ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n156

Internet Message Format | 1999-08-29 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #156
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Monday, August 30 1999      Volume 02 : Number 156




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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 99 11:11:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: MCRGO: Interesting If True...

- -----
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:31:50 -0600
From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: FW: MCRGO: Interesting If True...

The Shreveport Times (August 19, 1999), points out that since 1993, 82
children have been killed in school shootings; 99 children have been killed
in that same period by goverment-mandated airbags.



- -

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

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 99 18:30:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Emerson to be Appealed 1/2

From USA TODAY:

08/27/99- Updated 12:35 AM ET

Case could shape future of gun control
The Second Amendment establishes a right to possess firearms. The question
is: Is it an individual right or a military necessity?

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. -
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 1791

Tucked inside this famous paragraph, amid the multiple clauses, odd
punctuation and 18th-century syntax, lies the right that Americans both
cherish and fear: the right to have a gun.

But whose right is it anyway? Is there an individual right to own a
gun, like the individual right to freedom of speech or religion? Or
does the Second Amendment mean only that Americans can defend themselves
collectively through state militias, like the modern-day National Guard?

The debate over what the Second Amendment actually means has filled
a forest of law review articles and scholarly papers over the past
10 years. Now it is about to spill out of the ivory tower and into
the real world of guns and gun control.

For the first time, a federal judge has ruled that the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual's right to own a gun. In the process, the judge
invalidated a 1994 federal law that denies guns to anyone who is under a
restraining order to prevent him or her from harassing a spouse. The law
was part of a measure aimed at reducing domestic violence by limiting
access to guns.

If the decision by a federal district court judge last April in Texas is
upheld on appeal, it could be a huge setback for gun control advocates,
placing perhaps hundreds of laws in danger of being struck down. And it
would be a victory for gun control opponents such as the National Rifle
Association, which has consistently argued that an individual's right to
a gun is protected by the Second Amendment.

An appeal of the case, U.S. v. Emerson, begins with the filing of briefs
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans Friday.

The case, which is likely to be argued next January or February, is
unfolding as liberal scholars such as Harvard's Laurence Tribe, who
has long been hostile to the individual-rights argument, have begun
to move toward the NRA's position.

"The real-world consequences (of the Texas case) could be enormous,"
says Carl Bogus, a specialist on the Second Amendment at Roger Williams
Law School in Bristol, R.I.

If the lower-court ruling is upheld, "it would stand the law on its
head," Bogus says. It would destroy Congress' ability to create gun
control laws. Anyone arrested under current (gun control) laws could
argue they're unconstitutional. This is not just an academic exercise."

The renewed debate over the Second Amendment's meaning comes as recent
shootings in Atlanta, Los Angeles and Littleton, Colo., have increased
pressure for new gun control laws. This week, authorities in Los Angeles
took the unprecedented step of banning sales of guns from the nation's
largest gun show.

The very fact that there is a debate is likely to surprise many Americans,
many of whom assume that the Second Amendment already guarantees them the
right to own a gun. A CBS News poll Aug. 15 found that 48% of adults
believe there is an individual right to a gun, while 38% do not.

Case began as domestic dispute

The case began last August when Sacha Emerson, 26, a nurse from San
Angelo, Texas, filed for divorce. The local court placed a restraining
order on her husband, physician Timothy Joe Emerson, 41, after she
complained that he had verbally threatened her boyfriend.

Timothy Emerson owned a handgun, which automatically put him at odds
with the federal law barring gun ownership by people under state
restraining orders in domestic disputes. A federal grand jury indicted
Emerson, who was "greatly surprised" to learn that he may have violated
any law, according to his lawyer, David Guinn.

The case never got to trial. In April, U.S. District Court Judge Sam
Cummings found that the law denying guns to those under a restraining order
was an unconstitutional infringement of the "individual right to bear arms."

The federal law, Cummings wrote, "is unconstitutional because it allows
a state court divorce proceeding, without particularized findings of
the threat of future violence, to automatically deprive a citizen of
his Second Amendment rights."

The decision took gun control advocates and opponents by surprise.
Cummings, 54, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan,
had a reputation as a middle-of-the-road jurist who seldom set aside an
indictment. And Emerson's lawyer, assistant federal public defender David
Guinn, had raised the Second Amendment argument almost as an afterthought.

Both sides are taking the appeal very seriously. The National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the NRA plan to file briefs supporting
Emerson and his argument that there is an individual right. A consortium
of 45 law professors and legal historians has filed on behalf of the other
side.

The solicitor general's office in Washington, which handles appeals for
the federal government, is helping federal prosecutor William Mateja with
his argument that the domestic violence law should be upheld and the
indictment reinstated.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



- -

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

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 99 18:30:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Tribe's American Constitutional Law

http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsthu08.htm

By Tony Mauro, USA TODAY

Publication of the first volume of a revised edition of a legal
treatise would not ordinarily make news.

But even before it began arriving at law schools last week, Laurence
Tribe's American Constitutional Law was causing a stir.

Tribe, a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential
living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten
hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms
contained in the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978,
the right to bear arms earns Tribe's respect in the latest version.

Tribe, well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to
bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should
not be dismissed as "wholly irrelevant." Rather, Tribe thinks the
Second Amendment assures that "the federal government may not disarm
individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, "admittedly of
uncertain scope," to "possess and use firearms in the defense of
themselves and their homes."

None of Tribe's new thinking changes his view that gun-control
measures are "plainly constitutional," but his shift has been enough
to anger gun-control advocates.

"I've gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who
said, 'How could you?'" Tribe says. "But as someone who takes the
Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what
the Second Amendment says, and how it fits."


- -

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

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 99 18:30:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Emerson to be Appealed 2/2

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Amendment is open to interpretation

Arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment can be murky, because
both sides rely on the amendment's wording to reach radically different
conclusions.

Proponents of the theory that the Second Amendment confers only a
collective right to bear arms focus on the mention of "militia" in
the amendment's opening clause.

"Clearly, the reference to 'militia' is there for a reason," Bogus
says. If the Amendment's drafters had "wanted an individual right, they
wouldn't have needed to qualify it. That first (clause) is all-important.
They're saying, 'Because there's a need for a militia, we're bringing up
the subject of arms.'"

These theorists say that history, too, is in their favor. James Madison's
original draft of the Second Amendment, the theorists note, exempted the
"religiously scrupulous" - conscientious objectors - from bearing arms,
indicating that the right protected only arms related to militia service.

"If the Second Amendment had been adopted as originally drafted by Madison,
there'd be no question that its scope is limited to the possession of
weapons for use in the militia," says David Yassky, a Brooklyn Law School
professor who has filed a brief supporting the collective view in the Texas
case.

Supporters of the militia interpretation also say that to accept an
individual right to arms is to endorse anarchy.

"The Second Amendment can't mean that you have the right to form a private
army," says Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence.

"That's the logic of (Oklahoma City bomber) Timothy McVeigh," Henigan says.
The framers of the Constitution "couldn't have intended to bestow a right
to armed insurrection. That would have destroyed what they were trying to
build."

Those who advocate the right of the individual to bear arms say their
adversaries are misreading the Second Amendment.

"You've got to understand: The militia at the time (the amendment) was
written was basically all able-bodied men," says Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer
in Fairfax, Va., who has filed a pro-gun-rights brief in the Texas case.

When the framers "are talking about the 'militia,' they are talking
about the 'people.' They'd be shocked if anybody thought they meant
something different."

Both sides say history supports them

Those in the individual-rights group also say history supports them,
not their opponents.

"When the amendment was written and through most of the 19th century
and into the 20th, it was assumed that the individual right (to a
weapon) existed," says Robert Cottrol, a Second Amendment specialist
at George Washington University law school and author of Gun Control
and the Constitution.

"It wasn't until federal (gun control) laws were enacted, during
Prohibition and later during the 1960s, that it even became an issue."

Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale University law professor and scholar of the
Bill of Rights, says the right is neither collective nor individual
but something in between: the right of a small community of family
and friends to defend their homes, as the Minutemen had done during
the American Revolution.

"They weren't thinking of establishing a right for the National Guard
or for the Michigan militia," Amar says. "They were thinking about
Lexington and Concord, where they stood with their families and friends
to resist an imperial army. If you get Lexington and Concord, you get
the Second Amendment."

America's courts have had little to say about the debate. When they
have weighed in, it has been on the side of those who says there's
no individual right.

During Prohibition, Arkansas bootlegger Jack Miller was indicted under
the first national gun control law for carrying a sawed-off shotgun
across state lines.

Miller argued that the Second Amendment gave him the right to carry the
weapon and that the charge should be dismissed. But the Supreme Court
disagreed, saying in a unanimous 1939 decision that the shotgun had no
"reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia" and was thus not protected by the amendment.

U.S. v. Miller was the first and so far the only Supreme Court case to
address the issue. Since then, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have used the
case's reasoning to uphold gun restrictions in at least 21 separate cases.

"As long as a (gun control) law exempts the National Guard or police,
it has passed muster," says Dennis Henigan of the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence. "The law has been all our way."

But liberal scholars, after backing the militia theorists for years,
have begun to side with individual-rights proponents.

Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas law school began the trend
10 years ago with an influential law journal article that compared the
Second Amendment to an "embarrassing relative, whose mention brings a
quick change of subject."

"This will no longer do," Levinson wrote, concluding that the
individual-rights argument had a historical basis.

Others picked up on that argument.

"If you're going to look at (the Second Amendment) fairly, you have
conclude that it means a lot more than its critics say," Amar of Yale
says. "It's there in the middle of the Bill of Rights for a reason."

In a striking departure, Harvard University's Tribe now concludes that
the Second Amendment guarantees more than a militia right and includes
an individual right to own firearms. Tribe's new view is included in
an updated version of his treatise American Constitutional Law, which
is out this month.

"Some very serious scholars are concluding that it is too simplistic
to say that the Second Amendment only protects the militia," Tribe
says. "It's not just the 'hired guns' for the NRA."

The stakes are large. If the Fifth Circuit upholds the individual right
to own guns, it would conflict with decisions in other appeals courts over
the years. This probably would prompt a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And if the individual-right theory is upheld there, state and federal
legislatures could have a much harder time passing gun control laws.
Current laws, too, would be open to challenge. Courts probably would
impose a "balancing test" to determine whether a proposed gun control
law unduly restricts an individual's rights. Essentially, courts would
weigh the justification for the gun control statute against the
restriction imposed on the individual citizen.

"To date, any restriction short of prohibition (of private gun ownership)
has been deemed acceptable by the courts," George Washington University's
Cottrol says. "If a right is involved, presumably the whole picture changes.
Any law impacting on that right might have to pass a much stricter test."

No one is making book on how the Fifth Circuit will rule. Mateja says
he'll argue that the militia rights view is "well settled" in law and
that Judge Cummings' decision was "flat wrong."

Guinn says he'll fall back on the language of the Second Amendment and
its promise of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms."

"The 'people' means the people," he says. "What else could it mean?"
Cover story index </leadpage/covindex.htm>

Go to News front page </news/nfront.htm>
Go to USA TODAY front page <http://www.usatoday.com>



- -

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

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 99 17:45:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Standard Examiner Poll Comments

- -----
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 11:39:40 -0600
From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: FW: Standard Examiner Poll Comments

The Ogden Stupid-Exaggerator recently ran an misleading, misinformed
highly-biased article on the desperate need for gun control and asked
readers to respond to their online poll. Here are the results and selected
comments. (They didn't publish mine.)

- ----------

Readers passionate in responses to Web poll on gun control

Sunday, August 29, 1999

Editor's note: Following a two-part series that ran Aug. 21-22 on one small
chapter of the gun issue -- that the majority of people in prison for killing
someone with a gun had no prior criminal record -- we asked the following
poll question on StandardNET: "Considering that 75 percent of the people
imprisoned for murder by firearms in Utah had no prior criminal record,
would you support tighter overall restrictions on guns?" The response was
overwhelming and largely opposed to any additional gun controls. In this
unscientific poll (those responding, for instance, could cast more than one
vote, and some respondents answered as many as a dozen times) the total, as
of Friday, was 421 "no" responses and 21 "yes" responses; none of the "yes"
respondents would allow their comments to be published. Here's a sampling:

No. I believe education is still the major answer. Controls for those with
severe mental illness or a history of violence would be wise. MaryEllen
Greene Brigham City

No. Tighter gun laws only affect those people who obey the law. Such laws
keep guns from people who obviously aren't going to commit crimes if they
are going to obey the laws for legally obtaining a handgun. The people who
"break the laws" and commit crimes of violence are just that "law breakers"
and will not be stopped by stricter laws. Troy Henrie Lombard, Ill.

No. Considering that 75 percent of the people imprisoned for murder by
firearms in Utah are men, would you support tighter overall restrictions on
men? Considering that the Standard-Examiner's "push poll" employs a leading
question, would you support tighter overall restrictions on their polling?
Considering that the news media's continuous coverage of gun violence
encourages copycat crimes, would you support tighter overall restrictions
on the freedom of the press? Dave Harmer Draper

No. This is a typical biased, liberal poll question on gun control. Why not
tell the truth that the vast majority of the people in jail are those in the
18 to 26-year-old range. Why not tell the truth that the vast majority of
these people were juvenile offenders, and their files were sealed when they
turned 18 so it appears they were law-abiding citizens with no prior
criminal record.

No, the question could not be asked in that manner as it would not obtain
the results you seek. You are fooling no one. Richard Pierce Brooks, Calif.

No. We already have the ultimate law -- the death penalty -- and it isn't
much of a deterrent when a person decides to commit murder. Jim Sommer St.
George

No. People are not afraid of our laws. They know that if they commit a
violent crime, chances are they will not be severely punished. A 7-year
prison term for murder is not sufficient and the victims of violent crime
are once again victimized in the court of law, while the accused is
treated like a king.

If people in our society knew they would be punished for their crimes, they
would think twice about committing them. We live in a civilization where
parents, government and police cannot punish our children for the things
they do wrong. We've raised a generation with no conscience, no regrets
and no understanding of punishment. It will only get worse. Jeannie Smith
Riverdale

No. I feel the laws we have are enough if they are enforced. We are looking
at total control of guns with time if this continues, and those who want
guns will still get them from other illegal sources. If we buy guns from
shops, you can enforce the laws already on the books. Ben Schelb Ogden

No. Your premise that without firearms these crimes would not have been
committed does not hold water. If someone is going to commit the crime,
they will use whatever is necessary. Delmon Nelson Clearfield

No. There are already enough laws on the books. If they would bring back
public executions, there would be less violent crime. Carl Hadley Plain City

No. If you really look at the statistics, you will note that crime is down.
More people die from prescription drugs than from guns. The way the media
covers guns, you would believe that blood was running in the streets and if
we step out of our doors, we need to take cover from all the gun violence.

How many people die from cars in the United States? How many people die
while riding their bikes? In a free society, you take your chances. Do
we no longer want a free society? Lora Mengucci Salt Lake City

No. Judging by the way this question was written, I would bet that your
polling staff was trying to get a different result than 118 (at that point)
"no," one "unsure" and three "yes" answers. I believe gun control advocates
rejoice at tragedies such as Columbine and the day care center shooting
because they can cry for more gun laws. John Kelley Layton

No. I think the government and law enforcement officials need to start
enforcing the laws already in place. Many horrible things involving guns
have occurred in this country lately, but to blame the weapon used is a
fruitless accusation. The people who committed these acts could have used
any number of things at their disposal. One event proved this with the use
of explosives.

This country has no concept of the term "terrorism," and if things continue
to progress as they are now, we will learn very quickly. I grew up living in
Germany as a military brat, and I fully understand the helpless feeling that
terrorism can bring to a community. I honestly believe that the private
ownership of guns has prevented a lot of terrorism from entering the United
States more than it already has. Paul Gardner Riverdale

No. Perhaps an equal number of murderers who used other weapons never
had a prior conviction. Neil Sager North Ogden

No. You cannot assume bad behavior any more than you can guarantee good
behavior. I could not live in a society where you could be arrested and
convicted of a crime that statistics or probability indicated you would
commit some day. John K. Krater Roy

No. Considering that there have been more people murdered by despotic
governments after gun control was established than all of the deaths from
criminals and accidents involving firearms combined leads me to believe
that more gun control is not the answer. Bruce Anderson Hooper

No. Criminals who use guns in crimes should have the book thrown at them.
The same thing should be done to felons who try to buy guns. If more
murderers were actually executed promptly instead of in 10, 15 or 20
years, how many less murders would there be? Brad Farnsworth Thatcher

No. As long as directions are put over the Internet about how to make a
bomb, I oppose hunters and collectors being penalized for the misdeeds of
others. Peggie L. Frew Tucson, AZ

No. I laugh when you gun haters spout statistics, i.e., "XX percent of
people violently killed are with guns." What percentage of that percentage
are the criminals killed by police protecting themselves or innocent people?
Statistics always favor the writer -- never the true facts. Randall Johnson
Ogden

No. It is unlikely that more gun controls based on arbitrary evidence such
as this would make anyone safer. What happened the previous 20 years? Is
this just an anomaly? Shawn Worthington Roy



- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:51:08 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fratrum: Heads UP!!! Clinton Launches a New Attack on Federalism (fwd)

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:11:04 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA00382; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:49:07 -0600
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12004;
    Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:00:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 99 16:34:08 PST
From: [e-mail] (Bill Vance)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Fratrum: Heads UP!!! Clinton Launches a New Attack on Federalism (fwd)
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Divvy-no: 1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Aug 27, Huck wrote:

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

Here we go again. We whupped him last time, let's do it again. After all,
it's OUR Bill of Rights!

Huck

> Subject: [APC News Wire] EO 13132 - Clinton Launches a New Attack on
> Federalism
> From: <[e-mail]
> Subject: APC News Wire
> American Policy Center  http://www.americanpolicy.org
> August 26, 1999 Volume 2, Issue 9
>
> Clinton Launches a New Attack on Federalism -
> Executive Order #13132
>
>  Bill Clinton is back with a new executive order,
>  #13132, and a new assault on the Constitution.  As
>  you may remember, last year President Clinton issued
>  Executive Order #13083, deceitfully entitled
>  "Federalism," which virtually eliminated the 10th
>  Amendment.  It revoked a previous executive order
>  penned by Ronald Reagan designed to promote
>  Federalism and protect the 10th Amendment of the
>  U.S. Constitution.  E.O. #13083 was designed not
>  only to wipe out the Reagan legacy, but to wipe out
>  the vision of government that our Founding Fathers
>  fought for in the Revolutionary War.
>
>  The reaction to E.O. #13083 was amazing!  A
>  firestorm of protest erupted across the nation from
>  American citizens, organizations like the American
>  Policy Center, State and local officials, and
>  Congress.  The pressure was so overbearing that
>  Clinton, for the very first time, had no choice but
>  to kill his own executive order.  But instead of
>  taking that opportunity to strengthen the priciples
>  of Federalism, the coalition that defeated E.O.
>  #13083 took their ball and bat and went home.
>  Clinton didn't, and now, more than a year later,
>  he's back with a new, more deceiving executive order,
>   and more power behind him to validate it.  It's
>  time again for you and me to go to war and stop the
>  renewed assault on the Constitution.
>
>  "The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the
>  Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson
>
>  Clinton and his administration reintroduced his new
>  "Federalism" executive order in a very unscrupulous
>  manner.  In an attempt to avert opposition by
>  governors, state legislators, mayors and other local
>  government officials who challenged him last time,
>  Clinton brought together the liberal hired hands of
>  the National Governors Association and the other
>  State and local governments' national organizations,
>  known as "The Big Seven."  Sure enough, these
>  like-minded bureaucrats sold us down the river.  And
>  in what is a most vile slap-in-the-face to those of
>  us who are principled Federalists, Clinton used
>  Ronald Reagan's Federalism Executive Order as the
>  language for his own, manipulating the words just
>  enough to gut its meaning by asserting the supremacy
>  of the Federal government through weakening the
>  power of State and local governments.
>
>  Executive Order #13132 specifies that where State
>  rules directly conflict with federal law-federal law
>  shall be supreme.  Behind the flowery language this
>  E.O. says the Federal government can do whatever it
>  wants - just as long as they consult the States
>  first.  It tells federal agencies to dictate policy,
>  then go to the States and tell them to pass their
>  own legislation, making the federal program a State
>  one.  In effect, E.O. #13132 makes the State or
>  local government a pawn to federal dictates.  This
>  is Clinton's definition of "partnership."  You and I
>  need to tell Clinton and anyone else who supports
>  E.O. #13132 that such a partnership is already
>  defined in the Constitution.  The States have the
>  power and the Federal government has its
>  well-defined duties.  Period.
>
>  The Solution
>
>  We can stop E.O. #13132.  Remember, we did it last
>  time.  Most state and local officials probably have
>  no idea what is really included in the new order.
>  You and I must alert them and your Congressmen to
>  what E.O. #13132 really does.  The Washington Times
>  recently printed a front page "Special Report" on
>  Clinton's executive orders.  That means that every
>  member of Congress has read it and Clinton's abuse
>  of power is on their minds.  Now is the time to
>  strike.  Now is the time to get their phones
>  ringing.  And if their phones are ringing off the
>  wall, if their mail is jammed with angry letters -
>  they will act.
>
>  We need to create a firestorm of protest against
>  E.O. #13132 and of support for those state, local
>  and federal representatives who want to restore the
>  10th Amendment to its original meaning.  We must be
>  their backbone to exercise their constitutional
>  duties and rescind E.O. #13132 and restore Ronald
>  Reagan's legacy on Federalism.  For more information
>  on E.O. #13132, visit our web site at
>  www.americanpolicy.org.
>
>  URGENT Action to Take
>
>  1.  Call your governor, state legislator and mayor
>  and demand them not to be fooled by the Clinton
>  Administration and their own organizations'
>  bureaucrats into accepting this new "Federalism"
>  Executive Order #13132.
>  2.  Call your Senators and Congressman and demand a
>  response from Congress in opposition to Executive
>  Order #13132.  Capitol Hill Switchboard: (202)
>  224-3121 (Senate) and [phone] (House).
>  3.  Call GOP Leadership and demand they take a stand
>  against Clinton's idea of Federalism.  Rep. Richard
>  Armey [phone], Sen. Trent Lott (202)
>  224-3135.
>  4.  Call Governor Mike Leavitt (Utah), the newly
>  elected chairman of the National Governors
>  Association and who was a major force in defeating
>  Clinton's first Federalism E.O., #13083, and implore
>  him to oppose E.O. #13132 just as fiercely. (801)
>  538-1000.

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

- --
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
- ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
- -
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand =3D Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy =
a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus =
Christ
- ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
- -
- -
To unsubscribe, send a message to [e-mail], and as the
body of the message (plain text, no HTML), send the following:
.
unsubscribe noban email-address
.
where email-address is the address under which you are subscribed.
Report problems to [e-mail]




- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:15:22 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FBI agent with a .50-caliber Browning machine gun

A former Special Forces commando says he spoke yesterday to a Delta Force =
commando who was present at the final tear-gas assault on the Branch =
Davidian compound. Keith Idema, who was a member of Special Forces and =
Special Operations units from 1975 to 1992 and helped to train hostage =
rescue team personnel for both Delta Force and the FBI, says pictures from =
Waco released this week by the Texas Department of Public Safety have been =
mistakenly identified by the department as gun silencers and suppressors =
belonging to David Koresh and his followers which were found inside the =
compound after the fire. Idema says they are actually concussion grenades =
manufactured by a company, Defense Technology, and purchased by the FBI. =
Idema also says the bright light seen on video footage as flashing inside =
the building moments before the fire broke out have been misidentified as =
a fire started by Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, when, in fact, to =
the trained eye of a Special Forces explosive expert it is unmistakably =
the flash caused by a "concussion grenade" that has been lobbed inside the =
compound.=20

A concussion grenade uses a brilliant flash and loud bang to render an =
enemy in its vicinity blind, deaf and immobile for a brief period during =
which commandos can overpower them. Such grenades should be used only for =
military purposes and were wholly inappropriate, if not illegal to be used =
in a situation involving women and children -- and any situation where =
potentially inflammable tear gas was still hanging in the air, the former =
Special Forces operative said.=20

Charges that the FBI used incendiary grenades which may have caused the =
fire were dismissed by Reno. For six years, since the assault on April 19, =
1993, until six days ago, Reno maintained that no military weapons were =
used. When a report from Texas DPS forced her to admit that some might =
have been used, she still dismissed any possibility that they could have =
caused the fire, stating that they were used in the early morning hours =
before the fire began.=20

According to Idema, the FBI was taking an ill- advised chance using a =
military CS tear gas grenade at any time knowing that, unlike the kind of =
tear gas used in civilian situations, this type leaves a vapor that hangs =
in the air for a longer period of time and can ignite under certain =
circumstances.=20

The concussion grenades and military fuses he says were used moments =
before the fire broke out could have ignited the lingering tear gas vapors =
and started the fire.=20

Idema also points out that other photographs released clearly show an FBI =
agent with a .50-caliber Browning machine gun next to his leg. Such =
weapons are to be used only against armored equipment and weapons, =
certainly not civilians, says Idema.=20

"Why were they there?" he asks. "Koresh didn't have any tanks or helicopter=
s, or APCs.=20

The Geneva Convention states that these weapons are never to be used in an =
anti-personnel role." The bureau's admission that such devices "may have =
been used" marked an abrupt reversal of a long-standing denial that its =
agents used anything capable of sparking a fire at the church. Bureau and =
Justice Department officials have maintained that the devices could not =
have played a role in the fire because they were used hours before the =
blaze and were fired at an underground bunker adjacent to the wooden =
church compound. A pending wrongful-death suit filed by surviving Branch =
Davidians and families of the dead has alleged that agents launched =
pyrotechnic devices into the compound and fired into the building. The =
government vehemently denies those charges. Federal officials from =
President Clinton down have staunchly maintained in the six years since =
the tragedy that FBI agents did not fire a single shot during the entire =
51-day siege. ?=20



1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. ------------------- "...There is no nation on =
earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should =
it ever come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of =
the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness =
and negligence." - Daniel Webster -----------------------------------------=
- ------------------------------- Steve Wingate California Director SKYWATCH =
INTERNATIONAL Anomalous Images and UFO Files http://www.anomalous-images.co=
m -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to [e-mail] -> Posted by: =
"Steve Wingate" <[e-mail]>=20


- -

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

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 99 11:17:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #28 - 26 August 1999 1/3

- ----------
GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah

Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network.
No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever.

Visit our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah!

GOUtah! Alert #28 - 26 August 1999

Today's Voice of Liberty:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who
approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

If you wish to continue to receive this information under the GOUtah!
banner, you need to do nothing. If you wish to be added to or taken off the
GOUtah! list, please log onto our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! or
send an e-mail to [e-mail] or send a fax to [phone]
asking to be added to or removed from the GOUtah! list. If you wish to
forward or share this copyrighted information with others, you are welcome
to do so, on the condition that you pass along the entire document intact
and unmodified, and that GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original
source of the material, unless otherwise noted.


Barrage of bad bills at state and federal levels.

Last month, we at GOUtah! were patting our activists on the back for having
played a pivotal role in derailing Governor Leavitt's plans for a special
session of the state legislature on gun control. We were also quite happy
that the U.S. House of Representatives had blocked the addition of gun
control measures to the House version of the Federal Juvenile Justice Bill.
We deemed it appropriate to wipe the sweat from our brow, sit in the shade
with a cool glass of lemonade, and take a moment to savor our hard-won
victories. As we did this, we knew that our respite would be short-lived,
and that more bad news would be coming our way soon. We were right. In
the last few days, a deluge of terrible legislation has been proposed at
both the state and federal levels. In addition, serious efforts are being
made to re-inject gun control into the federal Juvenile Justice Bill. In
this alert, we will focus on developments taking place at the federal
level. Our next alert will look at the ugly stuff being cooked up by the
interim committees of our own Utah State Legislature. As you read this,
please remember that it is up to you to defeat these proposals by keeping
up the pressure on your lawmakers. A brief letter or a fax or a phone
call, or, best of all, a personal visit, can have a big impact. If all
GOUtah! activists do this, the effect will be felt by those in government.


Feinstein introduces gun confiscation bill.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - California), author of the infamous 1994
federal ban on "assault weapons", is at it again. As you may recall, her
1994 legislation prohibits the manufacture and importation of ammunition
magazines over 10 rounds for sale to civilians, and bans the manufacture
and importation of certain semiautomatic firearms based purely on their
cosmetic appearance. Of course, criminologists, law enforcement experts,
and even some anti-gun members of Congress who voted for the bill have made
it clear that this law has played absolutely no role in reducing violent
crime. Thanks to Feinstein's law, however, magazines for many handguns now
cost upwards of $100, as the supply of legal pre-1994 magazines continues
to dwindle. Thanks to her law, if you are at the National Matches shooting
a post-1994 Colt Sporter rifle and your upper receiver assembly
malfunctions, and you swap upper receivers with a pre-1994 Sporter (which
can be done in a few seconds), you have just committed a federal felony,
because the older barrel features an integral flash suppressor and bayonet
lug, which turns your post-1994 rifle into an "assault weapon".
Many Americans, mistakenly thinking that the "assault weapons" banned in
1994 were somehow functionally different from other semi-automatic
firearms, naively supported Feinstein's bill. Of course, those of us who
know something about guns know that the term "assault weapon" is not a
valid piece of firearms terminology, but is simply an emotionally-charged
buzzword invented in the late 1980s by the anti-gun movement to describe
semi-automatic firearms that look like fully-automatic military weapons.
Back in 1994, those of us who take the Second Amendment seriously were
deeply disturbed by the fact that our government had just prohibited the
manufacture of certain firearms simply because of their looks, yet we
comforted ourselves with the belief that we were not going to be required
to turn in any guns that we already owned. Some gun owners even thought
that the 1994 "assault weapon" law would keep the anti-gun crowd happy,
preventing them from doing anything more onerous. They were mistaken.
According to the August 18th edition of The Los Angeles Times, Senator
Feinstein has announced that she is about to introduce a bill aimed at
"banning possession of all assault weapons." According to the Times
article, by reporters Matt Lait and Tina Daunt, "a spokesman for Feinstein
said the proposal would seek to collect weapons already in the hands of gun
owners. Details of the 'turn-in' program, such as how the owners would be
compensated, have not yet been worked out, the spokesman said."
Feinstein's bill has not yet been formally introduced or numbered, and
details are not available at this time. However, the use of the words
"turn-in" and "collect" in any piece of gun legislation is enough to send
cold shivers down the spine of gun owners everywhere. Many of us thought
it would never come to this, but now it has.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #156
***********************************