      PA Act 70 of 1998, which instantly removed the state provisions
      barring me from the right to keep and bear arms. (June 1998)

      2. I tested the revised law by successfully purchasing firearms and
      passing PA State Police Instacheck System (July 1998)

      3. My previously revoked Liscense to Carry Firearms is reinstated by
      court order (August 1998)

      4. The United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol,
      Tobacco and Firearms, issues a written ruling on my case in which they
      declare unconstitutional the Pennsylvania's Firearms law barring gun
      ownership for individuals who have been subjected to a non-adjudicated
      detention for psychiatric observation. In their ruling, the BATF
      states that such laws deny the basic constituional right of due
      process under the law, a right so fundamental that it pre-dates the
      formation of this country. (September 1998)

      5. The police officer who ordered the siezure and confiscation of my
      firearms is fired, based upon 21 different charges brought by his
      supervisor, the Chief of Police. One of these charges is referred to
      as the "Laing charges" and other allegations include accounts of
      making false or misleading police reports on other local residents.
      (early 1999)

      6. A lawsuit which I had filed against the police department and the
      hospital involved in my case is settled in a manner which I found to
      be very satisfactory. (May 1999) I have no criticism of either the
      police department or the hospital. I have since spoken directly with
      the Chief of Police and believe him to be a good and honorable man, as
      I believe others of his department to be in my interactions with them
      during the recent return of my property.

      7. A court ruling is made that overturns (vacates) the mental health
      commitment action taken against me, under a statute which states that
      there was insufficient evidence to support my being detained at all.
      The same court also orders that my record be expunged, thereby
      clearing my reputation. (June 1999)

      8. In a final dramatic showdown, I renew my original petition for
      return of my gun collection in the same court where I had started out
      three years ago, which had then denied my petition. This time, under
      an avalanche of evidence and testiomony, the anti-gun Assistant DA
      Fitzsimons is reduced to making a series of snivelling references to
      my "assault rifles". Judge David Cercone isn't buying any of it,
      however, and becomes visibly frustrated and angry with DA Fitzsimmon's
      absurd technical arguments, finally asking him questions like: "What
      constitutional principle are you basing this on?", and... "What about
      fairness?". DA Fitzsimmon's closing arguments are hardly more than a
      barely audible muttered whimper, spoken even as Judge Cercone is
      reaching over to sign my court order to return my property.


      I search for a way to thank you, Chris, and the numerous members of
      Gun Owners Alliance who wrote to Governor Ridge with such power and
      sincerity. No need anymore to ask Governor Ridge about where Russell
      Laing's guns are -- they are right here in his lawful possession,
      along with all of his other constitutional rights. These many
      freedom-loving patriots brought me the due process that the
      freedom-robbing anti-gun-hysteria laws of Pennsylvania had denied to
      me. The weight of the combined voices of free men became so great that
      even the most untouchable and arrogant gun-grabbers in the District
      Attorney's Office were shaken right out of their safe little tree of
      state authority, and believe me they landed on the ground with a
      resounding thud that was heard all the way from Pittsburgh to Texas!

      Let's make no mistake, we really clobbered them. And in the end, even
      though I had a legal means of avoiding it, my case was finally
      resolved in the very same court system where it had first been
      initially lost. This time we met the opposition head on, straight up,
      and with no apologies of any kind. And we won by an overwhelming
      margin.

      Please accept my sincere thanks, on behalf of all your members, for
      their support in my pursuit of justice. May we all be united by our
      common yearning for freedom.

      Russ Laing















- -

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 99 11:20:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The reason for the Second Amendment 2/2

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for human
self-control, but this approach won't wash. It is the human moral will that
saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons. We should
reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause of violence.

Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should be
banned because "they have no purpose except to kill people." It is people
that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to do so, if
killing is in their hearts where love of justice should be. This week a
7-year old boy in Chicago apparently used a pair of underwear to commit
murder, because he wanted a bike.

So let's get down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we moral
children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control our will
even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the exercise of our
natural rights. If we are only children, then all the particularly dangerous
toys must be controlled by the government. But this "solution" implies that
we can trust government with a monopoly on guns, even though we cannot trust
ourselves with them. This is not a "solution" I trust.

Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it
can only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That's why
I don't understand those who say "save us from guns," even while they
cling to the coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth except
what they "choose" to assign to it.

If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of all
Americans with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all
human beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of
moral responsibility and self-restraint -- of assuming responsibility
for governing himself. This is the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment,
and indeed of the entire American project of ordered liberty.

It is the business of every citizen to preserve justice in his heart,
and the material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These
things constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty
to maintain. And to fulfill our duty to be such a people we shall have
to return to the humble subjection to the authority of true moral
principle that characterized our Founders, and that characterized every
generation of Americans, until now. We must regain control of ourselves.

Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the assertion
that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral order that God
has decreed must govern our lives. And just as we have no right to shirk our
duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no right to shirk our duty to
preserve unto ourselves the material means to discipline our government, if
necessary, so that it remains a fit instrument for the self-government of a
free people. The preservation of 2nd Amendment rights, for the right
reasons, is a moral and public duty of every citizen.

The Clinton Administration's flirtations with executive tyranny should
remind us that we have a duty to remain capable of disciplining our
government if necessary. Bill Clinton's comprehensive avoidance of
personal responsibility for his own actions, and our revulsion at the
kind of character which that avoidance has produced in him, should be
a kind of horrific preview of the kind of people we will all become if
we continue to let our government treat us as though we were incapable
of moral self-control. And Senator Smith's successful effort to defeat
several policies that treat us that way is precisely the kind of
principled defense of our liberty -- and of the premises of our liberty
- -- that make him so worthy to be a representative of a free people.
Alan Keyes Web Site is http://www.AlanKeyes.com

Send e-mail to Alan Keyes
Go to Alan Keyes' Archive
Go to WND Exclusives Archive
Go to Page One

c 1998 Western Journalism Center

This page was last built 8/14/98; 12:46:47 AM
Site scripted with UserLand Frontier
Direct corrections and technical inquiries to [e-mail]

<<It is better to be free in a society with risks than a safe slave
in a dictatorship>>
(Forwarded for information purposes only - K. Furrer)



- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #149
***********************************