ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n164

Internet Message Format | 1999-10-28 | 46KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #164
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Friday, October 29 1999     Volume 02 : Number 164




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

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 99 11:49:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: LPU: FW: Malcolm & Kates on Gun Control

- -----
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:50:06 -0600
Subject: FW: Malcolm & Kates on Gun Control
From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>

- ----------

Follow the link below to an article in the Oakland Tribune reporting on the
Independent Institute's recent Second Amendment forum.  Speakers included
prominent Second Amendment scholars Joyce Lee Malcolm and Don Kates.

Excerpt:

"[The constitution's framers] would be appalled that the people who call
themselves liberal today think the military and police should determine who
should be armed," Kates said.

Kates pointed out that World War II-era Germany disarmed its citizenry
using laws that were put in place after World War I, propelled by revulsion
of that bloody war's death toll.

"It wasn't the Nazis that put these laws in... It was the dupes who put
these laws in and then found themselves being screwed by them," he said.
Kates said gun-control advocates are unreasonable, shunning sensible checks
on firearm ownership in favor of outright bans that criminalize law-abiding
citizens.

http://www.independent.org/tii//news/990922OaklandTribune.html



- -

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 99 09:48:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Malcolm & Kates

http://www.independent.org/tii//news/990922OaklandTribune.html

From The Oakland Tribune
September 22, 1999

Speakers Defend "Rights" To Bear Arms
By Sharon Lerman

The case against gun control is not necessarily one pondered over pork
rinds and canned beer, a scholarly forum on the individual's right to
bear arms proved this week.

More than 100 people packed the nonprofit Independent Institute's
conference center on Tuesday to hear historian Joyce Lee Malcolm and
civil rights attorney Don B. Kates Jr.'s arguments in favor of armed
citizenry.

The meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, the right to
bear arms, is at the center of the gun debate. Those in favor of gun
legislation say it allows for state militias to fight federal tyranny,
while those against it insist the right is an individual one.

People have always believed in that right, (but) legal interpreters of
the 20th century have found a way to misinterpret it, Malcolm said.

Author of "To Keep and Bear Arms," Malcolm is currently researching
another historical analysis for a forthcoming book, this time by
examining the traditions of citizen's rights to arm themselves in
England. She shared some of her findings at the forum, saying England's
legal conditions were passed on to America through the colonies.

And since England disarmed its people through sweeping laws, violent
crime there has increased, with citizens more likely to be robbed and
burgled than their American counterparts, Malcolm said.

High-profile shootings of young people, such as those at Columbine High
School in Littleton, Colo., and a church in Fort Worth, Texas, are
followed by a "media drumbeat" to control firearms, Malcolm said.

But the blustery Kates pulled no punches in his assessment of the
current efforts, sometimes shocking the crowd.

"[The constitution's framers] would be appalled that the people who call
themselves liberal today think the military and police should determine
who should be armed," Kates said.

Kates pointed out that World War II-era Germany disarmed its citizenry
using laws that were put in place after World War I, propelled by
revulsion of that bloody warÆs death toll.

"It wasn't the Nazis that put these laws in... It was the dupes who put
these laws in and then found themselves being screwed by them," he said.

Kates said gun-control advocates are unreasonable, shunning sensible
checks on firearm ownership in favor of outright bans that criminalize
law-abiding citizens.

"We are blacks in Alabama and the year is 1890," Kates said. "We are
a discriminated-against class, excluded from justice and subjected to
injustice."


- -

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 99 09:48:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Malcolm & Kates

http://www.independent.org/tii//news/990922OaklandTribune.html

From The Oakland Tribune
September 22, 1999

Speakers Defend "Rights" To Bear Arms
By Sharon Lerman

The case against gun control is not necessarily one pondered over pork
rinds and canned beer, a scholarly forum on the individual's right to
bear arms proved this week.

More than 100 people packed the nonprofit Independent Institute's
conference center on Tuesday to hear historian Joyce Lee Malcolm and
civil rights attorney Don B. Kates Jr.'s arguments in favor of armed
citizenry.

The meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, the right to
bear arms, is at the center of the gun debate. Those in favor of gun
legislation say it allows for state militias to fight federal tyranny,
while those against it insist the right is an individual one.

People have always believed in that right, (but) legal interpreters of
the 20th century have found a way to misinterpret it, Malcolm said.

Author of "To Keep and Bear Arms," Malcolm is currently researching
another historical analysis for a forthcoming book, this time by
examining the traditions of citizen's rights to arm themselves in
England. She shared some of her findings at the forum, saying England's
legal conditions were passed on to America through the colonies.

And since England disarmed its people through sweeping laws, violent
crime there has increased, with citizens more likely to be robbed and
burgled than their American counterparts, Malcolm said.

High-profile shootings of young people, such as those at Columbine High
School in Littleton, Colo., and a church in Fort Worth, Texas, are
followed by a "media drumbeat" to control firearms, Malcolm said.

But the blustery Kates pulled no punches in his assessment of the
current efforts, sometimes shocking the crowd.

"[The constitution's framers] would be appalled that the people who call
themselves liberal today think the military and police should determine
who should be armed," Kates said.

Kates pointed out that World War II-era Germany disarmed its citizenry
using laws that were put in place after World War I, propelled by
revulsion of that bloody warÆs death toll.

"It wasn't the Nazis that put these laws in... It was the dupes who put
these laws in and then found themselves being screwed by them," he said.

Kates said gun-control advocates are unreasonable, shunning sensible
checks on firearm ownership in favor of outright bans that criminalize
law-abiding citizens.

"We are blacks in Alabama and the year is 1890," Kates said. "We are
a discriminated-against class, excluded from justice and subjected to
injustice."


- -

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:02:50 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Put This One On The Wall To Read, EVERDAY!

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 06:48:57 -0600
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06137;
    Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:46:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:45:31 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Put This One On The Wall To Read, EVERDAY!
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Divvy-no: 1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1"

- --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

=20

- --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-path: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Full-name: NJGunsRus
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:43:46 EDT
Subject: Put This One On The Wall For The Family To Read, EVERDAY!
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

 Pres. Candidate Alan Keyes on the 2nd Amendment (WorldNetDaily 8/14/98)
##########################################################
 The reason for the Second Amendment=20

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
Sen. Bob Smith has succeeded in amending an upcoming appropriations bill =
to=20
beat back the latest wave of Clinton administration disrespect for two =
key=20
elements of a free citizenry -- privacy and the right to keep and bear =
arms.=20
Smith's amendment to the Justice-State-Commerce appropriations bill =
would=20
foil FBI plans to keep records of private identifying information on=20
law-abiding citizens who buy guns. The amendment also forbids a proposed =
tax=20
on gun purchases, and authorizes citizens to sue if the FBI doesn't =
observe=20
these restrictions.

Senator Smith is to be praised for keeping his eye on some balls that =
might=20
have been lost in the smoke of scandal and misinformation that the =
Clinton=20
Administration seems endlessly to emit. Actually, few things could make =
the=20
need for vigorous defense of 2nd Amendment rights clearer than the =
ongoing=20
spectacle of Clinton contempt for the citizens he is supposed to serve. =
For=20
the 2nd Amendment is really in the Constitution to give men like Bill =
Clinton=20
something to think about when their ambition gets particularly over-inflate=
d.

The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders =
merely=20
to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' =
content.=20
This is not to say that hunting game for the family dinner, or defending=20=

against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms,=20
particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the real purpose =
of=20
the Amendment.

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train =
of=20
abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, =
we=20
will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the =
right=20
to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically=
=20
violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and =
overthrow=20
the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the=20
material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is =
very=20
hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be =
made,=20
therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and =
bear=20
arms.

In our time there have been many folks who don't like to be reminded of =
all=20
this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word =
"people"=20
in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn't mean in any one =
of=20
the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say that, for some =
odd=20
reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of putting in "states" they =
put=20
in "people." And so it refers to a right inherent in the state government.

This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of=20
legitimate historical evidence. At one point in Jefferson's letters, =
for=20
example, he is talking about the militia, and he writes, "militia -- =
every=20
able-bodied man in the state. ..." The militia was every able-bodied man =
in=20
the state. It had nothing to do with the state government. The words=20
"well-regulated" had to do with organizing that militia and drilling it =
in=20
the style of the 19th century, but "militia" itself referred to the=20
able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth -- not to the state=20
government.

It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear =
arms=20
to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based, =
as=20
stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, =
can=20
become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend =
ourselves=20
against its abuses.

But the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to =
our=20
capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part =
of=20
the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are=20
capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper reason that =
the=20
defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty.

Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for =
human=20
self-control, but this approach won't wash. It is the human moral will =
that=20
saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons. We =
should=20
reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause of violence.

Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should =
be=20
banned because "they have no purpose except to kill people." It is =
people=20
that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to do so, =
if=20
killing is in their hearts where love of justice should be. This week a=20
7-year old boy in Chicago apparently used a pair of underwear to commit=20
murder, because he wanted a bike.

So let's get down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we =
moral=20
children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control our =
will=20
even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the exercise of =
our=20
natural rights. If we are only children, then all the particularly =
dangerous=20
toys must be controlled by the government. But this "solution" implies =
that=20
we can trust government with a monopoly on guns, even though we cannot =
trust=20
ourselves with them. This is not a "solution" I trust.

Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it =
can=20
only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That's why I =
don't=20
understand those who say "save us from guns," even while they cling to =
the=20
coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth except what they=20
"choose" to assign to it.

If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of all=20
Americans with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all =
human=20
beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of moral=20
responsibility and self-restraint -- of assuming responsibility for =
governing=20
himself. This is the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and indeed of =
the=20
entire American project of ordered liberty.

It is the business of every citizen to preserve justice in his heart, and =
the=20
material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These things =
constitute=20
our character as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain. And =
to=20
fulfill our duty to be such a people we shall have to return to the =
humble=20
subjection to the authority of true moral principle that characterized =
our=20
Founders, and that characterized every generation of Americans, until now. =
We=20
must regain control of ourselves.

Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the =
assertion=20
that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral order that =
God=20
has decreed must govern our lives. And just as we have no right to shirk =
our=20
duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no right to shirk our duty =
to=20
preserve unto ourselves the material means to discipline our government, =
if=20
necessary, so that it remains a fit instrument for the self-government of =
a=20
free people. The preservation of 2nd Amendment rights, for the right =
reasons,=20
is a moral and public duty of every citizen.

The Clinton Administration's flirtations with executive tyranny should =
remind=20
us that we have a duty to remain capable of disciplining our government =
if=20
necessary. Bill Clinton's comprehensive avoidance of personal responsibilit=
y=20
for his own actions, and our revulsion at the kind of character which =
that=20
avoidance has produced in him, should be a kind of horrific preview of =
the=20
kind of people we will all become if we continue to let our government =
treat=20
us as though we were incapable of moral self-control. And Senator =
Smith's=20
successful effort to defeat several policies that treat us that way is=20
precisely the kind of principled defense of our liberty -- and of the=20
premises of our liberty -- that make him so worthy to be a representative =
of=20
a free people.=20


- --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1--

- -

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:02:50 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Put This One On The Wall To Read, EVERDAY!

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 06:48:57 -0600
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06137;
    Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:46:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:45:31 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Put This One On The Wall To Read, EVERDAY!
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Divvy-no: 1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1"

- --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

=20

- --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-path: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Full-name: NJGunsRus
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:43:46 EDT
Subject: Put This One On The Wall For The Family To Read, EVERDAY!
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

 Pres. Candidate Alan Keyes on the 2nd Amendment (WorldNetDaily 8/14/98)
##########################################################
 The reason for the Second Amendment=20

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
Sen. Bob Smith has succeeded in amending an upcoming appropriations bill =
to=20
beat back the latest wave of Clinton administration disrespect for two =
key=20
elements of a free citizenry -- privacy and the right to keep and bear =
arms.=20
Smith's amendment to the Justice-State-Commerce appropriations bill =
would=20
foil FBI plans to keep records of private identifying information on=20
law-abiding citizens who buy guns. The amendment also forbids a proposed =
tax=20
on gun purchases, and authorizes citizens to sue if the FBI doesn't =
observe=20
these restrictions.

Senator Smith is to be praised for keeping his eye on some balls that =
might=20
have been lost in the smoke of scandal and misinformation that the =
Clinton=20
Administration seems endlessly to emit. Actually, few things could make =
the=20
need for vigorous defense of 2nd Amendment rights clearer than the =
ongoing=20
spectacle of Clinton contempt for the citizens he is supposed to serve. =
For=20
the 2nd Amendment is really in the Constitution to give men like Bill =
Clinton=20
something to think about when their ambition gets particularly over-inflate=
d.

The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders =
merely=20
to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' =
content.=20
This is not to say that hunting game for the family dinner, or defending=20=

against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms,=20
particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the real purpose =
of=20
the Amendment.

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train =
of=20
abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, =
we=20
will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the =
right=20
to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically=
=20
violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and =
overthrow=20
the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the=20
material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is =
very=20
hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be =
made,=20
therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and =
bear=20
arms.

In our time there have been many folks who don't like to be reminded of =
all=20
this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word =
"people"=20
in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn't mean in any one =
of=20
the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say that, for some =
odd=20
reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of putting in "states" they =
put=20
in "people." And so it refers to a right inherent in the state government.

This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of=20
legitimate historical evidence. At one point in Jefferson's letters, =
for=20
example, he is talking about the militia, and he writes, "militia -- =
every=20
able-bodied man in the state. ..." The militia was every able-bodied man =
in=20
the state. It had nothing to do with the state government. The words=20
"well-regulated" had to do with organizing that militia and drilling it =
in=20
the style of the 19th century, but "militia" itself referred to the=20
able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth -- not to the state=20
government.

It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear =
arms=20
to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based, =
as=20
stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, =
can=20
become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend =
ourselves=20
against its abuses.

But the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to =
our=20
capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part =
of=20
the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are=20
capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper reason that =
the=20
defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty.

Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for =
human=20
self-control, but this approach won't wash. It is the human moral will =
that=20
saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons. We =
should=20
reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause of violence.

Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should =
be=20
banned because "they have no purpose except to kill people." It is =
people=20
that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to do so, =
if=20
killing is in their hearts where love of justice should be. This week a=20
7-year old boy in Chicago apparently used a pair of underwear to commit=20
murder, because he wanted a bike.

So let's get down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we =
moral=20
children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control our =
will=20
even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the exercise of =
our=20
natural rights. If we are only children, then all the particularly =
dangerous=20
toys must be controlled by the government. But this "solution" implies =
that=20
we can trust government with a monopoly on guns, even though we cannot =
trust=20
ourselves with them. This is not a "solution" I trust.

Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it =
can=20
only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That's why I =
don't=20
understand those who say "save us from guns," even while they cling to =
the=20
coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth except what they=20
"choose" to assign to it.

If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of all=20
Americans with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all =
human=20
beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of moral=20
responsibility and self-restraint -- of assuming responsibility for =
governing=20
himself. This is the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and indeed of =
the=20
entire American project of ordered liberty.

It is the business of every citizen to preserve justice in his heart, and =
the=20
material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These things =
constitute=20
our character as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain. And =
to=20
fulfill our duty to be such a people we shall have to return to the =
humble=20
subjection to the authority of true moral principle that characterized =
our=20
Founders, and that characterized every generation of Americans, until now. =
We=20
must regain control of ourselves.

Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the =
assertion=20
that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral order that =
God=20
has decreed must govern our lives. And just as we have no right to shirk =
our=20
duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no right to shirk our duty =
to=20
preserve unto ourselves the material means to discipline our government, =
if=20
necessary, so that it remains a fit instrument for the self-government of =
a=20
free people. The preservation of 2nd Amendment rights, for the right =
reasons,=20
is a moral and public duty of every citizen.

The Clinton Administration's flirtations with executive tyranny should =
remind=20
us that we have a duty to remain capable of disciplining our government =
if=20
necessary. Bill Clinton's comprehensive avoidance of personal responsibilit=
y=20
for his own actions, and our revulsion at the kind of character which =
that=20
avoidance has produced in him, should be a kind of horrific preview of =
the=20
kind of people we will all become if we continue to let our government =
treat=20
us as though we were incapable of moral self-control. And Senator =
Smith's=20
successful effort to defeat several policies that treat us that way is=20
precisely the kind of principled defense of our liberty -- and of the=20
premises of our liberty -- that make him so worthy to be a representative =
of=20
a free people.=20


- --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1--

- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 99 11:46:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Rocky and Stuart

How do the positions of Rocky Anderson and Stuart Reid on guns
compare? Is there any gun-related reason to prefer one over the
other for Mayor of Salt Lake City? Rocky said he would buy back
guns. What else do we know about these candidates?

Scott



- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:44:02 -0700
From: "Athay, Mark" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Rocky and Stuart

I used to live across the street from Stuart Reid.  I've known him ever
since he moved to Utah, and he's a very down to earth and likeable guy.
Like they said in the paper, quiet and private, at least until you get to
know him.

It's appropriate that he's been working in the planning and zoning area, as
when he was on the city council he was hassled by the zoning department when
he wanted to build a gazebo in his back yard.  They didn't know who he was,
and when he was complaining about the hassles and the difficulties, the lady
at the desk told him to go talk to his city councilman.  He responded back
with I AM the city councilman!"  A pretty humorous thing, and now they use
that example in their department training for all new hires.  He wants that
department to be more user-friendly, encouraging homeowners to work on their
property to improve it and raise its value.

Having served in the military I can't picture him as wanting to control
guns.  He's not a hunter now, but did hunt as a kid.   I don't think he owns
a gun, but he is practical about things in general.  He's not known to have
any extreme ideas, and had a good working relationship with the NAACP and
the ACLU when he was in Public Relations for the LDS Church.  They didn't
always agree, but they understood and respected each other.

If I lived in Salt Lake any more, I'd vote for Stuart for sure.  Rocky just
doesn't seem the trustworthy type to me.  He's too extreme and liberal for
my views.

Mark R. Athay  P.E.
NTO Suite 330
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]


- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 12:46 PM
Subject: Rocky and Stuart



How do the positions of Rocky Anderson and Stuart Reid on guns
compare? Is there any gun-related reason to prefer one over the
other for Mayor of Salt Lake City? Rocky said he would buy back
guns. What else do we know about these candidates?

Scott



- -



- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:05:17 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Another School Shooting !

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:02:59 -0600
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail],[e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Fwd: Another School Shooting !
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from lists1.best.com
    ([206.86.8.15])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:50:49 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
    by lists1.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.ls) id NAA21538;
    Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Neal Knox)
Subject: Another School Shooting !
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:57:43 -0400
BestServHost: lists.best.com
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

     Oct. 27 update - There's been another school shooting -- this
one in a middle school in totally gun-controlled totalitarian
China.

     A teacher and six students were wounded according to an
Associated Press story based on a report in the Beijing Youth Daily
and other newspapers.

     The perpetrator was a drunk school guard armed with an illegal
homemade hunting rifle belonging to a school official, who had
loaned the gun and ammunition to the shooter.

     With rare exceptions, no one but police and military are
allowed to have guns in China, and the exception guns are tightly
regulated, registered and licensed.
- -------------

     If President Clinton can't get a law he wants, he just signs
an Executive Order -- and there have been statements from his staff
that if Congress doesn't enact some of the laws he's been pushing,=20
including broader gun restrictions,  he intends to issue a series of
Executive Orders to implement them.

     Tomorrow the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commerce and
Administrative Law will hold a hearing on Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas)
H.R. 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. =20

     It would put a knot in Presidential power to sign often-abused=20
Executive Orders, which Clinton reportedly has used more than any
other President.

     Rep. Paul, who has been invited to testify, said "Presidents
must be able to direct their employees, but this power must be=20
closely confined by the laws which they  are constitutionally and
legislatively empowered to execute."
- --------------

     The New England Journal of Medicine, which supposedly has the
very highest standards on research quality, has published reams of
shoddy research in the firearms area.

     It also has extremely strict rules prohibiting conflicts of
interest, such as by prohibiting researchers of new drugs from
reporting on their own research if they have received any financial
support from drug companies.

     But according to an article in the Los Angele Times, almost a
fourth of recent articles on new drug therapies have been written
by researchers with strong financial ties to the companies which
make those drugs.  Of course, those drug companies also are heavy
advertisers.

     What the Journal refuses to recognize is that bias may be
triggered by political ideology just as much by financial conflicts
- -- which is why the editors usually refuse to run any criticism, much
less a detailed scholarly critique of the NEJM's anti-gun articles,=20
either by criminologists or firearms research experts such as Drs. Ed=20
Suter or Tim Wheeler.



    =20

- --
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the =
Firearms=20
Coalition Alerts list.  To unsubscribe send mail to=20

                     [e-mail]

with the word "unsubscribe" in the body.

Archives of these messages are stored at http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/.
Copyright (c) 1999 Neal Knox Associates.  All Rights Reserved.



- -

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

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 99 14:02:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #31 - 28 October 1999 1/2

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 http://www.slpsa.org/goutah!

GOUtah! Alert #31 - 28 October 1999

Today's Voice of Liberty:

"The war for freedom will never really be won, because the price of
freedom is constant vigilance over ourselves and over our government."
- -- Eleanor Roosevelt

If you wish to be added to the GOUtah! list, please log onto our website
at http://www.slpsa.org/goutah! or send an e-mail to [e-mail]
or send a fax to [phone] asking to be added to 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.

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

Received from Gun Owners of America.

"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 (or GOUTAH!) website for fax
and e-mail contact information.


How You Can Fight Back Against the UPS Handgun "Tax"
Received from Gun Owners of America

(Friday, October 15, 1999) -- By now, you have no doubt heard that UPS has
stopped shipping handguns through its cheaper "ground service." The decision
has sent shock waves through a gun industry that is already under fire from
many cities that have launched frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to put them
out of business.

"We're trying to protect ourselves from employees stealing and criminals
stealing," said a spokesman from the company. However, UPS is continuing
to ship long guns, rifles and shotguns by ground.

For years, UPS has handled up to 75% of guns sent from manufacturers to
distributors and nearly all firearms shipped from distributors to dealers,
says the executive director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition
Manufacturers' Institute.

The new decision by UPS certainly comes at a bad time, as the Christmas season
looms just around the corner. Removing the ground service alternative for
handguns will clearly raise the cost of those firearms and could amount to
a "tax" of something like $30 for each handgun. While there were some early
reports that a competitor such as RPS might fill the vacuum left by UPS, that
option did not materialize. In fact, RPS instead announced they will no
longer ship handguns by ground. Adding insult to injury, Airborne Express
joined the mayhem by announcing it will no longer ship any firearms-- period.

Speculation abounds as to the real motives behind the recent actions taken
by UPS, RPS and Airborne Express. Some contend there is a clear anti-gun
bias working here, and the intent is to increase the cost of handguns to
consumers. Others, especially those in the mail industry, contend that
they are subject to increased liability, and must somehow reduce the number
of workers who handle the firearms in transit.

While it is certainly possible that some truth exists on both sides, one
thing is for sure: anti-gun politicians have launched a campaign to
demonize anyone who touches a firearm-- specifically, anyone responsible
for making guns or delivering them to the dealers who sell them to the
public. As of this week, 28 cities and counties had unsheathed their
litigious swords against the firearms industry. Even if the manufacturers
and dealers win in court, simply financing their defense will greatly
increase their cost of doing business.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



- -

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

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 99 14:02:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #31 - 28 October 1999 2/2

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
And that's the point. It does not matter that these suits have been almost
universally unsuccessful. This month, judges in Cincinnati and Baltimore
became the most recent magistrates to throw out such frivolous cases.
Nevertheless, the other lawsuits continue, financed by public tax dollars.
And there's no guarantee that mail carriers will remain exempted from
future lawsuits.

Several states have passed legislation that in one form or another will
prevent or discourage cities from suing gun makers and sellers. But the
lawsuits continue anyway; and will eventually cripple the gun industry if
left unchecked. Thankfully, three Congressmen have introduced bills to
put a stop to this (see item #1 below).

HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1. Help save those who manufacture or deliver 2nd Amendment-type products.
It is imperative that you urge your Congressmen to act now. Ask your
Representative and Senators to cosponsor the bills listed below, as they
would stop these frivolous lawsuits that are merely designed to punish
law-abiding businesses. Call 202-225-3121 (see GOA website for fax and
e-mail info) to support:

* S. 954 by Sen. Bob Smith (I-NH), a bill which currently has 1 cosponsor;

* H.R. 1577 by Rep. John Hostettler(R-IN), a bill which currently has 20
cosponsors;

* H.R. 1032 by Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), a bill which currently has 89 cosponsors.

2. Contact UPS. The UPS decision is almost guaranteed to deliver handgun
buyers a new "tax." But as NRA Director Neal Knox put it on Wednesday:
"It's going to be mighty difficult to mount an effective boycott if all the
carriers are doing it." However, that doesn't mean we can't vent our
displeasure with their management. Please look at the contact information
below and direct your comments to one or more of the outlets provided.

By the way, you can offer them a positive suggestion as well. UPS has
attributed its theft problem to the smaller size of the handgun box that
can be easily secreted under an employee's clothing. Since UPS is still
shipping long guns at the cheaper price, why not ask them to simply change
the requirement for the minimum box size rather than commit highway robbery
against gun owners shipping handguns?

3. Consider alternatives. Writing for World Net Daily, Tanya Metaksa gives
an interesting alternative from Jason Young, account representative of The
Service Source. Young says that his company has negotiated "aggressive
shipping rates" and is willing to work with handgun shippers. Young can be
reached at 1-877-843-7687; [e-mail] is his e-mail
address. It is also worth noting that dealers can ship handguns to fellow
dealers through the US Postal Service using the ground service rate.

Contact Information for UPS*

UPS Corporate Headquarters
United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
55 Glenlake Parkway, NE
Atlanta, GA 30328
Customer Service: 1-800-833-0056
E-mail: [e-mail]

National Media Relations - Norman Black
Voice: 404-828-7593
Pager: 888-856-8816
E-mail: [e-mail]

Reputation Management - Peggy Gardner
Voice: 404-828-6051
E-mail: [e-mail]

Executive Communications - Steve Soltis
Voice: 404-828-4029
E-mail: [e-mail]

Public Affairs - Tad Segal
Voice: 202-675-3381
E-mail: [e-mail]

* Our thanks to Chris Stark of the Gun Owners Alliance for providing this
contact information for UPS.


GOUtah! Working to Help Establish Utah CCW Instructors Network.

GOUtah! and CCW instructor Clark Aposhian are working together to establish
a Utah CCW instructor network, to share information, improve the quality
and availability of CCW instruction, and advocate for the needs and interests
of Utah's CCW instructors and applicants. The network will seek to be an
inclusive rather than exclusive group, and will work toward maintaining the
current training requirements for CCW applicants, rather than increasing
requirements or creating additional requirements for a Utah CCW permit.

If you are a Utah CCW instructor and are interested in learning more about
this instructors network, contact GOUtah! at [e-mail] or fax
to [phone]. Please provide your name, mailing address, day and
evening phone numbers, fax numbers and email address, and indicate CCW
Instructor's Group in your request. Mr. Aposhian will be in touch with you
shortly to bring you into the organization.


GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) QuoteWatch.

"To say I can make school a safer place by having a gun is absolutely
repugnant to every teacher in this state.""-- Phyllis Sorensen, President,
Utah Education Association, the state's largest teacher's labor union,
supporting the anti-gun initiative petition of the UEA, PTA and others,
from the Salt Lake Tribune, 28 Sept. 1999.

"It's going to be interesting as they go out and talk to people outside
their own ilk. The issue is not guns, it's control. These individuals are
control freaks."-- Rob Bishop, Registered Lobbyist for the Utah Shooting
Sports Council, discussing the anti-gun initiative petition, as quoted in
the Salt Lake Tribune, 28 Sept. 1999.

"If a criminal breaks into a school, how are we going to protect the
children?"-- Janalee Tobias, founder of Women Against Gun Control,
discussing the anti-gun initiative petition, as quoted in the Salt Lake
Tribune, 28 Sept. 1999.

If you have a gun rights quote you'd like to share, please send it, along
with a verifiable original source reference to GOUtah!

This concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #31 - 28 October
1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending
your firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless
unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash,
your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash
with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal!

Copyright 1999 by GOUtah! All rights reserved.



- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #164
***********************************