ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n181

Internet Message Format | 2000-02-22 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #181
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest   Wednesday, February 23 2000   Volume 02 : Number 181




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

Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 06:18:53 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Project Exile Concerns

- -----
Subject: Fwd: Project Exile Concerns
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:15:24 -0700
From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" <[e-mail]>

The following message comes from my long-time associate Russ Howard.
In it he provides an alternative perspective on the NRA's much promoted
"Project Exile". I believe his points regarding the likely abuse of
innocent gun owners are well-founded. In fact, as I noted in a previous
posting, already Exile supporter Senator Hatch laments the fact that so
few people have been prosecuted by Janet Reno for mere possession of
"semiautomatic assault weapons" (i.e. traditional firearms useful for
defense of self and family). Let us not fall into a trap.

Arnold

- -----
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:25:48 -0800
From: CR Howard <[e-mail]>

To those getting this for the 3rd time; My condolences. My computer
seems to have something against letting me say "Editor, WorldNetDaily"
- -- at least in the saved version. Some of you seem to be getting what
I wrote, then

Editor, WorldNetDaily,

From David M. Bresnahan's Feb. 8, 2000 WorldNetDaily article,
Congressman gives away free guns:

    "What's it going to solve?" asked NRA Executive Vice President
    Wayne LaPierre regarding the Clinton-Gore proposal to license
    gun owners. "The criminals could care less. They're not going
    to stand in line; they won't comply with it," he said. The NRA
    has warned that Clinton's proposal to track every gun and bullet
    used in a crime means that all guns will be registered.

So true. But then why, should these new laws pass, does LaPierre want to
enforce them?

Through "Project Exile," LaPierre wants to "enforce existing gun laws"
with "zero tolerance" and a 5-year stay in the Federal Gulags that he's
helping build -- despite the unconstitutionality of most existing gun
laws and our bitter struggles against their enactment. Predictably,
Clinton & Co. are buying in: "Enforce existing gun laws, huh? Hey, that
sounds pretty good. How about 500 more ATF agents?" (Which, of course,
LaPierre had to swallow, though as usual he didn't seem to mind).
Anti-gun enthusiasm for Project Gun Gulag should be no surprise,
considering that LaPierre partnered with the likes of anti-gun
Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell to grease this sucker deal.

And yet, this from the "NRA Winning Team" web site:

    Readers of the FAX Alert may be surprised to read about the
    latest politician taking credit for "Project Exile." A
    Buffalo News article (8/10/99) quoted none other than Sen.
    Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), as saying, "Before Project Exile,
    committing a crime with an illegal gun could mean only a slap
    on the wrist. But now those wrists are slapped with handcuffs."
    (CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE? NRA¡ILA FAX ALERT, Vol. 6, No. 32,
    8/20/99)

Actually, only a cretin should be surprised by any of this, including
NRA's "surprise" that the enemy is wholeheartedly jumping on their
bandwagon. Can anyone truly believe that Schumer doesn't see this as a
vehicle to turn decent gun owners into political prisoners, one by one?
Is NRA's "Winning" Team really that dense, or, like the corrupt police
official in Casablanca, are they "shocked, shocked, to discover that
there is gambling in this institution" (as they collect their winnings)?

I've little doubt that when pressed, LaPierre will say something like,
"I meant real criminals; you know, violent felons." But while LaPierre's
"Winning Team" drones the "enforcement" chant, they rarely bother
limiting the focus of Project Exile propaganda to previously-convicted
criminals; even more rarely to felons or violent criminals. Not that
these finer distinctions would help anyway. "Convicted Criminals," or
"Convicted Felons" will include victimless gun criminals -- decent folks
who get busted for CCW or refusing to turn in "illegal" guns, then get
busted again after doing their time. And as gun laws become increasingly
complex and numerous, decent Americans will become victims of Project
Gulag due to unknowing, unintentional violations.

Moreover, since anti-gunners are designing and implementing Project
Exile, even the phrase "Violent Criminals" will include decent,
victimless offenders. For example, say the police come to confiscate
your "assault weapon," which respectable sport shooter Charlton Heston
says you have no legitimate reason to own. Maybe you're not enthusiastic
enough about giving it up. Maybe you even mouth off something about your
"rights." Let's assume you're luckier than Don Scott, the Weavers, and
the little kiddies at Waco, so the police merely beat you and claim you
attacked them. Besides being convicted of a gun "crime," you're also
convicted of a "violent crime" -- resisting arrest, assaulting an
officer, or some such charge. Later, after doing time, you're arrested
& convicted for exercising your "inalienable human right" to carry for
self-defense, and you do 5 years in the Gun Gulag on Strike 2. Later
still, "free" again, you get your 3rd strike for incorrigibly exercising
your "RKBA." Thanks again to LaPierre's "Winning" Team -- big supporters
of 3 Victimless Crimes & You're Out, massive prison-building programs,
and other cornerstones of the Police State and the Prison Industrial
Complex -- you go to the Gun Gulag for life.

Here. In America. As a political prisoner. Even though you never hurt a soul.

It doesn't matter what LaPierre's "Winning" Team really meant by
"enforce existing gun laws." The mindless, simpleton chant is what's
catching on. Perhaps NRA's "Winning" Team merely was not careful what
it wished for or how it wished for it. But they pried open Pandora's
Box, and the focus of what comes out will not be limited to "real"
criminals. Project Exile will be used against all citizens who violate
gun laws, and it will work the way the anti-gunners want it to.

So when they pass gun owner registration (as if we don't largely have
it already thanks to Heston's Gun Control Act of 1968), LaPierre will
help enforce it. Isn't it wonderful? We fight new laws today, help the
police state enforce them tomorrow.

And if LaPierre is really worried about registration, why is he pushing
InstaCheck rather than an alternative program that would enable dealers
to check backgrounds without the government knowing who's buying guns?
Of course, the government is not supposed to keep background check
records. That would be wrong! But it was wrong when the government
murdered Don Scott, then shot little Sammy Weaver in the back and sent
a sniper to kill his infant-carrying mother, then machine-gunned,
crushed, gassed, and incinerated scores of men, women and children at
a religious retreat, then whitewashed and covered it up, cheered on by
bloodthirsty, newsmedia ratings-whores. The perpetrators were never
punished. Instead, they received extensive public approbation, and they
are in charge of InstaCheck. Does LaPierre believe that murderers would
think twice about keeping records of gun buyers? What are they afraid
of, the law? Far as they're concerned, they are the law.

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?", asked Juvenal, some two millennia
past. "But who shall guard the guards?" Isn't that why the Framers
wanted the People to be the guards? To be primarily responsible for our
own defense and the defense of our families and communities, and not to
delegate these basic rights and responsibilities? Over the generations
since our right to self-defense was paid for in blood, we foolishly
ignored Franklin and Washington, trading liberty for an illusion of
safety; hiring a dangerous servant and getting a fearful master.

To score quickly forgotten public relations points, or to appease our
oppressors, should we help expand the Police State and the Prison
Industrial Complex, leaders of which will surely come to view the
unorganized militia as a political threat, citizen self-defense as an
economic threat, and victimless criminals as resources? Shouldn't we
be trying to reverse this secular mistake, the incremental quitclaiming
of our ultimate power? Shouldn't we delegate to or share with government
only those functions which enhance our ability to defend ourselves,
withholding those which supplant it? Shouldn't we aim to become the
guards again?

Russ Howard
1995-97, NRA Director (resigned)
1992-95, Executive Director, Citizens Against Corruption
1993-94, Executive Director, Roberti Recall

- -

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

Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 06:36:36 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Free Weaponry!

- -----
Subject: Free Weaponry!
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:10:23 -0500
From: "John A. Quayle" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

TUESDAY FEBRUARY 8, 2000

Congressman gives away free guns...
Campaign to draw attention to Second Amendment website.
By David M. Bresnahan ⌐ 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah -- While Republican lawmakers flesh out their
positions on President Clinton's aggressive new gun control proposals,
one congressman is dealing with the issue by giving away free guns.

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, spent part of this past weekend giving away
two handguns in a free drawing at the "Crossroads of the West" gun show
in Salt Lake City, Utah. It was his way of letting people know about
his new website, eConservativeCoalition.com, which, Cannon says, "is
dedicated to supporting your gun rights."

Actively calling out to the 15,000 attendees at the gun show as they
passed by his booth, Cannon asked, "Would you like to enter our free
drawing? We're giving away a couple of guns. Win a PPK."

As passersby filled out the entry form, Cannon gave them a copy of the
Second Amendment on a business card, along with his website's address.

According to Cannon's website, the Second Amendment was added to the
Constitution to provide important protections for every citizen.
These include protection from foreign and domestic threats, as well
as to provide for the right to self-protection, protection of family,
and to protect private property.

Clinton announced plans for sweeping new gun regulations in his State
of the Union address. Plans include requiring a photo ID license for
all handgun owners. He also announced plans to have the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms begin a major investigation of gun
dealers, and a federal grant for "smart gun" technology.

The problem, said Cannon, is that Clinton is going after guns, not criminals.

"You know what he's doing? He really got stung by the NRA and their
campaign to crack down on illegal gun owners. He won't do that. He
won't go after the guys who are doing the crimes," said Cannon in an
interview with WorldNetDaily.

Cannon's website, designed both to educate and rally support on the
Second Amendment, says that "by forming a wide variety of strategic
relationships, we work to provide both a local and national
infrastructure through which groups and gun advocates, and those who
are interested in maintaining their personal freedom, can better
communicate and coordinate their efforts."

The president's new plan to investigate gun dealers is the "most
comprehensive overview ever of the firearms industry." He said a
recent study points to 1.2 percent of all gun dealers being
responsible for 57 percent of all gun crime traces by the BATF.

The National Rifle Association, however, was quick to point out that
the study was completed last year by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.,
with flawed data. Indeed, both the BATF and the Congressional Research
Service stated at the time of Schumer's study, which relied on BATF
gun-tracing data, that the statistics were not used correctly.

"The [B]ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help
law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual
firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics....[B]ATF does
not always know if a firearm being traced has been used in a crime...
[A trace can occur] for any reason. No crime need be involved,"
explained the Congressional Research Service in a report.

In short, the statistics used by Clinton cannot be used to conclude
that gun dealers have supplied guns to criminals, according to the NRA.

"I guess that begs the question that if authorities suspect some gun
dealers of wrongdoing, why haven't they already been investigated?"
asked NRA lobbyist James Baker. He explained that the federal
government licenses gun dealers and gives the BATF authority to
investigate and prosecute, any time existing federal gun laws have
been broken.

"Now, the administration has a plan to drive gun dealers out of
business through arbitrary regulation. The administration has a plan
to drive gun makers out of business with taxpayer-funded junk lawsuits.
The administration has a plan to license law-abiding gun owners. The
only group the administration doesn't have a plan for dealing with is
armed criminals," said Baker.

Since Clinton took office in 1992, said Baker, the number of federally
licensed gun dealers has been reduced by almost two thirds. The most
recent announcement by Clinton to have the BATF crack down on gun
dealers is just another attempt to reduce the number of dealers still
further, he said.

"The White House is apparently targeting gun dealers who sell, in the
administration's opinion, too many guns. They are also going after
dealers who don't sell enough guns. I think it would end a lot of
confusion if the White House just told federally licensed dealers
how many guns they should be selling," said Baker.

'This is all beside the fact that the administration's entire
initiative perpetuates the deceptive misuse of BATF trace data
contrary to the repeated cautioning of both BATF and the
Congressional Research Service.' Cannon agrees. "The president
wants to go after guns, not criminals. That's his emphasis."

His http://eConservativeCoalition.com website adds: "The wisdom of
our Founding Fathers is evident every day by the peace we enjoy as
a community and by the fact that no invading army has ever made a
significant insurgence on United States soil." It also warns that
opposing forces are trying to destroy the Second Amendment "under
the pretense of safety."

The site claims support from the NRA, Gun Owners of America, the
Second Amendment Foundation, Women Against Gun Control and other
organizations.

Janalee Tobias, president of Women Against Gun Control, also at
the Salt Lake City gun show, criticized the Clinton proposals.

"He's throwing marshmallows at the problem. If he wants to throw
hardballs he should concentrate on what's causing the crime," said Tobias.

Echoing the popular bumper sticker, she intoned, "Guns don't kill
people. We all know it's the person pulling the trigger. I just took
another gun class and found out they did a study where they dropped
a gun 300 feet. It doesn't go off. You have to pull the trigger."

What government needs to concentrate on, said Tobias, is "the people
who pull the trigger."

Vice President Al Gore announced his support for licensing gun owners
during a campaign stop in Boston recently. He said he would mandate
full, gun-owner licensing for all firearms purchases and ownership.

"What's it going to solve?" asked NRA Executive Vice President Wayne
LaPierre regarding the Clinton-Gore proposal to license gun owners.
"The criminals could care less. They're not going to stand in line;
they won't comply with it," he said. The NRA has warned that Clinton's
proposal to track every gun and bullet used in a crime means that all
guns will be registered.

In addition to licensing and registration, the president also
reiterated his call for $10 million to be set aside as grant money
for firearm manufacturers to develop "smart guns" -- research that
is already being done by a number of manufacturers, and has been for
several years. The NRA says Clinton is using this grant money and
the threat of lawsuits to control gun manufacturers.

"Clinton's proposal is not only an unnecessary waste of federal money,
but even one of the most rabid anti-gun organizations, the Violence
Policy Center, has stated opposition to such a proposal, noting this
technology '...cannot decrease gun homicides or suicides....' Of
course," says an NRA statement, "while Clinton offers industry this
proposed taxpayer-subsidized research, he continues to hold over
their heads the very real threat of taxpayer-subsidized lawsuits."


David M. Bresnahan is an investigative journalist for WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.

This page was last built 2/7/00; 11:00:31 PM Direct corrections and
technical inquiries to [e-mail] Please direct news
submissions to [e-mail]

_______________________________________________
Liberty-and-Justice mailing list
[e-mail]
http://mailbox.by.net/mailman/listinfo/liberty-and-justice

- -

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

Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:18:24 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Re: NRA lost direction

- -----
Subject: Re: NRA lost direction
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:50:47 -0700
From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" <[e-mail]>

XXXX,

Despite Senator Hatch's disclaimers to the contrary, the record
demonstrates that he sponsored or supported anti-gun-owner
amendments to S. 254. They include:

Self Defense Lock Up

Hatch/Kohl Amendment No. 352 (Vote No. 122, CR S5382-S5383)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SP00352:

This amendment mandates that trigger locks (or gun safes) be
included with every handgun sold. This may seem like a good
idea, until it is more fully considered.

    Increases the cost of every handgun, without provable benefit.
    Will not affect irresponsible persons, who will not use or
    will discard the trigger locks.
    Will not stop juvenile killers, who can easily obtain access
    to the gun with a key, or if thwarted by a lock, by purchasing
    a firearm on the black market.
    Locks are dangerous to use on loaded firearms.
    Locks do not make an unloaded firearm any more safe.
    Flies in the face of greatly reduced firearms accidents over
    the last twenty years. This improvement has occurred without
    "assistance" from the Government, now being sponsored by Senator
    Hatch.
    Concedes the false argument of our enemies that gun owners are
    irresponsible and should have federal mandates placed on them.
    Do you store your firearms irresponsibly and need the government
    to force you to buy a trigger lock?
    Opens the door to European style gun control, where firearms must
    be locked up at all times unless being used at the range or while
    hunting. Having a loaded firearm available for self defense is
    against the law there. Once every gun owner has a trigger lock,
    then a future Congress can mandate that all guns must be locked
    inside the home.
    Shifts blame from burglars, robbers, and killers to law abiding
    gun owners.
    Creates liability for those who keep unlocked guns available for
    self defense in their homes.

This last point deserves additional discussion. Senator Hatch claims that
the reason he supports this legislation is to reduce liability for persons
whose guns are stolen. In fact, it does this only for handguns that have a
trigger lock on them or were locked in a safe. So, if you are in your home
and are knocked unconscious by an intruder who then steals and commits a
crime with your unlocked handgun, expect to have insult added to injury
when you face a civil liability suit for being "irresponsible".

Another insidious aspect of the Hatch/Kohl plan pertains to homeowners'
insurance. To avoid excessive liability exposure, it may be necessary for
insurance companies to require all firearms to be locked as a prerequisite
to issuance of a policy. The homeowner then faces a choice between
liability insurance and viable protection against home invaders. All this
because Senator Hatch and his [il]liberal associates would rather blame
you than hold criminals accountable for their actions.

Attack the American Gun Culture and Imprison Responsible Parents

Aschcroft Amendment No. 342 (Vote No. 115, CR S5307)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SP00342:

This amendment is perhaps the most insidious. It binds parents up in
senseless paper work and regulations if they wish to train their
children in the safe and responsible use of semiautomatic firearms and
ammunition magazines greater than 10 rounds. For example, suppose you
were to allow your 17 year old son to go shooting with a trusted brother
or your father. If on this venture your son fired a Ruger P89 with a 15
round magazine without written permission slip from you, see you LATER.
You have just committed a FEDERAL CRIME, created by Orrin Hatch.

Obviously the Ashcroft Amendment will have no affect on real criminals,
but it does make it more difficult for the law abiding to acquaint their
children with the tools of liberty, like assault rifles, handguns, higher
capacity magazines, etc. Which is exactly what Hatch and his fellow social
engineers want. Knowing that they will NEVER extirpate the gun culture
(i.e. self reliance and freedom) from this generation, they try to
prohibit us from passing it along to the next.

Register Gun Owners in FBI Database

Hatch Amendment No. 344 (Vote No. 118, CR S5309)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:2:./temp/~r106IhzsJ0::
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:2:./temp/~r106IhzsJ0:e42587:

The Hatch Amendment, later superseded by the Lautenberg Amendment,
required that all private party firearms transactions at gun shows be
registered in the FBI database associated with the misnamed National
Instant Check System (NICS). This is a classic example of the slippery
slope in action. Initially, the instant registration system was required
only for transactions conducted by firearms dealers. With the Hatch
amendment, it is extended to private party transactions at gun shows.
The final step is to mandate gun owner registration for all firearms
transactions. Can this happen? Yes, it already has in the state of
California.

At the meeting on Wednesday, Hatch indicated that he did not believe
that any gun owners were being registered in FBI's computers, but he
would check with Louis Freeh to be sure. His diversionary tactic was
surprisingly contradicted by Wayne LaPierre in the very same meeting,
who indicated the NRA had filed a lawsuit to stop the FBI from their
registration program.

Conclusion

The record demonstrates that Senator Hatch has sponsored or supported
anti-gun-owner amendments to S. 254, and approved of other egregious
amendments (such as the Lautenberg gun show ban) by voting for them
once they were incorporated and the final vote on S. 254 was taken.
True Second Amendment Senators, such as Bob Smith (N.H.) and Mike Enzi
(WY), consistently voted against the adverse amendments and final
passage of this subversive legislation.

XXXX, I hope that you feel as though Senator Hatch has betrayed and
exploited your confidence in him. I don't think you want to be defending
a wayward politician that has contempt for our rights and opposes gun
control by voting for it.

Arnold

XXXX wrote:

<<Sarah inquired:
But I would like to know what XXXX considers "dishonest",
especially since one could infer from his allegation that GOA is dishonest
that he believes that I am dishonest too.>>

I welcome the opportunity to clarify. I was expressing the opinion that I
felt it was "dishonest" of a person or organization to infer that Senator
Hatch supported the gun-control amendments to his Juvenile Justice Bill,
when we have personally heard his disclaimers to the contrary. Perhaps I
should have used the word "illogical". Let's leave it at that and move on.

XXXX

- -

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:59:25 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Defining Anti-Gun People

- -----
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 1:28 AM
Subject: Defining Anti-Gun People

KEEP AND BEAR ARMS .ORG REPORT

======================================
Copyright ⌐ 2000 by KeepAndBearArms.org
Republish anywhere with the following statement:
"Reprinted from the KeepAndBearArms.org Report
available at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.org"
======================================

Defining Anti-Gun People
Identifying Their Outcomes in Plain English
By Angel Shamaya
Inspired by H.S. "Gunnie" Reagan - The Shooting Shaman
http://www.keepandbeararms.org/defining_anti_gun_people.htm

"The best defense is a good offense."

The "pro-gun/anti-gun" verbiage is no longer effective. The time has
come to draw new lines in the sand--to open new channels for accurate
and results-oriented communication.

The folks who wish to ban guns have begun to sway public opinion to
formulate negative thoughts when they hear the word "gun." The word
"gun" has now been linked to such words as killer, death, killing,
murder, murdering, criminal, etc. When "pro" is added to the word
"gun," freedom-lovers are now often associated as being "pro-killer",
"pro-death", etc. With the media heartily biased against guns, the
campaign against us through such programming has been effective.
Let us work diligently and consistently to turn the tides by using
the same simple tool-to our advantage.

The time has come to utilize the amazing gift brought to us through the
intelligent, accurate, and conscious use of Language. Jon Haupt blessed
us with a fantastic expose on how languaging (metaphor) strategies are
being used to defeat our gun rights. The ball he put in play is begging
to be run for repeated touchdowns. (If you missed Jon's brilliant work,
please go read it. It's called The Amazing Secret Weapon of the Gun
Control Movement. http://www.keepandbeararms.org/amazing_secret_weapon.htm)

In beginning to address the Reality of what being "pro" gun or "anti"
gun really means, we must dig deep into the eventual results each
position will produce if/when carried to its logical conclusion. We'll
look at the results side-by-side from a few different vantage points.
I'll be as brief as possible while making my points. I will continue
to refer to the two sides of the gun issue as "pro" and "anti" to make
this easy. When I'm done, we'll have new terms for each side of the
gun issue for future communications in the field (and reminders of
terms that have been batted around to now be effectively employed.)
Let's start with the Good Guys first...

The pro-gun position, carried forth into the repealing of illegal,
unconstitutional gun laws and a return to a healthy societal balance,
will conclude with a polite and civilized society. Amidst a national
society of armed, law-abiding people who readily legally protect
themselves, crime will plummet. The media will trickle and then pour
out news of people stopping crime in its tracks. The more intelligent
criminals will come to understand that "he who lives by the sword
dies by the sword." The result will be freedom on many levels.

Pro-gun people, therefore, can honestly be labeled as: Pro Freedom,
Pro Liberty, Pro Self Defense, Pro Life, Pro People, Pro Active, Pro
Peace, Anti Criminal, Anti Tyranny, Anti Rapist, Anti Murder, Anti
Criminal, and a few other choice pro's and anti's you can dream up as
you toy with this one and apply it in your letters and conversations.
(Send me the good ones and we'll keep a running list on our site.)
"Gun Informed" and "Gun Educated" are both quite accurate, as well.
On to the anti-gun sheeple...

The anti-gun position, carried to its final end, would leave the
general population of law-abiding people without guns. Criminals will
still get their guns. (When guns are outlawed, only the bad guys will
have guns. Look at New York City and Washington, D.C. for good examples
of poor legislation gone deeply awry.) Therefore, law-abiding people
without guns means: more victims, easier prey, successful criminals,
greater fear in the streets, more rapes, more murders, and on and on.
In the anti-gun grand finale, which will NOT happen, the criminals
would live by a creed much more like "he who lives by the sword gets
rich, fat, and happy and has easy pickins on any street in America."

Dissecting these facts and applying them to more descriptive and
accurate labeling of our anti gun people led astray, let us now call
an apple an apple. "Anti-gun" people work to develop easier prey and
simpler, more effective victimization. They can therefore honestly be
labeled: Victim Creators, Pro Victim, Pro Crime, Pro Rape, Pro Murder,
Pro Fear, Anti Liberty, Anti Freedom, Anti Self Defense, Pro Chaos,
Pro Violence, Violence Supporters, Criminal Enablers, and Supporters
of Violent People (which of course translates to Anti Good Guys, and
thus Anti People.) Take a minute and let your mind run wild with the
endless ways to paint the truth about the folks we've been calling
"anti-gun." They were getting off lightly with that label. See?

Rosie O'Donnell surely won't like the press she gets when letters to
editors start cropping up around the country explaining clearly how
she's a "Criminal Enabler." Op-eds patiently identifying CitiBank,
Levi's, and the mayors of quite a few American cities as being "Anti
Liberty" will serve our purpose well. Diane Feinstein being associated
quite easily as a "Nurturer of Criminals" will turn a few heads. And,
more importantly, eventually people who've been swayed against guns
will finally begin to Think for themselves.

Some weeks back there was an online presentation of each of the
Presidential candidates' views on the right to carry guns. This took
place a day or two after one good woman in the Phoenix area was raped
and shot. (For those of you who missed that story, she survived, and
the assailant's second intended victim inflicted fatal lead poisoning
upon his murderous brow.) My response was an article entitled "Al Gore
Wants Women Raped." Some folks said that was going a bit too far, and
I conceded. I cannot say he wants women raped with certainty. I can
say with certainty Al Gore wants to make the work of rapists a hell
of a lot easier.

Angel Shamaya
Criminal Stop Sign
http://www.keepandbeararms.org
[e-mail]


What could happen if every American heard the truth about what
gun control is doing to our society? If you could pitch in a
few bucks to make sure many Americans would be presented the
truth through the media, would you consider it? Please invest
5 minutes looking over the most intelligent pro-gun media campaign
in America today by visiting http://www.citizensofamerica.org

*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Angel Shamaya
Email Update Editor
Webmaster, List Administrator
[e-mail]

H. S. "Gunnie" Reagan, Ph.D., D.D.
Web Site Inspiration
[e-mail]
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

Feedback and Support are welcome at our web site.
See our revised concept for unifying the gun rights community
at http://www.keepandbeararms.org/concept_for_unity.htm

- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:47:13 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: FYI. Terry Gump on Second Amendment.

- -----
Subject: FYI. Terry Gump on Second Amendment.
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:27:40 -0700
From: "Mr. Black" <[e-mail]>

dgb
To All,
Read Terry Gump's brilliant, inspiring example of parliamentary tact and
constitutional understanding!  And folks, next time please remember that
the Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns -- or guns in schools and
churches.  You activist-types are so embarrassing!
Mr. Black

- ------BEGIN TRIBUNE SEGMENT-------
http://www.sltrib.com/2000/feb/02192000/legislat/legislat.htm

Hooper resident and gun activist Brent Odenwalder disagreed. He claimed
the bills were an attempt to create a risk-free society and "the only
Utopia was in Nazi Germany."

Odenwalder was repeatedly gaveled out of order by Judiciary Chairman
Terry Spencer for bringing up constitutional arguments.

"DO NOT GET OFF INTO TANGENTIAL SUBJECTS LIKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT,"
Spencer warned. He backed down only when Sen. Parley Hellewell complained
that witnesses should be free to say what they please in their allotted
three minutes.

- ------END TRIBUNE SEGMENT-------

[Interpretation: "C'mon you guys!  This is about disarming the citizenry
and exercising absolute and tyrannical control over them, not about the
Second Amendment!  Stop trying to derail our progress!]

- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:52:13 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: LEG-ALERTS 2-22: MAJOR NEW THREAT!, A BIG VICTORY!!

Major NEW threat!
VICTORY!! Beattie's schools, churches bills DEAD!
Committee hearings Wed.
Today's actions (partial)
Volunteers needed!

MAJOR NEW THREAT!
HB 363 - Gun Restrictions Amendments (G. Cox)
Anti-gun fanatic Gary Cox has taken the WORST of this year's crop
of gun control bills and combined it all into the Mother of Rights
Revocations bills. HB 363 includes:
LIFETIME REVOCATION OF RIGHTS for MISDEMEANORS!
Unconstitutional "ex post facto" revocation of rights for juveniles
- - NO jury trial, and some MISDEMEANORS are included
LIFETIME REVOCATION OF RIGHTS for anyone who has EVER been committed
to a mental institution - even wrongful commitments!
LIFETIME REVOCATION OF RIGHTS for possession of a marijuana seed or
a single "illegal" pain pill.
LIFETIME REVOCATION OF RIGHTS for those (like Michael New) dishonorably
discharged for political reasons.
HB 363 will be heard WEDNESDAY FEB. 23, 4 PM, Rm. 223, House Judiciary
Committee Please plan to attend! Please contact members of the committee
and insist that they OPPOSE HB 363!
A. Lamont Tyler, Chair <[e-mail]> 801-272-1218
Glenn L. Way, Vice Chair <[e-mail]> 801-798-2295
John Swallow <[e-mail]> 801-572-8201
Katherine Bryson <[e-mail]> 801-226-2061
Martin Stephens <[e-mail]> 801-731-5346
Bill Hickman <[e-mail]> 435-673-2671
Chad Bennion <[e-mail]> 801-281-1607
Greg Curtis <[e-mail]> 801-943-3091
Patrice Arent <[e-mail]> 801-272-1956
Neal Hendrickson <[e-mail]> 801-969-8920
Gary Cox <[e-mail]> 801-967-6790


BEATTIE'S BILLS KILLED!
Thanks to YOUR EFFORTS, Senate President Lane Beattie called a
press conference today to announce that he would kill SB 161S1
(Hall passes for gun owners) and SB 162S2 (Government-mandated
persecution of gun owners by churches). According to Sen.
Valentine, he and Sen. Hellewell (both of whom voted FOR these
bad bills in committee!) got so much negative feedback from YOU
that they met with Sen. Beattie and asked him to kill the bills.
What we're doing WORKS! Today's press conference was eerily
reminiscent of Beattie's similar press conference two years ago
when he killed a similar bill banning guns in schools and
churches. All of you deserve credit for this victory! THANK YOU!!
UTGuns hopes that this time, Sen. Beattie will learn from experience.


MORE COMMITTEE HEARING WEDNESDAY!

Senate Judiciary, 8 AM, Rm. 416
HB 161 - Background Checks for Weapons Purchase (Tyler)
This is JUVENILE BRADY, and open juvenile records to BCI
for background checks. It is an unconstitutional ex post facto
law, and violates the principle that rights may not be revoked
except by a jury trial.


Senate Transportation and Public Safety, 8 AM, Rm 403
HB 245 - Hysteria in Public Schools (Wright)
This bill would require the parents of students who bring a toy
or pretend gun to school to meet with school administrators to
discuss possible expulsion. It would NOT apply to students who
commit actual violent crimes such as rape or assault, so long
as no firearm is involved. Do we really want to teach our kids
that violent crime is less serious than possession of a water
pistol?! The real purpose of the bill, according to sponsor Rep.
Bill Wright, is getting federal funds.

SB 32 - Marksmanship Tests for Concealed Carry (R. Allen)
This bill would require an annual marksmanship test to get or keep
a concealed carry permit. It would also require registration of each
gun that you carry or might carry. Estimated costs are $50-$100 per
year, per gun, for a concealed carry permit! And how many innocent
people have been killed or injured by concealed carry permittees who
didn't pass a marksmanship test? ZERO!! The real point is to return
to the days where only the wealthy elite were "permitted" to carry
a gun, NOT to "increase public safety".


House Judiciary Committee, 4 PM, Rm. 223
HB 363 - Revocation of Rights (G. Cox)
See above!


TODAY'S ACTIONS
SB 200 - Mental Health Commitments (Montgomery) passed the Senate
and has been introduced in the House.
HB 296 - Prevention of Retaliatory Lawsuits (Lockhart) passed the
House with a unanimous vote (71-0-4) and is now in the Senate.
HB 173 - Computer forfeiture (Buckner) passed the Senate Human
Services committee today (3-0-2) and will now go to the Senate
floor for its final votes.
HB 124 - Asset forfeiture revisions (Wright) Still in committee, so no word
yet!


VOLUNTEERS NEEDED!
As you can tell from the above, there are THREE gun bills being
heard at 8 AM tomorrow. If you can attend one of these hearings,
(or the 4 PM hearing on HB 363), please let me know. We need pro-gun
people at EACH of these hearings! You can reach me by email
([e-mail]) or at 801-566-1067.

NOTE: Thursday is the LAST day for committee hearings. After that,
bills are voted on WITHOUT public comment. We expect major attacks
on our rights during the final days of the session, so please keep
YOUR legislators' contact information handy. Also, make sure House
and Senate leadership know that you expect them to protect our rights!
Contact information is available at
http://www.utguns.freeservers.com/contact.html.


DELEGATES NEEDED!!
We need to organize to elect pro-gun, pro-Constitution people to serve as
our elected officials! Many of you have written to ask what YOU can do to
help! The UTGuns delegate information and recruitment pages are now up and
working! Please go to http://www.utguns.freeservers.com/volunteer.html and
sign up to volunteer! Please forward this information to your pro-rights
friends, neighbors and relatives. We need as many people as possible
working to elect good people!

With YOUR help, the next legislative session will see far fewer
attacks on our rights! With YOUR help, we can have a Governor who
will VETO unconstitutional, anti-gun bills! With YOUR help, we can
have pro-gun Congressmen and Senators in Washington. With YOUR help,
we can have an attorney general who supports the Constitutions of
Utah and the US as written!

Without YOUR help, next year will be worse. PLEASE VOLUNTEER!

- -

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

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:23:05 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Dave Jones on Guns

I don't see "also" before "including". This seems to indicate
the quoted "law" addresses *only* those "violations" listed.

Scott

- -----
Subject: Re: Guns
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 06:42:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "David A. Hansen" <[e-mail]>

David Jones sent me this reply:

David,

The current law under the section that the bill dealt with reads
31  any serious violation affecting another student or a staff member, or any serious
32  violation occurring in a school building, in or on school property, or in conjunction with any
33  school activity, including the possession, control, or actual or threatened use of a real, look alike,
34  or pretend weapon, explosive, or noxious or flammable material under Section 53A-3-502 , or the
35  sale, control, or distribution of a drug or controlled substance as defined in Section 58-37-2, an
36  imitation controlled substance defined in Section 58-37b-2 , or drug paraphernalia as defined in
37  Section 58-37a-3 ; or"

The law with the strong punishment of toy guns is already in Utah code.
The bill with ammendments served to establish a policy that would allow
a violating student to return to school contingent on the local school
board. It also required an annual report of such proceeding be produced.
The ammendments I felt were less stringent than current law.

I agree with your strong desire to address actual violence in the school.
I also think that students should follow positive examples, and hence I ran
a bill this legislative session that would ban concealed weapons permit
carriers, excluding peace officers and other exceptions, into schools.
While not addressing the causes of violence I feel that these bills address
safety issues.

I respect your opinion and thank you for taking the time to share it with me.
Thank you for taking the time to involve yourself in the political process.

Sincerely

Rep. Dave Jones
Democrat Minority Leader - House of Representatives

So there you have it:  it is a negative example to our school children to
exercise God-given rights.  Shame on us!

Dave Hansen

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #181
***********************************