ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n167

Internet Message Format | 1999-11-17 | 47KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #167
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest    Thursday, November 18 1999    Volume 02 : Number 167




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

Date: Sun, 14 Nov 99 07:07:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: EZ "Extremist" Self-Identity Kit

- -----
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:14:33 -0800
From: Ed Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: EZ "Extremist" Self-Identity Kit

Excerpts from "Propagandizing the Police"
by William Norman Grigg

The New American" November 8, 1999

"John J. Nutter of the Ohio-based Conflict Analysis Group,
presents himself as an "expert" on "right-wing extremism".
He has taught seminars for law enforcement officers in
several states. Nutter describes "right-wing extremism" as a
"lightning rod for the mentally disturbed" and says that it
threatens "assassination, mass murder, and armed uprising."

Nutter lists as "danger signs" of potentially lethal
"extremism" such things as possession of "extremist literature"
(he specifically cites The New American), the display of
"firearms lapel pins, bumper stickers or window decals about
the New World Order, Clinton Communism, 'I fear the government
that fears my gun,'" and the like. Police are also advised to
be wary of citizens who display "excessive concern" over the
federal government's massacre of the Branch Davidians, the
murderous federal assault upon the Randy Weaver family in Idaho,
or similar abuses of power. Of particular concern, insists
Nutter, are "strong proponents of the Second Amendment" who
believe in the "right of individuals to possess 'arms'" and
are "fearful of any limitations on weaponry."

Nor is Nutter the only "expert" advising police officers
regarding such "danger signs." In his book Freedom in Chains,
scholar James Bovard reports: "At a 1997 American Society of
Criminology conference one professor argued that among signs of
'hate group ideology' were 'discussion of the Bill of Rights,
especially the Second Amendment or the Federalist Papers,'
'discussion of military oppression, in the U.S. or elsewhere,'
and 'discussion of the Framers of our Government.'" From that
academic "expert's" perspective, all one needs to do to qualify
as a potential "hate criminal" is to profess a love for our
Constitution.

Kay Stone and Jean Vallance of Alamogordo, New Mexico,
discovered that these expansive definitions are being taken
seriously by some law enforcement officers. As The New American
has previously reported Mrs. Stone and Mrs. Vallance, both of
whom are retired grandmothers, found themselves under scrutiny
by the New Mexico State Police after they had participated in
talk-radio discussions of the United Nations on a local call-in
program. The scrutiny of the two retired grandmothers followed
the publication of a report entitled The Extremist Right: An
Overview, which was compiled by the Criminal Intelligence
Section of the New Mexico Department of Public Safety (DPS).

That report, which was larded with citations from the familiar
pack of left-wing "watchdogs," described the "radical right" as
"a continuum from those who disagree with government but operate
within the law to those who work at nothing less than the
overthrow of government. These groups call themselves 'Patriots.'"
The roster of potential terrorists described in the DPS document
included Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and other practitioners of violence,
as well as "militant abortion foes [and] radical
anti-environmentalists," and others who espouse political
"conspiracy theories."

The anti-"extremist" dragnet cast by the DPS must have been
incredibly vast and tightly knit in order to snag two retired
grandmothers - one of whom, Mrs. Vallance, is married to an
employee at Holloman Air Force Base - as potential terrorists
on the basis of remarks made on a radio call-in program.

Alluding to this incident in New Mexico, Laird Wilcox noted,
"The real danger posed by these 'watchdog' groups is that their
intelligence is taken seriously by police officers, who don't
have the time or resources to examine that information carefully.
Being a policeman is a dangerous job, and when a policeman is
told by a supposedly authoritative source that a given individual
belongs to a potentially violent group, he has to take such
warnings seriously." As a result, Wilcox continued, "routine
traffic stops can become 'incidents' that are good for neither
the police nor the average citizen. Let's say that a guy gets
stopped for speeding and when his name is run through the computer
he's been red-flagged as a 'dangerous' person on the basis of
information fed to the police by some left-wing radical posing as
a 'watchdog.' So instead of merely asking the driver for his
license and other information, the officer now approaches the car
in a defensive posture, ready to draw his gun - not because of
anything the driver did, but because he somehow ended up on a
list compiled by some self-appointed left-wing 'watchdog' group."

"The problem described by Wilcox becomes even graver when it is
understood that in the near future, police and federal authorities
may be using "watchdog"-compiled lists to decide who is, and who
is not, entitled to enjoy the protections offered by the Bill of Rights."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/11-08-99/vo15no23_police.htm


- -

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

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 99 14:30:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun Registration & Confiscation Defied 1/4

- -----
To: [e-mail]
From: "Weldon Clark" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun Registration & Confiscation Defied
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 05:49:03 -0500

Gun Registration & Confiscation Defied

Why I WILL NOT Obey California's Gun Registration Edict
By Brian Puckett Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 5:51 PM
(Sent directly to the California Governor)

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SITUATION

The Democrat-controlled government of California has recently issued
two edicts, one that bans ownership of SKS rifles with detachable
magazines and requires their surrender to the state, and one that
bans buying, selling, or lending of so-called "assault weapons" and
that requires present owners of such arms to register them. The edicts
take effect January 1, 2000. For all those who have in the past stated
that, "When the state starts confiscating guns, then I'll know it's
time to fight back," that time in California will be January 1, 2000.

Many people oppose registration because it precedes confiscation.
Indeed it does, as those who were foolish enough to register their
SKSs are now discovering. However, that is a practical reason to
oppose registration, not a legal reason. And while avoiding
confiscation is tangentially a moral reason to oppose registration,
neither is it a legal reason. Refusing to obey a law because of what
might happen or what has happened in other cases will not stand up
in court. But there is a reason not to register or turn in any
firearm that is practical, moral, and legal.

TWO QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

As regards the Second Amendment, determining the constitutionality
of the California edicts mentioned above forces the examination of
two basic questions. One, which arms are protected by the Second
Amendment? And two, is registration an "infringement" of the Second
Amendment's right to keep and bear arms? Fortunately, answering these
questions is not a difficult or mysterious task. But they should be
answered thoroughly.

WHAT IS THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

The Bill of Rights is not separate from the Constitution but is an
integral part of it, as are all the other amendments. However, the
Bill of Rights is special in that, like sections of the Declaration
of Independence, it contains many of the core philosophical
underpinnings of our government (especially Amendments 1, 2, 9, and
10). Therefore, it is easily the most important part of the U.S.
Constitution. The rest of the Constitution, along with most of the
remaining Amendments, deals primarily with the mechanics of putting
this philosophy into effect in the form of a republic.

In the original document that we call the Bill of Rights, the Bill's
ten enumerated items are listed as "articles". Those familiar with
the history of the Constitution are aware that these articles were
not afterthoughts, but were crucial elements whose written inclusion
in the Constitution was insisted upon before certain states would
agree to ratification of the preceding text. Because of this, a
powerful case can be made that none of these first ten articles may
be modified or revoked, because that would alter the fundamental
philosophy underlying the Constitution and would violate the
original agreement among the states.

THE PURPOSE AND MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The laws of the pre-U.S. colonies and the writings of the Founders
clearly reveal that they, like all civilized humans, embraced the
personal, common-law right of self-defense and property defense.
The Founders' writings, such as the Federalist Papers, also clearly
reveal their belief that self-defense includes defending oneself
against a government gone bad. In fact the evidence shows that this
latter item is a primary reason they included the Second Amendment
in the Bill of Rights, and the reason for the Second Amendment's
reference to the militia; the "army of citizens" (as opposed to
the regular army).

The Second Amendment specifies the right of the people to keep and
bear arms. If the people are to keep and bear them this must include,
at the very minimum, personal arms, that is, arms that a single
individual may carry and employ. For hundreds of years prior to the
writing of the Constitution, the Western world's most advanced and
cherished personal arm had been the firearm. Furthermore, the firearm
is the sole arm continually singled out in the Founders' writings.
Owning firearms was a right exercised in North America long before
the existence of the United States.

TO MEAN ANYTHING, RIGHTS MUST INCLUDE ASSOCIATED NECESSITIES

For any given right, it is meaningless to affirm that right if
the tools or necessities of effecting that right are prohibited.
Consider our Bill of Rights:

It is meaningless to affirm the First Amendment's right to free
exercise of religion if people are prohibited from owning Bibles,
Korans, or Torahs.

It is meaningless to affirm the First Amendment's "freedom of
the press" if people are prohibited from owning printing presses
(or today's electronic methods of mass communication).

It is meaningless to affirm the Third Amendment's right to refuse
to lodge a soldier in one's home, or the Fourth Amendment's right
to be secure in one's home, if people are prohibited from owning
their own home.

It is meaningless to affirm the Sixth Amendment's right to defense
counsel if people are prohibited from using their own or public
money to pay for an attorney's services.

And it is beyond meaningless; it is absolutely absurd; to affirm the
Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms if people are prohibited
from owning arms. Applying the above-mentioned general principle of
rights to the Second Amendment, it would be correct to state that
it is meaningless to affirm the right to self-defense if people are
prohibited from owning the tools or necessities of self-defense.

For example, consider elderly people, women, the physically handicapped,
small-statured men, or anyone who is not a master of unarmed combat
being faced with a large, or muscular, or armed assailant, or multiple
assailants. It happens every day in this country. It is absurd, illogical,
illegal, and inhumane to uphold their right to self-defense while
prohibiting them from owning the most portable, easy to use, proven,
and inexpensive of instantly effective self-defense tools: guns.

WHICH ARMS ARE PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Along with "the people", the Second Amendment specifically mentions
the militia, consisting of armed citizens not enlisted in any regular
military corps: the "citizen army". The militia's purpose is, as its
name implies, a military one. The militia was, and still may be, pitted
against other military forces. That was true in pre-U.S. North America,
it was true during the Revolutionary War, and it is true today.

If the militia may be pitted against regular soldiers, whether of a
foreign invader or of a tyrannical domestic government, then it follows
automatically that at a minimum the citizens comprising the militia must
possess personal arms (as opposed to large or crew-served arms like
cannon) equal to those of the opposing soldiers. Equal personal arms
means, of course, those that include all design features, capabilities,
and ergonomics that make a military firearm suitable for modern battle.
If this is not the case then there is no point in having a militia, as
it will not pose an effective fighting force. For example, the extreme
inadequacy of bolt action rifles in combat against semiautomatic arms
is well known. But the Founders' firm insistence upon having an
effective militia is absolutely clear from their numerous writings
on the subject and from the existence of the Second Amendment itself.

That being so, military-pattern firearms are obviously protected
by the Second Amendment.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


- -

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

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 99 14:30:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun Registration & Confiscation Defied 2/4

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Therefore any restrictive legislation on military-pattern firearms,
or on military design elements of other firearms, is completely
contrary to the word and spirit of the Second Amendment and is
therefore flatly unconstitutional. [U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174
(1939) completely supports this.]

REGISTRATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH RIGHTS

Consider the situation if a state declared that it was perfectly
legal to own a Bible, or a copy of the Koran or the Talmud, but that
you had to register it in order to keep and use it. Now, what if you
did not register it; would you lose the right to own and read it? Of
course not. The very idea is absurd. Under the laws of this nation you
have the right to worship as you please. As we have seen, that right
automatically includes articles necessary or associated with the right,
such as books, crucifixes, stars of David, yarmulkes, and so forth.

In exactly the same way, if the state suddenly required registration
of printing presses, would the owner of a press lose his right to
own or use it by not filling out a registration form? Of course not.
The right would still exist. No piece of paper affects it.

In exactly the same way, one does not have to register one's vocal
cords, bullhorn, typewriter, pens, pencils, computers, movie cameras,
etc, to exercise the right of free speech (or stated in modern terms,
the right of uncensored communication). Under the Constitution, if a
state issued an edict demanding registration of such things that rule
would be invalid as law. Your right to use them would still exist,
completely unaffected.

In exactly the same way, prior registration of one's body, home,
address, papers, possessions, etc, is not necessary in order to enjoy
the Constitutional right to protection from unreasonable searches and
seizures of one's person, house, papers, and effects. These various
physical things are automatically included, automatically protected
by the right.

In exactly the same way, one does not have to register anything or
fill out any forms in order to have the Constitutional right to a
speedy public trial. It is automatic.

Now consider the situation if you do not register a gun. Is the
Second Amendment somehow instantly suspended? Did it vanish? Do
you somehow lose the right to keep and bear arms? Certainly not.

If you can lose a "right" by not filling out a piece of paper, then
it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government, which
is a different thing altogether. In the area of government, a privilege
is a special permission or immunity granted by a government, it is
generally related to the use of some public facility (such as driving
on the streets, or using the public library) and it may be suspended
or revoked even for minor infractions or misdemeanors.

In sum: Rights do not require government registration, certification,
or approval, and are not subject to any form of taxation. Otherwise
they are not rights, they are privileges granted at the discretion of
the government, controlled by the government, and revocable by the
government.

REGISTRATION IS MORE THAN AN INFRINGEMENT

The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary
to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is
registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be
called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or
communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a
question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment
concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press.
The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights,
which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

But to answer the above question: Yes. Registration is absolutely an
infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the
rights versus privileges issue makes registration far more than a mere
infringement.

Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information
that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to
confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure,
fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession
of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment's
intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow
the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen's
firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen's ability to
defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions
or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the
law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction
for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent
of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have
committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent
errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment
is to place this same citizenry's right to keep and bear arms (and
therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government's grasp.

RIGHT VERSUS PRIVILEGE. Critically relevant to all our rights, is
that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted
privilege by imposing prior requirements; such as registration;
before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of
that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

Therefore the state's demand to comply with the requirements of such
an edict, no matter how physically easy compliance is, imposes not
some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes the enormous
moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying the
existence of the right.

It does not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one's
nose five times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a
particular gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement.
Compliance would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second
Amendment, and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would
encompass an implicit acceptance of the right as a mere privilege,
which is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Second
Amendment.

APPLYING THESE CONCEPTS TO CALIFORNIA'S EDICT

The argument against registration of, and restrictions on,
military-style firearms may be approached by two logical paths
that reach the same conclusions:

1. If the supreme law of the nation protects a personal right to keep
and bear arms (which it does) then the failure to comply with a state
mandate to fill out some registration form cannot revoke this, or any
other, right. If the right to keep and bear arms cannot be revoked (and
it cannot be), then the right to keep and bear militia arms, which are
the very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders' writings and in
the Second Amendment itself, cannot be revoked. If the right to keep
and bear militia arms cannot be revoked (and it cannot be) then we may
own and use any military-pattern individually portable firearm, all of
which are practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is),
then any restrictive legislation based on militarily useful design
elements of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional.

2. If the supreme law of the nation protects the personal right to keep
and bear arms (which it does), then the right to keep and bear militia
arms, which are the very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders'
writings and in the Second Amendment itself, certainly exists. If that
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


- -

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

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 99 14:30:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun Registration & Confiscation Defied 3/4

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
is the case (and it is), then we may own and use any military-pattern
individually portable firearm, because all are practical militia arms.
If that is the case (and it is), any restrictive legislation based on
the militarily useful design elements of such firearms is flatly
unconstitutional. If that is the case (and it is), then the failure
to comply with a state mandate to fill out some registration form
cannot revoke this right.

Again, the same situation prevails with all the personal rights in
the Bill of Rights. That is, no state mandate requiring registration,
either of oneself or of things directly associated with a right, can
be a prerequisite or condition of exercising a right, nor can it
affect that right in any way. If it does, then the right has been
unconstitutionally declared a state-controlled privilege.

SUMMARY

As we see from the above, no American can be legally compelled to
register any militarily useful individual arm. That includes pistols,
revolvers, carbines, semi-autos, military-style guns, hunting guns,
self-defense guns, pump guns, lever guns, bolt guns, black powder
guns, scoped guns, .50 caliber guns, .338 caliber guns, .30 caliber
guns, .223 caliber guns, etc. All have been used, or are being used,
as individual military arms, and therefore are implicitly referred
to by the Second Amendment's militia clause.

Moreover, no American can be legally compelled to register any firearm
of common design or function because the Second Amendment does not
protect only guns that are useful in military affairs; it protects all
guns. The militia reference is clearly meant as one important reason
for protecting the right which follows: the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment says simply "arms", which
imposes no quantity or design limits. It says "bear", which in its
narrowest sense would still include all firearms capable of being
carried and used by one person.

Therefore, under the supreme law of the land, the right to own one or
several of any type of individually portable firearm exists permanently,
inherently, automatically, without prior approval or conditions.

RELATED ISSUES

1. The single debatable exception to the above would be fully
automatic firearms having reasonable restrictions, but not an
outright ban, placed upon them. Being a highly specific, highly
moot case, this subject will not and need not be, addressed here.

2. All indiscriminate weapons; those whose effects are difficult to
direct upon, or confine to, a discrete target (such as flamethrowers,
fragmentation bombs, chemical and biological weapons, mortars) etc.;
are arguably excludable from the protection of the Second Amendment
as posing an unreasonable danger to friend and foe alike.

But absolutely no individually portable firearm of common design or
function may be determined to pose such an unreasonable danger. This
is because a ban on such a firearm could "logically" be extended to
all other firearms of similar design and function (exactly what is
occurring with California's SKS edict now), which would completely
vitiate the Second Amendment. Thus, the 1994 Federal "assault weapon"
ban and magazine capacity limit are both completely unconstitutional.

3. The issue of a firearms seller determining the legal status of a
potential buyer is separable from the issue of registration, and need
not be dealt with here. Suffice it to say that the primary legal
principle involved is declaring it a crime to sell or give a firearm
to anyone who is legally, that is, legal in accordance with Constitution,
prohibited from owning a firearm. Registration need not be, and may not
Constitutionally be, part of any firearm sale or transfer.

REGISTRATION--YOUR DECISION AFFECTS ALL RIGHTS

If a military pattern firearm, the firearm most suited to the militia
mentioned in the Second Amendment, is not protected by the clear
wording of the Second Amendment, then there is no meaning to the
Second Amendment. If there is no meaning to the Second Amendment,
there is no reason to infer meaning in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

If converting the Second Amendment into a privilege by means of a
registration edict is not the maximum "infringement" of that right,
then nothing is.

If converting the Second Amendment into a privilege by means of an
edict is possible, then it is possible to do so for any other right.

Therefore, regarding the Second Amendment, refusing registration
affirms the right to own a militia firearm. It affirms the right to
keep and bear all personal arms. It affirms the validity of the rest
of the Bill of Rights. It affirms that attempting to convert the
Second Amendment into a privilege is the maximum infringement of
that right. It rejects a state's power to convert any right into
a privilege. And lastly it affirms the validity of the Constitution,
and the rule of law, not men.

DEMANDING OR COMPLYING WITH REGISTRATION IS BETRAYAL

Article VI of the Constitution designates the Constitution as the
supreme law of the United States, and specifically states that it
prevails over all state constitutions and statutes. Further, Article VI
requires all legislative, executive, and judicial officers of the U.S.
government and of the state governments to take an oath to obey the
Constitution. Some of these officials may hate firearms and the power
they give to the citizenry, but that is irrelevant. They must treat
the Second Amendment as they would the rest of our Bill of Rights.

All state officials; judges, representatives, and law enforcement
officials; know these facts, but many are corrupt and ignore them.
Their sworn word means nothing to them, nor does the Constitution,
nor do the rights of the constituents for whom they work unless it
suits their own political agenda. It is against this conscienceless
species of human that decent Americans must continually fight, in
California and in the rest of the United States.

If you believe you have the right to keep and bear proper militia arms
in order to defend yourself, your family, your home, and your country,
and if you believe this right is recognized in the Bill of Rights,
then you cannot register or turn in any firearm whatsoever. You may
rationalize it any way you wish, but if you register a firearm you are
implicitly agreeing with the proposition that your right to own that
firearm is nonexistent, and that such ownership is dependent upon
permission from the government. Registration equals betrayal of yourself,
your family, your ancestors, your birthright, your country, and your
Constitution. Period.

A PERSONAL POSITION

Every new illegal gun control edict issued, and every day that existing
illegal gun control edicts continue to be enforced, brings inexhorably
closer the time when firearms owners will train their guns on the
politicians, judges, and other officials who have misled the rest of
the public into giving up their sacred and ancient rights. A desire
to avoid this terrible tragedy motivates my own actions regarding the
Second Amendment and the rights it protects.

For nearly twenty years I have legally owned a militia rifle possessing
the characteristics of the socialists' so-called "assault weapon".
Now my right to own this arm, a right that has existed far longer
than the two centuries-plus that this nation has existed, is suddenly
being challenged by corrupt politicians. But I vehemently reject any
infringement of my rights. I will never register this or any other
firearm. Nor will I ever turn it in, nor will I ever alter any
characteristic or attachment to it. I will never again concern myself
with legislation about pistol grips, bayonet lugs, high-capacity
magazines, flash suppressors, threaded barrels, folding
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


- -

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

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 99 14:30:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun Registration & Confiscation Defied 4/4

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
stocks, pre-or post-ban manufacture, or any other irrelevant detail
of my firearms.

I will certainly not do as the NRA Members Councils suggest on their
internet site, which is to saw off the pistol grip of one's AR-style
rifle to make it "legal". Understand this: in America it is already
legal. I sometimes wonder whether the socialists will issue an edict
requiring all firearms to have a pink ribbon tied to the barrel,
just to get a belly laugh as the panicked descendants of once-proud
American patriots scurry to comply.

California's current governor, attorney general, and legislators who
voted for these edicts can undoubtedly find thugs as corrupt and anti-
American as themselves to send to my home. I vow not to physically
interfere with their illegal activities, because I wish to see this
matter in court. I hope that other men and women will join me in this
public declaration of civil disobedience, because it would be best to
have ten thousand civil disobedience cases in court, not just mine.
But I understand why, in this day and age of brutal, ethics-free
"public servants"; citizens are reluctant to make themselves a target
of the state. Fortunately, the citizens of California and other states
demanding registration can strike a powerful blow for humanity simply
by refusing to comply.

SEIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY

To those of you who whine, complain, and talk, talk, talk about your
loss of freedom: I say now is the time to do something. There are
few times in an average man's life when the occasion presents itself
to take part in history. Here and now is such a time. This refusal
to submit to tyranny is not simply about firearms. It is about human
rights, it is about the rule of law, and it is about the continuance
of this great nation. To what better use will you ever put your life
than to stand up for these things? Will you look back on this moment
and say, "I wish I had done something", or will you step forward and
seize this chance?

With the government having grown so powerful and corrupt, defying it
is frightening. It is especially frightening because many Americans
seem fairly content right now. But the feelings of the apathetic mass
are irrelevant. They have never figured in history, and never will.
The apathetic mass will go along with whatever system exists. It is
the freedom-loving individual who, although part of a much smaller
group, has guided every free nation toward the light.

Freedom is not maintained without taking risks and making sacrifices,
without fighting for it. This has always been true, throughout history.
If you are afraid to take a stand against this tyrannical government,
if you excuse yourself by saying you must "take care of my family
first", I say thank God there were men in the past who understood
the priority of freedom.

Look at your children. Is it more important that they have an
uninterrupted flow of plastic toys and the soft luxuries of modern
American life, or that they grow up as free men and women, with all
inherent rights and responsibilities? I say any man who does nothing
while even a single basic freedom he has enjoyed is stripped from
his offspring; a freedom secured by the blood of others; deserves
no offspring.

As I said, I will turn in no firearms, ever. I will register no
firearms, ever. My right to own and use firearms predates the
Constitution. It existed before the corrupt socialists in Washington
and Sacramento came to office, and it will exist forever afterward.
The Second Amendment simply recognizes this right. I do not know where
my civil disobedience will lead, but I am certain where the slavishness
and cowardice of compliance will lead. I refuse to take part in this
foul business of registration. I hope that you refuse also. If we
stand together we will set fires of freedom burning across America.

Mr. Puckett is a free-lance writer whose past work includes articles
on U.S. foreign, domestic, and military policy for the Houston Post.
His firearms and Second Amendment articles have appeared in the
magazines Handguns, Combat Handguns, Guns and Ammo, SWAT, Police, and
numerous other publications. He is the author of the essay "A Plan to
Restore the Second Amendment", appearing in an upcoming issue of
Handguns Magazine. He is a co-founder of the gun rights resource and
media action organizations GunTruths http://www.guntruths.com and
Citizens Of America http://www.citizensofamerica.org. Mr. Puckett
believes that much of the annual slaughter of Americans by criminals
can be blamed directly on those who advocate gun control, and that any
politician who advocates gun control neither trusts his constituents
nor cares about their lives or property. The above statement/essay is
an expression of his opinions alone. He may be contacted regarding
this article at [e-mail]. Put the word RESISTER in the
subject line.

The above essay, which includes the biographical note, may be
reproduced in any medium provided it is reproduced in full. A copy has
been sent via email and regular mail to the governor of California.
Feel free to forward it to all gun rights activists and lists.

****************************
FEDERAL LEVER
The Juvenile Justice Bill (Senate Bill S254) contains provisions to
track private sales at gun shows, producing records 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. Anti-gun politicians can only
steal guns if they have a record of firearms ownership. GET BETWEEN
THESE RECORDS AND YOUR GOVERNMENTS ANY WAY YOU CAN.

Call your Congressman and Senators, and the offices of these so-called
Republican leaders, and complain. Defeat the anti-gun provisions,
including the "registration" of sales, in the Juvenile Justice Bill.

You can call your two Senators at [phone] and your
Representative at [phone] at the Capitol Switchboard.
Here is the URL for Congressional Telephone Directory:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/106/mbrcmtee/members/teledir/members/cdframe.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
For legislative updates contact http://www.nealknox.com and go
to "Scripts from the Firearms COAlition Legislative Update Line"

- -Weldon Clark

****************************

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.

To join please send E-MAil to [e-mail] with the
following text in the message body:

subscribe 2nd-Amendment-News email@address

To send a message to the list administrator, send E-mail to
[e-mail]

Also, feel free to forward our alerts.

If you've received this as a forward and wish to subscribe
please send a reply to me at [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: Tue, 16 Nov 99 15:23:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Interim - Capital

- -----
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:54:11 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: [gopconservatives] Interim - Capital

For those not aware of it:

Judiciary Interim Committee is going to cover "Weapons Restrictions
Amendments".  First item on agenda.
Wed Nov 17, 2:00 PM Room 403 State Capital

AND

The Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee is going to
deliver the "Performance Audit Report - Asset Forfeiture Procedures"
and after that they will cover "Forfeiture Relating to Sexual Offenses
Against Children".  These are items 7&8 in the Meeting starting at
2:15 pm Room 416 State Capital.

eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gopconservatives/


- -

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

Date: Thu, 18 Nov 99 11:01:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Political Alert #33 - 17 November 1999

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! Political Alert #33 - 17 November 1999

Today's Voice of Liberty:

"It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones."
- -- Calvin Coolidge

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 [I would if they'd hold it under 8K - Scott] and unmodified,
and that GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original source of the
material, unless otherwise noted.

GOUtah! Only Utah-based Gun Rights Group Offering Testimony Opposing
Proposed Misdemeanor Gun Ban

GOUtah! was the only Utah-based gun rights group to offer both written and
oral testimony against a proposed gun ownership, possession and purchase
prohibition bill being considered before the Interim Judiciary Committee at
the Utah State Capitol on November 17th. While a representative of Utah's
'other' major gun rights organization was in attendance, he offered no
public comment whatsoever on the draconian anti-gun proposal.

Brian Judy, the NRA/ILA's Utah State Liaison also offered written testimony
against the bill, and requested that GOUtah! duplicate and distribute his
comments to committee members along with GOUtah's! testimony. GOUtah! also
provided KSL-TV with an on-camera interview and written materials to
several other print journalists.

The proposed bill creates a long laundry list of misdemeanor offenses, any
conviction for which an individual could be denied ownership, possession or
purchase of a firearm for a designated period of time. GOUtah! opposes any
loss or abridgment of any civil right, for any period, absent a
felony-level conviction.

The bill is sponsored by committee co-chair Sen. Terry Spencer, and passed
out of committee with a favorable recommendation.

Only one dissenting vote, supporting the GOUtah! and NRA/ILA positions,
came from committee member Rep. Chad Bennion (R-SL Co.) Phone (801)
281-1607, [phone].

Voting against the interests of Utah gun owners, and in favor of passing
the bill out of committee were:

Rep. Gary Cox (D-SL Co.) Phone [phone]
Rep. Lamont Tyler (R-SL Co.) Phone [phone]
Rep. Neal Hendrickson (D-SL Co.) Phone [phone]
Rep. Patricia Arent (D-SL Co.) Phone [phone]
Rep. Afton Bradshaw (R-SL Co.) Phone [phone]
Rep. LaWanna Shurtliff (D-Weber Co.) Phone [phone]
Sen. Pete Suazo (D-SL Co.) Phone [phone]
Sen. Lyle Hillyard (R-Cache Co.) Phone [phone]
Sen. David Steele (R-Davis Co.) Phone [phone]
Sen. Terry Spencer (R-Davis Co.) Phone [phone]

Most notable by their absence when the critical committee vote was taken were:

Rep. Dave Ure (R-Summit Co.) Phone [phone]
Rep. John Swallow (R-SL Co.) Phone [phone]
Rep. Greg Curtis (R-SL Co.) Phone [phone]
Rep. Bill Hickman (R-Washington Co.) Phone [phone]
Rep. Kathy Bryson (R-Utah Co.) Phone [phone]

GOUtah! suggests if you have concerns about this legislation, you contact
these elected leaders today and share your feelings about this proposal.
Always remember to be polite and to the point when communicating with your
elected officials.

GOUtah's! written committee testimony follows:

GOUtah! Public Policy Position Paper - 17 November 1999

Violent Misdemeanor Convictions, Plea Bargaining and the
Loss of Firearm Ownership, Purchase or Possession Rights

As a broad-based network of responsible and law abiding firearms owners in
Utah, we too share the concern of the general public and elected officials
about the effects of violent crime in our society. We are also concerned
about the potential loss of critical, individual constitutional rights
based on any misdemeanor conviction.

Our nation's long traditions of both Common and Constitutional laws have
drawn a clear and unambiguous line between misdemeanor-level and
felony-level behavior as the threshold for loss of any individual, civil
and constitutional rights. It is GOUtah's! clear and unambiguous position
that under no circumstances should a misdemeanor conviction be used as the
basis for the loss of any civil rights, either temporary or permanent,
including the right to own, purchase, posses or use a firearm for any
lawful purpose. Only upon a felony conviction should the loss of civil
rights, including firearms ownership, holding public office, or any other
right be abridged, limited or suspended.

If you, the elected leaders of our state, feel that the conviction in a
court of law of any specific type or level of juvenile or adult behavior
should qualify an individual for the loss of any civil right, including
firearms ownership or possession, on either a temporary or permanent basis,
then that activity should be unambiguously defined in statute as
felony-level criminal behavior and treated accordingly by the Utah criminal
justice system. If jaywalking, littering, or spitting on a public sidewalk
is a real and present threat to our society, make it a felony. Upon any
such a felony conviction, the individual in question forfeits the right to
own or possess any type of dangerous weapon, be it a firearm or any other
similar implement, along with many other rights and protections.

GOUtah! also believes that the practice of plea bargaining for any crime of
violence, felony or misdemeanor, regardless if any weapon is involved,
should be halted immediately. If the evidence exists to file charges and
prosecute on a felony-level crime, then do so, and let the accused have
their day in court. Justice on the 'cheap and dirty' is not real justice.
However, it does indeed 'cheapen and defile' our basic sense of justice and
the respect of every citizen for our legal system. Let's have real justice
for a change, rather than just playing 'let's make a deal.'

SNIP

GOUtah! Helps Utah CCW and Self-Defense Instructors
Create Information Network and Support Group.

GOUtah! is cooperating with CCW instructor Clark Aposhian to help create
the Utah Self-Defense Instructors Network to promote safe, professional and
accessible self-defense training for all Utah gun owners. GOUtah! will
offer all US-DIN members free subscriptions to the GOUtah! information
network and offers to function as the legislative and public policy
analysis arm of the new group.

A US-DIN mission statement has been drafted, along with a voluntary code of
professional standards for CCW instruction. An organizational meeting is
scheduled for 7:00PM on Tuesday, Nov. 23rd at Custom Arms, 4075 West 4715
South, Kearns, Utah, [phone].

Please contact Mr. Aposhian directly to get involved in this activity. Mr.
Aposhian can be reached at PO Box 71677, SLC, UT 84171, [phone], or
you can send e-mail to [e-mail] for more information.

This concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #33 - 17
November 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 #167
***********************************