ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n163

Internet Message Format | 1999-10-21 | 45KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #163
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Friday, October 22 1999     Volume 02 : Number 163




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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 99 18:30:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: A principal and his gun 1/2

A principal and his gun
by Wayne Laugesen

[This article was originally published in the Boulder Weekly, and is posted
at the Independence Institute website by permission.]
http://i2i.org/suptdocs/opedarcv/1999/principal&gunl.htm

Vice Principal Joel Myrick held his Colt .45 point blank to the high school
boy's head. Last week, he told me what it was like. "I said 'why are you
shooting my kids?' He said it was because nobody liked him and everything
seemed hopeless," Myrick said. "Then I asked him his name. He said 'you know
me, Mr. Myrick. Remember? I gave you a discount on your pizza delivery last
week."

The shooter was Luke Woodham. On that day in 1997, Woodham slit his mother's
throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets
of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl,
Miss.

The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door,
removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case,
loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in
the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who
has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no
play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading.
He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan,
authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High
School and shoot more kids before police could show up.

But Myrick foiled that plan. He saw the killer fleeing the campus and
positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun
pointed at his head, crashed the car. Myrick approached the killer and
confronted him. "Here was this monster killing kids in my school, and the
minute I put a gun to his head he was a kid again," Myrick said.

True humanitarian

I've been intrigued by Myrick ever since that day. Most have never heard his
name, because the mainstream press barely reported how the massacre was
stopped. I've become more interested in Myrick's story with every subsequent
mass murder. If only someone like Myrick had been at Columbine, I've
pondered.

A few months ago, Soldier of Fortune Publisher Bob Brown asked me if I had
any suggestions as to who should receive his magazine's Humanitarian Award
of 1999. In the wake of Columbine, the answer seemed clear: Joel Myrick.
Brown talked it over with his staff, gave it some thought and went with my
choice. Brown and I will present Myrick with his award Friday in Las Vegas,
at the annual Soldier of Fortune Convention and Expo.

Myrick and his gun, no matter how one looks at it, saved lives. His actions
saved the lives of waiting victims at a nearby junior high. He may have kept
Woodham from shooting police, who would have arrived at the scene
disoriented, without Myrick's home turf frame of reference. Arguably, Myrick
and his gun even saved the life of the killer, who likely would have killed
himself or been shot by SWAT cops after spilling more blood.

Although Myrick saved lives, beyond question, some treat him as a leper.
After the shootings, and the relatively peaceful ending to something that
could have made Columbine pale in comparison, Myrick was in exile. He'd held
a gun to a student's head, and his colleagues simply couldn't accept that.

"Nobody wanted to dog me, but nobody wanted to side with me, either," Myrick
says. "I felt like I was being betrayed by everybody."

And that was Mississippi. This summer he studied at Harvard, where he'd been
awarded a prestigious education fellowship. That's when uppity intolerance
and mass stupidity took on new meaning for Myrick. "Once people found out my
story, I got a lot of dirty looks and strange stares," Myrick said. "A few
people confronted me."

Myrick shouldn't feel bad. Only goofy losers gave Myrick funny looks, and
such people never learn. Myrick's gun, and his ability and willingness to
use it, saved lives plain and simple. Yet somehow, in the minds of the
anti-intellectual gun control crowd, he's a bad man who did an immoral deed.

By any sane, rational view, Myrick is a life-saving humanitarian. Even in my
view, however, his heroic act will be marred by an asterisk in the annals of
history. Despite the presence of this brave man, two students still died.
Therefore, the footnote of far off history books will read something like this:
*The late 20th Century was an era of crude polemics, in which some people
believed hardware items, such as handguns, caused mass murders. Therefore,
ineffective laws that reflected this view made it illegal for this legendary
hero to have his gun on campus. The gun was in a truck, giving the killer
valuable time as Myrick ran to retrieve it. In modern society, of course,
responsible adults have better access to hardware than killers do.

Arguing with a moron

Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away
from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law
precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The
modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was
enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the
federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding.

In Pearl, federal, state and local laws helped Luke Woodham shoot nine
students. The deer rifle had to be reloaded after every shot. To hit nine
students, Woodham needed time. The moments it took Myrick to reach his gun
are what allowed Woodham to continue shooting and almost escape. Gun laws,
and nothing else, gave Woodham that time.

But talking to gun control advocates is like talking to five year-olds. Tell
a five-year-old it's time for bed, and he'll say "No." Ask why not, and
he'll say "because." Likewise, I've told a few gun control advocates about
Myrick-telling them how he would have saved more kids had it not been for
gun laws-and they've said "guns kill." Or, "we have too many guns." Or,
"Woodham killed his victims with a gun."

At which point I say, "Woodham violated several gun laws by having his gun
on campus. The law did nothing to deter him, but plenty to deter the man who
set out to stop the killings." To which a gun controller replied: "But guns
kill."

Sucked in and trapped by this bizarre logic, I attempted to address it. I
said: "But Joel Myrick's gun didn't kill. Rather, it allowed children,
including the deranged killer, to live."

"Yeah, but all of these school shootings are done by guns," he told me.

So I pounded my head against a wall. Politics and sociology are complex. But
if any socio-political issue should be a simple, exact science, it's gun
control. All honest modern studies show that gun control, in this culture,
benefits criminals while leaving law-abiding victims defenseless.

In his book More Guns Less Crime, Yale law professor John Lott ran the
numbers every which way possible. He set out to write a book about guns
being bad, and found that every gun law ever enacted in this country has
resulted in more violent crime. I saw him on TV recently, debating a gun
control advocate. Lott cited numbers and anecdotes. His opponent, in
essence, said "but guns kill."
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


- -

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

Date: Fri, 15 Oct 99 21:59:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: anti-gun alert

Gun Control Moving Again on Capitol Hill
 -- Gun shows still on the chopping block

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

"House Republican leaders will press ahead with new gun restrictions
despite a lack of cooperation from Democrats and resistance by
Republican conservatives."
- -- The Washington Times, 10/13/99

(Wednesday, October 13, 1999) -- The battle lines are being drawn in the
House and Senate, as negotiators soon plan to produce a "compromise" gun
control bill.

The new restrictions will be included as part of a much larger juvenile
crime bill that was passed in each house earlier this year (S. 254 and
H.R. 1501). The chief Republican negotiators, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah
and Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, are hoping to bring up the anti-gun
bill for a House-Senate conference vote as early as today. The bill
would then move to the House and Senate floors.

According to press reports and legislative aides, the provisions in the
bill will limit the freedoms of decent Americans and will include, but
not be limited to, the following controls:

* A likely end to gun shows. The Senate version of the crime bill
contained language allowing gun shows to be taxed without limits. And
under the Senate version and an amendment adopted by the House, gun
shows would be subject to draconian regulations and harassment-type
inspections with no practical limitations. These are tools an anti-gun
president could use to shut down gun shows nationwide.

* A ban on the importation of high-capacity magazines-- items which
are enormously useful for self-defense and some types of hunting.

* A "gun tax" resulting from a requirement that forces every handgun
buyer to also purchase a "lock-up your safety" device.

In the House, Republican Reps. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and John Doolittle
(R-CA) have led the opposition to the anti-gun provisions in the bill.
In the Senate, Bob Smith of New Hampshire has promised to filibuster any
"compromise" that contains one iota of gun control. Ironically, press
reports indicate that the obsessively anti-gun senator from New York,
Democrat Chuck Schumer, could join Smith in filibustering the bill. Many
Democrats -- Schumer included -- are likely to balk at any bill that
does not contain all of the gun control that passed the Senate in May.

ACTION: Make sure your Representative and Senators have heard your
opposition to the juvenile crime bill. They could be voting soon on
the final version that emerges from the conference committee. You can
call toll-free at 1-888-449-3511; or 202-225-3121. See the GOA website
for fax and e-mail contact information.

Will Congress Limit Your Ability To Get Gun-Related Information From
Groups Like GOA?

In other news, the Senate will soon be debating legislation that GOA
has been tracking very closely. Either late this week or early next
week, the Senate will vote on whether to shut down a filibuster of
the anti-gun "campaign finance" bill being pushed by anti-gun
senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ).

The House-passed version of that bill would outlaw GOA's legislative
alerts by treating them as campaign contributions and as expenditures
for or against the senators and congressmen whose votes are discussed.
Candidate ratings such as those that GOA puts out in election years
would also be effectively outlawed.

Although the Senate sponsors have tactically deleted the anti-freedom
provisions from the Senate bill, passage of that bill would result in
a conference with the anti-gun House version, thereby bringing them
back to life.

Please contact your two senators and ask them to vote against
shutting down the filibuster of the McCain legislation (S. 1593).

**************
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 a message to [e-mail]
and include the state in which you live, in the subject or the body.



- -

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

Date: Fri, 15 Oct 99 22:47:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Action Alert Vote To Come Next Week

- -----
To: [e-mail]
From: "Weldon Clark" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:17:33 -0400
Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Action Alert Vote To Come Next Week

From: "Weldon Clark" <[e-mail]>

Action Alert Vote To Come Next Week


Call your Congressman and Senators, and the offices of these so-called
Republican leaders, and complain. Defeat the Juvenile Justice Bill.
You can call your representatives at the following toll-free numbers
US Capitol Switchboard 800-456-1414 You can also call them using the
Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
Here is the URL for Congressional Telephone Directory:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/members/teledir/members/congdir.htm
Here's an e-mail link to Congress. http://in-search-of.org/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html
To spread the word call Rush Limbaugh at 800-282-2882 and
callers may call in from 12 noon to 3PM EST, M-F
MARYLAND RESIDENTS and all others who want to see how a
"peoples republic" state operates see http://www.2ndamendment.net
For legislative updates contact www.nealknox.com and go to
"Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line"


From Neal Knox -- Tell your Congressman and Senators "We do not
want any legislation." Either Juvenile Justice or Campaign Finance.

Excerpts from Tanya K. Metaksa's Article

THERE WILL BE A VOTE. It's now time to contact your senators and
your representative. They need to hear from every law-abiding gun
owner and every person who supports the Bill of Rights. It's not
just about trigger locks, magazine bans, or gun shows. It's about
the right to purchase, to own, to transport, or to use the gun of
your choice. If you fail to make that call, the Washington Post
will be ecstatic to influence the outcome.


Waco feed back Attorney needs information.
Keep up the good work in forwarding anything that might prove helpful.
Please put out in your newsletter and ask people to contact me who know
of any information relating to the military involvement at Waco, or
other information related to the initial attack on 28 Mar 93 or the
final assault on 19 Apr 93. Regards, [e-mail]


From Russ Howard

"House Republican leaders will press ahead with new gun restrictions
despite a lack of cooperation from Democrats and resistance by
Republican conservatives." -- The Washington Times, Oct 13, 1999

Oct 13, 1999 - Negotiators soon plan to produce "compromise" gun
control. New restrictions will be part of a much larger juvenile crime
bill passed in each house earlier this year. Republicans Hatch & Hyde
hope to bring up the anti-gun bill for conference vote as early as
today, including the following controls:

* A likely end to gun shows. ...allows gun shows to be taxed without
limits ... draconian regulations & harassment inspections with no
practical limitations.
* The bill contains provisions to follow private sales at gun shows.
This produces record that can be used against you in the future. It is
a registration of sale of a firearm. Registration is the one thing that
makes confiscation possible. The only reason the anti gun politicians
can steal the guns is that they have a record of firearms ownership.
GET BETWEEN THESE RECORDS AND YOUR GOVERNMENTS ANY WAY YOU CAN.
* A ban on importing high-capacity magazines...
* A "gun tax" that forces every handgun buyer to buy a "lock-up your
safety" device. Republicans DeLay & Doolittle have led House opposition
to the anti-gun provisions. Senator Bob Smith has promised to filibuster
any "compromise" that contains one iota of gun control.

Let your legislators hear your opposition to the juvenile crime bill.
See beginning of this post

Late this week or early next, the Senate will vote on a filibuster
of the anti-gun "campaign finance" bill. The House version outlaws
legislative alerts by treating them as contributions for or against
politicians whose votes are discussed. Candidate ratings would also
be outlawed. Sponsors have deleted anti-freedom provisions from the
Senate bill, but passage would result in a conference with the House
bill, bringing both back to life. Ask your senators to vote against
shutting down the filibuster of S1593 [McCain].


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.

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, 17 Oct 99 11:33:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: DN Fascist alert

Two articles in today's DN concern victim disarmament in Utah.
Both are by Bob Bernick, Jr., and seem to favor victim disarmament
and politicians pushing it such as Gov. Mike Leavitt. One is
specifically about Gov. Leavitt and the other is entitled
"Residents of S.L. favor tighter gun control". The latter includes
two sidebars; Dan Jones gun polls and a list of fascist (with the
exception of Rep. Matt Throckmorton, R-Springville, who's drafting
a bill that would limit gun manufacturers' liability) legislators
who are drafting gun-related bills for the 2000 legislative session.

Read a printed copy or log on to http://www.desnews.com

Scott Bergeson



- -

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

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 99 17:04:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: How to Sell Gun Rights

How to Sell Gun Rights

By Harry Browne

From time to time the press reports a tragic event in which a child is killed
in a gun accident. It provides an opportunity for politicians and reformers
to speechify about the need to pass stricter gun laws -- laws that will
require safety locks on guns, laws that will force gun owners to keep all
guns in locked storage, even laws to make it harder for someone to buy a gun.

But why does the press bother to report the tragic gun accident?

Because it is an extraordinary event. Like an earthquake big enough to
cause fatalities, the rarity of a gun accidentally killing a child makes
it newsworthy. It's the legendary "Man Bites Dog!" story.

But thousands of children are killed in _car_ accidents _every year_. Why
don't you see reports of those auto accidents on the TV News? Because they
are too commonplace to be news -- events no more unusual than "Dog Bites Man."

The death of any child or adult is a tragedy. Life is the most precious gift
a human being possesses. But if the death of a child from a gun accident
justifies taking away freedoms from people, why doesn't the death of a child
from an auto accident justify laws that would keep children away from cars?

Rights & Freedoms

The answer stems from a simple truth: Few people care about the rights and
freedom of others. Most of us care only about the rights and freedoms that
affect our own lives.

Almost every adult drives a car and accepts the risks that go with driving
an automobile. To forcibly keep children away from cars would inconvenience
most families so much that the idea could gain the support of almost no one
- -- except perhaps the Vice-President of the United States.

But only about half of American families own guns. The other half includes
people who, for one reason or another, see no need to own a gun -- in some
cases because they are afraid of guns. Those people can easily believe that
reducing gun ownership will save lives without inconveniencing them in any
way.

Politicians are particularly prone to this attitude. Most of them work in
buildings with heavy security; many of them have armed chauffeurs and armed
guards; and if they want to go into a dangerous area of a city, they can
requisition an armed escort. So they don't feel imposed upon when
restrictive gun laws prevent average citizens from defending themselves.

Also, politicians respect the political influence wielded by many gun-control
advocates. Some of those advocates run America's biggest newspapers, or are
pundits on the Washington Sunday-morning talk shows, or are wealthy Hollywood
celebrities. Why shouldn't politicians pander to these gun-controllers who
can do so much to help their careers -- especially when the politicians feel
no need to own guns themselves?

Appealing to Non-Gun-Owners

We may never change the minds of the politicians or the gun-control advocates.
So our efforts should be directed toward the rest of the people who don't own
guns.

And the first point to keep in mind is this: _You will get nowhere by
proclaiming your right to keep and bear arms_. Very few people care about
rights they don't plan to exercise themselves.

To them, it doesn't matter that the Founding Fathers meant the 2nd amendment
to provide unqualified gun ownership for citizens, and it doesn't matter
that the right to be armed against a potential tyranny may be the most
important right of all.

You might be able to win debates asserting such arguments, but _you won't
win converts_. And what's the point of winning debates if you don't convert
anyone, and if winning a debate simply encourages your opponents to look for
new ways to defeat you?

I know of only one way to bring non-gun-owners over to our side: by showing
them that widespread gun ownership makes them safer than they would be among
a disarmed populace.

Here are some examples of points that can help you persuade them . . .

* If you're ever in a restaurant and a maniac starts shooting people at random,
I hope someone in that restaurant will have a gun that can stop the assailant.

* I doubt that I would take advantage myself of a law allowing people to
carry concealed weapons, but I feel safer in a community where anyone I see
_might_ be carrying a concealed gun -- so that any criminal has to wonder
whether _I_ have a gun.

* Although you hear about unusual accidents in which guns have killed children,
or cases where a maniac has fired on a bunch of children, you don't hear of
the thousands of commonplace events in which a home containing children was
defended from an intruder by a gun owner -- or even defended by a child with
a gun. Nor do you hear about the criminals who were deterred from entering
a neighborhood where they didn't know which houses might contain guns.
Your home is safer if some of your neighbors happen to have guns.

* Criminals rarely buy guns in gun stores or at gun shows, because they
don't want guns traced back to them. They buy their guns in the underworld
or simply steal them. So they are rarely affected by gun-control laws. The
number of criminals nabbed by such laws is microscopic compared to the
number of innocent citizens who were prevented by waiting periods from
buying guns when threatened by a stalker, a violent ex-spouse, or a crazy
person. Like most laws, gun control hurts the innocent far more than the
guilty. And since the criminals will have guns no matter what, the more the
innocent are deprived of owning guns, the less safe _you_ are.

* Women especially need access to guns to protect them from stronger men who
might assault them in parking lots, on city streets, or in their own homes.
To prevent them from carrying guns is to deny them the only way to resist
an attacker.

* The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you.
They can pursue him only _after_ he has hurt or killed you. Protecting
yourself from harm is _your_ responsibility, and you are far less likely to
be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens --
even if you don't own a gun yourself.

* It is unrealistic to say such things as "But no one needs an assault rifle."
How can we know that? If you were a store owner during the Los Angeles riots
and a mob was about to enter your store to destroy your life savings, which
would you have wanted in your hand -- a knife, a 6-bullet revolver, or an
assault rifle? Giving politicians the power to decide what you need and
don't need is to force you to live your life according to _their_ needs
and circumstances -- making you vulnerable to any whim that strikes the
politicians during a period of temporary hysteria.

Understand that none of these points is likely to convert someone overnight.
But your prospect will actually listen to you when you discuss these things,
because you're talking about matters that affect his life directly. And as
he considers more and more of these matters, he is likely to become less
adamantly opposed to gun ownership, then grow even more open-minded, and
eventually become your ally.

That's how so many people have come to want an end to the Drug War -- a step
at a time -- and not out of concern for someone else's right to take drugs,
but to make one's own life safer.

The ability to keep and bear arms is one of the most important rights you
can have. So it's essential that you be as persuasive as possible when you
get the chance to talk to someone about it. Don't waste the opportunity by
preaching about _your_ right to do what _you_ want.

Instead, agree with the person's concern for safety -- so he knows you want
a more peaceful society, not a more violent one. Then you can help him
understand how much safer he'll be in a society of armed citizens, rather
than living in one where only criminals and government employees have guns.

Harry Browne was the 1996 Libertarian presidential candidate.


- -

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

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 99 17:04:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Hyde-Hatch Gun Control Deal

Noon Oct. 12 Update -- Judiciary Chairmen Orrin Hatch and Henry Hyde have
worked out a deal on Juvenile Justice and plan to introduce it at a
conference committee meeting as early as tomorrow, according to Roll Call.

The plan supposedly calls for the conference to approve a compromise between
the Senate-passed Lautenberg three business days to conduct a background
check on gun show purchases, and the 24 hours that would be allowed by the
Dingell gun show background check approved by the House. The "compromise"
would be to allow no more than 24 hours for the check unless the buyer had
been arrested and the records didn't show the final disposition, in which
case up to three business days could be taken to determine the outcome of
the arrest. Attorney General Reno has claimed-but dealer organizations
dispute- that 95 percent of transfers are approved within two hours.

Well-placed sources on the Hill report that the article is essentially
correct-including resistance from Republican Whip Tom Delay, who told Roll
Call: "I could tell [Hyde] that it would be very difficult to pass the
House if he brings it back and the gun show provision goes any further than
Dingell," "This House is a pro-gun House," Rep. Delay added.

On the Senate side, one of the key players reportedly told Chairman Hatch:
"You and Henry may like this deal, but a lot of us sure don't." One of the
big questions is which side would move first- House or Senate.

The package reportedly contains the several other gun provisions that have
been approved by both houses-such as trigger locks, a magazine import ban,
and prohibiting possession of "assault weapons" by juveniles.
- ------------------

There a lot of provisions in both the House and Senate bills that neither
side wants. And it isn't just guns that are in conflict. The left wing
doesn't like the idea of getting tough on juvenile criminals, which is what
got all this started.

What would most please the Clintonoids is to see nothing happen and be able
to blame Republicans and guns for blocking the bill. Republicans want to
avoid that political campaign issue by making sure it's the Democrats who
kill the bill, as they already did when they killed the gun provisions in
the House.

Democrats killed it not only because they didn't consider it strong enough,
but because the Dingell gun show language demanded immediate destruction of
records on purchases by the law-abiding- which is what the NRA language in
the Brady Act requires, but is being ignored. -----------

The Washington Post is turning handsprings over Colt's announcement that it
is discontinuing most of its retail handgun line-which a Post article
referred to as its "cheaper models."

An editorial this morning pontificates that "it would be better if guns
could be tamed by more democratic means" than litigation, but "it is hard to
see how companies making lawful products can be held liable when those
products perform precisely as intended-even when the intent is death." The
intent of the overwhelming majority of handgun buyers is not to cause death,
but to preserve life.

And a Police Foundation study for the Justice Department and Florida State
Criminology Professor Gary Kleck have concluded that guns are used to save
lives and property three to five times as often as they are used in crime.
But the Washington Post has a mindset, as stated in this morning's
editorial: "America needs tougher gun laws; indeed, an outright ban on
handguns would be best."

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

The Los Angeles Times, which has called for a ban on all guns for years, and
which is beating the drums about horrors like Columbine and the Jewish Day
Care shootings, had a report this morning on two educators who went to 50
cities to talk to students about how to prevent kids from killing kids. From
every social and economic strata, the kids focussed on the same root
problem: poor parenting.

The kids, with a lot more common sense than the L.A. Times and most
educators, dismissed the notion that new gun control laws could have any
effect. The researchers found the kids didn't think government could do
anything more about availability of guns than availability of drugs. Out of
the mouths of babes.



- -

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 99 08:48:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: LPU: FW: .50 Cal. Poll

- -----
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:06:33 -0600
Subject: LPU: FW: .50 Cal. Poll
From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>

Now the long guns.  Go to:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/15/cnn.time/

Don't forget to vote in their "poll."  I know nothing is said when
the polls disagree with their agenda, but you can bet it will be on
the Front Cover if they ever get one their way.



- -

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

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:52:28 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: A *shocking* editorial...

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:21:22 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA07867; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:07:28 -0600
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27837;
    Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:14:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:14:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikey <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: A *shocking* editorial...
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


Nobanners--
=20
     The following editorial/letter was featured in October's issue of =
the=20
Florida Hunting Coalition's Florida Hunter magazine.

(The editor is Joe Ellis;   [e-mail] )
 =20
Thought you might find it interesting.

NOTE from Mike Baker:=20
Ellis sent me the following comment about some of the fallout following
the editorial.  I replied that I was reminded of the quote that goes
something like this--:  ...the quickest way to be branded as an anarchist-
maniac is to be overheard repeating what the founding fathers said...

>>>>>
A few days after it came out, a very prestigeous lady which had read =
her=20
son's copy of the magazine called me and left a message on my recorder,=20
saying, "Thanks a million.  I'm behind you 100%, and I'm joining the =
NRA=20
tomorrow morning."

     She agreed that the message we need to send Congress is that =
political=20
posturing, squabbling and negotiating be damned. Tyrannical laws and =
their=20
authors become meaningless when free men are pushed too far.
>>>>>


Fed Up!

     I think everyone has a boiling point.  Some people are just more=20
tolerant than others, but all of us are born with a survival instinct, =
an=20
instinct that arouses something deep inside that says, "Ok, you've pushed =
me=20
into a corner, so bring it on.  This is no longer a game.  This is =
serious=20
business.  You want some of me?   Come and get it!"
     "You want my guns?  Come and get 'em!  I've grown weary of the chase. =
=20
I'm tired of anti-gun politicians' threats.  And I'm damn mad that =
anyone=20
thinks they have the right to take away my guns, my constitutional rights =
and=20
my freedom.  You picked on the wrong Bubba this time!"
     Legislators need to know that if they want to take away someone's =
rights=20
so damn bad, then they better take 'em away from the criminals, because =
our=20
rights aren't up for negotiation.
     I learned a long time ago that the only way to stop a bully is to =
draw a=20
line in the sand.  It's about time we drew that line!

Senator Connie Mack:
Senator Bob Graham:
Representative Charles Canady:

Gentlemen:

     I'm writing you to let you know, that as a tax-payer, voter and=20
law-abiding American citizen, I am fed up with the constant attempt by =
many=20
politicians to strip the Second Amendment by blaming the legal and=20
responsible gun owners of this country with the misdeeds of lunatics =
and=20
criminals.
     I'm also quite weary of hearing those same politicians quote the =
results=20
of skewed polls that are designed and controlled by the anti-gun media.  =
If=20
we wanted Dan Rather and his cohorts to determine policy, then we could =
get=20
rid of Congress and save tax payers a lot of money.
     The fact of the matter is that there are literally thousands of =
state=20
and federal gun laws already on the books.  And not to burst the=20
anti-gunners' bubble, but you can bet that the perpetrators of murderous=20=

events don't lie awake at night agognizing over the thought of breaking =
one=20
of them.
     There is only one thing that criminals fear, and that's punishment.  =
But=20
because of the absence of punishment for misdeeds, criminals have made =
a=20
mockery of existing laws. =20
     Unfortunately, our present "leadership" in the White House has =
regularly=20
demonstrated they are more concerned with disarming honest citizens =
than=20
punishing criminals.  A dramatic drop in BATF criminal prosecution =
referrals=20
for firearm law violations under the Clinton-Gore Administration is=20
underscored by a recent analysis of law enforcement data done by=20
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. =
=20
The TRAC study shows that BATF cases sent to federal prosecutors =
plummeted=20
44% from 1992 to 1998, dropping from 9,885 to 5,510.
     Now, on the heels of the above study, President Clinton decided to=20
pardon 16 Puerto Rican terrorists.  Think about that one for a=20
moment...Unconcerned with prosecuting criminals, our political leaders =
are=20
letting terrorists out of jail and trying to take away our guns at the =
same=20
time.  That should scare the hell out of anyone that has even a trace of =
gray=20
matter between the ears.  And it should certainly make all of us ponder =
the=20
real agenda of the anti-gun crowd.
     With that said, I think there's something very important that all=20
legislators need to keep in mind when considering further laws that =
would=20
restrict the rights of lawful people; and that is - don't push good =
people=20
too far.  If you recall, there was a group of "good men" that also became =
fed=20
up with the abuses and tyranny of a self-righteous government.  Those =
same=20
men denounced that government, fought that government, formed their own=20
government and went on to become the forefathers of our country.  James=20
Madison once said, "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being =
armed=20
which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, =
where=20
the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
     You would do well to share the above quote with all of your colleagues=
,=20
especially those that want to register and restrict the arms of honest=20
citizens.  A government that doesn't trust the people is a dangerous=20
government, a dangerous bully.  And as history reveals, even good, honest =
men=20
can reach their limit.  Don't push it!=20

Sincerely,



Joe Ellis    =20
- -
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: Fri, 22 Oct 99 13:09:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: USSC E-mail Action Alert

- -----
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:34:34 -0600
Subject: FW: USSC E-mail Action Alert
From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>

An exceptionally long-woinded "alert" but important nonetheless. Even
though Orrin will, as usual, ignore his constituents, the others may not.

- ----------

House and Senate conference committee negotiators in the U.S. Congress are
working on a compromise gun control bill that could end gun shows as we know
them. The new restrictions on law abiding gun owners will be included as
part of the juvenile crime bill that was passed earlier this year in both
houses. This proposed legislation has been advertised as nothing more than
a call for instant background checks at gun shows.

Do not believe this.

Some of the proposed legislation would place such a huge regulatory burden
on legal gun shows that most promoters would probably go out of business.
This legislation follows Clinton and Gore's successful effort to put half
of the federally licensed gun dealers out of business during their
administration.

To understand how the gun banners hope to shut down gun shows consider some
of the proposed legislation. At a gun show a vendor will be defined as
anyone who sells a gun, whether or not they have a table or are known to the
gun show promoter. Gun show promoters will be required to fill out paper
work on and register all vendors with the federal government. If the gun
show promoter fails to do this he faces jail time. Now consider the
following. An individual buys a ticket to the gun show. While walking
through the show he offers to sell another show attendee a gun. After the
transaction is completed the seller discovers that the person to whom he
sold the gun to is an undercover BATF agent.

Under the proposed legislation the seller is considered to be a vendor and
since he did not do a background check on the buyer of his gun he is
arrested subject to jail time. The really unfair aspect of the proposed
legislation is that the gun show promoter will also face jail time since he
failed to register this vendor. Never mind the fact that the gun show
promoter had no way of knowing that this person was going to sell a gun at
the promoters show, the law still required him to register all vendors and a
vendor is considered a vendor even if the promoter was was unaware that that
person would be selling a gun. Since a gun show promoter cannot know which
attendees might possibly try and sell a gun during a show the only way he
can protect himself against criminal prosecution is to register every
attendee as a vendor.

The time required to have the thousands of people who attend a gun show on
any given weekend fill out all the paperwork and register with the federal
government as vendors would make it impossible for a promoter to run a show.
The only option a promoter has is to risk jail time or go out of business.
The Clinton-Gore administration is hoping it will be the latter.

Another way the anti-self defense and anti-hunting crowd hopes to drive gun
shows out of business is with the so called instant checks. Only the federal
government would consider background checks that take five days to be
instant checks. Under proposed legislation the Clinton run Justice
Department could take three business days to conduct a background check. If
you try and buy a gun at the show on Saturday they could delay your approval
to exercise your Second Amendment rights till Wednesday by which time the
gun show is long gone.

Proposed legislation would also ban the importation of magazines with a
capacity of more than 10 rounds. Despite all the media hype about banning
assault weapon magazines this legislation would actually ban the importation
of standard magazines for ordinary pistols like Glocks and Barrettas.

Getting mad about this legislation will do nothing. You need to contact your
U.S. Representative and Senators now. It is especially important to contact
Senator Hatch as he is one of the Republican negotiators. Contact both
Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett and your representative. Tell them that
you oppose any gun control in the juvenile justice bill. Tell them that you
do not want private individuals to be required to conduct background checks
when they sell a gun. Tell them you oppose restricting the importation of
magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Tell them that if the compromise bill
emerges from the conference committee with any gun control measures that you
want the whole bill voted down.

Senator Orrin Hatch: 801-524-4380 202-224-6331
[e-mail]

Senator Bob Bennett 801-524-5933 202-224-5444 [e-mail]

Representative Chris Cannon 801-379-2500 202-225-7751
[e-mail]

Representative Jim Hansen 801-625-5677 202-225-5857


Representative Merrill Cook 801-524-5994 202-225-5368

You can also reach your Senators and Representative toll free at 1-888-449-
3511

Please note that the Utah Shooting Sports Council usually deals with Utah
legislative issues. To stay up to date on federal issues we recommend you
check out the NRA's website at http://www.nra.org or the Gun Owners of
America at http://www.gunowners.org

The Utah Shooting Sports Council is trying to get as many people as possile
signed up for our free e-mail alert service. If this alert was forwarded to
you by someone other than USSC you can sign up for alerts by sending a request
to [e-mail]. Please forward this e-mail to as many people as
you can. You can check out our web sight at http://www.UtahShootingSports.org.
For those who do not have internet access we have a toll free hotline you
can call to receive the latest Utah legislative updates. The number is
801-299-7230. If you would like to be removed from our e-mail list send a
request to [e-mail] asking to be removed. If you would like
a membership application please send a request to [e-mail].


USSC E-mail Action Alerts

visit our web-site at: www.utahshootingsports.org/USSC

If you wish to be removed from the USSC E-Mail Action Alert list,
or your address has changed, send an e-mail to: [e-mail]



- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #163
***********************************