Subject: Introductory video clip available for 'Innocents Betrayed'
Introductory video clip available for 'Innocents Betrayed'
- ----------
JPFO
The introductory segment of the JPFO documentary film,
"Innocents Betrayed," is now online for viewing. This
segment is offered as proof that the project is well
under way. All it needs now is your support! (11/16/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/28910113.html
- -
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 20:06:48 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
Subject: FW: Boycott Meier & Frank
- -=-=-
Subject: FW: Boycott Meier & Frank
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:07:40 -0700
From: Jim Dexter <jimdex@xmission.com>
Basic Question: Does Meier & Frank, a private company, have the right to
make "no guns on premises" a condition of employment?
BTW, Mitch Vilos is scheduled to be on my show this coming Tuesday. We'll be
discussing this and the similar-but-different AOL case. Call up and chime
in. 254-5855 in SL County.
- -------------------------------
Let's circulate this fine young man's story and encourage them not
only NOT TO SHOP at Meier and Frank, but to call and tell them you don't
plan on shopping there.
- -----Original Message-----
I talked to you a couple of days ago about my being suspended from my
employment at Meier and Frank because I had a concealed weapon on me. The
results of their investigation actually just came back and my position has
been terminated. Anyway, just to help get this out to the public so that
something can be done about this California company that thinks they can
disarm the lawabiding citizens of Utah, I am including a brief summary of
details involved with my case.
I have a CCW and I often do carry a concealed firearm with me to work. I
have a good understanding of the laws involved with carrying a concealed
firearm and have had more than the 8 hours required training to obtain my
permit. I have also worked as an armed security officer. I always maintain
positive control of my weapon, never leaving it where anyone unauthorized
could get a hold of it. Most of the time when I went to work, I would leave
my gun in my locked car, but on the day that I got suspended from work, I
had ridden the bus so my wife could have the car. Apparently someone got a
glimpse of my gun on my side and pannicked which has now resulted in my
termination.
I have a squeeky clean criminal record, am active in the predominant
religion in the Salt Lake Valley, and have a deep belief in Christ. I have
one child at home and my wife is pregnant with our second. I am currently
attending the University of Utah under an Army ROTC scholarship with a major
in Criminology. My goals are to either remain active duty in the Army until
retirement or, if things work out in my favor, try my hand at federal law
enforcement. I don't see where I would appear to be a threat to anybody. I
have had threats made on my life in the past, and that is why I carry a gun.
I will not allow myself to be left defenseless!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:20:24 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
Subject: FW: The Fearsome Second Amendment
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/12/08/dorothy.htm
The Fearsome Second Amendment
By Dorothy Anne Seese - Sierra Times
Now just read these words. You will recognize the document (I hope) as
the Declaration of Independence, and then we will look at the Second
Amendment to the Constitution. But first, consider these statements:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."
Institute new government? Isn't that what the American Revolution did?
It tossed off the yoke of King George III and formed a new nation based
on a radical concept ... that government exists solely with the consent
of the governed.
The founding fathers were well aware of the nature of tyrants to take
over and make slaves of the sheeple, and realized that man's tendency
to follow one or more deceivers back into slavery would ever be a present
danger to the constitutional republic that they had established. Thus,
the Bill of Rights, the statement of what government may not do, places
freedom of religion, speech and the press first, along with the right of
peaceable assembly, and then proceeds to the second matter of importance
to the people's power to retain their freedom:
Amendment IIA
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.
Have you ever heard the "liberal" camp yell with college-game volume that
"well-regulated militia" means that the government and only the government
has the right to keep and bear arms (possess guns)? It is well nigh the
bumper-sticker and yard-sale sign of the antigun crowd, those who would
divest Americans of any and all rights of self-protection other than
dialing 911 and hoping the police appear before a thug fires HIS gun.
Since the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, a very
popular bumper sticker, out west at least, has disappeared. It read
"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Perhaps it is only
an "outlaw" government and those who would outlaw the Bill of Rights
(in practice, not in legislative action like persons of integrity who do
things up front) that would even consider "gun control" as the solution
to any problems with nuts who wrongfully use guns ... or box cutters,
knives, clubs, hammers or other weapons to commit homicide.
No government that is committed to the freedoms of the people presented by
the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights would
ever consider abrogating the Second Amendment. It would be at the top of
the agenda of a renegade government that wished to retain all power over
the people ... people whose rights include changing their government should
it become oppressive and tyrannical, an enemy of freedom, and a stronghold
of a power elite.
Today's leaders are well aware of the rights of the people as envisioned
by the founders. While they keep speaking about our great liberties
before the television cameras, behind the scenes those liberties are
being pickpocketed coin by coin from the people so that they cannot use
the right they were given to change, by force if necessary, an oppressive
and tyrannical government. The "liberal" establishment, devout in their
dedication to the Marxist agenda, and those elements that envision America
as the New Rome of world empire, naturally fear the power of the people:
Armed people; The "minuteman" types of people who would effect change by
their "well regulated militias" against a government that had abrogated
their rights and liberties as free people.
That is why there is such a push by the entire "liberal" establishment and
the airhead soccer mom crowd to outlaw guns. The number of children killed
on any one day by other means far, far outstrips any deaths by loose nuts
who happen to use a gun, and would use explosives were they denied access
to guns. A killer is a killer. Remember, Alexander of Macedon had no guns
... nor did the Roman Caesar.
Guns are simply a more efficient way to kill, but any method will do.
Witness the suicide bombings in the marketplaces in Israel by Islamic
militants ... no guns, just explosives.
The Second Amendment is fearsome in two ways. It is a fearsome empowering
of the people to take over and throw out an oppressive government as did
the founding fathers who authored the Bill of Rights. They had obtained
a free land and a new venture in personal liberty under the rule of law,
and they gave the people the right to change the government any time it
suppressed the rights of the people and oppressed the people with tyranny.
It is a fearsome threat to the establishment that would make a "global
village" out of a nation of patriots who detest the welfare, nanny state
and the tyrants who take our liberties and dole them out to the few as
privileges. They wish to make sure that there is no power or armed force
by which the people can carry out the doctrines written in the Declaration
of Independence and other cornerstones of this nation. The idea that
"the people" (who are the great unwashed ignoramuses in the minds of these
elitists) could actually fight once again for the liberties they were
guaranteed over 225 years ago is noxious to them. Power to the people?
The very idea makes them shudder.
That is why the Second Amendment is so fearsome, particularly when
coupled with the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
No tyrant can stand in the presence of liberty without flinching
and bristling at the threat of someone challenging that tyranny.
And that is why the conservatives who value our nation's heritage must
keep up the fight against any government or dictator taking our liberties,
our guns, and our constitutional rights.
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:22:23 GMT
From: utbagpiper@juno.com
Subject: No way to felons get RKBA back until Congress acts.
From today's front page Deseret News. I wonder if any of our "pro-gun" congressmen or senators (either GOP or democrat) will be pushing to correct the current catch-22. Not only should the ban on the BATF processing these requests be lifted, but a hard time limit should be imposed for the agency to render a decision on any given case AND to provide an appeal to the courts if a request is denied.
Of course eliminating the automatic life-time ban for all non-violent felonies or even treating RKBA the same way freedom of religion, assoication, etc, are treeted, would be way too scary and radical.
Charles
==========
Supreme Court rules against felons in guns-rights case
By Gina Holland
Associated Press writer
WASHINGTON ù The Supreme Court shut the door Tuesday on felons going straight to court to get their gun rights restored, leaving no options for people who claim a conviction shouldn't stop them from being a gun owner.
The justices ruled unanimously that felons must go through a federal agency. That agency, however, has been banned by Congress since 1992 from processing requests.
Federal law prohibits felons from carrying guns, but they can ask for an exception.
In this case, a former Texas gun dealer argued that the process gives him no option. He sued and a lower court gave Thomas Lamar Bean his firearms license back. Tuesday's decision took it away again.
Bean, a well-known businessman, was convicted of violating Mexican law after officers found 200 rounds of bullets in his car during a dinner trip across the border four years ago. He said he'd told his assistants to remove the bullets.
When Bean tried to get his gun rights ù and livelihood ù back, he was supported by two police chiefs, a sheriff, a judge, a prosecutor and a Baptist preacher.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the justices, said that Bean could only go to court if his request was denied by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The bureau didn't act on his application.
Thomas said the ATF, not a judge, was best prepared to look into whether an applicant could be a danger to public safety.
The justices rejected Bean's argument that the government's inability to act amounted to a denial.
The ruling had been expected. Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University, said an appeals court decision that allowed Bean to bypass the ATF "looked like an effort by the court to solve an injustice through some creative legal innovation."
"If you think this is a problem, the obvious way to solve it is through Congress. Congress created this situation and they can fix it, which they may do when the Republicans have control of both houses and the presidency," Lund said.
> >The Bush administration, while pretending to support
> >Second Amendment gun rights, continues to abridge
> >those rights in small hidden ways. For example, new
> >ATF regulations effective May 24, 2003 will require
> >that a whole new list of products and chemicals
> >(include smokeless powder used by amateur ammunition
> >reloaders) can only be purchased by a person who has
> >obtained a permit issued by the ATF. If you are a
> >reloader (and all concerned with preparedness should
> >have at least a limited capability in this area),
> >make sure you stock up on reloading powders and
> >primers before May. The government knows that
> >controlling the supply of ammunition is one way to
> >limit the usefulness of America's private weapons.
> >If you don't reload, you should stockpile ammunition
> >in reasonable quantities.
>
> Not true. Your own Orrin Hatch reinserted the "standard" exemption for
> smokeless powder and up to 50# of black. Read the bill as it passed
> Congress, NOT as it was introduced.
>
> Joe W
- -
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:07:53 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
Subject: FW: 9th Circus "Rest of the Story"
Please ask Jim Dexter <jimdex@xmission.com> should you
need original headers. Scott
- -----
I've been reading Silveira v. Lockyer, the recent 9th Circuit case that held
that the Second Amendment does not give citizens an individual right to keep
and bear arms - only a state right to have a militia.
The following illustrates the court's method:
1. The court wishes to show that the militia referred to in the Constitution
is only the organized military force, not the people as a whole.
2. So it quotes James Madison from the Federalist Papers as follows: "Let a
regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and
let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would
not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on
their side, would be able to repel the danger. ... Besides the advantage
of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every
other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people
are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a
barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any
which a simple government of any form can admit of."
3. Now you will notice that there is an ellipsis in this quote ( ... )
What could be missing?
4. What the court left out was the following: "The highest number to which,
according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any
country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or
one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would
not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty
thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a
million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from
among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and
conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It
may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be
conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best
acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against
the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it."
5. Now, why did the court leave this part of the quote out? It shows that
Madison is estimating the population of the 13 original states at between
2.5 and 3 million. (One independent estimate I have shows 2.9 free
inhabitants.) He estimates "a militia amounting to near half a million of
citizens." Is that significant?
6. You bet it is. Of 2.5-3 million citizens, about a half were female, and
therefore not part of the militia. That leaves 1.25 - 1.5 million males.
Families were larger than they are today; there were perhaps two children
per adult, which means that around a third of the 1.25-1.5 million males
would be boys - or men too old to bear arms. That leaves about "half a
million" militiamen. So Madison counted in the militia all able-bodied men.
Which directly disproves the court's claim that "militia" meant only the
organized fighting units.
7. The writer of the opinion could not have missed this; the omitted wording
is so conspicuous in the original that the omission has to be deliberate,
if not by the judge, then by the law clerk or brief writer. Whoever did it
needs to be hauled up before an ethics commission. And the public needs to
know what some people are willing to do to destroy our constitutional rights.
Rob Natelson
Professor of Law
University of Montana School of Law
P.S. You may forward this to your membership
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 17:35:14 GMT
From: utbagpiper@juno.com
Subject: One last chance to oppose anti-gun nominees to Utah SC. FAX number av ailable.
For any who have not already sent in a letter to oppose the nomination of anti-gun Sen. Hillyard, and Judges James Z. Davis, Robert Hilder, K.
L. McIff, and Ronald Nehring to the Utah Supreme Court, there is one last chance to be heard.
ALL public comments MUST be received by close of business TOMORROW, Friday, December 27. If you have not already put a letter in the mail, it is probably too late. (From within Salt Lake City, there is about a 50-50 chance normally that mail is delivered overnight. With the holiday crush of mailing and shipping...)
However, comments may also be faxed to the commission either today or tomorrow. The fax number is (SLC area):
801-578-3968
Below is a sample letter (modified from a recent GOUtah! Alert so as to include Sen. Hillyard) that you are free to cut and paste directly or modify as you deem fit. Anyone as antigun as these men are, probably have all kinds of other reasons that would make them poor choices for the high bench. If you know of any, by all means, mention them.
However, at this point, volume of comments is probably more important that elegant reasons. I do encourage that all letters be professional in tone however. Get your wife and teenage or adult children and neighbor to sign a copy and fax it in as well.
Sometimes my email program does bad things to the end of line carriage returns or wraping. My apologies if some reformating is needed to make the cut and paste letter readable.
Thanks.
Charles
- ------ Cut Here ------------
Date:
Dec. 26, 2002
From:
Your Name
Your address
Your city State, and Zip
Your phone number
To:
Mr. David J. Jordan, Chairman
Appellate Judicial Nomination Commission
c/o Administrative Office of the Courts
450 South State Street
P.O. Box 140241
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0241
801-578-3968 -- FAX
Dear Mr. Jordan:
I strongly oppose the nomination of State Sen. Lyle Hillyard, and Judges James Z. Davis, Robert Hilder, K.L. McIff, and Ronald Nehring for the Utah Supreme Court.
As a currently sitting and senior member of the legislature, Sen. Hillyard has doubtless been intimately involved in many pieces of recently passed, and potentially challanged legislation. How can he be expected to sit in impartial judgement of the constitutionality of a law that he may well have been instrumental in passing in the first place. Similarly, could he really be impartial should a law come before the court which had passed over the strong objections of the Senator?
Also, without any experience as a judge, the citizens of Utah have no way of knowing whether Sen. Hillyard has the various traits so essential to a good judge, which is a far different job than being a lawyer or a politician. I request that you drop his name from consideration for this important position.
I also request that you drop from consideration the four judges mentioned above: James Z. Davis, Robert Hilder, K.L. McIff, and Ronald Nehring. All four of these judges were instrumental in getting the Utah Judicial Council to require Utah's courts to violate state law.
The Utah Code invests the State Legislature with exclusive authority to
regulate the possession and carrying of firearms. The Legislature has passed laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in courtrooms by properly licensed private citizens, but only if certain requirements are met by the court. One of these requirements is that lockers be provided outside the courtroom or courthouse to facilitate the safe storage of legally-carried self-defense weapons. Please refer to U.C.A. 76-10-501, U.C.A. 76-10-500, U.C.A. 78-7-6, and U.C.A. 76-8-311.1.
In August, the Judicial Council voted to prohibit courts from installing
storage lockers (a move which automatically invalidates the existing
statutory ban on guns in courtrooms), and voted to impose a new courtroom gun ban via judicial fiat (an action prohibited by state law, because the Judicial Council isn't the State Legislature). Judges Davis and Hilder, as members of the Council, voted in favor of this illegal policy, as evidenced by the minutes of the Council's meeting in August of 2002. Judges McIff and Nehring, although not members of the Judicial Council at the time, implemented this illegal policy in their own district courts before the Council had even voted on the matter, and openly encouraged other judges to do the same, as documented extensively by the local news media (see, for example, The Deseret News, May 10, 2002, page A1).
The American judicial system is supposed to be founded on the rule of law. Any judge who willfully ignores or violates state law ought not to serve as a Justice on the Utah Supreme Court. Please remove these judges' names from consideration.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion.
