ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n230

Internet Message Format | 2002-07-10 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #230
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Thursday, July 11 2002      Volume 02 : Number 230




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

Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 17:14:29 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew

On Tue, 7 May 2002 16:17:40 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote:

>The deputy who is the father of the 4 year old boy who shot at his
>neighbors is now charged with both reckless endangerment AND child abuse.
>The abuse charge stems from the fact that the boy was injured by the
>recoil of the gun!!

That seems excessive. While perhaps not politically feasible, I
should think censuring and prosecuting the prosecutor responsible
for malicious prosecution would be in order.

>My question is, if the kid had stolen one of his mother's kitchen knives
>and threatened his neighbors, would the mom have been charged with a
>crime for not keeping her cutlerly locked up?

It may come to that, but if warranted, inadequate supervision,
i.e. "neglect", would be more appropriate.

>[Answering whether car owners have a duty to do more than just lock the
>car and take the keys.]
>>Perhaps so in some places.

>I disagree.  I do not place such burdens on decent law abiding persons.
>The criminal who defeats the locks, breaks the glass, etc, etc, etc, is
>responsible.  PERIOD.  I do not believe in double victimizing the owner
>who has already had his property stolen.

I'd hesitate to issue you comprehensive automotive insurance.
IOW, with that attitude, expect higher than usual rates.

>If some thug steals my tire iron from a business parking lot
>while I've spent 10 hours away from my car, I should have NO
>liability for what he does with it.

Depends on your contract with the lot owner, but I
would expect him to suffer most of the liability,
at least to you for loss of the iron and damage to
your car during its removal.

>>Yes. The firearm is more easily used, and requires less
>>specialized training to misuse.

>I disagree.  A child can hurt himself much easier with a knife than
>with a gun, especially if the gun does not have a round in the chamber.

Itself, yes. ("Child" is neuter.) However, the question
involved harm to others, either negligently such as by
a naive child, or intentionally when a thug steals it.

>And if specialized training is the criteria, I'm guessing we have
>FAR more people in this country who have received formal training
>in the use of automobiles (drivers ed) than in the use of firearms.

At least in Utah, drivers' ed does not typically teach how
to force entry into or hotwire a car. To take the analogy
to guns, this would compare to defeating a lock or safe.

Scott Bergeson
SSL

- -

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

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 12:01:36 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: World War II -- won the battle, lost the war

Freedom News provides:

World War II -- won the battle, lost the war
- ----------
JPFO
by Aaron Zelman
   "You sacrificed your youth, you saw your buddies die before your
   eyes, you gave up life and family and love as you fought in
   Europe or the Pacific -- all to save the world from fascism [but]
   America is becoming a lot like the countries you fought
   against..." (05/08/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/42968930.html

 From 'anti-gunner' to 'firearms instructor' in 4 months
- ----------
KeepAndBearArms.Com
by Susan Erline White
   "In December 2001, I was a member of the 'Brady Bunch' and
   a woman afraid of having my father's guns in my home. By April
   19, 2002, I had applied for a concealed carry license, been
   certified as a pistol instructor, had purchased my own 9mm
   Beretta..." (05/08/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/51299518.html

Liberty Belles
- ----------
Liberty Belles
   "Putting the Second Amendment first."
http://www.free-market.net/rd/332699527.html

- -

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:15:44 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Democrats tone down anti-gun stance

Democrats tone down anti-gun stance
- ----------
Christian Science Monitor
   After years of publicly opposing the right to bear arms,
   Democrats are falling silent on the issue -- or even switching
   sides. Driving this change is a realization that their anti-gun
   stance has cost them dearly at the polls. (05/10/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/371055011.html

- -

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:32:47 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Judges flaunt law

Feel free to forward.

From today's SLTrib.  What is the world coming to when those charged with
judging the law flat out refuse to obey the law?  I encourage everyone to
contact their legislators, the governor, and Attorney General Shurtleff
to demand that these rogue judges be reigned in.  Flat out refusal to
obey a properly passed and signed law really should be grounds for
impeachment and removal from the bench, IMO.

Contact information for the governor and all State legislators can be
found on the GOUtah! web page at: http://www.goutahorg.org/  Click on the
"Legislative Contacts" link on the left side of the page.

AG Shurtleff may be reached at

General Office Numbers: [phone], [phone]
Toll Free within the State of Utah: (800) AG 4 INFO (244-4636)
E-Mail: [e-mail]

Utah State Capitol Office
236 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810
FAX: [phone]



http://www.sltrib.com/05212002/utah/738687.htm

Board Says 'No' to Guns In Courts
Tuesday, May 21, 2002


BY DAWN HOUSE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

    Setting up a classic separation-of-powers battle, a board
representing Utah's 70 district judges has voted to ignore a new state
law ordering all courthouses to install gun storage lockers for holders
of concealed-weapon permits.
    The Board of District Judges, representing the trial benches
throughout Utah, announced Monday that its 10 elected leaders unanimously
declined to install gun lockers, opting instead to continue a longtime
policy of prohibiting the public from carrying guns in courthouses.
    "Citizens come to us to resolve their most serious and sometimes
life-altering disputes," said 3rd District Judge Ron Nehring. "We owe
them as safe of an environment as we can possibly provide."
    Fourth District Judge Tony Schofield said the gun prohibition is "not
a rural-urban issue. It concerns in the most fundamental way all courts
of the state."
    The resolution endorses an order issued earlier this month by 6th
Judicial District Presiding Judge K. L. McIff, who instructed
administrators in Sanpete, Sevier, Wayne, Piute, Kane and Garfield
counties to disregard the law in favor of Judicial Council rules that ban
firearms in Utah courthouses.
    "Security in and about courthouses is an essential and core function
of the judiciary," wrote McIff, who also heads the Board of District
Judges.
    "The judiciary's inherent power includes the right to prohibit
weapons in courtrooms and, where the circumstances warrant, the entire
courthouse."
    The orders are in response to the Utah Legislature, which
overwhelmingly passed legislation mandating that all Utah courthouses
erect gun storage lockers. In March, Gov. Mike Leavitt signed the bill
into law.
    Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said Monday the "Legislature has
the right to make laws, and the judges are required to obey them.
    "I call upon the judges to obey the law," he said. "If they don't,
I'll seek input from the Legislature and the governor before I take any
action, which could include a lawsuit."
    The district court board, in turn, appealed to the Utah Judicial
Council to ratify its resolution and asked all state district and
juvenile judges to adopt similar gun-ban orders. The Judicial Council,
the panel that makes rules for Utah courts, will consider the gun issue
next week.
    State Rep. John Swallow, R-Sandy, who sponsored the gun locker bill,
said judges may not decide unilaterally which laws they will obey.
    "I would be surprised if any judicial rule would supersede state law
that has been codified by the Utah Legislature," said Swallow, who is a
2nd Congressional District candidate. "When there's a question if a law
is constitutional, right or fair, I would encourage any judge, any court
or any individual in the state to go through the legitimate process and
not simply take the law into their own hands."
    Swallow said "appropriate forums" would be for the judges to go
before lawmakers "for help in solving what they may perceive as a
problem," asking for a declaratory judgment or filing a lawsuit.
    Yet when University of Utah President Bernie Machen refused to bend
to the Legislature's demand and filed a friendly lawsuit that seeks to
uphold a campus gun ban, lawmakers threatened to cut his salary.
    "For anyone to ignore the law without going through the proper
process doesn't seem right to me," said Swallow. "My bill doesn't open up
courtrooms for guns. Instead of someone hiding a gun somewhere outside
the courthouse, people holding a concealed-weapon permit would simply
have a safe place to store their weapons."
    The rejection by the judges of Swallow's House Bill 82 comes on the
heels of the Legislature's move this year to exercise greater influence
on judicial disciplinary matters. Leavitt vetoed HB136 that reorganizes
the Judicial Conduct Commission, but the Legislature overrode the veto.

________________________________________________________________
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, 21 May 2002 12:54:45 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Judges flaunt law

On Tue, 21 May 2002 12:32:47 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote:

>What is the world coming to when those charged with
>judging the law flat out refuse to obey the law?  I encourage everyone to
>contact their legislators, the governor, and Attorney General Shurtleff
>to demand that these rogue judges be reigned in.  Flat out refusal to
>obey a properly passed and signed law really should be grounds for
>impeachment and removal from the bench, IMO.

If not imprisonment for treason. Looks like open
rebellion, by those charged with enforcing the law,
to me. Send the State Guard to round them up. (Oops,
Gov. Leavitt disbanded it.) Whatever, looks like the
AG, the Governor, and the Legislature have their
hands full. Will they fumble?

Scott

- -

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:37:41 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apologies for muliple posts

My apologies for the recent mulitiple copies of the same post from me.

Email handler problems it seems.

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: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:10:29 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bad "compromise" on gun lockers

Oops. Charles, please correct the posting address of this
list in your address book.

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Bad "compromise" on gun lockers
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:04:46 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], Mark L. Shurtleff <[e-mail]>,
 Ric Cantrell <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 22 May 2002 13:28:53 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote:

>With the greatest of respect
>to our Attorney General I have some serious concerns about his
>"compromise" to "fix" HB 82.  It seems to me all it does is cave in to
>judges desire to ban guns without providing any kind of storage.

>I know nobody is anxious to go to court to have a judge determine whether
>other judges have broken the law, but I hope our lawmakers reject this
>quick "fix".

Exactly. Fire all the rebellious judges and render them
incapable of ever again holding any office of trust or
profit in or under the State of Utah. (Same goes for
Machen.) Don't even allow them to practice law or lobby.

Scott

>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,400010032,00.html?

>Shurtleff calls for a 'fix' in gun law

>By Bob Bernick Jr. and Amy Joi Bryson
>Deseret News staff writers

>"We don't want to go to court," said Shurtleff, who realizes that
>it would be judges deciding his case.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:43:43 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ding-dong the witch is dead

I just received a phone call from SLTrib reporter Dan Harrie.  According
to Mr. Harrie the (misnamed) "Safe-to-Learn/Safe-to-Worship" citizen
petition initiative is now officially dead.  Sometime in the next couple
of days marks the end of the 4 year window during which signatures could
be gathered for their petition and they have admitted that they are no
where close to having the signatures they need.  If they wish to start
again, they will have to start fresh with NO signatures from past
efforts!  They, of course, are claiming that the signature threshold is
simply far too high to be achieved by ANYONE running a volunteer
initiative.

Heaven only knows what, if anything, I said, Mr. Harrie will chose to use
in whatever story I presume he is preparing.  However, I made the
following points:

1-I'm glad, and not terribly surprised, that they have failed in their
efforts.

2-This is proof positive they did not have the "overwhelming" public
support they claimed they did.  If the legislature really were as out of
touch on this issue as they claimed, or if they had the huge levels of
public support they claimed, they should have been able to gather the
singatures needed in just a couple of years, even with volunteers.  That
they failed to do so after 4 years of efforts, proves there isn't any
where close to the levels of support they have claimed.

3-They were deceptive in their efforts.  They talked about kids bringing
guns to schools when their petition did not address that at all.  It only
addressed those law-abiding adults who jumped through all the hoops and
had obtained a CCW permit.  And there simply haven't been any real
problems with CCW permitees that would justify a change in our current
law.

4-I suggested that as the people of Utah learned more about the real
language and intent of the petition, support dropped even lower that it
started out.

5-Whether we individually choose to carry a gun or not, we as a society
and as individuals are all safer when those law-abiding adults who do
choose to carry guns for self defense are able to do so with the fewest
restrictions possible.  Bad guys are placed in the position of asking
themselves, "What are the odds my intended victim is going to have a gun
and be able to shoot me?"

6-Churches are free to ban guns now and it requires nothing more than a
small sign, similar to a no-smoking sign, to effect that ban.  That so
few churches have chosen to exercise that peragative is another
indication that this really is not an issue of concern to most Utahns.

7-The lack of financial backing from average Utahns (and the subsequent
need for an all volunteer signature gathering force) is another
indication that support was mostly from a small number of vocal
individuals and groups rather than from any widespread majority of
voters.

8-The signature threshold is designed to be non-trivial.  Whether it is
too high, too low, or just right, is another question.  But the fact
remains that other petitions which were far more controversial than this
one claimed to be did manage to get on the ballot.  If this petition
really had the support that its backers claimed, it should have been a
shoe in.  The end of this petition speaks for itself.

I'm no media or PR expert, so as you're giving thanks that this effort
has finally failed, ask that my comments don't end up making the pro-gun
community look bad.  :)

Charles Hardy

________________________________________________________________
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, 3 Jun 2002 11:32:37 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-gun petition may go pro next year

From today's SLTrib.  Nice quotes from Janalee Tobias herein.

Pro-gun groups probably need to get together and figure out how to best
combat this.  The flyers that the LPUtah, WAGC, and other groups did last
time  did a great job previously.  Maybe a slight update or even
additional flyers are in order.  I wonder how many teachers really
support their union money being used to limit their gun rights?  If I can
trust a teacher with my child for 8 hours a day, I can trust that teacher
with the means to defend herself and my child from criminal agression.

If these guys do go "pro" on a new petition, we can hammer them on that,
too.  "This isn't grass roots Utahns.  This is big money, probably frm
out of state, trying to influence local decisions."  And, of course, they
can get all the sigs they want in Salt Lake County.  If they don't get
enough in the rural counties, no initiative.  :)  I think we know where
we ought to concentrate our efforts.

Charles

http://www.sltrib.com/06032002/utah/742427.htm

 Gun Ban Drive May Be Back
Monday, June 3, 2002


BY DAN HARRIE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

   Supporters of a failed, four-year petition effort to ban legally
concealed guns in schools and houses of worship are regrouping and may
try again in 2004 to get their cause on the ballot.
    If there is a next time, they will do it differently, relying on
fund-raising and paid petition signature gatherers to get the job done.
    Leaders of the volunteer "Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship Coalition"
met in a four-hour retreat Saturday to lick their wounds after
acknowledging they had fallen far short of mustering the 76,180
registered-voter signatures needed by today's deadline to put their
initiative before voters in November.
    "People were feeling kind of sad and frustrated," meeting facilitator
Dave Jones said Sunday. "But they were hopeful, too."
    "We took a little vote and no one wanted to give up."
    If the coalition, made up of more than a dozen organizations and
religions, does launch a 2004 initiative, it will have to do so from
scratch. State law nullifies an approved petition after four years,
effectively trashing the approximately 40,000 signatures already in hand.
    Initiative organizers remain convinced that Utah residents
overwhelmingly support a ban on all weapons -- including legally
concealed guns -- in public schools, colleges, universities and religious
edifices. They blame their defeat on the practical difficulty of using
only volunteers to collect tens of thousands of signatures statewide (10
percent of voters participating in the last gubernatorial election in 20
of 29 counties).
    "What we have learned from this whole thing is money talks," said
Jones, a former state legislator and Democratic Party leader. "If you're
going to get anything on the ballot, you have to pay for it -- you have
to buy it."
    Three of the four statewide initiatives that have made it on Utah's
ballot during the past decade used paid signature gatherers. The state
Legislature stiffened the requirements in 1998, and since then the only
two initiatives to qualify employed professional petition passers.
    "I hate to say it, but that's the only way to do it," said Frank
Pignanelli, an organizer of a petition to restrict and increase taxes on
radioactive waste coming into the state. "Initiatives have become a
political industry."
    Paula Plant, chairwoman of the Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship
Coalition, said her group's failure has "proven it is impossible" to
achieve ballot status with an all-volunteer campaign. "But if you have
the money and you operate like a business, you can win."
    Plant and other initiative supporters insist that their cause is
extremely popular.
    "Nine of 10 people [asked] would sign the petition," she said.
    Bunk, said Janalee Tobias, leader of Women Against Gun Control.
    "They had all the king's horses and all the king's men on their side
- -- the media and pollsters. They still couldn't get it passed," said
Tobias.
    While she acknowledged that getting an initiative on the ballot is a
chore, Tobias said there is a simple reason this one fell short.
    "It's the common-sense people who don't want to be victims in this
state," she said. "I've got to hand it to the people of Utah. They
understand that criminals don't obey the law."
    Tobias, who has actively lobbied against a ban of legally concealed
guns in schools and places of worship, says such a restriction would only
serve to invite violent criminals to prey on unarmed, vulnerable students
and congregation members.
    "It should be called the 'Unsafe to Learn, Unsafe to Worship'
petition," Tobias said. "The schools where they're having the shootings
are ones that don't allow law-abiding people to have concealed weapons."
    Maura Carabello, executive director of the Utah Gun Violence
Prevention Center, said the initiative was never about attacking gun
rights.
    "We are not by any means an anti-gun coalition," said Carabello.
"We're talking about restricting a handful of places, and the idea that
that's inappropriate is bizarre to me."
    The 17 members of the coalition range from the Utah Education
Association teachers' union to the Episcopal Diocese, and from the Utah
Medical Association to the League of Women Voters. Some of the groups
have been vehemently opposed to abandoning their grass-roots foundation
to employ professional signature gatherers.
    While no final decision has been made, the coalition has authorized a
study that in the next few weeks will provide more information about the
cost and feasibility of a professional petition-passing effort for 2004.
    Another option would be a Capitol Hill lobbying campaign to back a
bill in the Legislature, possibly including the hiring of professional
lobbyists, and creation of a political action committee to support
friendly candidates in elections. But that legislative strategy elicits
skepticism from some.
    "The only cynicism in the group is toward the Legislature," said
Carabello. "Our legislators have shown themselves to be pretty narrow and
bull-headed on any gun issue."

________________________________________________________________
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, 03 Jun 2002 20:35:46 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Signatures of the Gun Culture

http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/5/31/183751

Signatures of the Gun Culture
Dr. Michael S. Brown
June 1, 2002

- -

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:36:25 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun control drops from national debate

Gun control drops from national debate
- ----------
Washington Times
   Just a few years ago, restrictions on self defense and the right
   to bear arms were hot topics of discussion. But restrictions
   have proven to be ballot-box losers around the country, and
   candidates are now steering clear of the issue. (06/10/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/147860169.html

'Gun-free' zone puts Americans at risk
- ----------
KeepAndBearArms.com
by Russ Howard
   "That you still haven't armed pilots forces me to suspect that
   you may deserve some of the 'What did he know, when did he know
   it?' criticism Democrats are dishing out..." (05/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/810165862.html

- -

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:50:26 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Trust Politicians Who Take Your Guns?

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:40:03 -0600 Janalee Tobias
<[e-mail]> provides from WAGC member Lora:

- ----------

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0601hancock01.html

Why trust the politicians who take your guns?
By Ernest Hancock
June 01, 2002

I am often associated with the gun-rights issue but most in the
media and public service know that my main interest is freedom.

Between my IRS tax-day protests, lawsuits, campaigns, freedom
initiatives, Diamondback rattlesnake barbecues and helping
desperate people deal with oppressive governments, there has
always been attention to gun rights.

Why is this issue such a touchstone for freedom lovers?

Even politicians who want to be known as "pro-gun" hate having
to discuss the issue with reporters or be too specific, even
with supporters.

They hate it because it is an MRI into their character.

It is a Vulcan mind-meld, as my friend and gun-rights author
L. Neil Smith calls the gun issue. It is the ultimate test by
which any politician or political philosophy can be evaluated.

If a politician isn't comfortable with any individual being
able to walk into a hardware store, pay cash for any firearm
without producing identification or signing a single scrap
of paper (and that individual being able to carry that
protection concealed or open), then that politician does
not support freedom.

Gun-control laws only disarm potential victims, thus creating
a safe work environment for criminals - kind of like an OSHA
for felons. And criminals won't be deterred from getting a
weapon because of a law. Criminals don't follow laws. Any
attempt to rid the world of a tool that would give my 130-pound
wife a fighting chance against a 230-pound man would be immoral.

This test is very revealing about how someone seeking your
vote really feels about you. If he doesn't want you to have
the means to defend your life, do you want him in a position
to control it?

If a politician thinks that the highest law of the land,
the Bill of Rights, is nothing more than a guideline for
government, do you want to entrust him with anything?

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you,
why should you trust him?

If he's a man, what does his lack of trust tell you about
his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a
woman, what makes her so eager to render her fellow women
helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped
create?

Should you believe politicians who claim they stand for
freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about
repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons?
What does this tell you about their real motives, when
they ignore voters and ram through legislation actively
opposed by a majority of their constituents?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study
every issue. Just use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan
mind-meld, to find out how politicians really feel. About
you. That, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue activist,
thinker and voter. But it isn't true, is it?

Ernest Hancock is a Phoenix restaurant owner. In a suit
filed May 14 with the state Supreme Court, he asked for
a ruling that the state can't tell him whether he can
carry a gun on public property.

The WAGC homepage is at http://www.wagc.com/ .

- -

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:35:13 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: High court won't address Second Amendment now

High court won't address Second Amendment now
- ----------
Washington Post
   The Supreme Court said it will not hear two cases that would have
   tested the Bush administration's recent acknowledgement that the
   Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns. One of
   them is the much-watched Emerson case. (06/11/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/997765994.html

- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:55:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Take a Stand for Gun Rights! (fwd)

I'm sending this to these groups because I know of the email addresses. if
you are an owner of the group and get this bounced back, please forward it
to your group members.

- --
Karl L. Pearson
Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
Senior Consulting Database Analyst
[e-mail]
http://consulting.ourldsfamily.com
 My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
 http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:38:12 -0400
From: Conservative Action Team <[e-mail]>
Subject: Take a Stand for Gun Rights!


AN URGENT MESSAGE FROM CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR

[Reader],

A fanatic band of obsessed gun control zealots are plotting to obliterate
your Second Amendment rights.

<a href="http://www.campaigncontribution.com/alerts/barr2/">
http://www.campaigncontribution.com/alerts/barr2/ </a>

With an overabundance of arrogance and . . . A critical shortage of
commonsense . . .

They're making an unprovoked attack on your rights as a sportsman, gun
collector and heroic defender of your family, home and hearth.

I'm causing an uproar in Congress by standing strong for your Second
Amendment rights and I'm glad I am.  Someone must put a stop to the angry
mob of jeering, sneering zealots who are attempting to torch our
Constitution.

Obeying the call from the Clinton-Kennedy Machine, an alliance of
hysterical hypocritical liberals tried to silence my voice in Congress by
gerrymandering a district map designed to defeat me.

They know they can't shut me up in Congress. So they're determined to
manipulate district lines to defeat me.

With just months to go until Election Day . . . I'm bracing for a tough
re-election battle!

Under the banner that all guns are bad and all gun owners are evil,
liberals call me an extremist because I've gone so far as to join the board
of the NRA and invite my friend Charlton Heston into my district.

Using the slogan that "The Constitution is ours to change,"  they're
calling me rigid because I know that the Second Amendment means exactly
what it says.

Yes, I admire the NRA that they hate, and I admire NRA President Charlton
Heston whom they detest.  And as long as I'm in Congress, I'll never EVER
let them cheat you out of your right to keep and bear arms!

Because if they succeed . . .

It will prove ruinous to our republic.

You have a strong stake in this great battle and wisely you're fighting
with all your might for our rights.

When the whimpering simpering anti-gun crowd joins forces with the
ultra-liberal media that hews and spews their anti-gun lies, we must fight
back with the truth.

When rabid gun control groups follow their familiar pattern of vile,
bitter, negative attacks designed to assassinate my character, that tells
me my staunch leadership in support of your Second Amendment rights strikes
terror in the hearts of the Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted and Patrick
Kennedy Crowd.

I must be doing something right!

Will you help me defend my honor, protect my seat and win re-election so I
can keep fighting for you?

Please CLICK BELOW to make your online campaign contribution of $25, $35,
$50, $100 or more right away:

<a href="http://www.campaigncontribution.com/alerts/barr2/">
http://www.campaigncontribution.com/alerts/barr2/ </a>

Your strong support will give me the ammunition to fight back with flyers,
letters, radio spots, newspaper ads and TV commercials that will help me
win.

Let's stand up for our God-given American right to keep and bear arms.
Let's face this great challenge together and summon the courage and
commitment to win!

Your Friend,

BOB BARR
Congressman

P.S. I'll always stand up and fight for your right to keep and bear arms!
But I need your help to stay in Congress -- please let me hear from you
today. CLICK BELOW:

<a href="http://www.campaigncontribution.com/alerts/barr2/"> http://www.campaigncontribution.com/alerts/barr2/ </a>



Paid for by Bob Barr for Congress

- ------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you requested to be e-mailed
regarding issues and offers of interest to conservatives, either when you
sent an online petition, faxgram or mailgram, or when you donated to a
conservative cause on the Internet or through postal mail.
- ------------------------------------------------------------

cncdnw


- -

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:54:09 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NY Rabbi defiant on armed patrol in Brooklyn

NY Rabbi defiant on armed patrol in Brooklyn
- ----------
Reuters
   A Jewish group is planning an armed anti-terror patrol of Jewish
   areas in Brooklyn, New York, even if it means arms bearers will
   be arrested, the rabbi who heads the group says. The
   neighborhood has been singled out as a terrorism target.
   (06/24/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/240237085.html

Congress[man McCain] fears the 'gun show loophole'
- ----------
Liberty For Al
by Carma Lewis
   "With all the force of his left-leaning spirit, John McCain is
   pushing harder for his ... attack against lawful gun ownership and
   your right to dispose of your personal property as you see fit."
   (06/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/881102026.html
[Hard to read from Windows Netscape]

Pro-gun women on full auto
- ----------
Armed Females of America
by Carma Lewis
   AFA calls out for people to protest against looming anti-gun
   legislation. (06/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/335939514.html
[Same story, easier to read]

- -

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 09:27:07 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: The female advantage in a force-free society

The female advantage in a force-free society
- ----------
Free State Project
by Steve Cobb
   "In a society where the use of force is limited to self defense,
   and individuals have the right to arm themselves to deal with
   aggressors better endowed by nature, men's comparative
   advantage in using violent strategies will be nullified." (06/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/460360573.html

- -

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

Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:25:49 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Study: Guns No Safer When Locked Up

On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:30:53 -0600 Janalee Tobias
<[e-mail]> provided to [e-mail] :

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

Study: Guns No Safer When Locked Up

Saturday, July 06, 2002

By Dan Springer

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57051,00.html


SEATTLE - Trigger locks and gun safes don't reduce
the number of gun accidents, and they actually put
gun owners and their families in greater danger, a
new report says.

"What happens is it makes them more vulnerable to
crime," said John R. Lott, Jr., a University of
Chicago Law School professor who has published
the study Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths,
Suicide and Crime. "Criminals become more emboldened
to attack people in their home."

Lott cited a Merced, Calif. family whose guns were
put away because of the state's safe storage law.
John Carpenter, who lost two children in an attack
in 2000, said a gun would have stopped the man who
broke into his home with a pitchfork.

"If a gun had been here, today I'd have at least a
daughter alive," Carpenter said.

For several years, gun control advocates have been
quoting a study that reached a very different
conclusion. University of Washington doctors claimed
that in a dozen states which had safe storage laws,
39 children's lives were saved.

But the study has been widely discredited because
the researchers never factored in that accidental
gun deaths have been falling everywhere for decades.

Nevertheless, 18 states have passed safe storage laws.
Lobbyists who fight for the legislation call Lott's
research nonsense.

"He's argued after the tragedy at Jonesboro, Ark.,
the school shooting, that if the teachers had been
armed, they could have prevented the shooting. This
is an extremist, someone who believes that everyone
in society should be armed at all times," said Matt
Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety
Foundation.

But Lott counters that the number of gun accidents
among law-abiding citizens is remarkably low given
that about 90 million Americans own firearms. Far
more children die each year from drowning and poisons.

And when tragedy does strike, Lott said, it usually
happens in a home where there is a criminal history.

"You're having these law abiding households lock up
these guns where the risks of accidental gun deaths
is essentially zero," he said.

Still, gun locks enjoy wide support. President Bush
has said that if Congress passed a bill requiring
them, he would sign it. But this latest study provides
opponents with a new weapon in their arsenal.



To subscribe, send a blank message to:
mailto:[e-mail] .

The WAGC homepage is at http://www.wagc.com .

- -

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:00:58 -0600
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Arizona again recognizes Utah

This is of interest to Utah CCW holders who visit Arizona or Arizona CCW
holders who visit Utah.  Please note, under Utah law, ANY and all CCW
permits from other US jurisdictions are recognized--no need for a
reciprocity agreement.  However, with or without an agreement, Utah only
recognizes out of State CCW permits for 60 consecutive days.  I don't
know exactly how that would be enforced--since we don't have passports at
the Utah border--other than self-incrimination or 24-7 survellience of a
subject.  But in any event, be aware of that limitation.

The following info is basically taken from the AZ DPS web site at
http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/recip.htm

Charles

- ----- Forwarded Message -----

Friends,
For your information. Arizona once again recognizes Utah's permit. I
should add this was NOT Arizona's decision the first place to deny alter
the agreement. It was done at the behest of Utah BCI.

[Charles' comment:  Looks like our legislators need to remind BCI that
their job is to facilitate CCW, not hinder it.]

The State of Arizona recognizes permits to carry concealed from the
following states: Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky, Utah, Texas

These states have an active CCW reciprocal agreement on file with the
State of Arizona.  This means your Arizona permit allows you to carry
concealed under their respective state statute, and Arizona will
reciprocate by recognizing CCW permits issued by these states.



Utah Reciprocal Agreement Reinstated
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
POST OFFICE BOX 6638
PHOENIX, AZ 85005-6638
July 2, 2002
Arizona CCW permit holders will now be allowed to carry concealed in the
state of Utah for a period of 60 days. If a person with an out-of-state
permit remains in Utah for longer than 60 consecutive days, that person
is required to obtain a Utah permit. Utah permit holders are allowed to
carry concealed in the State of Arizona.

________________________________________________________________
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 #230
***********************************