ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n178

Internet Message Format | 2000-02-12 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #178
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Sunday, February 13 2000     Volume 02 : Number 178




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

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 15:04:35 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: ALERT! HB 383, SB 72, & Mental Health

Mental illness shenanigans and firearms! Alert below!

HB 383- revocation of concealed firearm permits - by Melvin Brown

Let your reps know that this bill is still not acceptable in its present
form. This bill once again opens the door to abuse in the form of "I
state that he is prone to violence because he got angry and threatened
to harm someone once and the police was called and so therefore we cannot
trust him..." Anyway you get the picture.

Unless someone is convicted by a jury of his peers of having done something
unlawful HE IS INNOCENT!!! and so his rights may not be taken away from him.

HB 72 S2 - Public safety amendments - by Terry Spencer (who else could it be?)

With this bill again if you have ever been given a label by the mental
health system kiss your rights goodbye.

Let's not forget that in Texas the legislature had to go back and allow
numerous records to young people to be expunged. There had been so much
abuse committed by the mental health field there that many young people
who wanted to join the army could not. Their record showed their "mental
illness" yet hearings had been conducted that showed that the majority
of those committed against their will and labeled were just fine (their
parents had carried good insurance). So my point simply is this: a
psychiatric label is too easily given and many innocent people will have
their rights taken away from them and this bill will perpetrate this abuse.

What you can do:

Write, e.mail and or call your legislators and tell them not to be a party
to this shameful travesty under the guise of protecting the citizens.

Also call the sponsors of these bills and give them a piece of your
mind . . . politely, of course.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 16:58:18 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: URGENT - HB 95 HEARING Thursday Feb 10, 4:00 PM

URGENT ACTION ALERT - Februry 9, 2000 -
HB 95 HEARING Thursday Feb 10, 4:00 PM
Daily update on status of every gun bill is available at
http://www.UtahShootingSports.org

HB 95 Hearing is scheduled for Thursday 10 Feb 4:00 PM in room 225 of the
Capitol.

Please plan to attend this important hearing on Rep. Dave Jones' Gun show
background check scheme. This is simply a step forward on the anti-gun
agenda of eventually requiring registration of all guns and gun owners
and further intrusion into private matters.

It is especially important to be POLITE when communicating with lawmakers.
Rude or threatening calls or letters are never appropriate, and only hurt
our cause. Good behavior is expected at hearings, so dress appropriately,
and remember that unlike Jazz games applause and booing are not tolerated.
Everyone needs to make a special effort to keep track of the legislators
who support our positions. Let them know that you appreciate their votes,
and support them at election time.

If the proponents were serious about disarming violent criminals they
would be enforcing existing laws, not complaining that they don't work
and proposing more laws are needed.

Legislators have heard about local polls supporting gun restrictions
based on tainted questions. They might be interested in a national
poll by the highly respected Zogby group which showed 61.6% support
for better enforcement and only 34.7% feeling more gun laws are needed.
Full text is available at
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000207/zo/guns_1.html

Please plan to attend this hearing if possible. And please contact
committee members and politely but firmly insist that they OPPOSE HB
95. Check our prior Alerts in your E-mail, or on the USSC Website alert
archives for more arguments against this bill.

(R) Bud Bowman, Chairman [e-mail] 435-586-8174
(R) Jack A. Seitz, Vice Chairman [e-mail] 435-789-0650
(R) Loraine Pace [e-mail] 435-753-6154
(R) Blake D. Chard, [e-mail] 801-773-7474
(R) Carl Saunders, [e-mail] 801-476-1110
(R) Nora Stephens, [e-mail] 801-825-3792
(R) Susan Koehn, [e-mail] 801-296-1761
(R) David L. Hogue, [e-mail] 801-254-1668
(D) Perry L. Buckner, [e-mail] 801-964-8215
(D) Duane Bourdeaux, [e-mail] 801-596-8784
(D) Trisha Beck, [e-mail] 801-572-2325.
You can send a FAX to any house member at 801-538-1908


FUTURE BATTLES:

We have heard reports that a bunch of gun bills may be scheduled for
hearings at the same time by different committees next week,
perhaps Thursday. We will keep you informed. It may or may not be
necessary to have massive turnout at some or all of those.

Today marks the halfway point of this session. So far we have escaped
any serious infringements, and have two positive bills moving forward:
(HB 199- frivolous lawsuit protection for manufacturers and sellers
of guns and ammunition; and HB 91 up to $150 income tax credit for
purchase of residential security containers- including gun safes.) Some
previously shaky legislators look like they might support us now. A
lot of mischief can occur in the remaining days, so be prepared to take
action on short notice. We will keep you informed of what is going on.

Watch for information on local meetings with your legislators, and
sessions explaining how you can be a delegate to party conventions
and help select good candidates.

If this alert was forwarded to you by someone other than USSC you can sign
up for alerts by sending an E-mail to
[e-mail]

Please forward this e-mail to anyone you think may be interested. For
anyone who does not have Internet access, the latest Utah legislative
updates are available by telephone. The number is 801-299-7230.

Visit our web-site at: http://www.UtahShootingSports.org for the latest
news and membership applications.

To be removed from the USSC E-Mail Action Alert list, send an e-mail to:
[e-mail]

Thanks for your time.
Provided by the Utah Shooting Sports Council, Box 1975, Layton, UT
84041-6975

- -

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

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:58:11 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: COA in danger of shutdown

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:03:53 -0700
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09438;
    Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:02:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:04:05 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Doug Spittler)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: COA in danger of shutdown
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Divvy-no: 1

>Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 11:33:06 -0800
>From: Brian Puckett <[e-mail]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: Brian Puckett <[e-mail]>
>Subject: COA in danger of shutdown
>
>Citizens Of Americaùa unique organization performing an essential
>function in the war to retain our firearms rightsùis in danger of having
>to shut down operations.
>
>Q: Why should you care if COA is forced to cease operations?
>
>A: Because the work Citizens Of America (COA) has accomplished is in
>jeopardy of vanishing. And COAùor its duplicateùis CRUCIAL to the
>gun-rights war.
>
>Q: Why is COA crucial?
>
>A: Because other gun rights organizations communicate almost exclusively
>with their membership. COA is running a national pro-gun, pro-gun rights
>public media campaign.
>
>Because COA says what needs to be said, and doesnÆt fear media
>attacksùCOA is prepared to use such attacks to benefit gun owners.
>
>Because COA reaches out to ALL Americansùregardless of age, race,
>religion, or sex. And until ALL Americans grasp what is happening and
>change their minds about firearms, weÆre going to continue to lose our
>rights, piece by piece.
>
>Q:  What are COAÆs tactics?
>
>A:  COAÆs primary tactic is to use the mass communications media to
>convince ALL Americansùby touching their HEARTS  and MINDSùthat
>
>-- more guns in the hands of citizens means less crime
>-- anti-gunners are anti-self-defense
>-- anti-gunners are usually brazen hypocrites
>-- anti-gunners are harming you personally and America in general.
>
>Q:  What has COA accomplished?
>
>A:  In just over FOUR months, COA has produced and disseminated across
>the countryùFREE OF CHARGEù13 pro-gun rights radio ads. Are the ads
>good? Good enough that people are:
>
>--   paying out of their own pockets to run our ads in their locale
>--   placing the adsùor links to COAùon their own pro-2A websites
>--   sending out COA updates and notices on their own email lists
>--   volunteering (via our new program) to be the collection points for
>pooling funds to run ads in their own cities
>--   volunteering not just money but time, skill, and services to help
>us
>-- notifying us that when our first print ads to appear they will pay to
>run them in newspapers and other publications.
>--   calling radio talk show and requesting that they interview us,
>which has resulted in COA officers giving 11 talk show interviews in the
>last three months (since Oct.) with more scheduled. Some interviews were
>on nationally syndicated shows (Steve WolfÆs Crime Talk, Tom GreshamÆs
>Gun Talk, Jeff RenseÆs Sightings, and Ron Engelmans Engelman Overnight)
>
>What else?
>Radio station managers are running COA ads free of charge as public
>service announcements. And COA has been the subject of a positive
>WorldNet Daily article by columnist Jon Dougherty.
>
>Q:  So why is COA having funding problems?
>A:  First, because COA started operations without extensive financial
>backing-- just a small grant of a few hundred dollars to build a
>website. And Second, because COA is still too new to have established a
>large donor base to support it. From the beginning, COA founders counted
>on public support to achieve its goals and to grow.
>
>In just four months COAÆs dedicated staff, its ultra-low overhead, and
>its careful spending ofdonations, along with grass-roots help from
>individuals all across America, have already enabled it to have a
>national reach and impact.
>
>But weÆve hit a financial wall, and we need your help to break through.
>In fact weÆre unable to maintain even a status quo regarding day-to-day
>operations. Without immediate help weÆll be forced to cease all planned
>projectsùand perhaps shut down completely.
>
>But with your support we can instantly proceed with our plans to reach
>ALL Americans with our pro-gun, pro-gun rights messages.
>
>PLEASE CONSIDER THIS:
>
>This email posting reaches several thousand people. If every recipient
>contributed just $20, COAÆs ultra lean operational budget for the coming
>year would be met.
>
>More than $20 if you can afford it would be appreciated, of course.
>
>You can contribute by credit card or e-gold on our website,
>http://www.citizensofamerica.org
>Or by check to Citizens Of America, 2118 Wilshire Blvd. #447, Santa
>Monica, CA  90403.
>
>To those who have contributedùTHANK YOU!
>
>
>--
>Brian Puckett
>President, Citizens Of America
>
>COA runs a national pro-firearm
>media campaign --and YOU can help!
>
>Visit http://www.citizensofamerica.org
>
>You may have received a version of this message from the 2ANewsTeam. If
>so, COA apologizes for the duplication.
>


- -
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, 11 Feb 2000 11:05:49 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Rep. John Swallow

FWIW John Swallow may be contacted at:

Home: 801-572-8201
Office: 801-553-9805
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

- --------- Forwarded message ----------

A plea for needed assistance from ex-Sen. Bill Barton
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---

We need some help with two bills sponsored by Rep. John Swallow:  HB 289,
Unfair Government Competition and HB 401, Tuition Tax Credits.

These bills have been sitting with no action and no text attached.  John
has
indicated over this time that he is about to start them going, but they
haven't moved.  Both are important bills and need to start progressing or
time will run out.

If you agree with this, please contact John and urge him to get them
going.
He undoubtedly is very busy, but he needs to know these bills are
important to Utah liberty and that we are depending him.


- -

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

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:06:51 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Why Guns?  by L. Neil Smith

I thought you might find the following essay interesting.  It is a couple
of years old, but I just ran across it again.  While you probably can't
quote the whole thing to your favorite legislator, it might help you
formulate responses when s/he says, after voting to further restrict your
ability to defend yourself, "I would hope you would look at my overall
voting record rather than basing your opinions/furture votes/etc on this
one single vote."


WHY GUNS?

- -- by L. Neil Smith --

From the "Webley Page" < http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/ >

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words,
every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and
gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought
about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker,
and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world
where there's never enough time and energy,
is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and
unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy
û is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of
guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists
on bringing it up. They hate it because
because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate
test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average
constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a
hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle,
shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing
one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing
that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking
home without asking anybody's
permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys
is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in
the name of John Moses Browning
should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you
want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend
- -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to
entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if
he calls you names only he thinks are evil û like "Constitutionalist" --
when you insist that he account for him
self, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and
doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me
to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most
unmistakable demonstration of what any given
politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't
have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of
John Moses Browning should you be
made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the
infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or
the military? Isn't it an essentially European
notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was
supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to
deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about
those other people, those dangerous
weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust
him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell
you about his real attitude toward women? If
"he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager
to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her
policies helped create? Should you
believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some
infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of
gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything
politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and
make excuses about repealing limits on
your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their
real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group
trade agreement after another with
other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue --
health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray
machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get
beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About
you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and
voter.

But it isn't true, is it?





L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of Bretta Martyn, The
Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando
Calrissian Adventures, and Pallas. He is also an NRA
Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus.


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

- -

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

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:38:17 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Model Leg. Letter

A couple quibbles should you adapt this to your own use:

1) I believe the Utah Constitution can only be amended by
referendum rather than by initiative.
2) Since the polistatists have redefined "use" in case law
to also include "keep", "bear", "carry", and "possess",
this must be specifically refuted.

Scott

- -----
Subject: LPU: FW: Model Leg. Letter
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:20:19 -0700
From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>
To: LPUtah Forum <[e-mail]>

Another excellent example of a rational, reasons pro-gun
rights letter to a legislator.

- ----------

Dear NAME:

Too often lawmakers seem to think they have to "do something,
even if it's wrong." The cold hard facts are:

1. Lawmakers are not magicians. Prohibitive or restrictive laws
only deter those who are not criminally inclined, and have little,
if any, effect on those who are.

2. Vermont has no concealed carry law and enjoys a very low crime
rate while the crime rate in other states seems to increase with
the increase of restrictive firearms laws. England and Australia
have experienced a catastrophic increase in crime since they banned
firearms ownership, and for a very clear reason: disarming honest
people makes them easy prey for criminals.

3. The right to self-protection is the most basic right of any
creature, even one who has suffered mental illness. (The people
who shot up the Triad Center and FHL were known to be violent.)

4. The Utah State Constitution is very clear on the subject:

Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] The individual right of the people
to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family,
others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful
purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent
the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

5. One of the statutory duties of the sheriff (17-22-1) is to
make all arrests and to "(f) command the aid of as many inhabitants
of his county as he considers necessary in the execution of these
duties." Also, 76-8-307 makes it a crime to fail or refuse to aid
a peace officer.

How can this be if the people are disarmed?

Those, such as Rep. Dave Jones, who claim that the majority of
the people want more restrictive gun laws, seem to forget that
the People of Utah, by initiative petition in November 1984,
passed that amendment (Prop.5) and it became law in January 1985.

The second clause concerning the "use" of arms is subordinate to the
"keep and bear" clause. The Legislature may prohibit brandishing,
threatening, or shooting road signs or property, etc., but is
prohibited from infringing the right of anyone to "keep and bear"
(possess and carry) arms. Therefore, all statutes, ordinances and
laws restricting that right became null and void on 1 January 1985.
It troubles me that so many public officials seem unable to comprehend that.

I realize this is your first term in the legislature, and you may
not be ready to take a heroic action like proposing repeal of a whole
flock of laws. However, you can and should oppose any new laws that
are clearly unconstitutional such as HB 383 and SB 72.

I pledge to do what I can to support you with material and
testimony before the committee. Please contact me so I can help you.

Respectfully,

- -

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

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:31:55 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Hatch's Disappointment

- -----
Subject: Hatch's Disappointment
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:25:24 -0700
From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" <[e-mail]>

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!

Orrin Hatch laments the Clinton/Reno indifference to enforcement
of federal gun "laws".  The bottom line for Hatch is the following:

"It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semi-automatic
assault weapon.  The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only
four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997."

http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/state126.html (see the last sentence)

So there you have it.  Orrin Hatch in his own, verifiable words.
He believes it is "terrible" that private citizens who exercise
their constitutionally-protected right to own defensive firearms
are not being prosecuted and imprisoned.

Let's all recognize and remember Orrin's treachery by becoming
state delegates on March 27, and attending the State Convention
on May 6. Remember: You must be a registered Republican to be
eligible.

Arnold

- -

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

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:47:45 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: LEG-ALERTS 2-11 - Committee alert, Another Hatch meeting

Monday hearings!
More threats to gun rights
Another meeting with Hatch
WHAT YOU MUST DO!

MONDAY HEARINGS!

Both of the following bills will be heard by the Senate Transportation
and Public Safety Committee at 8 AM Monday, Room 403. Support for gun
rights in this committee is not strong, so you need to be actively involved!

1. HB 199 Limit on Gun Manufacturer's Liability - Throckmorton (R)
This is our one GOOD BILL for this session.  It prohibits frivolous
lawsuits against firearms manufacturers.

2. SB 200 Mental Health Commitment Amendments - Montgomery (R)
This is advertised as a mental health bill, but it's really "stealth
gun control"!  SB 200 would make it MUCH easier to commit people for
"mental health treatment".  It would allow commitment (and forced
drugging) for anyone who "poses a substantial danger to himself or
others" as a result of a "mental illness".  It does not require
that the danger be immediate or that it be a physical danger.
(The current standard is IMMEDIATE threat of PHYSICAL INJURY.)

Anyone involuntarily committed loses his gun rights (for LIFE under
Federal Brady or for the duration of the commitment under proposed
Utah law).  BCI can permanently revoke a CCW permit for anyone who
has ever been committed.  And remember that many psychiatrists
consider those of us who own guns, or don't trust the government,
to be "mentally ill".

Commitment laws are a real Catch-22.  If you deny that you're
mentally ill and/or refuse to take drugs, that's considered
presumptive evidence of an "inability to engage in rational
decision-making" - which is grounds for commitment.

There is NO JURY TRIAL for commitment hearings, the standard is
"clear and convincing evidence" (not "beyond a reasonable doubt"),
and hearsay evidence and  suppositions are admissible evidence.
And there are no objective tests for mental illness, so there is
no hard evidence - only opinions.

UTGuns believes this bill is unconstitutional and abusive, and may
lead to Soviet-style incarceration and drugging of people with
"politically incorrect" ideas.  It may also be used as a roundabout
way to revoke the gun rights of people who have not committed crimes.

Even the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel believes
this bill raises constitutional concerns!


ANOTHER BAD BILL

HB 372 - Residency Requirement for Concealed Carry Permit, G. Cox (D)
This bill would require that a person be a legal resident of Utah
in order to apply for a concealed carry permit.  It does not address
what would happen to current permittees who are non-residents or to
residents who move out of state.

It appears that Rep. Cox wants to kill Utah's tourist industry - and maybe
even its tourists!

Why should visitors to our ski slopes, national parks, and the Olympics
be denied the right to self-defense?  What happens to people who live
in Utah part, but not all, of the year, and don't qualify for "legal
residence"?  We know the answer to those questions from Florida's
experience.  Florida's tourists and "snowbirds" were singled out for
attack by vicious criminals until the state expanded its permit law to
include non-residents.

It's hard to imagine why anyone would support a bill designed to disarm
innocent people and injure one of Utah's major industries.


ANOTHER MEETING WITH SEN. HATCH

From Charles Hardy:

Yesterday, I received an invitation to a second Hatch town meeting.

This one is scheduled for Monday, Feb. 14.  I forgot to bring the invite
with me this morning, but if I remember correctly, it is at the Sandy
City Town Hall and is scheduled for 4:30 pm.

Just in case anyone can't make the one downtown or wants to attend both.

Charles

(There's also a meeting Wednesday evening at 7 PM at the Hilton Hotel.
Please try to attend one or both!)


WHAT YOU MUST DO!
1. If you do nothing else this weekend, CALL the members of the Senate
Transportation and Public Safety Committee!  Insist that they SUPPORT
HB 199 (gun lawsuits) and OPPOSE SB 200 (civil commitment).
Members are:
Sen. Michael Waddoups, Chair 801-967-0225 [e-mail]
President Lane Beattie 801-292-7406 [e-mail]
Sen. R. Mont Evans 801-254-2655 [e-mail]
Sen. Karen Hale 801-485-6642 [e-mail]
Sen. Paula F. Julander 801-363-0868 [e-mail]
Sen. Peter C. Knudson 435-723-2035 [e-mail]
Sen. Eddie "Ed" P. Mayne 801-968-7756 [e-mail]
Sen. David H. Steele  801-825-3033 [e-mail]

The most important person to contact is Sen. Waddoups, the committee chair,
who claims to be supportive of gun rights, despite last year's shameful
sponsorship of the Olympic Gun Ban.

2. Call Rep. Gary Cox  801-967-9760, [e-mail] and
[e-mail] and ask him to kill HB 372.

3. Plan to attend at least one of the meetings with Sen. Hatch so we can
let him know that Utahns are disgusted with his sponsorship and support
of gun control bills!  Does he REALLY want to be Dave Jones's role model?

Have a GREAT weekend!

Sarah

Leg-alerts is written and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
All information contained in these alerts is the responsibility
of the author, unless otherwise attributed.

Leg-alerts can also be found at UTGuns, http://www.UTguns.freeservers.com
<http://www.utguns.freeservers.com/> . Please check out the new site!

This is a one-way list.  Please do NOT try to post to the list.
It won't work, and repeat violations will result in your removal
from the list.  Comments may be sent to me at [e-mail].
Thanks!

Permission is granted for distribution of these alerts so long as no
changes are made and this message is left intact.

To subscribe/unsubscribe from leg-alerts, send a message to:
[e-mail]
In the body put: subscribe (or unsubscribe) leg-alerts

- -

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

Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:45:50 -0700
From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment

We know there is no law against semi-automatic assault weapon being sold.
The word is automatic,  a missprint.    in anycase we need a different
senator, and we need to get rid of Mike "gun control" Leavett.  You
republicans press on.
Larry

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
To: Utah Firearms <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:31 PM
Subject: FW: Hatch's Disappointment


> -----
> Subject: Hatch's Disappointment
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:25:24 -0700
> From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" <[e-mail]>
>
> PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!
>
> Orrin Hatch laments the Clinton/Reno indifference to enforcement
> of federal gun "laws".  The bottom line for Hatch is the following:
>
> "It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semi-automatic
> assault weapon.  The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only
> four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997."
>
> http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/state126.html (see the last sentence)
>
> So there you have it.  Orrin Hatch in his own, verifiable words.
> He believes it is "terrible" that private citizens who exercise
> their constitutionally-protected right to own defensive firearms
> are not being prosecuted and imprisoned.
>
> Let's all recognize and remember Orrin's treachery by becoming
> state delegates on March 27, and attending the State Convention
> on May 6. Remember: You must be a registered Republican to be
> eligible.
>
> Arnold
>
> -
>
>



- -

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

Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:17:29 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment

Larry, how do you intend to get a new, and preferably better,
Senator and Governor? Via the Democratic Party? I'm not so sure
it was a misprint. It could instead have been an assertion of
Sen. Hatch's desires for national firearms law. We'll have to
ask him if he thinks we should only be allowed single shots.
Perhaps we should only have flintlock muzzle loaders at most.

Scott

- -----
Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:45:50 -0700
From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>

We know there is no law against semi-automatic assault weapon being sold.
The word is automatic, a missprint.  in anycase we need a different
senator, and we need to get rid of Mike "gun control" Leavett.  You
republicans press on.
Larry

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
To: Utah Firearms <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:31 PM
Subject: FW: Hatch's Disappointment

> -----
> Subject: Hatch's Disappointment
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:25:24 -0700
> From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" <[e-mail]>

> PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!

> Orrin Hatch laments the Clinton/Reno indifference to enforcement
> of federal gun "laws".  The bottom line for Hatch is the following:

> "It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semi-automatic
> assault weapon.  The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only
> four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997."

> http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/state126.html (see the last sentence)

> So there you have it.  Orrin Hatch in his own, verifiable words.
> He believes it is "terrible" that private citizens who exercise
> their constitutionally-protected right to own defensive firearms
> are not being prosecuted and imprisoned.

> Let's all recognize and remember Orrin's treachery by becoming
> state delegates on March 27, and attending the State Convention
> on May 6. Remember: You must be a registered Republican to be
> eligible.

> Arnold

- -

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

Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:46:04 -0700
From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment

Scott,
I would hope that the good Senator who, if you ask him, says "we wouldn't
even have a 2nd amendment" if it weren't for him,  would know the difference
between a semi and full automatic rifle,  and thereby,  know that there is
no law, at least in Utah,  against owning such a device as a semi-automatic
"assault" weapon.  So that clears that up, it must be an aids fault. As to
your second inquires as to how to replace and or get a fine Gov, and
Senator,  I think you are on the right track,  get the freedom loving
Republicans out and make them delegates,  of course you will have to get the
school teachers to bum over.
Larry

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
To: Utah Firearms <[e-mail]>
Cc: Arnold J. Gaunt <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment


> Larry, how do you intend to get a new, and preferably better,
> Senator and Governor? Via the Democratic Party? I'm not so sure
> it was a misprint. It could instead have been an assertion of
> Sen. Hatch's desires for national firearms law. We'll have to
> ask him if he thinks we should only be allowed single shots.
> Perhaps we should only have flintlock muzzle loaders at most.
>
> Scott
>
> -----
> Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment
> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:45:50 -0700
> From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
>
> We know there is no law against semi-automatic assault weapon being sold.
> The word is automatic, a missprint.  in anycase we need a different
> senator, and we need to get rid of Mike "gun control" Leavett.  You
> republicans press on.
> Larry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
> To: Utah Firearms <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:31 PM
> Subject: FW: Hatch's Disappointment
>
> > -----
> > Subject: Hatch's Disappointment
> > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:25:24 -0700
> > From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" <[e-mail]>
>
> > PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!
>
> > Orrin Hatch laments the Clinton/Reno indifference to enforcement
> > of federal gun "laws".  The bottom line for Hatch is the following:
>
> > "It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semi-automatic
> > assault weapon.  The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only
> > four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997."
>
> > http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/state126.html (see the last sentence)
>
> > So there you have it.  Orrin Hatch in his own, verifiable words.
> > He believes it is "terrible" that private citizens who exercise
> > their constitutionally-protected right to own defensive firearms
> > are not being prosecuted and imprisoned.
>
> > Let's all recognize and remember Orrin's treachery by becoming
> > state delegates on March 27, and attending the State Convention
> > on May 6. Remember: You must be a registered Republican to be
> > eligible.
>
> > Arnold
>
> -
>
>



- -

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

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 00:35:42 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Re: Hatch's Disappointment

- -----
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Hatch's Disappointment]
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 00:08:44 -0700
From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" <[e-mail]>
To: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>

Scott,

Hatch knows exactly what he is saying, and it is not a misprint.
Under the 1994 "Crime" Bill, it is illegal to transfer or possess any
"semiautomatic assault rifle" (e.g. AR-15, Uzi, etc.) manufactured
after the date of enactment of the bill.  If you possess a semiauto
AR-15 manufactured in 1996, complete with flash suppressor and bayonet
lug, off you go to federal prison.  No criminal intent or action is
required.  Hatch believes that the keeping and bearing of arms is a
crime, and should be prosecuted.

                    Arnold

Scott Bergeson wrote:

>   ------------------------------------------------------------

> Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment
> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:46:04 -0700
> From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> To: <[e-mail]>
> References: <[e-mail]>

> Scott,
> I would hope that the good Senator who, if you ask him, says "we wouldn't
> even have a 2nd amendment" if it weren't for him,  would know the difference
> between a semi and full automatic rifle,  and thereby,  know that there is
> no law, at least in Utah,  against owning such a device as a semi-automatic
> "assault" weapon.  So that clears that up, it must be an aids fault. As to
> your second inquires as to how to replace and or get a fine Gov, and
> Senator,  I think you are on the right track,  get the freedom loving
> Republicans out and make them delegates,  of course you will have to get
> the school teachers to bum over.
> Larry

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
> To: Utah Firearms <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Arnold J. Gaunt <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 2:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment

> > Larry, how do you intend to get a new, and preferably better,
> > Senator and Governor? Via the Democratic Party? I'm not so sure
> > it was a misprint. It could instead have been an assertion of
> > Sen. Hatch's desires for national firearms law. We'll have to
> > ask him if he thinks we should only be allowed single shots.
> > Perhaps we should only have flintlock muzzle loaders at most.

> > Scott

> > -----
> > Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment
> > Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:45:50 -0700
> > From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>

> > We know there is no law against semi-automatic assault weapon being sold.
> > The word is automatic, a missprint.  in anycase we need a different
> > senator, and we need to get rid of Mike "gun control" Leavett.  You
> > republicans press on.
> > Larry

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
> > To: Utah Firearms <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:31 PM
> > Subject: FW: Hatch's Disappointment

> > > -----
> > > Subject: Hatch's Disappointment
> > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:25:24 -0700
> > > From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" <[e-mail]>

> > > PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!

> > > Orrin Hatch laments the Clinton/Reno indifference to enforcement
> > > of federal gun "laws".  The bottom line for Hatch is the following:

> > > "It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semi-automatic
> > > assault weapon.  The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only
> > > four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997."

> > > http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/state126.html (see the last sentence)

> > > So there you have it.  Orrin Hatch in his own, verifiable words.
> > > He believes it is "terrible" that private citizens who exercise
> > > their constitutionally-protected right to own defensive firearms
> > > are not being prosecuted and imprisoned.

> > > Let's all recognize and remember Orrin's treachery by becoming
> > > state delegates on March 27, and attending the State Convention
> > > on May 6. Remember: You must be a registered Republican to be
> > > eligible.

> > > Arnold

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #178
***********************************