ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n227

Internet Message Format | 2002-04-11 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #227
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Friday, April 12 2002      Volume 02 : Number 227




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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:08:00 -0500
From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Letter to H&R Block

Hi All!

Just a reminder.  People who write to H&R Block should make sure they
also send a paper letter (or 3)  through the US Mails to the people at
H&R Block as well as generically to their corporate board in addition to
email.  Much better impact.  Also, send a letter to the local office
branch manager for your local H&R office or store.  They have the stores
all over.

Hopefully some people in some states will also get groups together to
picket their offices.

regards
Chad

On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 02:55 , Scott Bergeson wrote:

> Subject: Letter to H&R Block
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:29:05 -0500
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
>
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]
> Subject: H&R Block wrong to reject NRA
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> If you will check your files, you will find that I have had a long and
> fruitful association with H&R Block. I believe you folks have done my
> taxes
> for the better part of 15 years, maybe longer. But I have just learned
> of a
> decision on your part which, if not corrected immediately, will end that
> association.
>
> I am speaking of your ill-informed decision to back out of a member
> affiliate arrangement with the NRA. The NRA has a long and honorable
> history of teaching firearms safety and lobbying to protect a right so
> important that the founders of this nation found it necessary to forbid
> government from infringing it. Criminological, sociological, and
> economic
> studies over the past 30 years have demonstrated conclusively how right
> they were. These results demonstrate that the two million or more
> instances
> of responsible citizens successfully defending themselves against
> violent
> criminals each year with firearms far outweigh the criminal uses.
> Estimates
> of the net economic benefit to society of private firearms ownership run
> into the tens of billions of dollars annually.
>
> Persuasive as these utilitarian arguments may be, they pale in
> significance
> beside the philosophical ones propounded by the framers of the
> Constitution. They believed quite firmly that the ultimate authority in
> society must be the citizens, and that one of the most important
> guarantees
> of this bedrock American principle of freedom was an unfettered right to
> keep and bear arms. You, sirs, have placed yourself squarely on the
> side of
> people advocating the direct violation of civil rights protected under
> the
> United States Constitution, and all but a bare handful of the state
> constitutions. I cannot in clear conscience continue to do business with
> any corporation who would make such a choice. So until I hear that H&R
> Block has rescinded this decision and apologized to the membership of
> the
> NRA, I will take my business elsewhere. Thank you for your kind
> attention
> to this matter.
>
> Jeffrey L Jordan
> [Address redacted]
>
> ---
> Hunter's Seventy Seventh Rule: The measure of the menace of a
> man is not what hardware he carries, but what ideas he believes.
>
> Ceterum censeo fiscum delendum esse
> ---
>>  LIBERTY ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS LIST (http://www.vader.com/lrtdiscuss)
>>
>> TO POST TO THE LIST:       send mail to [e-mail]
>> TO UN/SUBSCRIBE TO LIST:    send blank mail with command as subject
>
> -
>
>


- -

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:52:15 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: response from H&R Block

This doesn't make it clear whether they have cancelled
all affiliate marketing whatsoever.

Subject: Fwd: response from H&R Block
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:02:04 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

*********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE  ***********

On 3/13/02 at 11:23 AM Member Drive <[e-mail]> wrote:

Thank you for sharing your views with us.  We have taken the matter
very seriously.

H&R Block offers its products and services equally to all taxpayers.  The
company does not take a stand on social issues outside the realm of tax and
financial services.

This tax season H&R Block entered an agreement with a marketing company to
expand our ability to market our tax products and services.  A number of
organizations interpreted this agreement in a way that had H&R Block taking
a particular side of a social issue - something our company does not do.
Therefore, we are ending the agreement to remove ourselves from a debate we
don't belong in and to prevent any outside group from using H&R Block to
promote their agenda.

H&R Block's sole focus remains on helping all Americans with their tax and
financial needs.

Thank you for your e-mail.

*********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE  ***********c

- ---
Hunter's Seventy Seventh Rule: The measure of the menace
                           of a man is not what hardware he carries,
                           but what ideas he believes.


        Ceterum censeo fiscum delendum esse
- ---
>  LIBERTY ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS LIST (http://www.vader.com/lrtdiscuss)
>
> TO POST TO THE LIST:       send mail to [e-mail]
> TO UN/SUBSCRIBE TO LIST:    send blank mail with command as subject

- -

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:32:37 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Efforts nationwide to bolster gun rights

I don't necessarily think the NRA is as much to credit for this as are
various grassroots local organizations.  I know from my time in Arizona
that there are a couple of very active grassroots group there that have
long pushed for Vermont Carry.  Note how the current push to reduce the
penalties for unlicensed CCW are a move in that direction.

FWIW, I understand that New Mexico also has very low penalties for
technical (IE
non-violent) violations of CCW laws, but don't rely on that hearsay
before doing anything foolish.  We might also want to look at another law
in New Mexico.  Like here, no permit is needed to CCW on your own
property in New Mexico.  Unlike here, your personal automobile is
considered personal property akin to a home or apartment for purposes of
CCW without the need of a permit.  This actually makes a lot of sense
when one considers the very gray areas of motor homes or campers which
are, at once, both a motor vehicle and a very real home or abode for many
people.

In addition to showing us that we are not alone in our efforts and giving
some modest ideas of legislation we might pursue, the most important
thing this article does is put us on notice that the group formerlly and
most accurtely known as HCI (Handgun Control Inc) is going to put
increased financial and personel resources into our State.  If you fail
to counter them, we will lose more rights.  It seems to be almost a law
of nature that it is very difficult to maintain steady state on rights.
You are either gaining ground, or losing it in most cases.

Charles

From today's DesNews.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,375015750,00.html?


Wednesday, March 13, 2002

Move under way to ease gun laws
By David A. Lieb
Associated Press writer
      JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. ù Around the country, gun-rights groups are
waging what some portray as a deliberately gradual, one-step-at-a-time
effort to ease state laws governing the carrying of a concealed weapon.
      Organizations such as the National Rife Association and Gun Owners
of America say their efforts ù under way in more than half the states ù
are no greater this year than before. But they say the Sept. 11 attacks
may have provided some momentum.
      "Since September 11th, people feel the need to protect themselves
and their loved ones," said Randy Kozuch, the NRA's chief state and local
lobbyist. "Nobody knows what future attacks will happen."
      Alarmed by the effort, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,
which traditionally has focused on Congress, has expanded its staff for
state legislatures and teamed up with the Million Mom March to fight
attempts to loosen concealed gun laws.
      "We are seeing a very large effort by the NRA to weaken concealed
weapons laws across the country," said Luis Tolley, the Los Angeles-based
state legislative director for the Brady Campaign. "They want to let
anybody carry any gun they want, anywhere they want, any time they want."
      In the 1980s, at least 40 states prohibited concealed weapons,
according to the NRA. The movement to relax concealed gun laws began in
1987 in Florida and picked up steam in the mid-1990s.
      Now just six states ù all in the Midwest ù prohibit concealed
weapons. A dozen others allow them but sharply restrict the permits.
      Legislative efforts are under way to reverse the prohibitions or at
least allow concealed guns in some places, such as vehicles. In states
that already allow concealed guns, supporters are trying to relax the
permit process or the allow guns to be taken more places.
      Rick Salyer, a civilian Army technician involved in organizations
such as the NRA and the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, said the
strategy is to move one step at a time.
      "If it can be proven it's safe at one step, then later on you can
say, 'If this worked, why don't we give them a little more freedom,"' he
said.
      In Arizona, a bill endorsed by a House committee would make it a
mere petty offense, punishable by a fine of up to $50, to carry a
concealed gun without a permit. Currently, the offense carries a $2,500
fine and six months in jail.
      Legislation in the South Carolina Senate would relax residency
requirements for concealed gun permits and allow hidden weapons in state
parks or churches.
      In Minnesota, legislation would let most adults get concealed gun
permits after background checks and training. Current law requires people
to prove a job or safety need and gives discretion to local law officers
in granting permits.
      All told, lawmakers in 28 states have proposed concealed gun bills
this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
      After years of unsuccessful attempts to adopt a law allowing people
to carry a concealed weapon, Missouri legislators put the issue on the
ballot in 1999. The NRA spent $3.8 million, but the proposal failed
because of lopsided "no" votes in St. Louis and Kansas City.
      Now supporters are back before the Legislature ù even though
Democratic Gov. Bob Holden has threatened to veto any bill resembling the
1999 initiative.
      As a first step, some Missouri House members have devised a bill
they hope will be hard to veto: It allows concealed guns in vehicles
while also requiring more stringent prosecution of firearms crimes.
      Salyer summed up the approach this way: "The main thing is to get
your foot in the door." Then eventually, "I hope that we do get the right
to concealed carry."

________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:07:37 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Congratulations on escaping the frying pan...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: C. D. Tavares
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 12:02 AM
To: Linda McDougall
Cc: Bob Schneider; Cyd Slayton
Subject: Congratulations on escaping the frying pan...

I understand you've broken your agreement with the NRA that was advertised
in the March issue of their magazine.

Before you try to snow me with any of your boilerplate verbiage about how
all you're really trying to do is avoid taking an embarrassing corporate
position either "for" or "against" the Bill of Rights, just stuff it.á I've
seen your sweat-sprinkled letter to the Brady Bunch begging them to cancel
their planned "activities on March 16," and I recognize a craven surrender
when I see one.

Now, here's the other shoe.á If you think you've avoided pain by caving in
to a couple hundred loudmouth political bullies with no depth in actual
public support -- well then, you're about to learn what pain can really be.

The National Rifle Association currently has over four million members.
Does this sound like a lot to you?á It's the third largest dues-paying
adult membership organization in the United States. And, according to the
magazine Campaigns & Elections, over six times that many American
gun-owners identify with the principles of and consider themselves
"members" of the NRA, even though they may not keep their dues up to date.

The Brady Bunch published a gloating statement that "H&R Block now
understands that, by agreeing to this royalty scheme, it was furthering the
reckless political agenda of the NRA's leadership," and calling the
violation of your agreement with the NRA "a tremendous victory over the gun
lobby."á And by caving into their pressure (and in the process, showing the
public how little your word is worth), you have endorsed those claims.á And
that's a "position," whether you like it or not.

You just made the mistake of insulting a very large and very politically
active group of Americans.á When gun owners get upset at you, they stay
upset.á When gun owners stage a boycott, you stay boycotted.

Think it's an empty threat?á Ask Citibank or Dell Computer -- companies
that acknowledged that lesson and corrected their offenses.á Ask Smith &
Wesson or K-Mart -- companies that never did, and paid the price.

Hell, ask Al Gore -- if you can find him these days.

I ask you to understand that none of those boycotts were called by the NRA,
either officially or unofficially.á They were the product of grass-roots
gun-owner cooperation, organized via the Internet -- through the very same
newsgroups and mailing lists being copied on this message.

Ms. McDougall, as of this week, H&R Block has just joined that select group
of corporate offenders.á Don't expect to see many gun owners inside your
offices from now on.

Now, outside is another story entirely.á We won't be there on March 16th.
But we WILL be there.á And not at just 50 offices, either.

Count on it.
- --
[e-mail]

- -

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

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:16:37 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Google gun ban hits WorldNetDaily!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26819

If the folks at Google thought it was rough before today. . .

- -

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:59:09 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: H&R letter from Canada

Don't miss today's episode of "As H&R Block Burns", with guest star
Doctor Mike.

http://www.sierratimes.com/02/03/15/nramailbag.htm

- -

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

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:41:52 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philadelphia Daily News | 03/14/2002 | New on campus: Guns 101

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/2002/03/14/news/opinion/2856149.htm

- -

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

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:27:00 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: No Guns In The Cockpits

Our federal government gets awfully quirky at times. Take the issue of
arming pilots with pistols so they will have a chance if terrorists
breach the door and get into the cockpit.

The federal government opposes the idea. Too dangerous, it says.

On the other hand, the same federal government proposes to put armed air
marshals in with the passengers, as well as have fighter jets on standby.
The job, of course, of the air marshals is to shoot the hijackers, and if
they fail, the job of the fighter jets is to shoot down the passenger plane
if it veers from its flight plan. Not only that, but the government has
stationed armed National Guardsmen in the airports. Personally, I don't
fancy the idea of dodging ricochets if a poorly trained National Guard
soldier decides to have a shootout with a terrorist.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that a pilot shooting a
terrorist in a cockpit is any more dangerous than air marshals having a
gunfight out amongst the passengers. And certainly a gun in the cockpit
is less dangerous than being blown out of the sky by an F-16.

Furthermore, it seems absurd to trust pilots with an aircraft full of
passengers, but not trust them to have a pistol. Most commercial pilots
are ex-military and have had ample training with firearms. And all
commercial pilots are people who know how to stay calm in a stressful
situation. A hefty majority of the pilots want to carry personal firearms.
They should be allowed to do so.

Just as it is now a given that passengers and crew will resist the
hijackers, you can be sure that it is now a given among terrorists that
mere box cutters will not be sufficient to take over an aircraft. The
flaw in airport security is that the screening stations are well away
from the boarding areas. Between those screening areas and the boarding
areas are long corridors with offices, restrooms, shops and snack bars.
It does not require much imagination to persuade one of the hundreds of
people in those areas to plant a firearm for a terrorist who can retrieve
it after he's been screened.

And if the government is really serious about Americans being on
continuing alert and watching out for terrorists, then it should
encourage firearm ownership and pass a national right-to-carry law.
A very scholarly work proves that privately owned firearms prevent
more crimes than there are crimes committed with firearms. In Israel,
private citizens wielding their own firearms have often cut terrorist
attacks short.

Encouraging the public to go about their daily lives while armed
would also greatly cut down on the crime rate, not to mention improving
people's manners. Two of the most famous outlaw gangs, the James Gang
and the Daltons, were shot to pieces not by lawmen or Pinkerton
detectives, but by the citizens of the towns they tried to rob.

If you want to know how little that elitists think of us common folks,
just watch the reaction to this suggestion. The whole business of gun
control is based on the fear of the common people by the elite. Maybe
the elite have a guilty conscience and want to keep the common folks
unarmed in case the folks figure out how they've been taken advantage
of.

When the Florida Legislature was debating a right-to-carry law, I had
to listen to really ridiculous predictions from my elitist comrades in
the news racket. "Oh, if people can carry guns, there will be shootouts
in the supermarkets and at every traffic signal." It was all rubbish.
The law passed. A couple of hundred thousand people have permits, and
the violent-crime rate has gone down, not increased.

I asked one of my elitist friends, "Do you really think your fellow
citizens are stupid and mad?" The answer was "Yes." Nothing is so
conducive to making a fool of oneself than a small brain and a big ego.

I say, arm the American public and then watch our country become safe
and peaceful once again.

by Charley Reese
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20020318/index.php

- -

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

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:24:38 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good ol' Sarah Brady

Sarah Brady straw purchases a rifle:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/politics/2909641.htm

- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:34:07 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tyranny: the threshold has already been crossed

Tyranny: the threshold has already been crossed
- ----------
KeepAndBearArms.Com
by Jerry Jones
   "The number of 'mistakes' made by government officials ... that
   would put you or I away for a long time, are not even punished
   if a government official commits them. ... are too numerous to
   list." (03/25/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/226072053.html

- -

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

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:45:54 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Paypal newly on list of Anti second amendment companies

I haven't seen specifics of what got them added.

- -----
At Devvy Kidd's site:

http://www.devvy.com/paypal_20020322.html

- -

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

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:13:41 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Letter in support of Augustus Alzona

Letter in support of Augustus Alzona
- ----------
KeepAndBearArms.Com
by Aaron Zelman
   Republican officials seek to remove Augustus Alzona from the
   local party's Central Committee, for distributing a flyer with
   the faces of three Democrat politicians digitally imposed onto
   photographs of Nazi soldiers, implying a proposed gun
   registration and licensing scheme is Hitlerian. (03/23/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/71952323.html

- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:41:56 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let freedom ring

Gun Owners of America embraces Brady's son
Gets honorary membership after Sarah admits 'straw' rifle purchase

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 28, 2002  1:00 a.m. Eastern

⌐ 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

The Gun Owners of America has awarded an honorary membership to the
son of gun-control activist Sarah Brady.

In her recent autobiography, "A Good Fight," Brady admitted to
purchasing a .30-06 caliber rifle for her son Scott, which allowed
him to avoid the required criminal background check. Second Amendment
activists believe a Delaware law might have been violated if she did
not submit information on the person for whom she bought the gun.

"Now that Scott Brady is the proud owner of a high-powered 'sniper'
rifle, he will most certainly need a fuller understanding of the
Second Amendment than he ever received at home," Erich Pratt, the
Gun Owners of America's communications director said in a statement.

In 1991, Sarah Brady became chair for Handgun Control Inc., a
Washington-based lobby group pressing for tougher gun-control
laws. Her husband James Brady was seriously wounded in the 1981
assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan while serving as the
president's press secretary.

Last year Handgun Control was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence in honor of the Bradys.

"We congratulate Scott for keeping his name 'off paper,'" Pratt
said. "Because the gun was bought under his mother's name, he
completely avoided the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background
Check System). This means authorities will never know he has the
sniper rifle, a benefit which reduces the possibility that his gun
could ever be confiscated by authorities."

In 1993, Congress passed the "Brady Bill" championed by Sarah Brady,
which requires a five-day waiting period and background checks on
handgun purchases.

Pratt says the government's system of keeping track of gun owners
has been used to confiscate firearms.

"New York City registered long guns in the mid-1960s after promising
those registration lists would never be used to confiscate the guns,"
Pratt said. "But in 1991, Handgun Control, Inc., supported the city
when it banned many of the very guns which were previously
registered. Some homes even received visits from police, who
confiscated the banned firearms from the clutches of non-compliant
gun owners."

- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:46:00 -0500
From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. <[e-mail]>
Subject: handloading forums sponsored by your list dad

Hi All

Just a plug for the new forums I put up for handloading/reloading .  The
pretty homepage and graphiccal headers are still under construction, but
the forums themselves are up, and they just went online today for live
use (so go join and start posting so that there is some content :-)

www.handloaders.com  (the home page is not much to write home about,
yet, but click on the "forums" link and you're there)

If the above link gets you to the eguns.com webpage instead, click on
the forums link there to get to the home page as shown above, by IP
number.  It takes a day or two for the DNS caches around the world to
notice the changeover for handloaders.com to its new address.

Thanks
Chad

utah-firearms sponsor


- -

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

Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:57:30 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRA-ILA Fax Alert Vol. 9, No. 13 3/29/02

NRA FILES SUIT AGAINST SHAM CAMPAIGN FINANCE "REFORM"

Hours after campaign finance "reform" - officially known as the
"Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" (BCRA) - was signed into law on
Wednesday, NRA made good on its promise to launch a legal challenge
to this attack on the First Amendment. NRA Executive Vice President
Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker issued
a joint statement announcing the filing of the NRA suit, stating,
"When the federal courthouse opened for business today, NRA was
there - we have filed suit to invalidate this unconstitutional
infringement on the First Amendment rights of the NRA and our four
million members nationwide."

The statement went on to say, "We are proud to be the first plaintiff
to formally ask the federal court to invalidate these new limits on
the political speech of ordinary citizens because we believe that
this law cannot be allowed to stand - not even for a moment. Sen.
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) said on the floor of the United States
Senate during the campaign finance debate that it was his intention
to silence the NRA. As a direct and intentional target of this law,
NRA has no choice but to protect our right to be heard."

"Through this law," the statement continued, "Congress has essentially
granted speech licenses to giant corporate conglomerates such as
Viacom, Disney Corporation and General Electric Company by allowing
those corporations unlimited rights to spend money talking about
issues and candidates, while silencing the voices of ordinary citizens
and citizens groups such as NRA. Why should corporations such as these
media conglomerates, all of which own multiple non-news business
enterprises and spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress - why
should those corporations be allowed to spend whatever they wish,
whenever they wish, saying whatever they wish regarding any issue or
candidate - when a non-profit citizens organizations such as ours is
prohibited from even responding via the broadcast media?"

For a complete copy of Wednesday`s joint statement from LaPierre and
Baker, those on the Internet can go to http://www.NRAILA.org/.

Also of interest is one of the attorneys who has been selected to
defend this legislative attack on the First Amendment. Former U.S.
Solicitor General Seth Waxman will be an integral part of the legal
team chosen by Congressional proponents of the BCRA to defend the
new law. Waxman, you will recall, was the Solicitor General under
Bill Clinton who wrote the now infamous letter that confirmed the
Clinton-Gore Administration`s belief that law-abiding citizens have
"no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to
own or to use a gun." Perhaps his argument will now be that law-
abiding citizens and the organizations that represent them have no
personal constitutional right, under the First Amendment, to exercise
political free speech!

The overturn of campaign finance "reform" provisions that restrict
our rights will continue to remain a top priority for NRA, and we
will report further developments on this front.

<snip>

- -

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

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:46:03 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACLU college chapter being formed at USU.  Pro-RKBAers may want to check it out.  :)

The following article from the current on campus paper of USU indicates
that an ACLU chapter is being formed there to safeguard our essential
liberties and inviting interested persons to atttend a meeting.  If there
are any pro-RKBA folks in those northern parts whose schedules will allow
it, it might be interesting to attend and see if the individual, college
chapter can count to 10 without skipping 2.  Certainly the RKBA is an
essential liberty that is subject to being infringed if not carefully
guarded.

Charles

<http://utahstatesman.com/news/230672.html>

The Statesman - Opinion
Issue: 04/08/02

LETTER: ACLU guards civil liberties


Dear Editor,

In order to safeguard civil liberties, a chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union has been established at Utah State University.

At this critical time it is imperative that people understand their
rights and the current efforts by our government to assuage these rights.

It is in the interest of everyone for the citizenry to become informed
about the anti-constitutional action of the current Congress and
president. Also it is important to become involved in keeping these
rights that are so essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.

If your rights are important to you and you wish to know more about the
ACLU and what it stands for, visit www.aclu.org and/or come to the first
meeting of the USU chapter. We will be meeting Thursday on the third
floor of the Taggart Student Center at the tables across from the
Multicultural Student Center. Also stop by our booth at Pride! Day.

Eagan Kemp

USU chapter of the ACLU

________________________________________________________________
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, 10 Apr 2002 11:48:02 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hardy and Tobias independantly quoted in SLTrib

I know many here regularly read the local papers and don't care to have
too much posted from them.  However, in this case, it seems worthwhile.

And I'll give Dan Harrie credit for writing what looks like a well
balanced piece with solid quotes from three pro-gun people, including
yours truly and Janalee Tobias.

As for the case itself, I am concerned about the outcome.  A decision
expanding the legislature's power to define the "use" of guns at the
expense of the guaranteed right to "keep and bear" arms would not be good
for us at all.  However, a good decision would go a long way towards
eliminating a lot of unconstitutional anti-gun laws on the books.  Even
if the courts rule against him, it would sure be nice if they limited
their ruling to those currently on parole.

Charles

http://www.sltrib.com/04102002/utah/727084.htm



Felon Argues For Gun Rights
Wednesday, April 10, 2002


BY DAN HARRIE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

   Convicted felon Wade L. Willis is waging a legal battle for gun rights
that makes even the most strident Second Amendment activist flinch.
    In a case pending before the Utah Court of Appeals, Willis says the
law prohibiting felons from possessing guns violates the Utah
Constitution's sweeping guarantee of self-defense rights. Much broader
than the U.S. Constitution, the state version specifically recognizes an
"individual right" to keep and bear arms.
    While the Utah Constitution acknowledges the Legislature's authority
to regulate firearms, Willis argues that that legislative power is
limited to "the lawful use of arms," and does not extend to mere
possession.
    "Willis asserts that the plain language of . . . the Utah
Constitution prevents the Legislature from limiting or restricting an
individual's right to possess and keep firearms," says the brief written
by defense attorney Margaret Lindsay.
    Because Willis was not convicted or charged with any offense
involving discharge, brandishment or any other use of a gun, his
conviction -- for escaping police custody and for possessing a gun when
he was a restricted person -- and the state law should be thrown out,
Lindsay says.
    State attorneys disagree, arguing Willis' interpretation of the
Constitution defies logic.
    "The narrow interpretation urged by defendant should be rejected
because it would yield absurd and contradictory results -- results that
could not have been intended by Utah lawmakers," wrote Brett DelPorto,
assistant attorney general.
    "Under defendant's view, criminal background checks required for the
purchase of a gun would be useless against the felon who represents that
he wishes to merely 'possess' a weapon, but not 'use' it," said DelPorto.

    "Metal detectors at courthouses, government offices and airports
would be pointless if citizens have the unencumbered right to 'possess'
firearms. Perhaps even prison inmates could claim a right to possess
guns. In short, a would-be gunman could not be legally penalized or even
confronted until he actually began to 'use' the gun, by which point the
damage would be done."
    Jared Eldridge, a public defender who helped develop Willis'
argument, agrees society would be ill served by overturning the ban on
felons' possession of guns. But he added that the law is the law, flaws
and all.
    "I don't advocate that convicted felons should be able to possess
firearms," Eldridge said. "I don't advocate that, but the plain language
of what the Legislature adopted [in a 1984 constitutional amendment]
seems to provide their protection."
    Gun-rights lobbyists who have fought for relaxed concealed-weapons
and other pro-firearms laws in recent years are cautious about jumping to
Willis' defense.
    "You are going to have a hard time finding anyone who believes
felons, particularly violent felons, should be packing guns around," said
Charles Hardy, policy director for Gun Owners of Utah.
    But he said he does oppose lifelong gun-rights bans for nonviolent
felons.
    "As a matter of principle and policy and logic, it simply doesn't
make sense to deny people their right to keep and bear arms if they're
not convicted of anything involving violence."
    Willis, a 22-year-old Utah County resident, seems to fit that
description. A search of court records and interviews with attorneys
indicate his only felony convictions were for escaping police custody and
gun possession. He had a history of nonviolent misdemeanor convictions
and charges, including shoplifting and, when he was a minor, illegal
possession of alcohol and drugs.
    "To suggest a druggie and a thief ought to have guns is not a popular
position," said Hardy. "But once his parole is ended, if he can't be
trusted with a gun, he probably shouldn't be trusted with a lot of other
rights. . . . Gun rights are not different from freedom of religion or
freedom of the press."
    Janalee Tobias, founder of Women Against Gun Control, agreed there
should be some connection between crime and punishment.
    "If you're a convicted felon for writing bad checks, take your pens
away, but don't take away your guns," said Tobias. "It really depends on
whether he's a violent offender."
    Utah Shooting Sports Council Executive Director Elwood Powell usually
believes there is little room for restricting gun rights. "That's one of
our God-given rights and that's to defend ourselves," said Powell. But he
adds that felony convictions are one big exception. "Anybody that's
committed a felony ought not to be walking the streets with a firearm.
He's already thumbed his nose at the ordinary rules that decent people
live by."
    The Court of Appeals has given Willis until May 3 to file a second
brief in the case before it decides whether to hear oral arguments.
    In a ruling two years ago, the court upheld the statute prohibiting
gun possession or use by a convicted felon. But that case was somewhat
different in that it involved a defendant who was involved in a
"shoot-out," not mere possession.


________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:32:24 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: OHIO COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT TO CONCEALED CARRY

Cato Daily Dispatch
April 11, 2002
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/04-11-02d.html

<snip>

OHIO COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT TO CONCEALED CARRY

A state appeals court yesterday declared Ohio's decades-old ban on
carrying concealed weapons unconstitutional because it violates the right
to self-defense, according to Fox News. (
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49994,00.html )

The framers of the Ohio constitution "put the citizens' rights up front,"
said Mark Painter, presiding judge of the 1st Ohio District Court of
Appeals. "We believe they meant what they said."
Ohio's attorney general asked the state Supreme Court for an immediate
delay of the ruling to hear an appeal, said spokesman Joe Case. Lawyers
for Cincinnati, Hamilton County, and the state had argued that government
has the right to regulate the manner in which weapons are carried.

In "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun,"
( http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html ) an analysis of a 1987 Florida
law that allowed citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, Jeffrey
R. Snyder found that there was a decrease in violent crime, not the
increase many people had predicted.

The Cato Institute hosted a book forum featuring legal scholar John R.
Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime. His updated book presents
the most comprehensive analysis ever done on crime statistics and the
right-to-carry laws. Video of the forum is available on the Cato Web
site. ( http://www.cato.org/events/000616bf.html )

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Brito, editor, [e-mail]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

- -

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:34:40 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: MMM - The Time Out Chair

A moment for the idiots:

- -----
http://www.millionmommarch.org/features/timeout/index.asp

The Time Out Chair features people, organizations and corporations who put
sensible gun practices on the back burner in favor of the out of touch gun
lobby. Mom's know who's been bad and who's been good and we want to make
sure that everyone knows who is in the time out chair and why they deserve
it.

Time Out Chair
1. John Lott
2. Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA)
3. John Ashcroft
4. Eddie Eagle Program
5. Lowe's Hardware
6. Michigan Governor John Engler

1. Pro-gun "scholar" John Lott gets a seat in the Time Out Chair for using
the September 11 terrorist attacks to call for more guns on airplanes. Lott,
who authored the widely-discredited book "More Guns, Less Crime," suggested
in a September 28 column in the Wall Street Journal that, not only should
pilots be armed but that passengers should also be allowed to carry guns on
planes. He then exploits a national tragedy even further by saying our
nation would be safer if more people carried hidden handguns everywhere, not
just on planes.

Lott fails to recognize a simple fact: more guns equal more violence.
America is safer when steps are taken to prevent terrorists from getting
weapons in the first place, not when citizens are engaged in gunfights on
airplanes or on our streets....

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #227
***********************************