ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n186

Internet Message Format | 2000-03-29 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #186
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Thursday, March 30 2000     Volume 02 : Number 186




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

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 16:04:18 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Use Of Deadly Force

On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:50:01 -0700 "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
writes:
> 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]

Karl,

I'm not a lawyer, but I can offer one bit of potential correction based
on the experience of having lived in Massachussetts for nearly 4 years
while attending college.

>
> From: "Fundamentals of Defensive Shooting" by John Farnam:
> IV. Preclusion
>
>Generally, mandatory
> retreat laws
> apply to every situation, except when the victim is in his own home.
>

It is my understanding that in some jurisdictions, like Massachusetts,
mandatory retreat laws apply to EVERY situation INCLUDING when the victim
in his/her own home.  Thus, even in your own home, you must retreat if
you are able to do so.  I believe that some, but not all, States that
once had this provision have now repealed it.  Others, including Utah,
insofar as I know, have never required a person to retreat from his/her
home before using deadly force.

Of course places like taxachusetts and NY will also lock a victim up for
having used an unregistered gun in self-defense even after the actual use
of that gun has been deemed justified.

==================================================================
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:24:01 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: JPFO Wants to Give You Money -- Will You Take It??

- -----
Subject: JPFO Wants to Give You Money -- Will You Take It??
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 16:45:28 -0800
From: JPFO Alerts <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

March 27, 2000

JPFO Wants to Give You Money -- Will You Take It??


Do you want to put the gun prohibitionists on the defensive?

Do you want to make the media froth at the mouth?

Do you want the public to reject victim disarmament?

Do you want to do these three things, and have the government
to actually help "pay" for them?

You can do it in YOUR CITY with our new matching funds program.
A highly patriotic JPFO member has made money available to help
pay for billboards featuring eye-catching JPFO artwork. You or
your local group can really make a difference ... at half the
cost!

Why Billboards?

Billboards can be the most cost-effective way to win hearts and
minds. Why? Because one picture can say a thousand words in just
a few seconds -- and the image goes directly into the brain --
hundreds and thousands of times per day. Pictures generate
emotional understanding like no other communication tool. He
who wins hearts and minds, wins the battle of ideas!

If the public develops a negative reaction to "gun control"
schemes, then the politicians will notice. Billboards can
quickly and effectively cause people to distrust and eventually
ridicule "gun control" rhetoric -- and that is exactly what we
need.

How Matching Funds Double Your Money

Here is the deal:

Committed supporters of freedom raise 50% of the cost of a
billboard, and send that to the JPFO matching funds program.
That money counts as a donation to JPFO, and is tax-deductible
for the donors. (JPFO is a 501c(3) tax-exempt educational
organization.)

JPFO will add in the other 50% of the cost, and then commission
the billboard.

Typical billboards are "30-sheet" style about 11 feet by 22 feet.
Depending upon location, they usually cost between $1,100 and
$1,500 for one month display rental. Compare that cost with a
full-page advertisement in a newspaper that can cost thousands
of dollars for just one day ... and forgotten the next day.

Have JPFO Billboards Succeeded Before?

Billboards really work. JPFO has successfully used billboards
before to raise public awareness of the issues. For example,
JPFO ran the blockbusting billboard that shows the monster
Adolf Hitler giving the Nazi salute and saying "All in favor
of 'gun control' raise your right hand." The billboard grabbed
attention worldwide because the Associated Press carried a story
about it. Even German and Israeli magazines noticed it.

The "Gun Control is Racist" billboards posted in Milwaukee's
inner city drew a strong media and public reaction -- and might
have helped convince citizens to support a Second Amendment-type
provision to be added to the state constitution. That provision
was approved by 73% of voters statewide.

JPFO urged pro-freedom activists in Missouri to use our approach
in the predominantly African-American section of St. Louis during
a referendum on concealed carry. Unfortunately, those activists
rejected our suggestion, and then spent hundreds of thousands
of dollars ... and lost.

By-pass the Media and Save Our Rights

We face the most serious national challenge to the right to keep
and bear arms that has ever appeared. The anti-self defense and
victim disarmament lobby is doing everything possible to destroy
our rights, and they have powerful mainstream media support.
You can make a huge impact to fight their effort if you take
advantage of this marvelous opportunity to DOUBLE the effect of
your pro-gun dollars.

The billboard matching fund program is easy, and it's the most
powerful way for you to fight back. Billboards by-pass the
mainstream media. Billboards speak the message all day long,
without being interrupted or cut off or censored by news
manipulators. You just can't get a better deal to influence
public opinion.

Matching Fund Program: It's Easy!

Here's all you do. By e-mail or fax, provide JPFO with:

    Your name and telephone number.

    The name and size of the city where you want to post the
    billboard.

    The location where you want to the billboard to appear.
    Please provide either a street address or cross-streets
    so we can find it on a map.

    The company name and phone number for the billboard you
    want to use. Usually the company name is featured at the
    bottom of the billboard; the phone number will probably be
    listed locally or as an 800 number.

    How much money you think you can raise -- must be at least
    50% of the billboard rental cost.

    The name of a local group who might assist in fund raising.

    The name of a local group or person who can be the contact
    for local media.

JPFO will help you choose the best billboard graphic, and then
make it happen!

Limited Time Opportunity -- Call Now!

Please contact me at JPFO today. Even if you have only some of
the needed information, but want to pursue the program, call me
with what you have.

The matching funds won't last forever, so it is first come,
first served. To maximize the effect of the billboard campaign
and to get the best advertising value, JPFO reserves the right
to make the final decision about whether to provide the matching
funds in any given situation. JPFO will let you know its
decision before you send in the money, of course!

This matching funds opportunity may be here but a short time.
Let me hear from you as soon as possible. There is too much at
stake to delay even a day.

Yours in liberty,
Aaron Zelman

Phone: [phone]
  Fax: [phone]

P.S.: If you're excited about the program but cannot get all
the resources and information together, you can still help.
You can send your private contribution to the matching funds
program -- just note "matching funds" on the check or when you
call with a credit card -- and JPFO will use that money to post
billboards in key cities. You still get the tax deduction --
and the money is DOUBLED! Now is the time to act, and your help
will really make a difference ... guaranteed!

See the billboard:

We also have a t-shirt: http://www.jpfo.org/triggerlocks.htm

================================================================
This Alert archived at http://www.jpfo.org/alert20000327.htm
================================================================
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

Phone: [phone]
Orders only: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
Fax: [phone]
Web: http://www.jpfo.org/

================================================================
To SUBSCRIBE to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

   mailto:[e-mail]

To UN-SUBSCRIBE to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

   mailto:[e-mail]

In either case, respond to the confirmation message you will
get back.
================================================================

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQA/AwUBOOAOHSYkT7EuY/ZzEQKsvwCgsWMobqwHH2WVLsTyPtHhge5F5hkAoMzd
OskTET8qvshRJTAsCplx6EBo
=QBwN
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- -

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

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:06:40 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: What the firearm manufacturers should do

- -----
Subject: What the firearm manufacturers should do
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:27:17 -0800
From: "Jon Roland" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

In response to the several local governments that have filed lawsuits
against the firearm manufacturers, they should not just defend against
them, but counterattack, using the following measures:

- - Urge all citizens to boycott the localities that have filed the actions,
and  for citizens of those localities to sue their governments in support
of the firearm manufacturers, providing boilerplate petitions and pleadings
for that purpose.

- - File countersuits for abuse of process, seeking all costs and punitive damages.

- - Suspend sales or deliveries of firearms to all government organizations
in the United States, unless or until they file actions in intervention, or
at least an amicus curiae brief, in support of the firearm manufacturers.
Let the government agencies, including those suing, imagine a world in
which they have to import all of their own firearms.

- - Publicly announce plans to dissolve their companies, release all
plans, tools, and methods to the public domain, and assist individuals
and organizations to become manufacturers themselves. Let the government
agencies imagine a world in which there are hundreds of thousands of
small firearms manufacturers.

The counteractions should stress the following arguments:

- - Suits against manufacturers are a constructive conspiracy to deprive
citizens of their right of self-defense (42 USC 1983).

- - Putting the manufacturers out of business would deprive government at
all levels of the ability to acquire firearms from domestic manufacturers.

- - Manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of their customers.

- - Firearms do more to deter violence than to facilitate injury, and the
benefits of such deterrence must be weighed against any costs of firearms
under the "attractive nuisance" theory of the plaintiffs.

- - The measures sought by the cities would constitute restraint of trade in
a way that would violate anti-trust laws, and interference in interstate
commerce.

- - The measures sought by the cities are impossible for the manufacturers
to effectively perform, since they do not control what happens to their
products once the products are sold, "smart gun" technology does not exist
and may never be reliable, and no one can be compelled to do the impossible.

- --Jon

===================================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM         Date: 03/22/00  Time: 09:52:55
http://www.constitution.org/     mailto:[e-mail]
===================================================================

- -

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

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:19:03 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Words of Encouragement from another CEO to S&W

- -----
Subject: Words of Encouragement from another CEO to S&W
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:55:20 -0500
From: "Weldon Clark" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

Words of Encouragement from another CEO to S&W

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000
To: Ed Schultz CEO & President
Smith & Wesson
2100 Roosevelt Ave.
Springfield, MA 01102
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
http:/www.smith-wesson.com [Note: doesn't appear valid. - Scott]
[e-mail]

From: Rick Carone [e-mail]
Editors Note: Rick Carone is a past member of the NRA
Board of Directors and VP of Chase Manhattan Bank.
Presently he is CEO of the OGM group of companies. NRA
and GOA have condemned the S&W actions and many are
calling for a boycott.

Subject: Words of Encouragement from another CEO

Ed:

I'm the CEO of an oil company that operates offshore in an
environmentally sensitive area. As you might appreciate,
ours is a highly regulated industry. In fact, we work with
over 30 state, local and federal government agencies. Having
dealt with extremist environmental groups over the last
twenty years, who also use "safety" to try and shut down
offshore projects and destroy the associated companies...
we're still here... So may I give you some advice? Keep in
mind that you are dealing with extremists who simply want
all guns and anything or anyone associated with them to
"disappear". Nothing you say or do trying to appease them is
going to change that...you just proved to them that their
bullying tactics work and have emboldened them for their next
attack.

I've watched companies in our business try the very same thing
(appeasement)....These few companies are perceived as weak. Far
from letting up on them, the extremist groups -- like wolves--
continually attack the weakest companies in the industry. This
works out pretty well for the rest of us for a number of reasons:

1) It's a lesson for everyone in the industry -- including the
company whose "reasonable concessions" are taken advantage of
- -- that appeasement does not work. Thus the survivors are
strengthened whether or not the weak company survives (in many
cases they can't).

2) While the appeasing company becomes the one to be continually
chewed on, pressure is taken off the rest of the industry, giving
them the opportunity to more effectively deal with threats.

So what you've done here may not be all that bad for the industry
as a whole; it's just going to take a lot of energy, time and
money out of S&W as you become their red meat. In this regard,
I think you deserve another prestigious NRA award and banquet,
like the one they gave you a couple of years ago.

Great Job.....Keep up the good work. Not everyone
appreciates how smart you have to be to develop a smart
gun. When the going gets tough...just remember the words
of another great businessman....Rodney King...
"Can't we all just get along?"

Good Luck & Best Regards, Rick Carone

******************************************************
From: Weldon H. Clark Jr.

Dear Ed:

I'm an engineer who design and builds products for an
industry with more accidents and law suits that the firearms
industry. You have made a bad mistake.

Did you ever seek the advice of anyone else before giving in
to blackmail?

When your new technology fails to work, you and S&W will
be sued. This so called smart technology can and will fail.
Firearms have been designed over many decades to withstand
extremes of temperature and water and dirt.

Can you imagine your own home with a burglar breaking in
and not being able to use your own firearm?

Can you foresee a criminal using one of your guns and the
guns fires in spite of your device?

If you produce this device simply because you were
blackmailed into it and force this on your customers you
deserve all the lawsuits you are going to get.

Weldon H. Clark Jr.
**************************************************
from The 2ndAmendmentNews Team

To join please send to [e-mail] the text:
SUBSCRIBE 2nd-Amendment-News

- -

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

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:57:40 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whispers of Change?

Whispers of Change?
3-21-2000
by Lowell Potter


Is it possible that there are whispers of something other than the
politically correct spin of Media, Inc. gently starting to rustle through
the leaves of the status quo?

Although no fanfare or even reaction resulted from it, Jesse Ventura uttered
the unthinkable the other night on national television. In an interview
conducted by Chris Matthews at Winona State University in Minnesota, the
popular loose-cannon Minnesota governor spoke the unspeakable.

In response to a question by a young college student concerning gun control
laws, the 2nd Amendment, and the possible curtailing of hunting activites,
the irascible and unpredictable Ventura shook his massive finger at the
query and said something very similar to this:

"The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution has nothing at all to do with
hunting rights. No, (shaking finger) the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was
to guarantee that people could keep and bear arms in order that they might
prevent unscrupulous governments from becoming too oppressive!"

Sadly, but predictably, the youthful questioner stood with a vacant and
uncomprehending look on his face, as did perhaps most of the viewing
audience that evening. Matthews was deathly silent and obviously mildly
shocked by Ventura's forthright exclaimation, and I rooted with my every
fiber that Jesse would repeat his blockbuster statement and hammer home
the point in no uncertain terms even more unequivocally.

Alas, the moment passed and the interview continued as though Jesse had
never breached this forbidden topic. Perhaps Jesse sensed the palpable
indignation of Matthews and the legions of Media Inc.'s programmed minions
that he represented, forever turning a blind eye to Jesse from that moment on.

Jesse Ventura is nothing if he is not a showman, and it may be possible that
this vision of a future cold-shoulder by the media prompted him to say no
more of 2nd Amendment meanings and the implications they might hold for the
future of America.

Maybe Jesse knows too well the limits imposed by the puppetmasters, and he
knew immediately that he was crossing the line and subjecting himself to
some insidious form of neutralization.

I would prefer to think that Jesse felt he had made his point clearly the
first time, which he really did, but I doubt that that is why he didn't
venture to repeat his statement.

Speaking of governors, what about George Pataki of New York? Elected some
years ago on a platform of reduced government and back-to-earth public
policy, Pataki is now the author of a classic incremental registration and
disarmament bill in the Empire State.

As I happened to click on Pataki's talking head as I was searching the
television for the sanity of any old golf telecast, I was shocked to hear
the once ballyhooed Republican poster boy for government reduction,
espousing inane, illogical, and draconian legislation, having the ultimate
aim of total gun prohibition for all private people.

I always thought Pataki had a kind of a funny look about him, ....slightly
askew, with sort of a crooked sneer cum smile and peculiar and constantly
half-lidded large pop-eyes, but as I watched Pataki basking in the limelight
of live national television, he looked absolutely cartoonish, a la Who
Framed Roger Rabbit?....sort of a cross between a big ham and a lurking
crocodile.

Sure, ....elect Republicans, ....they'll carry the torch of libertyûûûNOT!

If all of this wasn't so damned threatening to America as we once knew it
(....so, I'm old), it might even be laughable. Everything's so damn surreal
anymore, with surveillance cameras everywhere, and ubiquitous biometrics
expanding exponentially, while talking heads on giant screens mouth
statements eerily envisioned decades ago in foreboding fictional works like
Brave New World and 1984.

There's a guy named Dr. Chuck Baldwin who writes columns on the internet
at WorldnetDaily.com, amongst other places, who wrote in a piece there
yesterday a paragraph so succinct and insightful, I am compelled to
reproduce it here (....so sue me).

Herewith, then, from the piece entitled, Only changed hearts can change
America, Dr. Chuck Baldwin:

"A willful rejection of truth permeates the land. Those who speak the truth
are regarded as thickheaded troublemakers. They receive neither praise nor
position. The American people have traded the great themes of freedom (and
those who proclaim them) for a mess of government pottage. The fundamental
principles of America's founding documents are as popular as a case of the
chicken pox. There is no truth so great that it cannot be ignored or any
virtue so noble that it cannot be abolished."

Remember that last line, "There is no truth so great that it cannot be
ignored or any virtue so noble that it cannot be abolished."

It just might save our country.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:15:53 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Felony charge for self-defense

Don't brandish.

Scott

- -----
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:30:36 -0400
To: [e-mail]
From: "Russlin Saw Co." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Felony charge for self-defense4
Cc: [e-mail]

From: "Russlin Saw Co." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Felony charge for self-defense

The attachment is my letter to the western Mass. State Police CO. [not
provided] My wife was attacked by a driver in an eighteen-wheeler, and
almost run off the road. As he was coming after her for the fourth time,
she pulled her .38 from her purse, and laid it against the steering wheel.
She has a carry PERmit, has had for 'bout 10 years, and it had exactly
the desired effect, the trucker backed off immediately. She then pulled
into the first place with people and a phone, and the trucker took flight.

She then called the Shelburne State Police barracks, next down the road,
and told them what had transpired. The reaction from the Trooper there was,
"Oh you shouldn't have done that! HE COULD FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU."
Took her three minutes to get him around to the actions of the trucker,
that MAYBE the State Cops should be looking for that particular fool. So
on she goes, keeping a wary eye out for the truck, and four miles later
pulls into a country store parking lot because there are two cars riding
her bumper; turns out that they are two female state cops, and they start
yelling at her, "Is there a gun in your vehicle, Is there a gun in your
vehicle!!!" In Mass. the mere presence of a firearm in a car does NOT
constitute "Probable cause" that a crime has been committed. It seems that
the trucker pulled up to them, and stated that "...there was a lady back
there that waved a gun at me." Acting solely on that, the Troopers asked
her to get out, asked to search the vehicle, she said No, and they did it
anyway! Found nothing of course.

After a 'pat down' search of my wife, a search of her coat, and the
illegal search of the car, about this time a North Adams Detective shows
up, and begins to berate her, and asks her what she did to PISS HIM OFF,
meaning the trucker. (!!!) He then tells her, "Oh, you can't have a loaded
gun in the car." (When That detective talked to our GOAL-recomended lawyer
the next day, this gomer stated that he "...didn't know much about the gun
laws." In Mass., if you have a carry PERmit. you can have the gun sitting
on your dashboard if you want, as long, I must add, as you are the only
one in the vehicle. Otherwise, you must have the gun, "Under your control."
Vague-but then most of the gun laws are purposely that way, thereby open
to misinterpretation, usually by the 'Law'.

So now these two Trooper airheads think they have something. They MIRANDIZED
my dear wife, and the detective, (and I use the term only as an identifier)
reaches into the car, takes the gun off the seat, and hands it to one of the
Troopers! He heads out, and the Troopers tell Linda that she is free to go,
essentially turning her back on the road..... defenseless. She told them
that if they were going to keep her gun, that she wanted an escort home,
and they refused. (Not too surprised, are we?) She is to be charged with
'Assault with a dangerous weapon'.

My wife stands 5'4", weighs 120 lbs., is an Anesthetic Nurse working in
a Hospital Operating room, has taken the NRA gun safety course, is a
licensed Mass. gunowner. has not even a PARKING TICKET on her record!
and has NEVER drawn her gun, except on the firing range, and would never
even consider it, unless she was terrified. My wife is neither a hothead,
nor is she a coward. I believe her actions to be appropriate and timely.
I believe also that the only reason she is being charged with a FELONY,
is because the cops would 'lose face' otherwise. They don't give one shit
how this is affecting her or anyone else.

We need help here. We are members of GOAL, GOA and JPFO, and we hope
for and expect some assistance. Not monetary neccessarily, but a LARGE
turnout at the arraignment, as would an e-mail back to Linda with
encouragement and support. Her arraignment is to be April 11, at the
North Adams Couthouse at 9 am, and anyone that can be there then would
be very welcome.

Linda and Russ Hamilton  [e-mail]
Phone # [phone]

- -

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

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:51:23 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Felony charge for self-defense

List owner "Chad Leigh, Shire.Net LLC and Pengar Enterprises, Inc." wrote:

> This doesn't really sound like brandishment, though I am not a lawyer.
> She never took it and presented it in any way to the ahole trucker.
> She merely let him know that she was armed.

Let people assume it. If at all possible don't display a weapon
prior to shooting or aiming it, and never threaten with it unless
holding someone under arrest.

> This is a good reason to h ave a cell phone though.  Call 911 and report
> the trucker and let the Staties show up.  Keep driving and don't stop or
> get out.

Good points.
- ---
"An armed society is a polite society."
- - Robert A. Heinlein in "Beyond This Frontier"

- -

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

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:14:13 -0500
From: "Chad Leigh, Shire.Net LLC and Pengar Enterprises, Inc." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Felony charge for self-defense

I agree, though what is needed here is a legal definition since we are in
court with the question and not discussing ideal carrying behavior.

Chad

- --On Wednesday, March 29, 2000 3:51 PM -0700 Scott Bergeson
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> List owner "Chad Leigh, Shire.Net LLC and Pengar Enterprises, Inc." wrote:
>
>> This doesn't really sound like brandishment, though I am not a lawyer.
>> She never took it and presented it in any way to the ahole trucker.
>> She merely let him know that she was armed.
>
> Let people assume it. If at all possible don't display a weapon
> prior to shooting or aiming it, and never threaten with it unless
> holding someone under arrest.
>
>> This is a good reason to h ave a cell phone though.  Call 911 and report
>> the trucker and let the Staties show up.  Keep driving and don't stop or
>> get out.
>
> Good points.
> ---
> "An armed society is a polite society."
> - Robert A. Heinlein in "Beyond This Frontier"
>
> -
>





- -

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

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:10:30 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Professor Joseph Olson Says Boycott S&W

The agreement is also available in HTML at:
http://www.hud.gov/pressrel/gunagree.html

- -----
Professor Joseph Olson Says Boycott S&W.
for the remainder of 2000. Put THEM out of business.
From: "Joseph Olson" <[e-mail]>

Please REPOST everywhere.

Smith & Wesson gets 2/3 of its business from the civilian
marketplace. There aren't enough police/military sales to
sustain their business. But, there are plenty of other
firearm makes and models out there. America's gun owners,
put simply, don't need Smith & Wesson.

IF WE ALL STOPPED BUYING NEW S&W FIREARMS,
KNIVES, HATS, AND ACCESSORIES FOR THE REST OF
2000 and 01, THERE WOULD BE NO S&W TO KEEP THE
"DEAL" WITH THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

No one has to go without a gun, simply go without a S&W gun.

Even if other manufacturers sell out too, S&W did it first and
their business death will send a message. In fact, I'd even
think about boycotting all "S&W Authorized Dealers" too (since
they won't make legal sales of legal products solely because
they have promised S&W they won't. Well I won't either!).
There are plenty of other dealers hungry for your money.

The S&W CEO was quoted in the WSJ on March 21st saying that,
in effect, gun owners are nuts right now but they will keep
buying S&W products. History may prove him correct - S&W was
the first manufacturer to sell out gun owners in 1968 (the
first federal gun control law) in order to get limits on its
foreign competition and we kept on buying.

Lets fool them all - STOP BUYING NEW S&W PRODUCTS
AT ANY PRICE, FROM ANYONE.

The full text of the S&W agreement is available at:

http://www.isra.org/smithagree.pdf This is the site for the
Illinois State Rifle Association, which is the NRA state
affiliate.

For legislative updates and the full test of the S&W
agreement contact http://www.nealknox.com

It is WORSE that the media has made it out to be. S&W must
be boycotted out of the civilian firearms business.

No manufacturer can make a firearm out of stainless steel
nor apply a corrosion resistant material because no gun can
be "resistent to fingerprints."

No "authorized" dealer can sell LEGAL pre-1994 high capacity
magazines nor sell LEGAL pre-1994 "assault weapons" except,
of course, to the official police of the state.

No "authorized" dealer can sell at any gun show unless every
seller present conducts a background check on every
purchaser whether or not such check is LEGALLY required.

**********************************************************************
Professor Joseph Olson  Hamline University School of Law
phone  [phone]       St. Paul, Minnesota   55104-1284
fax  [phone]            <[e-mail]>

Here is an on-line petition to boycott Smith & Wesson.
Please sign:
http://www.i-charity.net/sw.cgi/ptn/30/tfref/3329

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

- -

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

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:03:09 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: 2000 BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS

The wonders of publik edyukayshun...
How much of this goes on in Utah?

Scott

THURSDAY MARCH 30

2000 BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS

Sixth grader targeted for pro-gun remarks 'A' student defends 2nd
Amendment, flagged as violence risk..........
By Jon E. Dougherty ⌐ 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

School officials at Harbor Lights Middle School flagged a Holland,
Michigan boy as potentially dangerous because the 12-year-old suggested
to a teacher that one way to prevent school shootings would be to arm
instructors.

Derek Loutzenheiser, a model student who had such good grades that some
teachers recommended he be tested early for a popular standardized
pre-college performance test, made his comments in early March, after
being asked by a social studies teacher what he thought might make kids
safer in school.

Derek had been asked to participate in a classroom discussion about
"school shootings and safety," said the sixth grader's father, Tim
Loutzenheiser.

"My son simply stated that his opinion was that he would feel safer
if some of the adults at the school were trained and allowed to carry
firearms," Mr. Loutzenheiser told WorldNetDaily.

His reply caused him to be "flagged" as a potential violence risk by
teachers and school administrators, who then contacted his parents to
suggest they meet with the school's "Hazard and Risk Assessment Team."

"My wife and I were in disbelief when they (school officials) telephoned
us and told us that's what they wanted to do," Loutzenheiser said. "We
asked, 'Do you have the right kid?'"

In resulting talks with school officials, Loutzenheiser said he learned
that his son "often spoke favorably about the First and Second Amendments,
but the comment he made to his Social Studies teacher was the one that
triggered this action."

School officials told the couple that because of Derek's comments he
should be separated from the other students and forced to enter the
school's "Mentor" program, where he would be studied by an adult
supervisor who would monitor Derek's thought processes.

"We were told that this would be in the best interest of my son, and
by doing this the school would not have to involve Social Services,"
Loutzenheiser said. "We refused."

At that point, the couple contacted an attorney in nearby Grand
Rapids, Michigan -- one referred to them through the National Rifle
Association's Institute for Legislative Action. The couple has also
been told by a representative from the Rutherford Institute, an
international legal and educational civil liberties organization,
that "they would be willing to take on this issue."

Loutzenheiser said when he and his wife, Shelly, arrived for the
Hazard Team meeting Mar. 8, "We were outnumbered 7 to 2." He told
WorldNetDaily that he wanted to make a good first impression with
the members, so he shook each member's hand and introduced himself.

He also told them he had brought along a tape recorder and would be
taping the proceedings since none of the legal organizations that said
they would represent him could send a representative to the meeting on
such short notice.

"My wife and I both saw a transformation from 'smugness' ...
to looks of great concern on some of their faces," he said.

"What was odd about the purpose of this whole meeting," said
Loutzenheiser, "was that three of the team members were Derek's
teachers, and each of them said they didn't know there was any
'situation' with him. That got me to thinking, 'Then why are we here?'"

However, and though "team" members denied it, the elder Loutzenheiser
said he believes teachers and school administrative personnel began to
form a bad impression of his son when, in January of this year, the
sixth grader refused to sign a "Red Letter" vow of peace to celebrate
Martin Luther King's birthday.

"The letter, which was written by the principal," Loutzenheiser said,
"asked the students to take an oath to turn in their friends for
suspicious activity, to vow to never defend themselves if attacked,
and something to the effect of never to use a gun or other weapons.
Derek simply told the principal, 'I'm not signing that.' "I think
that's what got him 'noticed' by some of the administrative staff
at least," he said.

Of the meeting with "team" members, Loutzenheiser said, "We got right
to the point and determined that the charges against my son are without
merit. They all assured me that he is a wonderful student, gets straight
A's, and because he is a little more advanced academically (at their
suggestion he took the ACT test and scored very well) they feel he may
need an 'adult' to talk to about issues."

Loutzenheiser admitted he didn't know what team members were implying
about having Derek "talk to an adult about issues." He added, "We were
able to determine that because my son knows and understands political
and Constitutional issues so well, that he often speaks in terms not
typical of a 12-year-old, and we should be assured they have no issues
with this."

The couple believes Derek's Social Studies teacher was the impetus for the inquiry.

"She felt concern when Derek stated -- when she asked -- that he would
feel safer if some of the adults would be trained and have access to
firearms at school," said Derek's father. "Because this teacher felt
this [was an] irrational threat, she spoke to other 'team' members who
are also Derek's teachers."

The couple said they discovered that there had been a series of similar
misunderstandings involving some of the things Derek had said in school
- -- none of which were threatening or dangerous.

One teacher, said Loutzenheiser, stated that he heard Derek speak of
taking the hunter's safety course -- which was offered through the
school -- and that Derek sometimes spoke about how he liked hunting.

Another teacher said that in her class, where his son helps write the
school paper, he was tasked with reviewing a video game. The teacher,
he said, felt that the game might contain violence but didn't feel
"concern" until "after she spoke with the 'team.'"

One of the vice principals, the couple said, also felt Derek may need
some "mentoring" because he was "attacked by three older students last
September, in which Derek fought back and deterred his attackers on
school property," Loutzenheiser said.

"They (school officials) wanted to reinforce how understanding they
were, in light of the fact that the school has a zero tolerance policy
- -- no fighting even in self defense -- and how Derek was not punished
in any way for defending himself," Loutzenheiser said.

However, his wife Shelly had inquired of teachers and school officials
just a day before the meeting occurred, and "there were no issues
yesterday, but they seemed to remember some today," he said.

"We also asked them why, if these problems were so terrible, no one
had bothered to pick up the phone and call us before it came to this,"
said Loutzenheiser.

More disturbing to the couple was the school's constant alluding to
"a list" -- ostensibly the same "list" their son, Derek, was on,
albeit briefly.

"No one really explained what this 'list' was," Loutzenheiser said,
"but from the sound of it, if you raised anyone's eyebrows at the
school -- for any reason -- you made this 'list.'"

Jerry Klomparens, principal of Harbor Lights Middle School, told
WorldNetDaily he could not discuss cases or incidents involving
specific children. However, he spoke briefly about the school's
"Mentor Program" policies, and said they were only administered
after school officials obtained permission from a student's parents.

"We believe any educational processes must first come from parents,"
Klomparens said. "This program is only designed to help parents" meet
special needs of certain students.

The principal explained that Harbor Lights uses the mentoring program
to "match students who have particular interests up with teachers or
adults (who are volunteers) who have similar interests."

When asked about the so-called "list" that Loutzenheiser mentioned,
Klomparens reiterated that it was school policy "not to discuss the
status of our students." He also said it was possible that some errors
may have been made in the past in explaining the "mentor" program to
some parents.

"It's not a real formal program," he said, adding that sometimes
teachers suggest students whom they believe would benefit from it.
Other than having mutual interests, Klomparens said neither teacher
nor adult volunteer mentors have received any special training or
qualifications.

But the Loutzenheisers remain unconvinced.

"Each of these people on the 'team' probably had no issue with Derek,
but by virtue of assembling together and talking, they were able to
feed upon each others' concerns, no matter how small, and allowed them
to grow," said Tim Loutzenheiser. "We're convinced that Derek will now
be placed under a microscope for observation more than ever."

Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.


This page was last built 3/29/00; 9:14:20 PM Direct corrections and
technical inquiries to [e-mail] Please direct news
submissions to [e-mail]

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #186
***********************************