ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n220

Internet Message Format | 2001-11-16 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #220
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Friday, November 16 2001     Volume 02 : Number 220




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

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:12:38 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Ricochet from GOA: Smith Amendment To Arm Airline Pilots Adopted In The U.S. Sen

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

> Smith Amendment To Arm Airline Pilots Adopted In The U.S. Senate
>
> Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
> 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
> Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
> http://www.gunowners.org
>
> October 11, 2001
>
>
> Congratulations!
>
> Earlier today, the Senate, via a unanimous consent vote, adopted
> the Bob Smith (R-NH)/Frank Murkowski (R-AK) amendment to allow
> airline pilots to carry firearms.  The amendment was also
> cosponsored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Conrad Burns (R-MT).
>
> The bill now goes to the House.  After that, it will probably go to
> a House-Senate conference to work out the details.
>
> This is an enormous victory for GOA members who lobbied relentlessly
> to sway reluctant senators.
>
> BUT THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER!
>
> Next week, the House will take up its version of the Aviation
> Security Bill.  A number of congressmen are considering offering
> amendments to arm pilots, but they must first secure the approval of
> the House leadership and the House Rules Committee in order to offer
> any amendment.
>
> ACTION:  Please contact House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House
> Republican Leader Dick Armey, and House Republican Whip Tom DeLay
> and demand that they allow the House to vote on the armed pilots
> amendment in connection with the Aviation Security Bill.
>
> Contact Info:
>
> Rep. Dennis Hastert
> E-mail: [e-mail]
> Phone:  [phone]
> Fax:    [phone]
>
> Rep. Dick Armey
> No Public E-mail
> Phone:  [phone]
> Fax:    [phone]
>
> Rep. Tom DeLay
> No Public E-mail
> Phone:  [phone]
> Fax:    [phone]
>
>
> ----- Pre-written message -----
>
> Dear Representative __________:
>
> When the Aviation Security Act comes before the House, I hope you
> will use your leadership position to allow amendments to the bill
> that would let pilots be armed.
>
> There are plenty of aviation engineers who agree that bullet holes
> will not cause a massive depressurization in a plane.  If
> depressurization was truly a concern, then why are we even
> considering putting air marshals on planes?  Their bullets will be
> no different from the ones 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 be
> sorry.
>
> Please support language that will allow pilots to be armed, and
> thus, will enable them to protect the lives of their crewmembers and
> passengers.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
________________________________________________________________
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: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:20:55 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: A HOAX!  ---- Fw: Brazil Parliament Votes to Allow Air Passengers to Carry Firearms

A bit dated, but I try to pass along corrections whenever possible.


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

Charles ,
from one of our WAGC Brazil Members........
This story has  turned out to be a hoax......

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sylvia Christina" <[e-mail]>



> Nancy,
>
>
> Unfortunately, this is not true.
> We have more rules and now it┤s prohibited to carry knives in the
airplanes.
> Is not so easy to walk equipped with a gun, we have to make some tests
and
> pay a lot of taxes to get a licence to each handgun.
> In JB┤s site I don┤t find anything about this.
>
>
> Hope to hear from you soon,
> Sylvia
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
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: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:30:18 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Re: Hero in the cockpit - Pistol served pilot well in '54

- ----------------
Charles Hardy
<[e-mail]>

- --------- Forwarded message ----------
HoustonChronicle.com
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1087467


Oct. 14, 2001, 1:07AM
Hero in the cockpit
Pistol served pilot well in '54
By EVAN MOORE
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle

FORT WORTH -- Until now it was largely forgotten, a brief, tragic
incident that lay buried in fading newspaper accounts and the memories
of only a few, but the shooting of a hijacker by an airline pilot almost
50 years ago has taken on a new significance today.

It occurred shortly before noon on July 6, 1954, when a strapping
teen-ager armed with a pistol commandeered an American Airlines DC-6 at
the Cleveland Airport, only to be shot and fatally wounded by the
captain.

The shooting ended the life of Raymond Kuchenmeister, 15. It made a
reluctant hero of the late Capt. William "Bill" Bonnell of Fort Worth
and left an indelible mark on Bonnell's psyche that he could never
successfully erase.

Moreover, in light of the recent terrorist attacks and the ensuing
debates over whether pilots should be armed, the 1954 incident
illustrates a forgotten time when pilots not only routinely carried
pistols, but were required to carry them.

On that Tuesday, 47 years ago, Bonnell was carrying his, a small,
.380-caliber Colt semiautomatic, holstered in his flight bag.

Bonnell, a tall, quiet man, was a former Army Air Corps pilot who had
served three stints in the service, two of those flying transport planes
over China and Burma during World War II.
He also was ambidextrous.

"Bill could use either hand equally well," Jean
Bonnell, his widow, recalled. "He used to play jokes on the shooting
instructors in the military.
There'd be a line of officers, all in the same stance, shooting at
targets. One time, the instructor would walk down the line and Bill
would be shooting right-handed. The next time, he'd be shooting with his
left. He shot the same score with both hands."

Bill Bonnell joined American Airlines in 1936, and that airline, like
others, transported U.S. mail.

"Back in those days, the pilot or co-pilot had to hand-carry the mail
from the plane to the terminal," recalled George Patten, 85, a retired
American pilot and a friend of Bonnell's. "Postal regulations required
that you be armed. We all had to have guns, and American had us buy
little .380s."

Bonnell's pistol remained in his flight bag. His widow recalled that he
had not removed the weapon in years before the day of the hijacking.

On that day, Bonnell had flown from Fort Worth to Cleveland in the
morning and was preparing for the return flight. The plane was carrying
almost a full load, 58 passengers, and all had been seated.

Bonnell stopped and spoke to a young mother with two small children
seated at the front. He then entered the cockpit and had already locked
himself, his co-pilot and the engineer inside when Kuchenmeister
approached the airplane ramp.

Police said Kuchenmeister, the oldest of seven children, was a troubled
youth who had stolen a pistol and persuaded his 12-year-old brother to
run away from home with him. He hatched his plan to hijack a plane
earlier in the day, but once at the airport, the 12-year-old declined to
accompany him.

So, alone, clad in dirty denim pants and a leather jacket, Kuchenmeister
left his little brother in the terminal and walked out on the tarmac.
There he pushed past an airline agent and was headed up the stairs to
the plane when the agent demanded his ticket.

"This is my ticket," the burly youth reportedly said, and pointed the
pistol at the agent.

The agent retreated, and at the entrance to the plane, Kuchenmeister
told a stewardess he needed to see the pilot. Thinking he was part of
the ground crew, she opened the cockpit, where Kuchenmeister, unnoticed
by the passengers, stepped into the cramped quarters, closed the door
and turned the gun on Bonnell.

"I want to go to Mexico," Kuchenmeister told Bonnell and his crew. "No
stops."

Bonnell and the co-pilot attempted to explain to Kuchenmeister that the
plane did not have enough fuel to reach Mexico, but the youth would not
be deterred.

Finally, flight engineer Bob Young told Kuchenmeister they would take
off but that it was necessary to throw a switch behind Kuchenmeister
before the plane could taxi.

As the hijacker turned to look for the switch, Bonnell reached into his
flight bag with his left hand, removed the pistol, swung around to his
right and shot Kuchenmeister. The wounded hijacker then attempted to
shoot Bonnell, but his pistol misfired and Bonnell shot him again.
"I shot him in the hip," Bonnell later recalled. "He sagged a bit. I let
him have it again, a little higher.

"I had a maniac on my plane. We had women and children. What the hell
could a guy do?"
Kuchenmeister was taken to a hospital, and
Bonnell, the only qualified American pilot in Cleveland at the time,
flew the plane back to Fort Worth. In midflight, he received word from
Cleveland that the hijacker was only 15 and that he had died.

When Bonnell stepped from the plane, reporters described him as ashen
and shaking.

"Bill told me later that the first thing he thought about when he was
reaching for the gun was that woman and her two children at the front of
the plane," Jean Bonnell said. "I said, `Why didn┤t you shoot him in
the head with the second shot?┤

"Bill said, `Because I didn┤t want to kill him.┤ "
Bill Bonnell returned to Cleveland the following day. "He wanted to go
out and talk to the boy's family, to pay for the funeral," Jean Bonnell
said, "but the police talked him out of it."
Bonnell received hundreds of letters from the passengers on that flight
and their relatives, commending him for his actions.

"But Bill was never proud of what he'd done," Jean Bonnell said. "He'd
been in the service, and he'd had to fight, but this was different. He
told me it took him a day to convince himself that hijacker was really
15. He told me, `My God, Jean, we have a 13-year-old son.┤

"After the first few weeks, he stopped talking about it and would never
talk about it again. I don't think he ever completely got over it.
"But what if he hadn't had that gun? What if he hadn't shot? What would
have happened to all those passengers?"

The event was front-page news for two days, then faded away, and for 47
years the Bonnell family refused to discuss it publicly. Jean
Bonnell said she agreed to speak about her husband now only because of
the recent terrorist attacks and requests by pilots associations to be
armed.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Airline Pilots Association and the
Allied Pilots Association proposed allowing pilots to carry handguns
loaded with lightweight projectiles. The first group modified its
proposal to include only stun guns, but the Allied association has not
altered its stance.

President Bush has opposed the idea, as have the Airports Council
International and the Association of Flight Attendants, though a number
of legislators from both parties have supported the pilots' groups. The
Senate passed an aviation security bill Thursday that would allow pilots
to carry handguns. A similar bill is pending in the House.

In the meantime, congressional action on the proposal could be
unnecessary, according to the Code of Federal Regulations governing
aviation. That document, Chapter 11, Part 108, provides that no person
can carry a weapon onto a plane unless that person is "authorized to
have the weapon by the certificate holder (airline) and has completed a
course of training in the use of firearms acceptable to the
Administrator (FAA)."

That regulation was adopted in 1981 and has not been changed. Federal
Aviation Administration officials acknowledged that the regulation is
"on the books" and that it provides for armed pilots, but refused to
answer more questions about it.

Bill Bonnell quit carrying his weapon July 7, 1954.

"He never carried it again," Jean Bonnell said.
"Bill retired (in 1970). We moved, and we burned all the letters he'd
received and any news clippings. We didn't want to remember it, but he
could never really put it behind him.

"He died in 1991, and I'm afraid his later years were not very happy
ones.

"A lot of people thought he was a hero, but Bill never considered
himself one."
________________________________________________________________
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: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:01:17 -0600
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: OFF TOPIC--JUNO SLC access numbers

Forgive another off-topic post, please.

If you live in SLC area and use Juno, you probably have noticed that the
SLC local dial access numbers were taken off line last week.  It appears
to have been a temporary problem and there are now three access numbers
that are local calls for the SLC area.

I do not know if these are the same numbers that were in use prior to
them being taken down.  So, it is possible you will need to select one of
the long distance numbers (bear in mind that out-of-State long distance
may be a cheaper call than in-State long distance) and then go to the
"Connection" menu.  From there select "Access number selection and
setup."  Step through the process until you get to screen with the option
to get an updated access number list.  Select that option, and you should
get the new list, with local numbers to select.

You may also get an updated list automatically if you simply connect to
send/receive mail.

- ----------------
Charles Hardy
<[e-mail]>
________________________________________________________________
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, 16 Oct 2001 04:58:50 -0600
From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Sunni Maravillosa on WTBQ Wednesday

Sunni Maravillosa, co-founder of Project: Safe Skies, will appear
on the WTBQ Roundtable Discussion show guest-hosted by Joe Eldred
on Albany, NY radio station WTBQ 1110 AM Wednesday, October 17
starting at 11 AM Eastern time. WTBQ's call-in line is 845-651-1110.
The show is also webcast at http://www.wtbq.com/ .

Project: Safe Skies was founded in response to the horrific
events of September 11, and seeks to promote the repeal of the
laws prohibiting citizens aboard aircraft being armed to defend
themselves. Sunni will present the case being developed by the
Project team showing why this is the only way to achieve true
safety in the skies.

In addition to her key role in Project: Safe Skies, Sunni is a
psychology professor, a noted freedom writer, the web mistress
for the Liberty Round Table, editor of the online journal Doing
Freedom!, and the mother of two.

To arrange a media appearance, please contact us:

Project: Safe Skies
614 Nashua St. #121
Milford, NH 03055-4917

Phone or Fax [phone] (24 hour)

mailto:[e-mail] or mailto:[e-mail]

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

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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:18:03 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: CATO Institute on gun laws featuring John Lott

I have not yet personnally listened to this.  But, FYI...
- ----- Forwarded Message -----
This you must listen to, it's a presentation given by the CATO Institute,
featured speaker is John Lott. You will need realaudio program. the
program lasts 1hr. 41 minutes. It's definitely a must see and listen to.
Sorry but you'll have to cut and paste the url address.

http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-06-16-00.ram
________________________________________________________________
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, 16 Oct 2001 17:22:03 -0600
From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Emerson is a win for the good guys

Film at 11

http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html

- -

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:01:55 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LPUtah] FW: Emerson is a win for the good guys

Actually, it looks like almost a total loss.

The court ruled against Emerson on 5th Amd Due process grounds finding
that the wording on form 4473 he filled out for a gun a year before the
court order was issued was adequate notice that any court order may
prevent him from lawfully owning a gun.

It also rejected his Commerce Clause claim finding that restricting guns
that had ever moved in interstate commerce was within the power of the
fed.

Emmerson did not brief his previous 10th Amd claims so the court had no
choice but reject them as well.

Finally, while the court did hold that the second Amd protects an
individual right, it held that guns not useful for individual defense or
military service WERE subject to restrictions and accpeted the guns
covered under the NFA as cited in Miller as being properly restricted.
Further, it held that even with an individual right, that right could be
restricted by due process and that the current federal law banning guns
possession for anyone under any generic protective order was actually due
process even though there was no specific finding on the part of the
issuing court that gun possession should be restricted.

IOW, there is a silver lining, but generally a dark cloud.

For years we've battled the "collective right so we can take your guns
away" mantra.  Now we'll just get to battle the "ok, it's an individual
right, but we can still strip it from you in 1001 ways."

Charles

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:22:03 -0600 "Scott Bergeson"
<[e-mail]> writes:
> Film at 11
>
> http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html
>
________________________________________________________________
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: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:08:45 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Waco attorney on Emerson ruling

Waco attorney on Emerson ruling
- ----------
KeepAndBearArms.com
by David Hardy
   "Emerson clearly holds that the second amendment is an individual
   right, and rejects the 'collective rights' nonsense. It is the
   most detailed circuit court opinion I have ever seen, on any issue
   whatsoever. The court went back and did its own original research,
   rather than citing to law reviews, which is astonishing ... "
   (10/16/01)
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2064

- -

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:52:26 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: unSafe to learn/worship group

From the unSafe to learn/worship group's FAQ at
http://www.safeutah.org/faq.html is this:

"This site would not be possible without the generous support of Internet
Connect, Inc. "

Anyone with any connections to or influence with Internet Connect may
want to let them know of the lies and damage being propagated due to
their generous support.

Charles
________________________________________________________________
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, 23 Oct 2001 16:50:16 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Web page photos

Dear Sir or Madam;

I've recently visited your web page at http://www.safeutah.org/ and was
surprised to see a photo of LDS Temple Square. Yet you do not list the
LDS Church as being a member of your coalition.  The picture of such an
easily recognized LDS landmark suggest some type of official endorsement
of your position.

Has the LDS church endorsed your position and/or specifically allowed the
use of a photo of Temple Square to be used in advancing your position?  I
thought the LDS Church maintained political neutrality on most issues and
had not heard they had taken any official position on this issue.

Also, does the photo imply that all religious property, including outdoor
areas like Temple Square, or a church cemetary or park, would be off
limits to legally carried concealed weapons should your petition pass?

Thank you.

Charles
________________________________________________________________
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, 23 Oct 2001 16:24:53 -0700
From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Web page photos

Charles C Hardy wrote:
>
> Dear Sir or Madam;
>
> I've recently visited your web page at http://www.safeutah.org/ and was
> surprised to see a photo of LDS Temple Square. Yet you do not list the
> LDS Church as being a member of your coalition.  The picture of such an
> easily recognized LDS landmark suggest some type of official endorsement
> of your position.
>
> Has the LDS church endorsed your position and/or specifically allowed the
> use of a photo of Temple Square to be used in advancing your position?  I
> thought the LDS Church maintained political neutrality on most issues and
> had not heard they had taken any official position on this issue.



If they deny Church affiliation or endorsement (the photo may be
considered public domain), then try using the same or a similar photo in
a counter ad or flyer or some such.  See how quickly the Church comes
down on you... if it does.  That will give you your answer.  Or it may
force the Church to deny use to BOTH sides of the issue.

Joe W


- -

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:09:37 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Web page photos

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:24:53 -0700 Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
writes:
>
> If they deny Church affiliation or endorsement (the photo may be
> considered public domain), then try using the same or a similar
> photo in a counter ad or flyer or some such.  See how quickly the
Church
> comes down on you... if it does.  That will give you your answer.  Or
it
> may force the Church to deny use to BOTH sides of the issue.
>
> Joe W


Maybe not a bad idea.  But, as an active member of the LDS Church, I feel
honor and duty bound to never do anything that would even hint at church
endorsement where there is none.  Thus, I could never use such a photo in
such a manner.  I'd just like to expose one of the underhanded tactics
being used by the anti-self-defense crowd.

My hope is that enough people will call them on it and/or inquire of the
LDS church as to endorsements that such use of temple photos and anything
else that might hint of LDS involvement will end.

Charles
________________________________________________________________
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, 23 Oct 2001 17:19:14 -0700
From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Web page photos

Charles C Hardy wrote:
>
> Maybe not a bad idea.  But, as an active member of the LDS Church, I feel
> honor and duty bound to never do anything that would even hint at church
> endorsement where there is none.  Thus, I could never use such a photo in
> such a manner.  I'd just like to expose one of the underhanded tactics
> being used by the anti-self-defense crowd.
>
> My hope is that enough people will call them on it and/or inquire of the
> LDS church as to endorsements that such use of temple photos and anything
> else that might hint of LDS involvement will end.
>


Charles, I don't know how the Church hierarchy works there, but you may
want to prepare a draft flyer opposing the petition, using the photo,
and ask the appropriate Church official if that is all right to use.  If
he says no, ask why the other side is using a photo.  That way you
haven't stepped on Church toes or offended anyone by inappropriate
use... you simply asked for guidance.

Or maybe build a "no on petition" flyer that uses a portion of the other
side's flyer (with photo portion) for "identification purposes."
Something like the upper part of their petition, with a large title
below, "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS PETITION" followed by "JUST SAY NO" with
explanatory text below.  Again, run that past Church leadership to get
their reaction.

JW

- -

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:29:06 -0600
From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Victim disarmament groups fund gun 'study'

Looks like we'll have to continue the HP boycott.

Victim disarmament groups fund gun 'study'
- ----------
NewsMax
   Groups that oppose Second Amendment rights are financing
   a government anti-gun "study" that was put in motion by the
   Clinton administration. The venture is being undertaken by
   the National Research Council, and has been accused of
   pre-determining some of its conclusions. (10/23/01)
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/10/22/205136

- -

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:47:18 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: UEA or?

This message is in MIME format.  Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ----__JNP_000_5a77.5b27.2b02
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This may be of interest to anyone with kids in public schools.
- ----- Forwarded Message -----

While going over my 5 year old grandsons kindergarten homework I came
across two pledge cards with the following wording:

PLEDGE AGAINST VIOLENCE 20001
I pledge to SAVE today and stop America's violence everywhere.
I will strive to do my part to help end this crisis that threatens
the health of all people of the United States of America.


- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
SIGNED

Did anyone else get these today? I interpret the pledge to mean
undermining President Bush! Is the UEA pushing leftist doctrine in our
kindergartens?
I will know tomorrow, I plan on spending some time with the
administration of that elementary school.

- ----__JNP_000_5a77.5b27.2b02
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2869" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>This may be of interest to anyone with kids in public schools.</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: none transparent scroll repeat 0% 0%" #cccccc\?>-=
- ----=20
Forwarded Message -----</DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>While=20
going over my 5 year old grandsons kindergarten homework I came across two=
=20
pledge cards with the following wording:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>PLEDGE=20
AGAINST VIOLENCE 20001</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>I=20
pledge to SAVE today and stop America's violence everywhere.</SPAN></FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>I will=20
strive to do my part to help end this crisis that threatens</SPAN></FONT></=
DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>the=20
health of all people of the United States of America.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001>------------------------------------------------=
- ---------------------------------</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001>SIGNED</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>Did=20
anyone else get these today? I interpret the pledge to mean undermining=20
President Bush! Is the UEA pushing leftist doctrine in our=20
kindergartens?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>I will=20
know tomorrow, I plan on spending some time with the administration of that=
=20
elementary school.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ----__JNP_000_5a77.5b27.2b02--

________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:01:10 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-gun literature sent out with CCW notices

Anti-gun literature sent out with CCW notices
- ----------
The Flint Journal
   Jeanne Kidle, mother of four and among a flood of women arming
   themselves for self-protection, was taken aback when she
   received a notice to pick up her new concealed weapon permit.
   The State of Michigan had included anti-gun literature and
   requests for money from a private organization. (10/24/01)
http://fl.mlive.com/news/index.ssf?/news/stories/20011024f24a1gunpropaganda.frm

A right of the people
- ----------
National Review
by Dave Kopel
   "What Emerson does in some federal courts for federal laws
   -- as the state constitutions of all but a few states already
   do, in state courts, for state laws -- is make it clear that
   ordinary, law-abiding people cannot be prohibited from owning
   ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns." (10/26/01)
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel102501.shtml

- -

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

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:47:21 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPFO releases 'Death By Gun Control'

JPFO releases 'Death By Gun Control'
- ----------
JPFO
   "Death By Gun Control" points a finger at the real motives
   behind victim disarmament: the utter subjugation of the
   American people to statist authority. Jews for the
   Preservation of Firearms Ownership Executive Director Aaron
   Zelman, in collaboration with attorney Richard W. Stevens,
   has produced a work to be reckoned with. (11/14/01)
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20011113.htm

- -

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

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:34:17 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Capital security during games

The article below is from today's desnews.
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,345008103,00.html?>

While the situation is not perfect as it does not allow for un-licensed
open carry by right, it is a huge improvement over what many of the
gun-phobes both in and out of the legislature wanted.

This article does not address how CCW permited weapons wil be treated
during those short periods when Bush, Cheney, etc may be addressing the
legislature.

Charles


Capitol security would cost $710,000

                After Sept. 11, lawmakers seek extra troopers

                By Zack Van Eyck
                Deseret News staff writer

                      If state lawmakers want the Capitol to be more
secure on a regular basis, they're going to have to find the money to
fund it.
                      With a current-year shortfall approaching $200
million and economic projections far from rosy, that could be a
challenge.
                      Department of Public Safety Commissioner Robert
Flowers and Lt. Jim Keith of the state's Dignitary Protection Program
told a legislative committee Wednesday it
                would cost $710,000 the first year and $470,000 in
subsequent years to fortify protection at the Capitol.
                      That money would buy eight additional state
troopers who would be posted at the Capitol full-time, and two
control-room operators. The amount for the first year is
                higher because of equipment purchases, Keith said.
                      "That brings us to a level where we can have
exterior security during the daylight and evening hours," Keith told the
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim
                Committee.
                      The upgraded security proposal is in response to
the Sept. 11 attacks on America and the country's war against terrorism.
                      Flowers and Keith said the plan for securing the
Capitol during the 2002 legislative session, which begins Jan. 8, is
still being developed. But more troopers will be
                assigned to the building then, and a few other things are
known for sure, they said.
                      "During the session, the Capitol is not going to be
a gun-free zone," Keith said.
                      Some lawmakers said last month they wanted metal
detectors at every door and hoped concealed-weapons permit holders would
be required to hand over their guns
                before entering.
                      While that won't happen, Keith said Capitol
security will have the ability to narrow the building down to two
entrances ù the east and the north ù and run everyone
                except lawmakers and staff (who can enter with
pre-approved identification cards) through magnetometers.
Concealed-weapons holders would have to show
                documentation that they are licensed before being allowed
to carry their guns into the building, Keith said.
                      The Capitol's east doors have been designated as
the main public entrance for the session and during the 2002 Winter
Games, Keith said.
                      Flowers and Keith said during the Games there will
be 24-hour security coverage at the Capitol, paid for from Olympic funds.
                      Keith said the idea of putting a fence around the
Capitol has been discussed but is likely to happen only after the
Olympics as part of the permanent, beefed-up
                Capitol security plan ù assuming lawmakers can find a way
to finance it.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:17:30 -0700
From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phyllis Schafly weighs in

Second Amendments Rights In Reality and In Court

October 31, 2001
by: Phyllis Schlafly

If the hijackers had used guns for their crimes on 9/11, we would
surely now be caught up in a frenzy of demands that this "lesson"
calls for tough gun-control legislation. But they didn't use any
firearms, just easily purchased box-cutters.

The real lesson of 9/11 is that, if any pilot or off-duty policeman
had had a gun on board, he could have averted supreme tragedy by
doing what all our powerful FBI, CIA, and Armed Services could not
do. That's why individuals, not government, are the ultimate
protectors of a free society.

The American people understand this. The 9/11 events have led
to a big increase in gun purchases and the taking of courses at
shooting ranges.

Against the stunning reality of 9/11, the federal Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just issued a landmark decision in
United States v. Emerson, affirming the constitutional right of
individuals to own a gun. The Founding Fathers understood this,
and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment.

The Emerson case tackled the meaning of the right "to keep and
bear arms" in the Bill of Rights. At issue was whether the Second
Amendment defines an individual right, protecting defendant Emerson
and all law-abiding citizens, or a collective right available only
to government groups such as the National Guard.

This disagreement about the meaning of the Second Amendment has
been a matter of intense debate for many years. Unfortunately,
federal court decisions in several circuits over the last several
decades have muddied up the issue.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." For many years, the
anti-gun lobby and some lower court decisions have touted the notion
that the Second Amendment is limited to firearms carried in actual
military situations rather than by civilians in peaceful self-defense.

The Emerson decision thoroughly rejects that theory. The Court ruled:
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it
is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited
to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a
member of a select militia such as the National Guard."

The court concludes: "It appears clear that `the people,' as used in
the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, refers to individual
Americans." This is consistent with the use of the term "the people"
in all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

As the Tenth Amendment shows, the Founders clearly understood the
difference between "the states" and "the people." The Emerson decision
also cites the renowned Black's Law Dictionary definition for "carry
arms or weapons" as "being armed and ready for offensive or defensive
action in case of conflict with another person."

At stake in the gun control debate is whether we control government
and defend freedom, or government controls us. Should our defense
against hijacking terrorism be limited to government fighter planes
shooting down hijacked planes, killing everyone on board, or extended
to allowing airplane crews and qualified passengers (such as off-duty
law enforcement officials) to take defensive measures without fear of
litigation or prosecution?

The Emerson decision disposed of arguments that only formal state
militias have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. As the
Supreme Court explained over 60 years ago in United States v. Miller,
the framers of the Constitution used the term "militia" to mean "all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

It still does mean that. Current federal law (10 U.S. Code 311)
states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age. . . . The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of
the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the Naval Militia."

The males on board the hijacked airplanes constituted a militia, and
some courageously acted, forcing one hijacked plane down in rural
Pennsylvania instead of allowing it to continue to the terrorists'
target. A disarmed public cannot protect a free society against
terrorists' assaults.

In Cuba, Castro first required all guns to be surrendered before he
could impose his brutal dictatorship. After England banned private
gun ownership, violence using guns against persons rose sharply and
politics turned sharply left.

Strict gun control creates vulnerable targets for the enemies of a
free society. The Fifth Circuit's upholding of the constitutional
right of individuals to keep and bear arms is a welcome development
in our continued defense of freedom.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column online:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2001/oct01/01-10-31.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eagle Forum

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #220
***********************************