ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n219

Internet Message Format | 2001-10-11 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #219
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Friday, October 12 2001     Volume 02 : Number 219




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

Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:31:29 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Oregon Firearms Federation

Do Utah gun groups concur? LP release to follow.

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Oregon Firearms Federation
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:18:53 -0700
From: [e-mail]
To: "Multiple recipients of Project: Safe Sky Mailing list" <[e-mail]>

Of potential interest is _Oregon Firearms Federation_, which bills
itself as "Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Lobby". I sent them a
pointer to http://www.projectsafeskies.org/. They're at:

    mailto:[e-mail]
    http://oregonfirearms.org/

Their alerts page includes:

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

OREGON FIREARMS FEDERATION CALLS FOR AN END TO
PASSENGER DISARMAMENT

OFF ALERT 9/17/01

Dear Friends,

The events of last Tuesday have forever changed the face of America. Many
of us know people who died in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Our
prayers are with the victims, their families and the countless heroes
who are working around the clock in rescue and recovery efforts.

No doubt our country will respond. But let us not allow this act of
barbarism to become an excuse for an attack on freedom. To do so would be
to hand a victory to the perpetrators of this vicious act of mass murder.

Already Congress has started to pass laws that would restrict the
privacy of American civilians. As tempting as it may be to accept this,
(the illusion of security in exchange for liberty) it simply won't make
us any safer.

Now more than ever we must stand up for our rights and demand back the
rights we have lost.

There is now no question that the loss of our right to defend ourselves
while traveling led directly to the success of the murderous missions
in New York and Washington.

O.F.F. has issued a press release, the text of which follows. After that
is contact information for our Senators, Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith.

Contact information for other Senators can be obtained at
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Please contact your Representatives in Congress and remind them that
there is security in liberty.

In freedom,
Kevin Starrett

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

For Immediate Release: 9/17/01

OREGON FIREARMS FEDERATION CALLS FOR AN END TO PASSENGER DISARMAMENT.

The tragic events of last Tuesday have proven beyond doubt that rendering
American travelers defenseless is a deadly strategy. Our prayers are
with the victims and their loved ones.

On Tuesday September 11, untold thousands of Americans died at the
hands of a small group of foreign nationals armed with nothing more
sophisticated than common warehouse equipment.

Sadly, the response of many in government and the media has been to call
for even more attacks on American's liberties. But there can be no denying
that the one plane that did not destroy its intended target was the plane
that was carrying people willing to fight and die against terrorists.

"What a shame that the brave men and women aboard that plane were
stripped of their right to protect themselves by the very government
that's now demanding they give up more freedom" said Kevin Starrett,
executive director of Oregon Firearms Federation. "The members of the
anti-self defense lobby have these deaths as the fruit of their labors."

The Oregon Firearms Federation calls on Congress to reverse the insane
policy of requiring Americans to travel unarmed while simultaneously
demanding that Americans give up more liberty, privacy and security. The
events of last Tuesday, says O.F.F., were the result of a calamitous
failure of our intelligence agencies after years of emasculation by the
Clinton administration, not a failure of American civilians.

Starrett said "Had one or two people on that plane, be they crew or
passengers, been permitted to exercise their God given right to self
protection, this horrible event would have ended very differently."

O.F.F. believes that calling for the erosion of rights is the exact
strategy the suicide pilots would have applauded. Liberty is security.



NEVER AGAIN UNARMED....    LET FREEDOM FIGHT!

- ---

>=  PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org
>=
>=  PROJECT: SAFE SKIES MAILING LIST (http://www.vader.com/safesky/)
>=
>= TO POST TO THE LIST:       send mail to [e-mail]
>= TO SUBSCRIBE TO LIST:      send mail to [e-mail]
>= TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM LIST:  send mail to [e-mail]

- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:34:00 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: LP RELEASE: Bus Hijacking

The LP has the right idea! Permitted CCW doesn't cut it.

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================

Tennessee bus hijacking shows need for
for 50-state concealed-carry gun laws

WASHINGTON, DC -- In the wake of the Tennessee bus hijacking yesterday that
left six people dead, every state should immediately pass Vermont-style
concealed-carry gun laws so Americans can defend themselves against
terrorists or deranged murderers, the Libertarian Party said today.

"Let's put the Second Amendment to work to protect Americans," said the
party's national director, Steve Dasbach. "The best defense against
hijackers -- or run-of-the-mill copycat madmen -- is to give every American
the legal right to own a gun and carry it everywhere."

Early Wednesday, a Croatian man used a box cutter to slash the throat of a
Greyhound bus driver just outside Manchester, Tennessee.

The man then grabbed the steering wheel and attempted to drive the bus into
oncoming traffic. The bus tipped over, killing at least six people including
the hijacker, and injuring 34 others.

Greyhound temporarily suspended bus service following the attack, but the
U.S. Justice Department said the hijacking was probably not related to the
September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Police speculated that the hijacker was a mentally unbalanced copycat
criminal.

Whatever the man's motivation, the attack points out that no form of
transportation is safe from potential attack, said Dasbach -- which is why
every law-abiding American needs the right to carry a concealed weapon.

"After terrorists hijacked four airliners on September 11, the consensus was
that greater airport security could stymie such attacks," he said. "That may
be true, but a similar solution won't protect Americans who use buses,
trains, taxicabs, or other forms of travel. There are simply too many modes
of public transportation.

"The only way to keep Americans safe is to decentralize protection: Give
every law-abiding citizen the right to carry a weapon at all times.

"No, that won't stop every attempted hijacking -- and may not even have
stopped the tragedy in Tennessee -- but criminals and terrorists will be far
less likely to attack if they know they'll be staring down the business end
of a dozen American guns."

Currently, 31 states have "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws, which require
the state government to issue a gun permit to any resident who is not
disqualified by a felony conviction, mental illness, or similar objection.

Tennessee has a "shall-issue" law, but its permit is reciprocally honored in
only 12 other states, and Tennessee honors only nine other states' permits.

That's a problem, said Dasbach, because the bus that was hijacked in
Tennessee originated in Chicago, Illinois and was heading for Atlanta,
Georgia. Only one of those states (Georgia) had a reciprocal permit
agreement with Tennessee -- making it impossible for passengers to legally
carry a weapon for the duration of the trip.

"America needs 50-state reciprocity," he said. "A gun permit valid in one
state should be equally valid in all 50 states. That's the only way to
protect people on interstate trips."

To make that protection as easy as possible to acquire, every state should
pass gun permit legislation modeled after Vermont's gun law, said Dasbach.

In Vermont, any citizen can carry a firearm without getting a permit,
without paying a fee, and without any government-mandated waiting period.

Despite the ease with which people can acquire guns -- or perhaps because of
it -- Vermont enjoys the 49th lowest crime rate in America, noted Dasbach.

"The conventional wisdom is that more guns equal more crime," he said. "But
Vermont is stark proof that more guns, and easier access to guns, are the
best possible deterrent to crime."

However, evidence of the "More Guns/Less Crime" principle extends beyond
Vermont, said Dasbach.

In October 2000, the FBI released a report showing that gunshot wounds
inflicted during crimes decreased by 40% from 1992 and 1997 -- falling from
64,100 to 39,400 nationwide.

During the same five years, the number of guns in America increased by 12%
- -- surging from 205 million to 230 million, according to the National
Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers.

Also, according to a study by John Lott and David Mustard at the University
of Chicago, concealed-carry handgun laws reduced murder rates by 8.5% in
those states that passed such laws, compared to states which make gun
ownership difficult or impossible. Had such right-to-carry laws been in
effect all 50 states, there would be 1,600 fewer murders every year, they
reported.

Given all this evidence, Job #1 in the war against terrorism should be to
give Americans the right to own and carry a firearm, said Dasbach.

"In memory of the victims of the Tennessee bus hijacking, every state should
immediately pass a Vermont-style gun law, and make it reciprocal with every
other state," he said.

"Politicians need to make it as easy for every American to buy and carry a
gun as it is to buy a bus ticket. By doing so, they'll make it easier for
the next would-be terrorist to buy a one-way ticket to an early grave."

#       #       #

- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:09:36 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Murray Sabrin - September 11th

- -----
Subject: September 11th
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 07:47:13 -0500
From: [e-mail]

The first draft of the essay below was written on September 23th.
As I finished it I received a call from my father's attending
physician informing me of his death.  I dedicate this essay to my
father, World War II partisan commander, freedom fighter, and NRA
member. The essay is a slightly revised version of the one I
submitted to The Record (Hackensack) early last week.  Feel free
to share it with anyone.

National defense begins with self-defense

On September 11th four coordinated hijackings within minutes of
each other caused the greatest loss of life in American history
and the destruction of billions of dollars of property.  The
terrorist attacks on America soil were committed by a dedicated
group of zealots using one of the oldest tools known to man.
They commandeered four planes using knives and its ôhigh-techö
cousin, box cutters.  The hijackers did not takeover the flights
with ceramic or plastic guns bypassing several airport security
checkpoints, nor did they have help from co-conspirators who
planted guns on the airplanes.

The federal governmentÆs response was predictable.  Airline
passengers are now banned from carrying penknives and other sharp
instruments.  In effect, the Federal Aviation AdminitrationÆs new
policy will render pilots and their crews and passengers even
more defenseless against any future hijackings.

The death and destruction that occurred on September 11th never
should have happened.  Despite spending more than $350 billion
on ônational defenseö and ôintelligenceö, 19 terrorists armed
only with knives escaped detection at three major airports and
were able to cause untold death and destruction.  This was the
greatest national security failure in the history of the world.

How could America be so wantonly attacked?  What did government
officials know about suspected terrorist activity and when did
they know it?  We need answers from government officials, and
we should demand that they respond quickly, putting all the
information they had about potential attacks prior to September
11th before us so we can judge their competence.

The crews and passengers of the three planes that crashed into
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon died needlessly.  The
hijackers were determined to take the lives of as many Americans
as possible, and in three instances they inflicted horrific
damage, because they knew the crews and the passengers were
disarmed by our own government.

In other words, we witnessed the tragic result of gun control
right before our eyes on television.  Armed individuals - pilots
and trained civilians - would have had the means to stop the
hijackers in their tracks.  Instead, the political eliteÆs
policy of unilateral disarmament of pilots and qualified
passengers contributed to the worst attack on the American people.

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 21) an American
Airlines pilot makes his case for arming pilots:  ôWe need a last
line of defense to keep hijackers out of the cockpit.  Federal
agents from even the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Department
of Agriculture, Department of Education and the Smithsonian
Institution are allowed to carry guns on commercial airlines.
Why not the pilots who are responsible for the aircraft?  Many of
us already have better firearms training than that provided to
those agencies ù and weÆre willing to get more at our own expense.ö

The tragedy of 9/11 reveals that a strong national defense must be
based on self-defense.  As long as the political Θlites continue
to distrust the American people to exercise their natural right
to self-defense, unspeakable tragedies will continue to happen to
innocent Americans.  Despite President BushÆs stirring address to
the nation on September 20th, why should we have faith and
confidence that the federal governmentÆs $300 billion national
defense establishment, which was unable to thwart the September
11th attack against America, will protect us from foreign attacks
in the future?

Maybe now is the time to reassess our foreign policy that has
placed U.S. troops in 100 countries, leaving us vulnerable at
home.  In other words, we need a real national defense to protect
the American people.  The cost of being the worldÆs policeman was
the horrific loss of life right here in the U.S.A.

The American people are sitting ducks for the zealots who have no
regard for our lives and property.  Why donÆt the political Θlites
allow us to defend ourselves?  Because they do not trust the
people to take care of themselves.  On September 11th we witnessed
the result of several decades of welfare-state policies.  One of
the greatest myths was shattered on September 11th: ôWeÆre from
the government and weÆre going to protect you.ö  Now that we are
united as a nation as never before, let the people as well as the
U.S. military defend the homeland.  LetÆs bring our troops home and
have a real national defense.  We certainly do not need another
federal bureaucracy.

Murray Sabrin is Professor of Finance at Ramapo College.  He is
currently writing a book on the policies of AmericaÆs political
elites.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:33:41 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bellesiles asked to defend controversial anti-gun claims

Boston Globe
   Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author
   of a book on gun ownership in early America, has been
   asked by his department to write a detailed defense
   of his research. Historians have found a pattern of false
   claims and fraudulent research in the anti-gun book.
   (10/04/01)
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/276/living/University_asks_historian_to_defend_his_research_on_gun_ownership_book+.shtml

- -

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

Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 11:19:48 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun Control Supporters Quietly Gathering Signatures

Re: http://www.sltrib.com/10062001/saturday/137911.htm

DAWN HOUSE, secret writer for THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, alleges you,
Gary Sackett mailto:[e-mail], board member of Utahns
Against Gun Violence, said "No one with a concealed weapons
permit could have prevented what took place". I am sure you are
well aware your statement is both false and disingenuous. An
ordinary citizen with a CCP could not have done so because the
airlines and the FAA do not allow such to CCW in airports or
onboard commercial airliners, so in that sense your statement
is only true by what it conceals. OTOH, someone with a federal
carry license could well have stopped the skyjackers had s/he
been present physically and mentally, armed and disposed to do
so. I expect a retraction and apology in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Scott Bergeson
mailto:[e-mail]

NEVER AGAIN UNARMED....    LET FREEDOM FIGHT!
>= PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org/

- -

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

Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 11:52:49 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun Control Supporters Quietly Gathering Signatures - Corrected

Corrected: the http://www.uagv.org/netinfo.html Website
lists an invalid contact address.

Re: http://www.sltrib.com/10062001/saturday/137911.htm

DAWN HOUSE, secret writer for THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, alleges
you, Gary Sackett mailto:[e-mail], board member
of Utahns Against Gun Violence, said "No one with a concealed
weapons permit could have prevented what took place". I am sure
you are well aware your statement is both false and disingenuous.
An ordinary citizen with a CCP could not have done so because
the airlines and the FAA do not allow such to CCW in airports or
onboard commercial airliners, so in that sense your statement
is only true by what it conceals. OTOH, someone with a federal
carry license could well have stopped the skyjackers had s/he
been present physically and mentally, armed and disposed to do
so. I expect a retraction and apology in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Scott Bergeson
mailto:[e-mail]

NEVER AGAIN UNARMED....    LET FREEDOM FIGHT!
>= PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org/

- -

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

Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:00:12 -0600
From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Great letter to the editor on armed passengers

Terrorists target defenseless

Hijacking would cease instantly with one simple and secure change
- - every pilot and passenger who elects to arm themselves should be
allowed to do so. Terrorists would immediately look elsewhere for
their victims. Terrorists target the defenseless. One air marshal
will not do the job - they will be quickly overcome by multiple
hijackers. The strongest cockpit door can, and will be opened.
Armed citizens on an airliner who are willing to defend themselves
would outnumber the terrorists every time. Hijackings would be
reduced to zero - beginning with the first armed flight.

In contrast, consider the present government logic: They demand
the exclusive right to offer armed resistance to terrorists and
other criminals. However, if they fail (as they will), their
reaction to their own failure is to kill the disarmed innocents
they failed to protect - to shoot down the entire airplane! Now
we not only have to worry about foreign terrorists - we have to
worry about F-16s "just following orders." And they have the
audacity to urge us to overcome "fear" and start filling airplanes
again. No thanks. When passengers and pilots are allowed to defend
themselves, let me know.

What if the government is as successful in the "war on terrorism"
as it has been in the "war against poverty" and the "war against
drugs"? What we need to increase our security is not less liberty
- - it is more liberty. An armed people is a secure people. We have
a right to self defense. Even those who don't agree will be made
more secure by the rest of us. Sept. 11 (should have) ended the
debate on whether security can be obtained by disarming those who
would be secure. With a dozen or two shoulder holsters on each of
those fateful flights, the twin towers would still be standing high.

Tim Ogle
Ex-fighter pilot
Retired B757 captain

http://www.wnd.com/letters.asp

NEVER AGAIN UNARMED....    LET FREEDOM FIGHT!

>=  PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org

- -

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

Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 21:11:08 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Anti-gun Senator John McCain is up to his Old Tricks

Found on another list. For whatever reason, these guys don't yet
seem to be linked to http://www.ProjectSafeSkies.org/ .

Scott

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Anti-gun Senator John McCain is up to his Old Tricks
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:04:27 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Anti-gun Senator John McCain is up to his Old Tricks

- -- Calls needed to stop McCain's "Dead Pilots" amendment

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]

ACTION: Please contact your senators and demand that they oppose the
anti-gun amendment that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will offer to the
Aviation Security Act as early as Tuesday. Ask them instead to support
Bob Smith's "Passenger Safety" amendment that will arm pilots, thus
protecting the lives of airline passengers and crewmembers.

(Friday, September 5, 2001) -- Anti-gun zealot Senator John McCain
is, once again, preparing to offer an amendment to disarm Americans.

This particular "Dead Pilots" amendment, proposed for the Aviation
Security Act, would prohibit guns for airline pilots and instead arm
them with "stun guns."

Thus, if a ground crew in a U.S. or foreign airport smuggled a gun
aboard an aircraft and planted it under a seat, THE HIJACKER WOULD
HAVE A REAL GUN. BUT THE PILOTS WOULD ONLY HAVE A TOY GUN BY
COMPARISON.

This same result would occur if a terrorist smuggled a firearm
through a metal detector, as Charles Hildreth, 63, unwittingly
did at Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport on September 25, 2001.

THIS WOULD PUT THE PILOTS AND THE PLANE AT GREATER RISK THAN IF
THEY HAD NO GUN AT ALL.

Let's look at the types of stun guns:

* THE STUN GUN THAT WORKS ONLY WHILE THE PILOT'S THROAT IS BEING
CUT: First, there is the hand-held stun gun which works only when
the pilot makes physical contact with the attacker. On its web
site, D&D Security Products, which sells this stun gun, states:
"They should not be used to defend yourself against an attacker
with a firearm or knife." IN OTHER WORDS, STUN GUNS ARE DESIGNED
SPECIFICALLY FOR UNARMED ATTACKERS. THEY WOULD BE USELESS AGAINST
ARMED TERRORISTS.

* THE STUN GUN THAT WORKS ONLY IF PEOPLE FLY NAKED: Second, there
is the type of stun gun (a taser) that "launches remote probes up
to 15 feet." This type of stun gun can be thwarted by heavy clothing.
And, if the pilot misses on the first shot at a distance of 15 feet,
the pilot is dead. Either way, McCain's "stun gun" approach would do
very little to enhance pilot or passenger safety against a terrorist.
Even worse, the McCain amendment would leave pilots defenseless by
supplanting the Smith amendment, which will take real strides
towards stopping future skyjackings.

So please urge your Senators to oppose the anti-gun McCain amendment,
and be sure to reinforce your support for the Smith "Passenger Safety"
amendment.

CONTACT INFORMATION: Please use the pre-written text below to help
direct your comments to the U.S. Senate. You can call your Senators
at 202-224-3121. To identify your Senators, as well as to send a
message via e-mail, plug in your zipcode under Elected Officials at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm in the GOA Legislative Action
Center.

- ----- Pre-written message -----
Dear Senator:

When the Aviation Security Act comes to the floor for a vote, there
will be competing ideas as to what will deter terrorists from
hijacking aircraft. I want to make it unmistakably clear that stun
guns and tasers are NOT the way to deter hijackers.

One seller who advertises these items on the web says that stun guns
"should not be used to defend yourself against an attacker with a
firearm or knife." Well, no kidding. Stun guns require the attacker
to be right on top of you before you can use them. And tasers, which
launch a remote probe up to 15 feet, can be thwarted by heavy clothing.
Moreover, if the pilot misses on the first shot at a distance of 15
feet, the pilot is dead.

Please do not support any such "Dead Pilots" amendment - whether
it is sponsored by Senator John McCain or anyone else - as a defense
against terrorists. If stun guns and tasers were so effective, then
why don't cops around the country trade in their guns for these items?

There are plenty of aviation engineers who have made the point
that bullet holes will not cause a massive depressurization in
a plane. If depressurization were truly a concern, then why are
we even considering putting air marshals on planes? Their bullets
will be no different from those being used by the pilots. But
more to the point, there is no way we can get an air marshal on
all 35,000 daily flights.

So the only way to deter these terrorists is to make sure that
our last line of defense - the pilots - can protect the plane.
Reinforcing the cockpit doors is also a good idea, but it's not
a panacea. Are we to assume that on a long trip the door will
NEVER be opened? That pilots will NEVER take a bathroom break?
That there is no one among the flight crew who will ever have
the keys or security codes to open the door?

Reinforcing the cockpit doors can help. But the only way to stop
terrorism on board aircraft is to let these villains know in
advance that, if they ever try to invade the cockpit, they'll
get a bullet in the skull.

Please support the Bob Smith amendment that will allow pilots
to be armed, and thus, will enable them to protect the lives
of their crewmembers and passengers.

Thank you.

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

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS
Many of your Representatives and Senators are giving you
feedback in opposition to arming pilots. Basically, their
opposition falls into one of five categories:

Bullet holes can lead to a massive depressurization of the plane
Pilots should fly planes, not fight terrorists
Making cockpits impenetrable is all that is needed
Only sky marshals should have guns on planes
Innocent bystanders might get shot
Gun Owners of America has prepared a fact sheet to answer these
objections. Please go to http://www.gunowners.org/fs0104.htm on
the GOA web page and feel free to use the provided material to
answer your legislators.

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

ATTENTION PILOTS!
ALPA is not using an alerts list to communicate with its members
on this issue. So, please pass this GOA alert to as many pilots
as you can. Pilots need to call their Senators AS PILOTS and
answer all the objections that might be brought up.

Petitions Available:
If you are a pilot, or have constant contact with pilots, please
go to http://www.gunowners.org/pilotspetition.htm to download and
circulate a petition designed to convince Congress that arming
pilots is a good, common-sense first step towards ensuring airline
safety. Feel free to circulate the petition among communications
networks frequented by pilots.

And if you are not a pilot, there are other petitions you can sign
to show your support. Some of these are:

Safer Skies. The non-profit Rights Watch International has an open
letter to Congress at http://www.rightswatch.org/ regarding armed
pilots that will also be placed in major newspapers.
The Federal Observer. At
http://www.federalobserver.com/petition/index.php?src=fo is a
citizen's petition urging the arming of pilots.
3. KABA. KeepAndBearArms.com is urging enforcement of the Second
Amendment, with a petition at https://www.keepandbeararms.com/petition/
directed at U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:05:30 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another victory in gun lawsuits

I can't find any articles in the papers on this, but here is a press
release that is good news.

http://www.nssf.org/releases/100901.htm


The National Shooting Sports Foundation ò 11 Mile Hill Road ò Newtown, CT
06470-2359
                       Tel: [phone] ò Fax: [phone]
  TO: NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA
  For Immediate Release

  October 9, 2001
                                                  For additional
information contact:
                                                            Lawrence G.
Keane
                                                               (203)
426-1320


                      U.S. Supreme Court Declines
                         to Revive Firearms Suit

                  Brady Center Misleads Media on Status of
                  Lawsuits Against Firearms Manufacturers

                     17 of 18 suits are fully or partially dismissed
                     All appellate decisions favor manufacturers

  NEWTOWN, Conn., Oct. 9-Commenting on todayÆs U.S. Supreme Court
decision declining to revive
  a lawsuit by the City of New Orleans against firearms manufacturers,
Dennis Henigan, director of the
  Brady Center to Prevent Handgun ViolenceÆs Legal Action Project
seriously misled the American
  media and public with his overview of municipal lawsuits against the
firearms industry.

  According to press accounts, Mr. Henigan stated, ôYou have cases going
both ways. ItÆs pretty
  much split down the middle.ö But, Robert T. Delfay, president and chief
executive officer of the
  National Shooting Sports Foundation took sharp exception to Mr.
HeniganÆs assessment. ôThese
  comments by Mr. Henigan totally misrepresent the true status of the
municipal litigation against the
  firearms industry. There have been 18 suits decided so far and 17 have
been fully or partially
  dismissed in favor of firearms manufacturers. ThatÆs not pretty much
split down the middle.

  ôFurther, what Mr. Henigan failed to tell reporters was that every
appellate decision so far rendered in
  these cases, including decisions by the supreme courts of Louisiana and
Connecticut and now the
  United States Supreme Court, has ruled in favor of the firearms
industry. In addition, the highest
  courts in New York and California both recently ruled in favor of
firearms manufacturers in private
  lawsuits that sought to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for
criminal violence committed with
  firearms.

  ôBy far, the consensus by judges reviewing these cases is that there is
no basis in law to hold the
  manufacturer of a legally sold, non-defective product responsible for
the criminal misuse of that
  product. The attempt by nearly 30 municipalities to do so is totally
political and distasteful, as is Mr.
  HeniganÆs misrepresentation of the status of these lawsuits,ö Delfay
said.

  ôWe can understand Mr. HeniganÆs extreme disappointment at the
resounding rejection of his
  politically motivated and harassing lawsuits against the firearms
industry but that disappointment is
  no excuse for his misleading statements regarding the status of these
lawsuits. Mr. Henigan owes
  an apology to the nationÆs news media as well as to those citizens
whose tax dollars have been
  wasted in the pursuit of this frivolous and ill-conceived litigation,ö
Delfay concluded.



                                     -30-



  Note to Editors: Below is a factual summary of the municipal firearms
litigation against firearms
  manufacturers prepared by the National Shooting Sports Foundation on
October 9, 2001.
                     MUNICIPAL FIREARMS LITIGATION

  I. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Was Granted In Whole or In Part

       1. New Orleans - upheld on appeal by Louisiana Supreme Court and
now by U.S.
       Supreme Court
       2. Chicago - on appeal
       3. Atlanta - on appeal
       4. Bridgeport - dismissal upheld by Connecticut Supreme Court
       5. Miami-Dade County - dismissal upheld by appellate court
       6. Detroit - on appeal
       7. Wayne County - on appeal
       8. Cincinnati - dismissal upheld by appellate court
       9. City of Los Angles
       10. San Francisco
       11. Boston
       12. Camden County, NJ - on appeal
       13. Los Angles County
       14. Gary, IN - on appeal
       15. Wilmington, DE
       16. Philadelphia - on appeal
       17. New York State - on appeal

  II. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Was Denied

       1. Cleveland

  III. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Is Pending

       1. St. Louis
       2. Newark, NJ
       3. Camden City, NJ
       4. Washington, DC

  IV. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Has Not Yet Been Filed

       1. New York City

  Summary prepared by Lawrence G. Keane, vice-president and general
counsel, National Shooting
  Sports Foundation, 11 Mile Hill Road, Newtown, CT 06470 ò 203-426-1320
ò www.nssf.org
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 23:11:10 -0600
From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Are Box Cutters Covered by the Second Amendment? ;-)

- -------- Original Message --------
From: "Trinity Farms" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 2:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: Box cutter safety

Box Cutter Safety

Dear Sirs,
     In light of recent events, including the bus attack in Tennessee, I
would like to ask one simple question; how many people have to die before
the American people demand that their congressmen pass meaningful, common
sense Box Cutter Safety laws? Background checks, waiting periods, monthly
limits on box cutter purchases, and the banning of all box cutters with the
capacity to hold more than 5 replacement blades are all simple, logical
solutions that we have been suggesting for years. I urge all Americans to
write their legislators today and tell them, 'Enough is enough!'. Thank you.

~ Bruce Schneider, "Americans for the Prevention of Box Cutter Violence"

GwG Comment - Wow! You are so right! I feel so strongly in this, that I am
now the proud owner of "BoxCutterControl.org"! <--- Website Coming Soon!
              The Million Mom March will want to be a part of this too.
                                          Backed by the UN.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:26:09 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw:  Our fine Senators: no statement on DoD Gun Confiscation Law

It looks like we'd better let our Representatives know we don't like this
bill...

And let our Senators know you are not happy with undercover, back door
gun control.  This let's the DoD seize ANY weapon, including M1 rifles
and 1911 pistols that it ever owned and subsequently sold.

- --------- Forwarded message ----------
Folks,

In a show of "unity" the Senate, including our two Senators who are
alleged "supporters of the 2nd ammendment", have voted on and passed a
GUN BAN buried in the 2002 Defense Appropriations Bill.

It allows the US Sec of Defense to create a list, modifyable by him at
anytime, of guns (which must have been formerly owned by the DoD) and
provide that list to the US Attorney General who may then request that
you send them in or may confiscate them.

How does that NOT sound like a gun ban?  Read the ACTUAL TEXT of the
Section below and follow the link if you would like to see it for
yourself.

What kind of shady deal were our Senators involved in such that:
a) they raised no concerns
b) didnt tell us about it
c) didnt even try to get that section deleted.  (I called Sen. Hatch's
office today and one of his staffers on his Judiciary section - which
also handle defense - said: "The Senator has made no comment on this
bill."

Don't believe the lies either.  Many Senators have come out and said
that "it is not meant for your Garand, M1 or 1911, it is meant for
"significant military equipment".

Yes, that IS a LIE, because IT IS **NOT** WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

IT SAYS:
Significant military equipment is [whatever is] DESIGNATED BY THE
SECRETARY of Defense under the regulations prescribed under subsection
(e) as being equipment that it is necessary in the INTEREST OF PUBLIC
SAFETY to demilitarize before disposal by the United States.

So, one more time, one more gun control law, in the name of "public
safety" [sometimes called "compelling state interest", but that sounds
worse, text usually reserved for executive orders] with ZERO review,
subject to the whim of the Secretary of Defense WHO MAY DELEGATE
responsibility to it to an undersecretary or further.

"Neat.  Stoke of the pen - law of the Land" - Clinton Aide

According to the new law, the Secretary may create a list, and place
whatever he/she wants on it, private property of US citizens, to be
CONFISCATED if not voluntarily given up.

The text of the law is there in black and white for you to see.  There
is no obfuscation or equivocation that your Sens and Reps can provide
that can dispute the words in front of your own eyes.

Please go to http://www.house.gov and look up the DC number of your Rep
to implore that they not vote on the Defense Authorization Bill unless
they first strike what was Sec. 1062 in the Senate version.

Then go to http://www.senate.gov, look up the DC number of your Senator
and express your displeasure at the FARCE of "UNITY" in the vote, when
there is a clear GUN BAN that they knew about buried in the bill.

Thanks again to our representatives for their honesty.

=========================
(taken from thomas.loc.gov
query S 1426
text version, section 1062


S.1416  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

Sec. 1062  SEC. 1062. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF
"SIGNIFICANT" MILITARY EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.

(a) PROHIBITION- It is unlawful for any person to possess significant
military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense unless--

(1) the military equipment has been demilitarized in accordance with
standards prescribed by the Secretary of Defense;

(2) the person is in possession of the military equipment for the
purpose of demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a Federal
Government contract; or

(3) the person is specifically authorized by law or regulation to
possess the military equipment.

(b) REFERRAL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense shall notify
the Attorney General of any potential violation of subsection (a) of
which the Secretary becomes aware.

.....

(d) DEMILITARIZATION OF EQUIPMENT- (1) The Attorney General shall
transfer any military equipment returned to the Federal Government or
seized pursuant to subsection (c) to the Department of Defense for
demilitarization.

(e) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STANDARDS- (1) The Secretary of
Defense shall prescribe regulations regarding the demilitarization of
military equipment.
....
(3) The regulations shall, at a minimum, define--
(A) the classes of significant military equipment requiring
demilitarization before disposal; and
(B) what constitutes demilitarization for each class of significant
military equipment.


(f) DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT- In this section, the
term `significant military equipment' means equipment that has a
capability described in clause (i) or (ii) of subsection (e)(2) and--

(1) ... or
(2) is designated by the Secretary of Defense under the regulations
prescribed under subsection (e) as being equipment that it is necessary
in the interest of public safety to demilitarize before disposal by the
United States.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #219
***********************************