ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n185

Internet Message Format | 2000-03-26 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #185
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Monday, March 27 2000      Volume 02 : Number 185




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

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:28:14 -0700
From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Smith & Wesson Compromises

In an attempt to placate the wolves in leopard skin tights, Smith and Wesson
has been reported by Infobeat Email Newsletter services. Given the current
political environment of the country and the foolishness of the legal
systems (why don't the sue FORD for traffic accidents?) I can't say I blame
S&W for this approach. Too bad they did it, but they seem to have postponed
legal action (for now).  KLP

*** Smith & Wesson OKs safety locks

WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's largest gun manufacturer, Smith &
Wesson, has agreed to provide safety locks on its handguns within 60
days and to make them child-resistant within a year, the Clinton
administration announced Friday. Under the unprecedented deal reached
with the company by the departments of Housing and Urban Development
and Treasury and officials representing state and local governments,
Smith & Wesson agreed to a "code of conduct" for sales and
distribution of handguns. In exchange for its commitments toward
advancing gun safety, Smith & Wesson won an agreement by the federal,
state and local governments to dismiss pending suits against it or
refrain from filing new suits. The administration had been
threatening to bring a national lawsuit against the industry if
manufacturers failed to enter negotiations aimed at increasing gun
safety. See
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2565029832-57e


- -

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

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:30:05 -0700
From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Humor: Comeback Line

A defense attorney was cross-examining a police officer during a felony
trial -- it went like this:

Q. Officer, did you see my client fleeing the scene?
A. No sir, but I subsequently observed a person matching the description of
the offender running several blocks away.

Q. Officer, who provided this description?
A. The officer who responded to the scene.

Q. A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do
you trust your fellow officers?
A. Yes sir, with my life.

Q. With your life? Let me ask you this then officer -- do you have a locker
room in the police station -- a room  where you change your clothes in
preparation for your daily duties?
A. Yes sir, we do.

Q. And do you have a locker in that room?
A. Yes sir, I do.

Q. And do you have a lock on your locker?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life,
that you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with
those same officers?

A. You see sir, we share the building with a court complex, and sometimes
lawyers have been known to walk through that room.

With that, the courtroom erupted in laughter, and a prompt recess was
called. The officer on the stand has been nominated for this year's "Best
Comeback" line.


- -

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

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:41:36 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Agreement Between S&W and the HUD,Local Governments and States

Pardon my naivete, but why can't an injunction or some sort of civil
relief from this "agreement" be obtained against HUD and S&W on the
grounds that it is in violation of the 2nd Amendment?

Scott

- -----
Subject: Agreement Between S&W and the HUD,Local Governments and States
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:21:08 -0800
From: "Mark A. Smith" <[e-mail]>
CC: "L & J" <[e-mail]>

If you haven't seen it yet, here is
direct from the horses mouth (HUD),
the agreement with S&W.
Mark

http://www.hud.gov/pressrel/gunagree.html

                   AGREEMENT BETWEEN SMITH & WESSON AND
    THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE TREASURY AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
                       LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND STATES

                             SUMMARY OF TERMS

Preamble: The city, state, county and federal parties agree to dismiss the
parties from the pending suits and refrain from filing suits against the
manufacturer parties based on an equivalent cause of action.

SAFETY AND DESIGN

All handguns must meet the following safety and design standards:

   * Second "hidden" serial number, to prevent criminals from obliterating
     serial numbers.
   * External locking device sold with all guns within 60 days.
   * Internal locking device on all guns within 24 months.
   * Smart Guns -- Authorized User Technology.
        o Manufacturers commit 2% of annual firearms revenues to the
          development of authorized user technology.
        o Within 36 months, authorized user technology will be included in
          all new firearm models, with the exception of curios and
          collectorsÆ firearms.
        o If top eight manufacturers agree, authorized user technology
          will be included in all new firearms.
   * Child Safety. Within 12 months, handguns will be designed so they
     cannot be readily operated by a child under 6.
   * Performance test. All firearms will be subject to a performance test
     to ensure safety and quality.
   * Drop test. All firearms will be subject to a test to ensure they do
     not fire when dropped.

All pistols must meet the following additional requirements:

   * Safety device. Positive manually operated safety device.
   * Magazine disconnectors must be available on all pistols to customers
     who desire the feature, within 12 months.
   * Chamber load indicators on all pistols, showing whether the pistol is
     loaded, within 12 months.
   * Large capacity magazines. New firearm designs will not be able to
     accept large-capacity magazines that were manufactured prior to
     September 1994. (Manufacture of such magazines has been prohibited
     since that date.)

Law enforcement and military exception. If law enforcement agencies or the
military certify the need, exceptions to these requirements may be made.
Manufacturers will ask that these guns not be resold to the civilian
market.

Warnings about safe storage and handling included with all firearms within
six months.

Illegal firearms. Manufacturers will not sell firearms that can readily be
converted into fully automatic weapons or that are resistant to
fingerprints.


SALES AND DISTRIBUTION

Code of Conduct. The manufacturers will sell only to authorized dealers
and distributors and allow their authorized distributors to sell only to
authorized dealers. Authorized dealers and distributors will agree to a
code of conduct. If manufacturers receive notice of a violation by an
authorized dealer or distributor, they will take action against the dealer
or distributor, including termination of sales to the dealer or
distributor. The Oversight Commission will review such actions and have
authority to require termination or suspension if warranted.

The code of conduct will require authorized dealers and distributors to:

   * Gun shows: make no gun show sales unless all sales at the gun show
     are completed only after a background check.
   * Brady checks: wait as long as necessary for a completed Brady check
     showing that the purchaser is not a felon or otherwise prohibited
     before selling a gun to the purchaser.
   * Safety training for purchasers: transfer firearms only to individuals
     who have passed certified safety course or exam and demonstrate to
     purchasers how to use all safety devices and how to load, unload, and
     safely store the firearm before completing the sale.
   * Multiple handgun sales: all purchasers of multiple handguns to take
     only one handgun from the store on the day of sale, at which point a
     multiple sales report will be filed with ATF. The remainder of the
     guns can only be collected after 14 days.
   * Employee training: require all employees to attend ATF-approved
     training and to pass a exam on firearms laws, straw purchasers,
     illegal trafficking indicators, and gun safety.
   * Insurance: carry liability insurance where available, with a minimum
     coverage of $1 million for each incident.
   * Inventory control: maintain an electronic inventory tracking plan
     within 24 months
   * Security: implement a security plan for securing firearms.
   * Child access: require persons under 18 to be accompanied by adults in
     gun stores or gun sections of stores.
   * Weapons attractive to criminals: not sell large capacity magazines or
     semiautomatic assault weapons.
   * Compliance: provide law enforcement, government regulators, and the
     Oversight Commission established in this Agreement with access to
     documents necessary to determine compliance; cooperate fully in the
     AgreementÆs Oversight mechanism.
   * Crime gun traces: maintain an electronic record of all ATF trace
     requests and report trace requests to manufacturers.
   * Indicted dealers: forgo firearms sales to licensed dealers known to
     be under indictment.
   * Straw purchasers: not to make sales to straw purchasers.

Manufacturer commitments. Manufacturers will:

   * Provide quarterly sales data to ATF.
   * Not market guns in any manner designed to appeal to juveniles or
     criminals.
   * Refrain from selling any modified/sporterized semi-automatic pistol
     of type that cannot be imported into U.S.
   * Reaffirm policy of not placing advertisements in vicinity of schools,
     high crime zones, and public housing.
   * Implement a security plan for securing firearms.
   * Designate an officer to ensure compliance with the Agreement.

Corporate responsibility for crime gun traces. If an authorized dealer or
distributor has a disproportionate number of crime guns traced to it
within three years of sale, the manufacturers will take action, including
possible termination or suspension, against the dealer or distributor. The
Oversight Commission will review such actions and have authority to
require termination or suspension if warranted.

Oversight Commission will be established and empowered to oversee
implementation of the Agreement. The Commission will have five members
selected as follows: one by manufacturers; two by city and county parties;
one by state parties; one by ATF. The CommissionÆs powers will include the
authority to review compliance with the design and safety requirements,
review the safety and training program for dealer and distributor
employees, review manufacturer actions against dealers or distributors
that violate the Agreement or have a disproportionate number of crime gun
traces, and require suspension or termination if warranted.

Role of ATF. To the extent consistent with law, ATF will work with
manufacturers and the Oversight Commission to assist them in meeting
obligations under the Agreement. ATF will notify the Oversight Commission
of certain violations of the Agreement by distributors and dealers if it
uncovers such violations.

Ballistics Imaging. Within six months, if technologically available,
manufacturers will fire all firearms before sale and will enter the
digital image of the casings in a system compatible with the National
Integrated Ballistics Identification Network and accessible to ATF. This
will enable law enforcement to trace crime guns when only the bullets or
casings are recovered.

Access 2000. Manufacturers shall participate in ATFÆs Access 2000 program,
which establishes electronic links with ATF and enables high-speed tracing
of crime guns.

Legislation. The parties will work together to support legislative efforts
to reduce firearm misuse and the development of authorized user
technology.

Education trust fund. Upon resolution of all current city, state, and
county lawsuits, manufacturers will dedicate 1% of overall firearms
revenues to an education trust fund.

Most favored entity. If other manufacturers enter agreements with more
expansive design and distribution reforms, and those manufacturers, along
with the manufacturer parties to this Agreement, account for fifty percent
or more of United States handgun sales, the manufacturer parties to this
Agreement will agree to abide by the same reforms.

Enforcement. The Agreement will be entered into and enforceable as a court
order and as a contract.

- -

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

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:41:37 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: SUING CITIES THAT ARE SUING GUN MANUFACTURERS

- -----
Subject: SUING CITIES THAT ARE SUING GUN MANUFACTURERS
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:32:46 -0500
From: "Weldon Clark" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

OPEN LETTER FROM TEXAS REP. SUZANNA HUPP, et-al

Friends of the Second Amendment:

During the 76th Session of the Texas Legislature,
Representatives Suzanna Hupp, Rick Green, Ron Clark, Bob
Turner, Ron Wilson, and Senator Lindsay passed S.B. 717 to
prohibit Texas cities from suing the gun manufacturers.
Despite our efforts here in Texas, 28 cities across the U.S.
have filed frivolous lawsuits against the gun manufacturers
in an effort to achieve gun control through the courts and
bankrupt the industry.

Such lawsuits threaten the viability of gun stores in Texas and
across the nation. Colt Manufacturing has already announced that
because of the lawsuits they will no longer sell handguns to the
civilian public. In addition, Colt is in the process of buying
H&K manufacturing and has said that once the purchase is complete,
H&K will no longer sell handguns to the public. Most recently,
Smith & Wesson has announced it is up for sale. The events that
have transpired as a direct result of the lawsuits against the
gun industry do not bode well for gun dealers or gun owners.

As such, we and a few other Texas legislators have concluded that
more must be done to stop the assault on our constitutional rights.
After consulting legal experts, we have concluded that legal action
can and should be taken against the cities that have conspired to
deprive us of our rights. We are in the process of drafting a
complaint that will be filed in a federal district court in Texas.

We will have at least four state representatives who will sue on
behalf of themselves and their constituents alleging that the
cities have conspired to violate their right to keep and bear
arms by using the courts to impose gun control and threaten
the gun industry with bankruptcy.

In addition, several Texas gun stores will be plaintiffs in the
lawsuit because of the cities' attempt to interfere with the gun
stores' ability to participate in interstate commerce - a right
that is protected by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The right to keep and bear arms and the right to participate in
interstate commerce are fundamental rights that must be protected.
The mayors of the cities, empowered by the statutes creating their
offices and by ordinances and resolutions passed by the city councils,
have acted to deprive Texas citizens and gun stores of their
protected rights and should be held accountable in a court of law.

As you can well imagine, such a lawsuit will be an enormous
undertaking that will tax the resources of the plaintiffs and
attorneys who choose to participate in the lawsuit. As such,
we are asking that every freedom loving American make a
donation to our legal fund, so that we can move forward with
the lawsuit and defend our Constitution from further abuse.

If you are willing to contribute or would like more information,
please contact our public relations director, Trey Blocker, at:

[e-mail]

Contributions can be mailed to:

Civil Liberties Defense Foundation
ATTN: Trey Blocker - Executive Director
P.O. Box 163653
Austin, Texas 78716-3653
[phone]

Or visit their website at http://www.libertydefense.com

Tell him how much you are able to contribute and how he can
best contact you. Thank you for your assistance in this great
effort to avert a constitutional crisis.


Sincerely,

Suzanna Hupp
Texas State Representative
District 54

Rick Green
Texas State Representative
District 46


Moving Forward! Civil Liberties Defense Foundation Lawsuit!
By Chris W. Stark - Director GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE

The Texas "Civil Liberties Defense Foundation" lawsuit, is
moving forward and picking up more plaintiffs along the way.
Following is a complete list (as of 10 March 2000) of Texas
legislators who will be plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the
cities trying to take away our 2nd Amendment rights. If your
Representative or Senator is not on this list, pick up the
phone and encourage them to join the lawsuit and help protect
the right of Texans and all Americans to keep and bear arms.
Phone numbers for your legislators can be found at
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/

To read our previous alerts regarding the Civil Liberties Defense
Foundation Lawsuit, go to http://www.goa-texas.org/TX_lawsuit.htm

If your legislator IS on the list below, pick up the phone and
thank him or her for standing up for your 2nd Amendment rights:

Rep. Leo Berman
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist6/dist6.htm
Rep. Fred Brown
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist14/dist14.htm
Rep. Wayne Christian
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist9/dist9.htm
Rep. Mary Denny
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist63/dist63.htm
Rep. Rick Green
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist46/dist46.htm
Rep. Charlie Howard
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist26/dist26.htm
Rep. Suzanna Hupp
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist54/dist54.htm
Rep. Carl Isett
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist84/dist84.htm
Rep. Todd Smith
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist92/dist92.htm
Rep. Robert Talton
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist144/dist144.htm
Rep. Ron Wilson
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist131/dist131.htm
Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist58/dist58.htm
Former Texas Senator Jerry Patterson
[e-mail]

Rep. Suzanna Hupp - Rare Defender of the 2nd Amendment
By Chris W. Stark - Director GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE

Dear Second Amendment Supporters,

This week, Texas State Representative Suzanna Gratia Hupp
appeared on Nightline to debate anti-Second Amendment advocate
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. During this debate Suzanna
Hupp continued to demonstrate her courage to stand up to the
anti-Second Amendment radicals and refused to follow the
politically correct positions of the media.

Her appearance has drawn quite a response from the left-wing
radicals. Common decency and local ordinances against vulgarity
do not permit me to share with you some of the dissenting
opinions that have been expressed to Suzanna Hupp and her staff.

For those of you not familiar with Ms. McCarthy, her husband was
killed in the Long Island Rail shooting, which transformed her
into a vehement anti-gun proponent. The anti-Second Amendment
radicals do not hesitate to use her to promote their
unconstitutional agenda.

Fortunately, we have an even more effective spokesperson for our
cause. Representative Hupp watched helplessly as a madman murdered
both of her parents and 21 others in the Luby's Massacre in Killeen,
Texas in 1991. After that point, she became a staunch Second
Amendment advocate, and was instrumental, in the passage of the
Texas concealed-carry law in 1995. In fact, Suzanna Hupp has worked
nationwide appearing in many state capitols fighting for our Second
Amendment right. You can listen to her testimony on real audio,
by following the link at http://www.goa-texas.org/hupp-7.htm

In 1996, she ran for state representative on the platform that
she would continue to protect and expand the rights of gun
owners in Texas and across the nation. She has worked hard
to make the concealed-carry law more effective, and in 1999,
she helped pass S.B. 717 prohibiting Texas cities from
joining anti-Second Amendment advocates in suing the gun
manufacturers. To see her tireless work in 1999, go to
http://www.goa-texas.org/Texas76th.htm for most of the pro-
gun legislation for the 76th Legislature, was offered by her.

In late 1999, she and several other state legislators formed
the Civil Liberties Defense Foundation for the purpose of
filing a lawsuit against the cities that have sued the gun
manufacturers for conspiring to violate our Second Amendment
rights and force the gun industry out of business.

Legislators such as Suzanna Hupp don't come around very often.
As such, we must do everything that we can to insure that she
is reelected to her office.

Her courageous appearance on Nightline and numerous other media
outlets defending the Second Amendment with truth and conviction
has raised the concern of our anti-Second Amendment opponents.
Her stand on this issue is known in the anti-gun community from
coast to coast and there is no doubt that they will attempt to
silence her by trying to defeat her in the fall general election.

We cannot afford to allow the anti-Second Amendment radicals
to silence one of our most courageous, outspoken Constitutional
advocates. Suzanna Hupp has always had the guts to speak the
truth in the face of the politically correct media. Now we must
have the guts to do what we can to keep her fighting for us. We
need Suzanna Hupp defending our rights not only in the halls of
government, but more importantly, we need Suzanna Hupp defending
our rights in the halls of public opinion.

I urge you, regardless of where you live and where you vote to
support our national heritage, the Second Amendment, and freedom
by helping Representative Hupp get reelected in November.

Please send your contribution to the Suzanna Hupp Campaign
at P.O. Box 273, Kempner, Texas 76539. You can also request
information on Suzanna Hupp and her campaign from her
political advisor at [e-mail].

With Respect,
Gun Owners Alliance
Chris W. Stark - Director
*************************************************************
from The 2ndAmendmentNews Team

If you received this as a forward and wish to join please send:
E-Mail to [e-mail] with the following text in
the message body: SUBSCRIBE 2nd-Amendment-News

Feel free to forward our alerts.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:59:43 -0700
From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Compromise

I sent the following email to Smith and Wesson. No response yet. Any
comments?

Karl L. Pearson
Senior uniVerse Database Analyst
Senior Unix/NT/Win Analyst
[e-mail]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Karl Pearson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 5:49 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Compromise


As a life-time shooter, and a FORMER owner of 2 fine Smith and Wesson 38
revolvers, I regret to inform you that I will no longer purchase anything
from Smith and Wesson or its affiliates.

Your apparent total capitulation to the socialist government democrats is
indicative of your lack of trust for the common man. You are also starting a
path that will lead to your demise as a viable self-protection provider.

Good bye and good luck,

Karl L. Pearson
Senior uniVerse Database Analyst
Senior Unix/NT/Win Analyst
[e-mail]


- -

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

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:46:26 -0700
From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: InfoBeat News - Afternoon Edition @  03/22/2000

I've cut all but one story from this edition. Amazing how public officials
will ignore even empirical data when they are shown to have made a mistake,
especially one where lives are being forfeited.  KLP

*** Australia rejects NRA claims

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Australian officials demanded Wednesday that
the National Rifle Association pull a video airing on its Web site
claiming that the nation's gun reform laws had backfired. The video,
presented as a television news story, claims that crimes involving
guns have increased in Australia since the laws, which ban all
semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump action
shotguns, were introduced. Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams
said the NRA was using inaccurate statistics and urged the group to
remove "any reference to Australia" from its Web site. "I find it
quite offensive that the NRA is using the very successful gun reform
laws introduced in 1996 as the basis for promoting ownership of
firearms in the United States," he said. See
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2565133441-b39



- -

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

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:12:01 -0700
From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Smith and Wesson

Greetings To All,

I called S&W and talked with a rep,  (he is an actual employee for 23 years
manning the hot line).  He is very worried that the wrong impression of what
S&W did will be taken by gun buyers.  He feels, or has been told by someone,
that this is the only way to avoid bankruptcy by the government in the
future.  He advised that I read the agreement,
http://www.hud.gov/pressrel/gunagree.html  before making up my mind.  After
reading the agreement I say they caved in, and are not worthy of my money
for a purchase of any product they sell, or service they claim to render.

Larry

"Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God's approval."

Thomas S. Monson (Ensign, November 1986, page 41)








- -

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

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:47:05 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neighborhood caucas meetings held this evening;  Please attend.

The following information is provided by Sarah Thompson of UTGuns.
Please take the time to attend you caucas (formerly "Mass") meeting
tonight and run for, or at least support pro-liberty candidates for,
State deleagate, county delegate, and precinct chair.  Information on
where your caucas meeting will be held can be found in Sunay's (March
26th) Deseret News, by calling the county HQ of your political party, or
by using the web links in the following message.


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

Today's the day!  Caucus meetings are THIS EVENING - MONDAY at 7 PM!

This is the most important election you will participate in for the next
several years!  We now have the chance to choose GOOD, PRINCIPLED,
PRO-LIBERTY candidates for Governor, US Senator, US House, Attorney
General, Utah House, half the Utah Senators, County officials and others.
 Once "establishment" politicians, beholden to special interests get
nominated it will be too late to change things, and we will once again
have to choose between "the lesser of two evils".

NOW is the time to act!

PLEASE ATTEND YOUR CAUCUS MEETING THIS EVENING!  The rewards for spending
a small amount of time at your precinct meeting are great.


THINGS TO DO TODAY!

1. If you don't already know where your caucus meeting will be held, find
out as soon as possible.  See
http://www.utguns.freeservers.com/caucus.html.  If your precinct still
doesn't have a host, volunteer to host it.  (We will help you learn what
you need to know!)

2. Call your like-minded neighbors and friends and invite them to attend.
 Even if you have already invited them, call and remind them to attend
and ask if there's anything you can do to help them.  Offer to assist
with car-pooling, child care, etc.

3. If there is a candidate (or candidates) you support, call them and ask
what you can do to help, and if they know others in your precinct with
whom you can work.

4. Wherever possible, decide BEFORE the meeting who will run for each
position.  (This is not always possible, of course!)  Your goal is to
make sure that ONE pro-liberty person runs for EACH available position -
no more, no less!  So if there are two state delegates in your precinct,
only TWO pro-rights people should run.  (There will likely be other
liberal candidates, of course!)

5. ATTEND THE CAUCUS MEETING!  Arrive at your caucus about 6:45 PM.

6. Make sure your precinct chair follows the rules and the proper order
for the meeting.  This order is: 1) Welcome, 2) Sign-in, 3) Call to
order, 4) Prayer and Pledge, 5) Read the Platform, 6) Collect
Donations/Pledges, 7) Elect Precinct Officers, 8) Elect County and State
Delegates, 9) Explain Check-a-Buck, 10) Collect e-mail addresses, 11) Ask
for Election Judges, and 12) Wrap-up and adjournment.  If your precinct
chair deviates from this order, you should insist that he follow the
printed agenda.  The proper way to do this is to "call for the order of
the day", but don't worry about being technical.  It requires a 2/3 vote
of ALL present to "suspend" the rules, and change the agenda.
Your precinct chair should also verify that each attendee is a registered
voter who lives in your precinct.  (Those who are not yet registered must
do so at the caucus.)

7. All voting for delegates and precinct officers must be done by secret
ballot.  The only exception is an uncontested race. (Where only two
people are running for two positions for example.)  Voting must be done
for ONE position at a time.  (For example, you can vote for both state
delegates at the same time, but you cannot vote for precinct chair and
county delegate at the same time.)  This means you cannot legally vote to
"let everyone keep his current position".  A 2/3 vote of all present is
needed to change the voting rules.  Each candidate needs a MAJORITY of
all persons voting to win.  (For details see:
http://www.utguns.freeservers.com/legalerts032400delinfo.html

8. Never vote for anyone who isn't a pro-liberty candidate.  For example,
if there are two delegate positions, and there is only one good
candidate, vote ONLY for that one person - even if you have two votes.

7. Run for, and get elected to, as many offices as you can.  You can be
elected a precinct officer, a state delegate, and a county delegate.
Your goal is to get pro-rights people elected to ALL offices.

8. Always be polite but assertive.  Your job is to stand up for your
rights and insist on fair elections - not to "be charitable".  This does
not mean you should be rude or offensive to your friends and neighbors!

9. Dress appropriately!  You do not need to be formal, but you should be
neat, clean, and well-groomed.  If you want your neighbors to trust you
with an elected position, you need to "look the part".

10. If you are hosting a caucus, provide light refreshments for your
neighbors.

For more information, details, etc. see the following:
http://www.utguns.freeservers.com/delegate.html
http://www.utguns.freeservers.com/legalerts032400delinfo.html


If you have questions, need information, or need help finding caucus
locations, call Sarah Thompson 801-566-1067.

Other people you can call...
Weber County: Arnold Gaunt, 801-621-3122
Davis County: Dave Hansen, 801-544-2744
Utah County: Tom Draschil, 800-725-6195


If you've ever wished you could "really make a difference", NOW is you
chance!  Please don't let this golden opportunity pass you by.  In less
than 24 hours, it will be too late!  Act now to protect YOUR rights!

Thank you to all of you who have called, written, attended delegate
training, and helped to spread the word.

To all of our candidates for elective office, and all of you running for
delegate positions and precinct offices - GOOD LUCK!  Please call or
write and let us know how you do!

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.  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


________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

- -

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

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:38:53 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-self-defense petition has a toll free number for more info.

This is from today's SL Tribune
<http://www.sltrib.com/03272000/utah/36545.htm>.  I plan to call the
number and request some information from them.  On the one hand, I want
to make absolutely sure that I haven't missed any facts in making my
decision on this issue.  ;)  On the other hand, every phone call and
piece of
material they spend time and money on responding to those of us who will
judge the
material based solely on facts rather than emotion, paranoia, hyperbole,
etc, is that much less time and money they have to reach those who might
be
swayed by anything other than facts.

Fight Over Guns Returns to State Capitol
                                             Monday, March 27,
                                             2000


    BY MICHAEL VIGH and
    JUDY FAHYS
    THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

        About 100 people gathered at the state Capitol on
    Saturday to promote a cause lawmakers refused to support:
    outlawing virtually all guns in schools, universities and places
    of worship.

[...]

The coalition also established a toll-free number for
    petition inquiries. Registered voters who are interested should
    dial [phone] for information.


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

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

- -

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

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:50:01 -0700
From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Use Of Deadly Force

I received this from a friend of mine who is trained in the use of knives
for self defense but has yet to receive a CCW permit.  This information was
covered in the CCW class I took but am wondering if anyone with a legal
background has further information that could be helpful in determining if
this is totally correct information. If so, here's an FYI.

Thanks,

Karl L. Pearson
Senior uniVerse Database Analyst
Senior Unix/NT/Win Analyst
[e-mail]

From: "Fundamentals of Defensive Shooting" by John Farnam:

There are four elements to legitimate self defense, and they must all be
present simultaneously in order for there to be a situation where deadly
self-defensive actions are warranted. They are:

I.    Ability
II.   Opportunity
III.  Manifest Intent (Imminent Jeopardy)
IV.   Preclusion


I. Ability

An "ability" is simply an injurious capacity. It usually manifests itself in
the form of a weapon of some sort, but not always. Serious injury can be
inflicted by many individuals using no weapon at all. The person you applied
deadly force against must have been "able" to kill you or inflict serious
bodily harm. Threats alone do not suffice, unless he had the ability in hand
to carry them out. If you were attacked by a person much larger than
yourself, or by someone using martial arts techniques, or several
individuals at the same time, you may reasonably conclude that he/they had
the ability to seriously injure or kill you, even though they may have been
technically "unarmed." Disparity in size, age, strength, sex, and the level
of aggressiveness of the involved parties are all important matters when
considering the element of "ability."

II. Opportunity

When considering the element of "opportunity," we must have a situation
where this attacker, in addition to having an "ability," was also in a
position to bring the destructive powers of his ability to bear effectively
upon you. The question is, were you within the effective range of his
weapon(s)? For example, a knife or bludgeon is harmless in the hands of
someone standing twenty meters away from you, yet either can be deadly if
the person is standing within arm's reach, or is several meters away but
closing fast. A firearm, on the other hand, is considered deadly at any
range.

III. Manifest Intent (Imminent Jeopardy)

You are in "imminent jeopardy" when the attacker unmistakably indicates, by
words and/or actions, that it is his intention to kill or seriously injure
you, and further, that he intends to do so at once. Your are not permitted
to use deadly force to defend yourself against nebulous threats. The danger
must be mortal and imminent. It must appear that the circumstances were
sufficient to occasion the legitimate fears of a reasonable person, and that
you acted under the influence of those fears, not in a spirit of vengeance
or criminal assault. When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and
does in fact actually believe, that the danger of his being killed or
seriously injured is imminent, he is permitted by law to act in self-defense
based on those appearances even, if necessary, to the extent of using lethal
force. This is true even if it turns out that the appearances were
misleading and the person was thus honestly mistaken as to the real extent
of the danger. It is for the jury to decide whether appearances of danger
were sufficient so as to justify the defensive actions that were taken.

No one is expected to wait until they have absolute and incontrovertible
knowledge that a threat is real. However, there must be an overt act coupled
with that threat. The point is, it does no matter if your attacker's
"weapon" later proves to be a toy, or non-functional, or unloaded. So long
as, under the circumstances, you had good reason to believe (reasonable
belief) that the weapon was real and functional and that he intended to use
it to harm you forthwith, your defensive actions will likely be considered
reasonable and appropriate. Remember, you will be judged only with regard to
what you knew and reasonably believed to be true at the time. You will not
be judged based upon facts and circumstances of which you had no cognizance.

"Intent" is, after all, a mental process. We therefor cannot perceive intent
directly. We can only infer it from the person's actions and/or words.
Accordingly, it is an error to say, "He was going to kill me." How do you
know? Are you a prophet, or mind-reader?

The fact is that you don't know what was going through his mind. The correct
way to phrase it is: "It looked as if he was going to kill me." That way,
you correctly identify your motivating factor as his actions, which you can
see, not his thoughts, which you cannot see.

Intent is not strictly necessary for imminent jeopardy to be present. You
can, for example, be placed in lethal danger by an  individual acting with
extreme carelessness but who may have no specific intention of harming you.

IV. Preclusion

"Preclusion" simply means that all other options were precluded. In other
words, you used deadly force only as a last, desperate resort. The jury must
be persuaded that, under the circumstances, you had no logical or reasonable
alternative but to use deadly force to defend yourself. Generally, the more
self-restraint you use, the more "reasonable" your actions will look. In
fact, "self-restraint" is a key word, particularly if you used a firearm. It
is desirable for the jury to see your actions as judicious, restrained,
reasonable, and retrogressive. They should believe you made every reasonable
effort to abate the situation, even including the use of non-lethal force,
before finally resorting to the use of deadly force. Conversely, they should
see your attacker's actions as precipitous, unwarranted, barbaric, and
unconscionable.

Some states require preclusion as a component of legitimate self-defense.
Some more liberally-inclined state legislatures have even based "mandatory
retreat laws." In general, the require a person to retreat from an attack,
rather than use deadly force to repel it, even when the person attacked
otherwise has a right to be where he is. Generally, mandatory retreat laws
apply to every situation, except when the victim is in his own home.

The outcome of criminal and civil court proceeding alike is often determined
not so much by how a particular law is written, as it is by "courtroom
poker." The winner is usually the one who can cause a jury to be sympathetic
to his side, and preclusion is often the magic ingredient.

The decision to use deadly force always hinges upon a balance of two
opposing imperatives: risk exposure and restraint.

Exposure to risk is, of course, inherent to all human activity. Risk cannot
be entirely purged from any endeavor, but is must be identified, controlled,
and minimized. Everyone is expected to expose themselves to some risk during
the course of their daily activities. It is an understood condition of life.
However, no one is expected or required to expose themselves to unreasonable
or suicidal risk.

In any situation, as a person's risk exposure increases, he is permitted by
law to take reasonable measure to reduce it, restraining himself from using
deadly force until such a time as risk exposure has escalated, or is about
to escalate, to unacceptable levels. At that point, deadly force may be
employed if it is the only reasonable avenue through which the risk can be
reduced.


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #185
***********************************