ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n159

Internet Message Format | 1999-09-25 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #159
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest    Sunday, September 26 1999    Volume 02 : Number 159




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

Date: Thu, 16 Sep 99 18:35:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Barberi changes mind on concealed weapons

- -----
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 15:57:14 +0000
From: "Brian E. Swim" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Barberi changes mind on concealed weapons

"The KALL Voice of Reason" who has ridiculed anyone who advocates the right
to carry concealed weapons in churches, schools, etc. said this morning that
he is reconsidering his position after the slaughter in the Ft. Worth church
yesterday.  He now seems to agree that maybe a person with a concealed
weapon might have stopped the carnage.  He said "It seems that if there are
so many guns out there that maybe the good guys ought to have them too. It's
impossible to have a cop in every public place all the time."

B.S.



- -

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

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:31:22 -0600
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boycott list

Does anyone know of a comprehensive site for listings of corporations that
have anti-gun policies and/or contribute to anti-gun causes?  (Yes, I KNOW
it would be a very long list!)  Or to try to be more positive, is there a
list of pro-gun entities that we should support?

If you know of any good resources, please let me know.

Thanks!
Sarah

- -

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 99 15:03:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: [2ndamendmentnews] Anti-Gun Hysteria, Go on the Offensive Part 2 1/2

- -----
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:49:07 -0400
From: Weldon Clark <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Anti-Gun Hysteria, Go on the Offensive Part 2

By Russ Howard - For me, deja vu is a good way to describe
the climate since the Columbine massacre.

After the 1989 Stockton schoolyard massacre, many firearms rights
activists were horrified to see that NRA and the gun industry - to
the extent that they were not missing in action - were engaged in
active appeasement and pre-emptive surrender. Bill Ruger, for example
- - now an official NRA "hero" - proposed magazine size limits and cut
special deals to get his "sporting" guns exempted from the Roos-Roberti
"assault weapon" ban. 2nd Amendment supporters had to endure the TV
spectacle of NRA's lobbyist testifying that NRA couldn't support the
ban because it included too many "legitimate sporting and hunting
guns." The anti-gunners heard him, reduced their opposition by removing
some guns from the ban, and passed it by one vote. Chess anyone?

Given the JFK, RFK, & MLK assassinations, the Texas Tower shootings,
the McDonalds Massacre, etc., pro-freedom activists have known for
decades that the anti-self-defense crowd intended to use high-profile
gun crimes as pretenses to gradually disarm all decent citizens in
America. As an NRA member since 1979, I was astonished that NRA -
an organization that raises and spends 150 million dollars a year -
seemed so unprepared, defensive, and even apologetic after such crimes.
They acted as if each massacre was unique, as if there would never be
another one. At best, the people who were so handsomely paid to be our
best professional public speakers were like deer in the headlights,
as if no good arguments had ever been written against gun control.
Why couldn't they be prepared?

Into that vacuum in 1989, dozens of grassroots groups sprang up
nationwide. I was involved in one of them, Californians Against
Corruption, the goal of which was to oust one-by-one the politicians
who violated their oath to defend the Constitution and passed laws
that left victims disarmed and vulnerable to crime and mass public
shootings. CAC ended the political careers of both Roos and Roberti,
and the "pain" message dried up California's anti-gun torrent for
several years. Ultimately I was nominated to run for the Board of
Directors of the NRA, on which I served for over two years with the
goal of doing my part to help reform NRA and build up grassroots.

Reform proposals were fought tooth & nail by staff and either killed
or "implemented" in a such a way as to guarantee their failure. For
example, I developed a modest board policy resolution to put an end
to NRA's "thing" for giving "A" ratings and awards to anti-gun
politicians. Even though NRA would still have been able to give them
B ratings, money, and endorsements, NRA's "Winning Team" fought the
reform as if it would've been the end of the world. It would not have
been the end of the world, but it would've been the end of the gravy
train for sellout Republicans who didn't want to ever have to take a
stand and earn their grades. Staff, as usual, revealed contempt for
membership, arguing that if NRA couldn't give phony grades, members
were too unsophisticated to volunteer for lesser-of-two-evil Republicans.

As other reform-minded directors discovered, and as many of you now know,
NRA's ruling junta has no intention to allow itself to be reformed.
The reformers were purged in an illegal coup d'etat led by staff; by
self-dealing, feather bedding directors; by "moderate" country club &
Hollywood sport shooters; by Republican Party operatives; and by the
vendors who make millions of dollars a year bleeding the membership
white. Local "activists" who had cozied up to NRA staff were put up
to lying about reform-minded NRA board members in a smear campaign
through the national "conservative" media. In at least one case one of
the smearers, known in activist circles as a "thug", was immediately
hired by NRA as an apparent reward for his dirty work.

One of the much-vaunted changes that staff did supposedly accept was
a quick response team that would be prepared to deal with situations
like Columbine. Well, here we are 10 years after Stockton. "Going
Postal" has entered the lexicon, and massacres have gone from a
once-a-decade tragedy to annual, quarterly, weekly. Yet NRA and the
gun industry are still, seemingly, unable or unwilling to deal with it.

If the "Quick Response" to Columbine had been any better it would've
been pathetic. Rather than taking the offensive and explaining how gun
control facilitates public shootings, the annual meeting was curtailed
as if we had something to be ashamed of. Worse yet, Charlton Heston
and Wayne LaPierre both issued high-profile public endorsements of gun
control, including the very same unconstitutional "gun free" school
zones laws that help enable such massacres. LaPierre also reiterated
his support for instacheck, effectively gun owner registration, flouting
standing board policy that requires him to look for an alternative
that doesn't involve trusting the Waco Killers not to keep the records
illegally. And, of course, he again endorsed "Project Exile," the
anti-gunners' dream come true of a Federal Gun Gulag System. NRA's
lobbyist, Steve Helsley, said that California's latest landmark gun
confiscation bills "weren't serious gun control" and we shouldn't
bother fighting them.

With exceptions, the gun rights community seems at best stuck in
perpetual defensive mode. The anti-gunners - the very people whose
anti-self-defense policies, media & video game violence, and
permissive parenting theories facilitate massacres like Columbine
- - are allowed to accuse us of being responsible for them. Suppose
you knew a man was planning to murder people and frame you for the
crime. Would you go to the police first and accuse him of murder?
Or would you let him go to the police first? Would you content
yourself with trying to prove that you didn't do it? Or would you
finally accuse him of murder and prove it? Would you let him frame
you over and over and over again, defending yourself but never
accusing? Or would you finally wake up, start going to the police
first, warning them, and saying, "I told you so" after each murder?
If you answered no, yes, yes, no, yes, no, then You're The NRA.

Whatever the reason, NRA effectively functions as a sterile bee queen,
leading the hive into oblivion. Millions of gun owners trust and look
to NRA for policy guidance, giving NRA the power to gradually redefine
what it means to be pro-gun, and which gun controls are "reasonable"
and tolerable. If Wayne LaPierre and Charlton Heston say we need to
help build the new American police state, most gun owners will learn
to accept it.

So what do we do? I for one will not donate to NRA until the entire
current Board and top Staff is ousted and fired respectively. But
what about in the meantime? Join and support other organizations
that aren't selling us out. For example, I recently rejoined JPFO.

Once again, as in 1989, new groups are being formed to fill the vacuum.
As before, a common theme of these startups is not only preparedness,
but also preparedness to go on the offensive. There are many advantages
to being on the offensive. One is that it puts OUR assertions, facts,
and allegations under discussion, as opposed to the enemy's:
Make the enemies of freedom refute OUR accusations for a change.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


- -

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 99 15:03:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: [2ndamendmentnews] Anti-Gun Hysteria, Go on the Offensive Part 2 2/2

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
One of these new groups is called Citizens of America.

A couple of weeks ago I attended a small presentation for Citizens of
America, founded largely by leaders of the Lawyers Second Amendment
Society along with a seasoned, successful, creative, pro-gun advertising
writer named Jim Houck. Houck was the one who came up with a highly
successful guerrilla ad campaign, which had gun activists chalking
outlines of crime scene bodies on sidewalks. Inside the body is chalked
"another unarmed victim" with a phone number to join or donate. COA's
goal is to do hard-hitting, below-the-belt radio, TV, and guerrilla
advertising designed to make people think twice about giving up their
right to effective self-defense; to associate gun control with racism,
genocide, and victimization; and to make supporting gun control as
socially unacceptable as joining the Ku Klux Klan. From what I've seen
of the ads that've already been developed, it will work, and may very
likely be quickly self-funding.

But it's going to need some serious seed money to get off the
ground. Do yourself a favor and send them a check, even if it's
only $5 or $10. I'm sending in $100 now, but I'm also issuing
a "100-squared match" to raise $10,000: When 99 people on this
list e-mail me back with a pledge to send in $100, I'll forward
the e-mails to COA and send in another $100 too.

My e-mail address is [e-mail]

COA's address is:

PMB 447
2118 WILSHIRE BLVD.
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403

Please give generously.

Russ Howard

P.S. Please note that the opinions expressed above are my own and do
not reflect the views of COA. I'm including an e-mail from COA below.
***********************

Citizens of America "We're In Charge"

Dear armed Americans,

Advertising Creative Director, Jim Houck, working with the Lawyers
Second Amendment Society (LSAS, www.rightguide.com/Links/lsas.htm),
has formed a non-profit corporation for the sole purpose of giving
all American firearms owners, big and small, a way to strike back
and strike back hard against the Rights Killers.

After repeated attempts to work with NRA and GOA, Mr. Houck made
the decision, along with the LSAS, to form an elite commando-style
organization in order to bypass bureaucracy and time-consuming
political red tape and get into the fight. The NRA and GOA have
a role in this fight and are doing all they can and are to be
credited with such. But there is an overwhelming need for an
operational group which can strike fast, strike hard and strike
without fear of political reprisal. This is such a group.

Every dollar received will go into extremely aggressive advertising,
TV, print, radio, outdoor and guerilla, with a single purpose, to
destroy those who are tampering with 2nd Amendment freedom. This
campaign will not be apologetic, it will not play fair, it will hit
below the belt whenever the opportunity presents itself, it will not
take prisoners. In short, it will be very aggressive and very effective.

There are some people out there who would like to get into
the fight, but for career reasons or political reasons cannot.

Here is your chance. There are many who would like to get
into the fight, but have no way of doing so. Now you can take
a swing directly at the teeth of people like Chuck Schumer,
impeached-President Bill Clinton, Sarah Brady, you name it.

The campaign will be created and managed by Creative Director,
Jim Houck, a career advertising professional who has done work
for bluechip clients like Toyota, DIESEL Jeans, Mitsubishi,
Procter & Gamble, Sony, The Miami Heat Professional Basketball
Team and Sunglass Hut International, to name a few.

The company has been created by and will be managed by attorney
Dan Schultz of the LSAS.

Creative campaigns are in progress and will be operational as
soon as a budget has been amassed and media buys can be made.

Please make copies and forward to all concerned parties. Send
your checks (NO CASH, WE'RE PLAYING BY THE BOOK AND EXPECT
AUDITS AND CLAIMS OF THEFT FROM THE RIGHTS KILLERS) immediately...

[Write your check to Citizens of America.]

Going to war,

Jim Houck

Creative Director, Los Angeles
[e-mail]

****************************
The 2ndAmendmentNews Team
The way to protect your own rights is to protect the rights of
others. Our right to own and use firearms is under attack.

If you've received this as a forward and wish to subscribe please
send a reply to me at [e-mail] or [e-mail]

Cordially Yours,
The 2ndAmendmentNews Team

2ndAmendmentNews is published by volunteer activists who support the
full original individual rights intent of the 2nd Amendment and oppose
any appeasement on gun rights. The moderators include Chris Behanna,
Weldon Clark (an NRA director) and Steve Cicero.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia
State House, August 1, 1776.



- -

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

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 99 23:09:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Legal Defenses Against Gun Confiscation Part 1 1/2

- -----
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:39:18 -0400
From: Weldon Clark <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Legal Defenses Against Gun Confiscation Part 1

We are offering methods besides writing your Congressman. You may
want to save this as reference material. The following is applicable
to California and other People's Republic states such as Connecticut,
New Jersey, and Maryland. Coming will be other articles on the "how
to" defend yourself against the tyranny that is coming: Running
Campaigns, Unregistering Your Gun, and Effective Lobbying.

Just Say, "Go Away."

Rights are like muscles, you must exercise them or they gradually
weaken. The following information is provided as a public service
by The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc.

Disclaimer: The following is not legal advice but is for informational
purposes only. You should use your own judgment and/or consult an
attorney before deciding what to do.

August 20, 1999 The Attorney General of the State of California ("AG")
is embarking on a massive effort to confiscate firearms (so-called
"assault weapons") in the possession of United States citizens
residing in the State of California. You may see evidence of this at
http://www.sksbuyback.org. The Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, plans
to have his agents attempt to trick the citizens into voluntarily
handing over these firearms to them. Luckily for the citizens, they
have protections from such trickery. You need to know how to assert
your rights if you want to defeat this trickery, whether in this
instance or in the future as the government becomes even more depraved
as it tries to take away more and more of our inalienable rights.
Following is some information about your rights that the government
hopes you don't know.

Our right to keep and bear arms is one of those inalienable rights
"endowed by [our] Creator," as set forth in the Declaration of
Independence. The GunTruths.com web site (http://www.GunTruths.com)
provides ample evidence that our right to keep and bear arms is an
inalienable, individual right retained by the people and protected
and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. We must use the Bill of Rights
to preserve and protect our rights. We must not voluntarily cede our
inalienable rights to the government. Inalienable rights, by their
nature, cannot be given, or taken, away.

The AG hopes that the good citizens residing in California will
voluntarily cede their right to keep and bear arms. The government
of California is embarking on a test of the citizens residing in
California to see whether they will voluntarily turn in their SKS
Sporters and register their "assault weapons." If the good citizens
residing in California voluntarily turn in their SKS Sporters, and
register these other weapons voluntarily, the AG will have achieved
its goal at relatively little cost, and will have learned that even
the gun-owning citizens are weak and ignorant of their rights. The
ultimate goal of the current government of the State of California is
to slowly, incrementally, confiscate all firearms of military pattern
so that the citizens will no longer have the means to be the "well
regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free State,"
referenced in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The AG hopes that the good citizens residing in California will not
know, and assert, the rights their forefathers fought and died for.
The AG hopes it will be able to intimidate the good people into
voluntarily turning in, or registering, their weapons by threatening
them with felony prosecutions, and jail sentences. These threats are
being communicated on the internet, in letters to selected individuals
and through advertisements on the radio and through other media.

What The Government Hopes Won't Happen

What if the good citizens did the following upon receiving a knock on
their doors?

The citizen calls through the door, "Who is it?"

The reply is, "I'm police officer/deputy sheriff/special agent Smith."

The citizen replies, "Go away. I'm not interested in spending any of
my time talking to you. Get off my property."

That should do it. The agent of the government might be a little more
persistent, but if the good citizen understands, and asserts, his
rights against the government, the above scenario is all that should
happen.

Why? Because no citizen is required to talk to anyone from the
government unless he wants to. You have the right to be left alone.
Unless the government has probable cause to suspect you of a crime,
you are free to be left alone. You do not even have to produce
"identity papers." Yet. The Fifth Amendment protects the citizen's
right to be free from incriminating himself in a criminal case.

What The Government Hopes Will Happen

Upon knocking on your door, and you opening it, the police
officer/deputy sheriff/special agent will say, "I'm Officer Smith and
this is my partner Officer Jones. We understand you are in possession
of an illegal assault weapon and we're here to retrieve it." They may
wave papers in your face, such as a record of sale.

You say, "Oh, well in that case, come on in. I'll show you where it is.
I figured you'd find me."

Then they will confiscate your firearm and arrest you. Later, when
your attorney files a motion to suppress the evidence before your
trial, the judge will deny the motion on the grounds that you
volunteered the evidence to the police. You will then be convicted
of being in possession of an "illegal" firearm.

Other Things You May Want To Think About

If you are in possession of a so-called "illegal" SKS Sporter or
"assault weapon," you should consider purchasing an inexpensive
dictation tape recorder and an inexpensive video camera, and keeping
it near your front door. When the agents from the government (and
they will come in pairs, as they are cowardly) come to your door,
you should be in a position to gather evidence of their trickeries.
They will try to trick you.

For example, they may say, "We know you have an illegal firearm in
your house. We want it. It is illegal for you to have it. You must let
us in, pursuant to the new law." And, as mentioned above, they may say
they have "evidence" that a certain weapon was sold to you.

One response would be the same as above, "Go away. I'm not interested
in spending any of my time talking to you. Get off my property. I'm
recording this."

Tell them you are recording this event. That will get their attention.
You may want to set up a system whereby you can speed dial your phone to
a neighbor who can also be videotaping the officers outside your door.

Another alternative response could by, "Slide your search warrant
under my door." The government agents will almost certainly not have a
search warrant, provided you have been very circumspect in the recent
past about what firearms you own. Why, then, would it be almost
certain that the government agents will not have a search warrant?
Because, according to the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Did you
know that Article 1 of the California Constitution is a Declaration of
Rights, and that section 13 of the Declaration of Rights says: "The
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



- -

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

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 99 23:09:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Legal Defenses Against Gun Confiscation Part 1 2/2

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated;
and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons and things to be seized?" (The full text of the California
Constitution can be found at http://www.ca.gov/s/govt/govcode.html.

You must ask yourself this question, "What judge is going to issue a
search warrant to search my home for an allegedly illegal firearm, if
I haven't had anyone in my home recently who might be a snitch, who
would be able to say under oath, 'I saw this man in possession of an
illegal firearm of a certain type, and it was stored in this location
in his house and I saw it this morning?'" If the only "evidence" the
government has is that months earlier you purchased a certain weapon,
that in itself would only tell a judge that on that date you may have
been in possession of that firearm. In the meantime, you could have
disposed of it (you could have thrown it away in your trash), you
might have dismantled it, thrown it in a lake, taken it out of state,
etc., etc.

If you have not advertised to anyone your possession of your "illegal"
firearms, it is highly unlikely that the government will have
sufficient evidence that probable cause exists that you are in
possession of illegal contraband (that is, that you are in possession
of an "illegal" firearm). Thus, you must ask yourself whether you are
able to take the small risk that you are wrong.

Even if the government agent has obtained a search warrant, after
complying with the search, you may challenge the legal sufficiency of
the search warrant. The government will have to sustain its burden of
proof that the required showing of probable cause was actually based
on credible, recent evidence. This will be a heavy burden, because in
every case the eyewitness claiming that you were in possession of the
"illegal" firearm would have to make a showing that your possession
was close in time to the issuance of the warrant and that the
eyewitness was in a position to "particularly describ[e] the place to
be searched and the persons and things to be seized" according to the
dictates of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
section 13 of the Declaration of Rights of the California Constitution.
In every case, the government will only have reason to suspect that you
are in possession of the "illegal" firearm based upon some information
they received many months ago. It is just as likely that you are no
longer in possession of the "illegal" firearm as it is that it is still
in your possession; therefore, without more, there is no probable cause
to believe you are currently violating the law. Since you may not be
required to answer any of the government's questions about whether you
are in possession of an "illegal" firearm, the government has no way
of finding out whether its suspicions are correct.

If you really want to have some fun, and burn up some of the government
agents' time (taking away time they might otherwise use to try to trick
other citizens of their firearms), you may want to do the following:

When they identify themselves outside your door, slide a Public Servant
Questionnaire under the door to each of them, and tell them you'd be
happy to talk to them if they will answer each of the questions set
forth on the form. You may get a copy of the Public Servant
Questionnaire at http://www.GunTruths.com (click on the cartridge
above "I Believe In Self Defense" and then scroll down to the "Get
Involved" heading). If you do this, it is doubtful they will continue
to talk to you. Probably, they will have been told not to waste their
time on citizens who seem to understand their rights and they will
leave and go to the next name and address on their list.

Assuming they do fill out the form completely, you may want to then
ask them whether they are armed with loaded firearms. If they say yes,
you should tell them that you will let them into your house to talk
with them only if they will return without their firearms. Then you
should also tell them that you'd like to first obtain some witnesses
to eyewitness the meeting in your home, and further explain that you'd
like to have them sit in front of your pre-positioned video camera and
near your tape recorder. If they tell you that you don't have the right
to audiotape and videotape them, they will be lying. Remember, these
are your public servants. Then let them come into your house, unarmed,
to ask your permission to answer some questions. Let them ask whatever
questions they choose. In response to each, simply say, "I choose not
to answer that question." Or you might ask them, in response to every
question they ask, whether you are required to answer the question.
Again, you'll have this all on audio tape and videotape and have at
least one witness. When they are finished, politely show them the door.

Use your imagination.

Another Right We Have At Our Disposal That The Government Fears

Under Article VI of the United States Constitution, and Sections 15
and 16 of the Declaration of Rights in the California Constitution,
all defendants in criminal prosecutions shall enjoy the right to a
speedy trial, by an impartial jury of twelve jurors. The AG does not
want to be faced with overcoming the foregoing hurdles, plus having
to convince all twelve jurors on a jury that you ought to go to jail
just because you were in possession of what just a few months earlier
had been perfectly legal to own. The AG fears fully informed jurors
who know that they have the power to judge both the law and the facts,
and who will be willing to acquit you of the victimless crime of
possessing an "illegal" firearm that was formerly perfectly legal to
own. You should learn more about the Fully Informed Jury Association
(FIJA), which is on the Links page at The Lawyer's Second Amendment
Society, Inc. web site, http://www.thelsas.org.

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is short, to
the point and written in English. The Fourth Amendment is easy to
understand. The Attorney General hopes you don't understand any of
your rights. Don't let them trick you. If the first one hundred
attempts at trickery fail, the government will give up. Don't be
fooled. Learn your rights and exercise them!

Disclaimer: The foregoing is not legal advice but is for informational
purposes only. You should use your own judgment or consult an attorney
before deciding what to do.

****************************
The 2ndAmendmentNews Team
The way to protect your own rights is to protect the rights of others.
Our right to own and use firearms is under attack. This list was created
in a hurry due to the emergency presented by anti-gun politicians and
the media dancing in the blood of those who died in the Colorado massacre.

If you've received this as a forward and wish to subscribe please
send a reply to me at [e-mail] or [e-mail]

Cordially Yours,
The 2ndAmendmentNews Team

2ndAmendmentNews is published by volunteer activists who support the
full original individual rights intent of the 2nd Amendment and oppose
any appeasement on gun rights. The moderators include Chris Behanna,
Weldon Clark (an NRA director) and Steve Cicero.
- ---



- -

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:27:19 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shameless request for campaign help--Sandy City Council Race.

Hello All,

As you may know, I'm running for an at-large council seat in Sandy.  I've
got a pretty tight budget, but have got some flyers to pass out and am
hoping to get at least some moderate coverage before my primary in two
weeks and am looking for anyone willing and able to pass out some flyers
in Sandy.  This is probably most easy for residents of Sandy as they
could simply cover their neighborhoods, but if any non Sandy residents
want to help out, I'll certainly take whatever help they can offer.

If you are able and willing to help please contact me here or via phone
(523-3817 evenings or leave a message) with how many flyers you can place
and where you live.  I'll make arrangements to get the flyers to you this
week.  If you have friends or family in Sandy who are not likely to get
this email, please pass my contact info along to them.

Thank you.

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

________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use --
Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web!
Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 99 13:26:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Strong Odor from NRA

Provided by "Chris BeHanna" <[e-mail]>

The following is by former NRA director:
David M. Gross             September 21, 1999
8323 W. Franklin Ave.
St. Louis Park, MN 55426-1914
612-545-1091 phone
612-546-5314 fax
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

There was a strong rumor going around the Sept. 17-19 GRPC in St. Louis,
this weekend. The long-maintained separation between NRA and the firearms
industry is about to be dissolved by the hiring of NRA's public relations
and lobbying firm, Mercury Group, by the new governmental affairs unit of
the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- which includes most of
the major arms manufacturers and distributors. I am concerned about this
for reasons of substance and appearance.

An ABC Television crew videotaped much of the conference and interviewed
many of the speakers and audience. ABC Television is supposedly preparing
an hour-long "special" on NRA that will *reveal* the long-claimed (by
gun-grabbers) and long-denied (by NRA) linkage between NRA and the gun
makers. Why the creation of such a linkage would be undertaken, now,
is difficult to understand, if not totally beyond comprehension.

Industry representatives at the conference either avoided questions
about the new relationship or pleaded ignorance. However, several,
including Lt. Gen. James Chambers, USAF (ret.), Executive Director of
SAAMI, mentioned in their speeches that they were in the process of
hiring or retaining a "Washington" lobbying firm for greatly expanded
representation on Capitol Hill. General Chambers stated, unequivocally,
that the Industry would not behave like Big Tobacco and settle and
compromise; rather, Industry was going to fight. That great news
is certainly greatly tempered by the fact that they may be creating
additional problems that will detract from the effort. For almost 5
years before this, SAAMI had been represented by James J. Baker,
former and current Executive Director of NRA-ILA. Another "linkage?"
Surely, Jim Baker understands the problem presented here.

Mercury Group, which has described itself as a "wholly owned subsidiary"
of Ackerman & McQueen, NRA's advertising and public relations firm for
20 years, was formed about three years ago from the same key people who
had been representing NRA under the Ack-Mac banner. Rumors, at the time,
were that Ack-Mac was either required, or chose, to spin off the NRA
account (as part of "spin control?") when they began handling public
relations for the Dallas Cowboys and set up a large operation near the
team's home stadium in Irving.

Tony Makris, President of the subsidiary, has long served as the
political consultant for actor Charlton Heston, brought him to NRA as
a spokesman, then engineered Heston's election to the NRA Board of
Directors and -- two days later -- as first Vice President of NRA, and
then to President. The effort to "mainstream" NRA (Many say "sell it
down the river;" you decide; you've seen what has happened.) came out
of Mercury Group. If NSSF fights the way NRA is fighting under Makris'
direction, our problems will be only just beginning. Even the pro-gun
Republicans have complained about NRA's "going soft."

For NSSF to hire NRA's public relations firm is incredibly stupid.
Both gun makers and consumers will lose politically by being overtly
joined at the hip with each other.

You see, while industry opposes most gun laws, as does NRA, they're
not always the same laws. If a gun bill will benefit industry's bottom
line, even if it reduces its customers' freedom, industry supports it.
This happened in 1968 and later with GCA '68. The law of unintended
consequences (short-sightedness) strikes, again, causing damage to
both Industry and to gun owners' freedoms.

In 1968, the leading gun manufacturers came out in support of the Dodd
Bill, the Gun Control Act of 1968, while gun owners, even much more than
NRA, and despite protestations to the contrary (*words*, not actions)
were doing their best to protect the Second Amendment. The gun industry
thought it would benefit by eliminating much foreign competition and by
"cleaning up their distribution chain" by the law's prohibition on
interstate sales to private citizens.

In the middle 1970's the big handgun manufacturers developed a
"Saturday Night Special" bill, and Colt Firearms convinced the
Ford White House to support it in the belief that it would reduce
competition from their smaller competitors. That bill was changed
slightly and reintroduced by Rep. John Conyers.

In the late 1980's, when the "assault rifle" was first being condemned,
gun maker Bill Ruger, often hailed as "a great defender of the Second
Amendment," tried to convince Congress to limit magazines to 15 rounds.
That just happened to be the maximum capacity of the Ruger pistols, and
less than the 17 and 19-round capacity of the foreign-made Glock, which
was so popular with police. Until Bill Ruger's efforts, even Sen.
Metzenbaum hadn't thought of such a limit and had proposed to limit
magazine capacity to 20 rounds.

Clearly dual representation by Mercury Group is a huge conflict of
interest. When a gun bill is about to become law, and gun rights are
in conflict with commercial interests, how can Mercury Group serve
both clients? Or will one get sold down the river? The gun makers, and
particularly dealers who belong to NSSF, hate gun shows. What would
Mercury Group do with a gun show bill that dealers and distributors
love and NRA members hate?

The NRA Board of Directors will be meeting this weekend at the
Key Bridge Marriot in Rosslyn, VA [phone]. Hopefully, those
directors will convince their P.R. firm that they must CHOOSE
whether they want to represent the gun industry, or continue to
represent the NRA. They must not be allowed to represent both.

Should you get to talk to any directors you know, point out that it
is not only politically stupid, but also a huge conflict of interest:
*your* interests, *your* rights, *your* freedom.



- -

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 99 13:38:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun 'n' Ballots

From the Wall St. Journal:

September 24, 1999
Review & Outlook

Guns N' Ballots

High at the top of media orthodoxy is the idea that opposition to gun
control is a loser at the ballot box, especially in wake of high-profile
killings like Columbine. But a special House election in California should
help pop this liberal balloon.

The race was between Marta Macias Brown and State Senator Joe Baca. Both
sought the Democratic nomination for the seat held by Mrs. Brown's husband,
liberal icon Rep. George Brown, until he died in July. Though Mr. Baca was
well known, Ms. Brown had going for her the longest winning streak in
American politics: 35 out of the last 36 widows who've run to succeed their
husbands in office have won. She also brought her own qualifications to the
job, having worked as a close aide to her late husband for a decade.

It soon became clear, moreover, that the two candidates agreed on almost
every issue except one: gun control. But Mrs. Brown's constant mailers
attacking Mr. Baca as "the radical gun lobby's favorite Democrat" quickly
transformed her into a media darling. According to her campaign manager,
Bobi Johnson, the "No. 1" point in her platform was "reducing gun violence."
Though Mr. Baca muted his staunch support for gun rights slightly, and
sensibly voted to ban unaccompanied minors from gun shows, the National
Rifle Association stood by him.

National reporters touted the race as a leading indicator of how the gun
issue would affect the 2000 election. "After Columbine, the political
dynamics of the gun control issue have shifted," claimed the Washington
Post's Juan Williams. The liberal PAC Emily's List chimed in with $250,000
in donations and a poll showing Mrs. Brown beating Mr. Baca by 32% to 15% if
voters were aware of how the candidates stood on gun control. With history,
sympathy and cash on her side, Mrs. Brown not only outspent Mr. Baca but
secured the endorsement of two newspapers. Even the White House helped by
taking the unusual step of asking Mr. Baca to stop using a standard-issue
photograph of him posing with President Clinton in his literature.

As it turned out, the anti-gun frenzy was all for naught. Even though the
Tuesday election came within a week of the senseless shooting of churchgoers
in Fort Worth and a day after voters received a Brown brochure with
photographs of assault rifles and a school crossing sign shot up with
bullets, Mr. Baca prevailed. He will face Republican Elia Pirozzi in a
November runoff.

But you won't see many headlines about Mr. Baca's victory, because it goes
against the liberal belief that gun control is a winning issue. And the
media buys into the myth because polls consistently provide incomplete data.

In 1994, for example, just before the stunning GOP takeover of Congress,
polls found 89% of Americans backing the Brady Bill's five-day waiting
period for gun sales. But a closer reading found that only 33% thought the
Brady Bill would reduce gun-related crimes. The point is that gun owners are
highly motivated voters, and when given the chance to make them, their
arguments are often persuasive. They cite studies such as those which have
found that states with concealed-carry laws show greater decreases in crime,
which helps explain why 31 states have passed them in the teeth of liberal
opposition.

Now, we are not Second Amendment absolutists, and a policy debate on how to
increase gun safety and better lock up criminals who use guns is appropriate.
Such a debate would find, for example, that gun buyback programs don't work,
because people mostly turn in junk, and registration of all firearms is
little better, because criminals typically arm themselves through theft.

It's probably too much to expect that the failure of Mrs. Brown's hysterical
anti-gun campaign will be taken into account by the media types intoning
about the 2000 campaign. But we take some confidence in a public which time
and again has demonstrated at the polls that it well understands the
difference between reasonable restrictions and political hype.

URL for this Article:
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=3DSB938126666353769802.djm

Copyright 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Printing, distribution, and use of this material is governed by your
Subscription Agreement and copyright laws.

For information about subscribing, go to http://wsj.com/


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #159
***********************************