From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #18 - 1 July 1999 1/2 Date: 03 Jul 1999 17:18:00 -0700 ---------- GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. Visit our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! GOUtah! Alert #18 - 1 July 1999 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "The State does not have rights in itself, but only possesses such powers as are necessary to safeguard and uphold the rights of the citizens." -James Bovard, Author of Freedom in Chains, The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen, 1999 If you wish to be added to or taken off the GOUtah! list, please log onto our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! or send an e-mail to GOUtah3006@aol.com or send a fax to (801) 944-9937 asking to be added to or removed from the GOUtah! list. If you wish to forward or share this copyrighted information with others, you are welcome to do so, on the condition that you pass along the entire document intact and unmodified, and that GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original source of the material, unless otherwise noted. Leavitt, Stephens, Utah House GOP Float CCW Permit Compromise That Rapes Your Right of Self Defense! Your Vocal Political Action is Needed TODAY! The Utah print and broadcast media is widely reporting information indicating the so-called 'pro-gun' stance of Utah House Speaker Marty Stephens appears to be little more than shallow window dressing to placate gun rights advocates. Stephens is reported to have crafted a compromise which will strip you of much of the ability to protect yourself under the authority of a Utah CCW permit. Here's what we understand has transpired to date, based on the best information in hand at this time. To recap, Governor Mike Leavitt has recently taken up the role of strident gun control advocate, to make restrictions on gun ownership and CCW validity a major agenda item as he positions himself for higher elected office or a possible appointment in a future GOP federal administration. He has gone so far as to call for a special session of the Utah Legislature to enact this agenda. Utah conservatives in the House have opposed this anti-gun agenda, as have the many GOP party delegates who publicly rebuked Leavitt and others at the recent GOP State Convention in Ogden. GOUtah! representatives, along with other gun-rights representatives, were invited to an informal private meeting at the residence of Speaker Stephens on 28 May 1999 to discuss the issue and to help formulate a rational response. NRA/ILA Liaison Brian Judy was unable to attend due to a schedule conflict, but submitted written NRA positions very close to the established GOUtah! no-compromise stance. This meeting invitation came to GOUtah! from Utah GOP Chairman and USSC-paid lobbyist Rob Bishop. The 28 May meeting was suddenly canceled the night before, and was tentatively rescheduled for 16 June at the Interim Legislative Hearings at the State Capitol. GOUtah! was never informed of or invited to any other policy discussion or meeting with the House Speaker, legislative leadership, legislators or other gun rights activists on the 16th or at any time since. However, some sort of high level gun policy discussion, without any GOUtah! invitation or involvement, clearly took place at or about that time. Paul Rolly in the 27 June issue of the Salt Lake Tribune discusses the situation in more detail. (You may refer to the article on the Tribune's website at www.sltrib.com) GOUtah! also received a forwarded e-mail from reliable pro-gun sources that apparently originated within the Utah Shooting Sports Council, outlining the options proposed by House GOP leadership and asking for input from USSC leadership. We assume the individual listed as "Woody" is Elwood Powell, Chair of the USSC Board of Trustees. Rob Bishop is the paid USSC lobbyist, and Brian Judy is the NRA/ILA Liaison for Utah. Those options appear here exactly as received in the USSC e-mail message, typos and all. "I did receive a call from Rob Bishop yesterday. Marty Stephens called him about a deal. This evidently is a follow up on Rob's and Brian Judy's impromptu meeting on Wednesday with Lane Beattie before the afternoon interim session committee meetings. The options Marty Stephens was calling about were these: 1. A special session with the house and the senate voing their conscience on the gun issues with no muscle from leadership. 2. Ban guns in schools in exchange for a suit ban against manufactures, dealers, instructors, etc. 3. Enact some kind of super concealed carry permit for schools on a "good cause" showing to the Department of Public Safety. This was one of the Governor's task force recommendations. 4. A referendum petition drive which will put the entire horizon of gun restrictions on the ballot in November. 5. The last option was to do nothing in the gun area. The question put to Rob Bishop was "what will we accept" short of do nothing? Rob's tenative reponse without canvasing the Board was option 5. What are your thoughts? Woody" It becomes clear that some substantial and dangerous 'wheeling and dealing' with our gun rights is being proposed and conducted behind our backs at the Utah State Capitol. GOUtah! will maintain our established position of no compromise, no retreat and no surrender on these issues. In response to the options listed above, GOUtah has the following comments: 1: A special legislative session is neither needed nor warranted, and as such GOUtah! is firmly opposed to any special legislative undertaking outside the normally-scheduled annual session. Any changes in the laws should be by the regular legislative process. 2: As GOUtah! has clearly established in our Statement of Purposes and Principles, "GOUtah! will never compromise one portion of our rights or sacrifice one segment of the lawful gun-owning public to preserve or protect the interests of another. We'll throw no one to the sharks in order to buy time or curry political or media favor. We denounce anyone and any organization which elects to do so." As such, GOUtah! will seek to both protect CCW holders from any restriction on their ability to possess a firearm for lawful self defense, and we will also work toward legislation protecting legitimate firearms owners, instructors, dealers and the firearms industry from all abusive or punitive lawsuits as a matter of sound public policy. We will not trade one issue for the other, and we will denounce anyone and any organization that does. 3: Establishment of a two-level permit system takes Utah gun owners right back to the abusive DPS/BCI 'proving need' situation we so long endured before earning 'shall issue' CCW legislation in 1995. The 'Super' CCW permitee would clearly enjoy all the rights available to current permittees, and it would undoubtedly be issued only to politicians, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, agents of government, media and society VIPs and other elites, just as Utah CCW permits were issued prior to 1995. The 'average' Utah CCW permit holder, by contrast, would face an endless and ever-expanding list of prohibited times, places and circumstances where their permit was invalid, and therefore their ability to provide for their own safety and the safety of their families would be seriously compromised. The life of every Utah citizen has equal value. CCW permit holders are not second class citizens, and we will not be treated as such! All the animals in the Utah CCW barnyard are equal, period! 4: Any threatened referendum by anti-gun forces is irrelevant. The statewide referendum undertaking is expensive, time consuming and likely far beyond [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #18 - 1 July 1999 2/2 Date: 03 Jul 1999 17:18:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] their ability to successfully execute. Further, any use of tax dollars, public time or public facilities for furthering such an effort is likely illegal, thus professional educators and other public servants would be severely limited in their ability to further that effort in schools and other public facilities. The pro-gun forces have won almost every public initiative battle waged in the last several decades. We can win this one too, if needs be. 5: GOUtah! will also not sit by and 'do nothing.' We will be very active in promoting and expanding the rights of Utah gun owners, and will offer an aggressive legislative agenda to that end. If others wish to sit on the sidelines and 'do nothing,' while claiming to be 'protecting your rights', then let them. Utah's dedicated gun owners will do it for themselves, in spite of the 'spineless' among the ranks. So what's to be done to change this situation? Here's what you must do TODAY to protect your gun rights. Please refer to the GOUtah! positions as listed above in your contact with legislators and the media. Please remember to be polite and respectful but firm and to the point in all your communications. 1: Call, write, email and if possible personally visit with both your elected Utah State Senator and Representative and demand they do not infringe on your rights of self defense or firearms ownership in any way. Further demand that they do not support and not vote for holding any special legislative session dealing with firearms issues. 2: Call, write, email and if possible personally visit with both Utah House Speaker Marty Stephens and Senate President Lane Beattie, and let them know where you stand as a firearms owner and CCW permit holder. They can be reached at: Rep. Marty Stephens, 3159 N. Higley Rd, Farr West, UT 84404, (801) 731-5346 Res, (801) 538-1930 Off, (801) 594-8229 Fax. Email: mstephen@le.state.ut.us Sen. Lane Beattie, 319 State Capitol, SLC, UT, 84114, (801) 292-7406 Res, (801) 538-1400 Off, (801) 538-1414 Fax, Email: lbeattie@le.state.ut.us 3: Call, write, email and if possible personally visit with Governor Leavitt. He can be reached at: Gov. Mike Leavitt, State Capitol, SLC, UT 84114, (801) 538-1000, Email: gov_leavitt@state.ut.us 4: Call, write, email and if possible personally visit with the leadership and membership of your local gun club, your local gun store, and all other interested groups, and spread the word about this issue and the dangers it poses to all of our freedoms. 5: Call, write, email and personally visit your local newspaper editor or editorial board. Write repeated 'letters to the editor' in support of your gun rights. Call in to talk radio programs and spread the truth. 6: Share the GOUtah! message with all your pro-gun friends, family and associates via fax, email, the internet and make photo copies of the GOUtah! alerts to pass out to fellow gun owners at your club, range or gun store. If you don't do it, it will not get done. It's your guns, your rights and your freedom. Do it right now! Utah CCW Permits Now Top 29,000. Utah DPS/BCI Begins Limiting Renewal Services to All of Them. The number of CCW permits in Utah reportedly now tops 29,000, and may approach 30,000 as you read this. There has been a recent run on permits in early 1999 as many gun owners seek to 'get in before the gate closes' on a more restrictive CCW permit system. GOUtah! is very supportive of a broad base of citizens lawfully carrying firearms for self defense under the authority of a CCW permit, but we are also concerned that this 'permit rush' smacks of the same 'panic buying' we all saw during the looming approach of Brady and the 'assault weapon' and ammunition magazine bans of the mid-1990s. At this time many individuals, rather than redoubling their political efforts to help defeat the pending, and at that time still defeatable bans, instead put their time, effort and resources into buying up guns, magazines, ammo and the like as if the proposed bans were already in place. Because of that shift in priorities, from gun owners fighting the political fight for freedom to admitting defeat in the middle of the battle, retreating and 'panic buying' everything in sight, the political battle was lost. That big 17 round magazine for your Glock pistol now costs $75.00 or more used, if and when it can be found, while before the ban it was perhaps $25.00 or less brand new. It's still at very best a $25.00 magazine, but due to far too many gun owners admitting early defeat during the political battle, they now cost everyone at least $75.00 today and perhaps twice that a year from now. It shouldn't be that way. It didn't have to be that way. It's a clear case of misplaced political priorities on the part of gun owners. We believe we all should be putting our very best efforts and resources into blocking any infringement or limitation on the time, place or circumstances of the validity of any Utah CCW permit, rather than running out to get a CCW permit and then sitting back and grumbling to anyone who will listen that the CCW permit is now invalid for many of your necessary daily activities. Having a heavily-restricted CCW permit is like having no permit at all, except you have just submitted your fingerprints, photos, life history and a good chunk of hard-earned cash to the government to get a worthless slip of plastic. Don't get mad after the fact. Work harder now and you'll have nothing to be mad about later. We have also received word from Concealed Carry Specialists (CCS), Utah's largest CCW trainers, that the Utah DPS/BCI administration as of 1 March 1999 will no longer be sending a renewal notice and application when your CCW is about to expire. That means you must now monitor your CCW status and renew without any reminder. We suggest you check your CCW permit now and mark your calendars a couple of months prior to your renewal date and make sure you're submitting your renewal in a timely fashion. Further, according to CCS, DPS/BCI indicates they will allow only a 30 day grace period after a permit expires to renew. After 30 days, you will have to undergo the entire CCW application process again, except for the training requirement. Photos, fingerprints, fees, notary and such will all have to be resubmitted to get a new CCW permit. It is doubtful that any other state issued license or permit is treated in this abusive manner for renewal. It is clear that with the new regulatory authority and fee setting granted to DPS/BCI by the 1999 Utah Legislature, DPS/BCI intends to erect every possible roadblock, 'time and hassle tax', excessive fees, and other administrative impediments to Utah citizens wishing to exercise their right of self defense. This is unacceptable, and we suggest you discuss the issue in great detail with your elected state Senators and Representatives. GOUtah! will be working toward specific legislative remedies to this issue in the next Utah legislative session. GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch "I just don't see why we have to be concerned about the safety of a few individuals who want to be armed in schools vs. the safety of the children." -- Bill Nash, Utahns Against Gun Violence, quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune, 29 June 1999 That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #18, 1 July 1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal! Copyright 1999 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Special legislative session on guns urgently needed Date: 04 Jul 1999 11:20:00 -0700 Deseret News column from a local Quisling. http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,100009427,00.html Deseret News, Sunday, July 04, 1999, 12:00 AM MDT Special legislative session on guns urgently needed By Sen. Scott Howell The recent tragedy at Columbine High School has once again focused our private and public energies on the issues of youth violence and firearms control. Representatives of the Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, United Methodist, Disciples of Christ and Episcopal churches called for a special legislative session to confront these issues soon after Columbine. The PTA and LDS Church officials, while declining to comment on a special session, have expressed similar concerns about guns. As a responsible gun owner, I recognize and support the constitutional right to bear arms. Not even the Second Amendment, however, condones all types of weapons ownership; instead, it states "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." I do not believe that firearms-control legislation is a panacea that will solve all of society's ills. The problem of violence, particularly youth violence, is a complex issue involving everything from parental responsibility to school safety to the entertainment industry. It would be wrong to simply pass firearms-control legislation while ignoring the other issues involved. It would be equally wrong, however, to oppose new firearms-control legislation just because it cannot solve the entire problem. We should not target law-abiding gun owners. However, sensible reforms to keep guns from kids and criminals are a vital part of any comprehensive approach to solving the youth violence crisis. Reasonable gun-control legislation need not be a partisan issue. Instead, we should work together in a bipartisan manner to keep guns out of the hands of children. The Republican speaker of the United States Congress, Denny Hastert, commented, "I don't think kids, and that means anybody under 21 years of age, ought to be able to get handguns; I think that makes sense, and that's something I think that we can work on." I believe that we should consider the following firearms-control measures: 1. We should encourage companies to continue developing "smart technology" as a viable, marketable product which would enable guns to recognize their owners. This technology could potentially personalize weapons so that only an authorized owner could fire the gun. Stolen guns would be rendered useless to criminals. 2. Juveniles involved in serious gun violations should not be allowed to own firearms as an adult. 3. As Hastert urged, we should limit handgun purchases to those over 21 years old. Federal law currently prohibits the sale of handguns from licensed dealers to those under 21; This restriction should apply to all who sell handguns, not just licensed dealers. 4. Background checks should be instituted at gun shows. This would lengthen purchase time by only five or 10 minutes and prevent criminals from acquiring firearms in this manner. 5. All background checks should include information on mental illnesses and prevent those who are mentally ill from acquiring guns. 6. Guns should come equipped with trigger-locks to protect against accidental shootings. Too often we read of children who are accidentally killed while playing with guns that were improperly stored. 7. Churches, schools, hospitals and private-property owners should NOT have to post signs prohibiting concealed weapons. Rather, respecting the right of private-property owners, carriers of concealed weapons should request permission to carry their weapons into these places. I believe that there is simply no place for guns in churches, schools or hospitals. 8. Plea bargaining violations from felonies to misdemeanors should not be allowed except in very rare circumstances. When this is the case, provision should be enacted to prohibit firearms purchase and possession in the future. The problems facing our society are about much more than guns. While addressing reasonable gun-control legislation, we should not ignore the "culture of violence" created and perpetuated by the entertainment industry. Movies and music currently carry ratings and warning labels; what about software and video games? Movie ratings themselves should be tightened; extreme violence, not just graphic sex, should merit an NC-17 rating. As parents, we all need to be more aware of what movies our children are viewing, what video games they are playing and how much TV they are watching. Ultimately parents are responsible for their children. Our young people are being constantly bombarded with images of filth and violence. We need to address all of the issues involved in a bipartisan manner to create a safe environment in which our children can live and learn. For these reasons and more, I applaud the governor for calling a special legislative session to set new public policy; even if we can save just one life, that would be reason enough. Scott Howell is Senate Minority Leader. Elected to the Utah Senate in 1990, he represents Senate District 8. Copyright 1999, Deseret News Publishing Corp. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Gun Facts Pamphlet1/2 Date: 05 Jul 1999 14:32:00 -0700 ----- The following fact sheet is designed to be easily formatted for pamphlet form, on 8-1/2x14 legal-size stock (I use Goldenrod or Yellow). It can be folded in half, and then in half, again, to provide a neat 2-sided, 4-paneled pamphlet. Print this out for friends, family, and your elected officials, and let them know the facts about gun-owners and their firearms, NOT just hysterical propaganda! You can insert your own club or organization's name at the bottom, in place of the information about LAGR shown below. If you send an SASE to me at LAGR's PO Box, I will send back a "master" copy printed out on white legal-size paper, with a blank space in place of LAGR's contact information, so that you can insert your own group's contact information. PAUL GALLANT GUNS IN AMERICA: THE FACTS ...what the media WON'T tell you!! Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self- defense does not end violent crime - it just makes victims more vulnerable! Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership - not from gun-control laws. Here's why: SELF-DEFENSE & CRIME * In 1990, a convicted felon could expect to serve the following prison time: 1.8 years for murder, 60 days for rape, 23 days for robbery, 6.7 days for arson, and 6.4 days for aggravated assault. According to a U.S. Justice Department survey in 17 states, of felony offenders placed on probation in 1986, 43% were rearrested on other felony charges within 3 years of their release. (1) * Passage of the Brady Law in 1994 has NOT been accompanied by a statistically significant decline in murder or robbery. It has been associated with significant increases in rape and aggravated assaults, presumably from the increased difficulty encountered by law-abiding citizens in obtaining firearms for self-defense. (2) * In 1987, Florida's concealed-carry law went from "may-issue" to "shall-issue" (also known as "Right-To-Carry", or RTC). This meant that issuing authorities must provide a concealed-carry handgun license to all qualified applicants. Other states followed suit, and modeled their own RTC laws after Florida's. On 4/7/98 (the latest date such figures were available), Florida's Dept of Law Enforcement announced that the state's murder rate had dropped, again, in 1997, just as it had in each of the 5 previous years. The additional drop marked the lowest murder rate experienced by "Dodge City East" since 1933. (3) * In 1982, Kennesaw GA (pop. 17,000) passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in their home, exempting those with criminal records or religious objections. Seven months after it took effect, the residential burglary rate dropped 89%, vs. 10.4% statewide. Since 1982, only 2 murders have occurred (1984 and 1989), both committed with knives. (4) * Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. The reduction corresponds very closely to the number of concealed-handgun licenses issued. On average, murder rates in states banning concealed-carry are 127% higher than in states having the most liberal carry laws. A 1% increase in firearm ownership reduces violent crime by 4.1%. Large, densely populated urban areas benefit the most from concealed-carry laws. (5) * Ordinary, law-abiding Americans use guns defensively 2.5 million times, or more, each year. About 75% of these instances are with handguns. That translates to rapes prevented, injuries avoided, medical costs saved, and property protected. (6) * Firearms provide the safest and most effective means of resisting violent criminal attack. For robbery and assault, resistance by defenders armed with a gun leads to termination of the incident with the smallest chance of injury to the victim. In U.S. gov't studies, victims resisting robbery with a gun were injured 17.4% of the time. Those who did nothing at all were injured 24.7% of the time. Those who used non-violent resistance, like trying to run away, were injured 35.9% of the time. Those who resisted with a knife were injured 40.3% of the time. For assault, injury rates were 12.1%, 27.3%, 25.5%, and 29.5%, respectively. While 17.4% of those who resisted robbery with a gun were injured overall, this includes victims who were first injured before they used their guns; less than 6% of robbery victims were injured after using a gun to resist. (7) * Women who carry concealed handguns provide a greater margin of safety for other women. While murder rates decline when either more men or more women carry concealed handguns, the drop is even greater among women than among men. Rapists are particularly susceptible to the deterrence of a potentially armed woman. (5) * Increased incidents of "road rage" from allowing more citizens to carry guns have not materialized. In the 31 states where it is currently legal for citizens to carry a concealed handgun, there have been no documented instances of such acts by armed law-abiding citizens. (2) * Armed defenders lose their guns to an attacker less than 1% of the time. (7) * The net value of private firearm ownership - the dollar savings from defensive gun use, minus the costs of "gun-violence" - has been estimated at up to $38.9 billion, annually. (8) * So-called "assault weapons" are military look-alike semi- automatic firearms, and are exactly the same as guns which have been around for over 100 years -only their looks have changed. Semi-automatic firearms do not "spray" bullets, and are not machine guns - they require a separate pull of the trigger for each shot to be fired, just like a revolver - and are used in 3% or less of all firearm-related crimes. They are the most modern tools the law-abiding citizen can use for self-defense and protection of home and family. They are especially valuable for physically handicapped victims. (9) * In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. (10) In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that "there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against criminals or madmen. The Constitution does not require Federal or State government to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."(11) * In Great Britain, handguns are outlawed, and possession of long guns is severely restricted. Yet, despite strict gun-control, as of 1995, rates for robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft in England and Wales had surpassed those here in the States. On average, for all 4 crimes, English rates were double U.S. rates. (12) MASS SHOOTINGS & "GUN-FREE" SCHOOL ZONES * Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings (like Jonesboro AR, and Littleton CO) fall dramatically after RTC concealed- handgun laws are enacted. Where data was available both before and after passage of such laws, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws took effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%! (2,13) * Armed with a hunting rifle, 16-year-old Luke Woodham killed his ex-girlfriend and her close friend, then wounded 7 other students, in 1997 at a high school in Pearl, Mississippi. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved a handgun from his car, and interrupted Woodham's shooting spree, holding him at bay until police arrived. Earlier that morning, Woodham had stabbed his mother to death. (14) [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Gun Facts Pamphlet2/2 Date: 05 Jul 1999 14:32:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] A similar script played out in 1998 in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, when local merchant James Strand used his shotgun to "coax" 14-year old Andrew Wurst into dropping his gun, and surrendering to police. Wurst had just killed one teacher, wounded another and two classmates. (14) * "...the recent rash of public school shootings...raise[s] questions about the unintentional consequences of laws. The five public school shootings [which occurred during the 1997-98 school year] took place after a 1995 federal law banned guns (including permitted concealed handguns) within a thousand feet of a school. The possibility exists that attempts to outlaw guns from schools, no matter how well meaning, may have produced perverse effects. It is interesting to note that during the 1977 to 1995 period [of our study], 15 shootings took place in schools in states without right-to-carry laws and only one took place in a state with this type of law. There were 19 deaths and 97 injuries in states without the law, while there was one death and two injuries in states with the law." (13) * A July 1993 U.S. Department of Justice study found that "boys who own legal firearms...have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use [than those who obtained them illegally] and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns." It concluded that, "for legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place 'on the street'". (15) ACCIDENTS & SUICIDES * In 1994, fatal firearms accidents dropped 11% from 1993 figures, to the lowest annual number since record-keeping began in 1903. They dropped even lower by almost 7% in 1995. Motor vehicle accidents, falls, fires, drownings, poisonings, suffocation, and other accidents all accounted for more deaths than did firearm accidents. Among children aged 0-14 years, there were 185 fatal firearms accidents, vs. 500 per year in the mid-1970s. (16) * In 1993, there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm-related accidental deaths from ages 0-19. While firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1, the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident. From ages 0-5, the risk of drowning skyrockets to 500 times the risk from a gun! (16,17) * "Trigger-lock" laws don't equal safety. While California has such a law on the books, it saw a 12% increase in fatal firearm accidents in 1994. Texas doesn't have one, and experienced a 28% decrease, instead. (16) "Trigger-locks" do, however, render guns inaccessible for self-defense. * Accident and suicide rates are unaffected by the passage of Right-To-Carry concealed handgun laws. (2) * Suicide rates fluctuate independently of gun control laws and gun ownership. Banning guns will not affect the suicide rate - other equally deadly implements would only be substituted in their place. (18) THE U.S. CONSTITUTION * The scholarship on the 2nd Amendment overwhelmingly agrees that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and not simply the right to arm the "militia". (19) In 1982, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution evaluated the historical record, and unanimously came to the same conclusion. (20) REFERENCES 1. Reynolds M, Caruth W; "Myths About Gun Control"; National Ctr for Policy Analysis, 1992 2. Lott J; "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun- Control Laws"; University of Chicago; 1998 3. Florida Department of State documents 4. "Kennesaw Update"; The New American, 6/10/96 5. Lott J, Mustard D; "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns"; Journal of Legal Studies; Vol 26(1); Jan 97 6. Kleck G, Gertz M; "Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun"; Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology; Vol 86#1, Fall 1995 7. Kleck G; Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control; Aldine de Gruyter; NY 1997 8. National Center for Policy Analysis, March 1999 9. Suter E; "Assault-Weapons" Revisited - An Analysis of the AMA Report;Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, May 1994 10. South v. Maryland, 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L.Ed.433(1856) 11. Bowers v. DeVito, US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 686F.2d 616 (1982) 12."Crime and Justice in the United States and England and Wales, 1981-1996"; U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics; October 1998 13. Lott J, Landes W; "Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement"; University of Chicago,Working Paper #73, 1999 14."How to Stop Mass Public Shootings"; Lott J; The L.A. Times 3/25/98 15. U.S. Department of Justice 16. National Center for Health Statistics 17. National Spa and Pool Institute 18. Suter E; "Guns in the Medical Literature: A Failure of Peer Review"; Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, Mar 1994 19. Reynolds H, Kates D; "The Second Amendment and States' Rights: A Thought Experiment"; William & Mary Law Review; Vol 36 #5,8/955 20. Senate Subcommittee of the Commission of the Judiciary on The Constitution, 97th Congress, 1992 FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: The Committee for Law-Abiding Gun-Owners, Rockland [LAGR] Paul Gallant, O.D., Chairman PO Box 354 Thiells, NY 10984-0354 914-354-9090 914-354-9091 Fax E-Mail: 70274.1222@compuserve.com 05/99 Why do liberals trust the bad guys to be good and expect the law- abiding to be bad? Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with alerts under the heading ALERTS. Previous E-mail message are being archived. thomasW429 Copy this posting into a word-processor, format it, then make MANY copies to give out at any and all public events. Republic Radio (on the Internet): http://www.audiocasting.com/republic.ram FREE AMERICAN 9AM Eastern Mon-Fri 12.16 Mhz EXPOSING CORRUPTION 2PM Eastern Mon-Fri. 9.4 Mhz INTELLIGENCE REPORT 8PM Eastern Mon-Thurs. 5.085 Mhz REPUBLIC RADIO: http://www.republicradio.freeservers.com/ Shortwave stations on the Internet: http://www.audiocasting.com/networks.html MILITIA of MONTANA: http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/mom.html FREE AMERICAN: http://www.freeamerican.com/ NEWSMAX: http://www.newsmax.com WorldNetDaily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.html JUDICIAL WATCH: http://www.judicialwatch.org/ NEW AMERICAN: http://www.jbs.org/okc/index.htm Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation Committee: http://www.okcbombing.org/ NewsGroup: alt.current-events.amfb-explosion CONSTITUTION SOCIETY: http://www.constitution.org/ THIRD CONTINENTAL CONGRESS: http://www.afn.org/~mpress/3cc/3ccindex.html Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death: http://home.nebonet.com/users/headhome/dadmisc/liberty.htm Patrick Henry On-line: http://www.mo-net.com/~mlindste/index.html On the front line of the information war. GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: http://www.gunowners.org/ Purchase a surplus M1 Garand rifle: http://www.odcmp.com/ ALL-PURPOSE AMMO: http://www.dragonsbreath.com/ (mostly shotgun specialty ammo - FLECHETTE, FLAME-THROWER, ARMOR-PIERCING, etc.) CASCADE AMMO: http://www.cascade-ammo.com/index.html (many varieties including the old favorites of military grade rifle loadings) BUSHMASTER: M-16 type rifles of MILSPEC quality (they sell to the military) at much lower cost than others. (Gun stores can order for delivery in a few days). GUN TESTS magazine rated the BUSHMASTER XM-15 more accurate than the Colt AR-15. http://www.bushmaster.com/ MILITIA - THAT MEANS YOU! http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/mom.html BILLINGS ASSAULT MILITIA: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/shootin/ Gun Tests is published monthly (12 issues) by Belvoir Publications, Inc. 75 Holly Hill Lane Box 2626 Greenwich, Conn. 06836-2626 1-800-829-9084 Subscriptions are $29.00 annually. ~~ Highly Recommended! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: great article by the house conservative at Date: 07 Jul 1999 14:16:41 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 07 Jul 1999 09:29:55 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13460; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 09:09:40 -0600 Received: from (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA07421; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <87D5192CFE4FD211B4640008C7B1E2F2CEB6E8@cedenmsx01.centura.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.net Reply-To: DavidShimm@centura.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline What's gun control got to do with it?=20 The 20,000 laws already on the books couldn't stop the Columbine massacre, and one more won't either, but liberals just don't get that. - - - - - - - - - - - - By David Horowitz=20 July 6, 1999 | The other day I picked up a phone message from a woman concerning a charity event for homeless youngsters that I was helping organize in Hollywood. The woman is a liberal, and she said she had found = a friend who was willing to volunteer her home for an event we had planned = for the children -- then she paused -- "but not if Charlton Heston comes."=20 Then she paused again. "In fact," she said, "none of my friends' homes = will be available if Charlton Heston comes." It was unnecessary for her to say, as she also did under her breath, "They murdered those kids," to alert me = to the fact that this was about the Columbine tragedy in Colorado, where two sociopathic teenagers had barged into a high school and ambushed their classmates before turning their weapons on themselves.=20 Nor did she have to connect the dots and say that the passions that Heston provoked as head of the National Rifle Association, which had thwarted the passage of gun control legislation in the aftermath of these events, was = the cause of her friends' determination to shun Charlton Heston and make him a social pariah.=20 Accustomed as I am to such intolerant reflexes in people who otherwise = think of themselves as "liberal," this one caused me to stop and reflect for a moment on what it had revealed. Consider, dear reader, the people you know and call your friends. How many individuals could you name whom these friends would want to bar from a social gathering whose sole purpose was = to raise money for homeless kids? O.J. Simpson? Slobodan Milosevic? David = Duke? For myself, I don't have a single conservative friend or acquaintance who would say, "If Barbra Streisand wants to help us raise money for poor = kids, I don't want her in my house." (OK, maybe one or two.) =09 Charlton Heston is no conservative troglodyte. He is a New Deal Democrat, the former chairman of the Hollywood committee for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s march on Washington, a lifelong champion of civil rights and artists' rights (he was a staunch defender of the National Endowment for = the Arts) and generally a decent, humane and ecumenical soul.=20 Of course, such data is irrelevant in this matter, because the ideological hatred liberals bear toward Heston has no real-world referrent in terms of who the man actually is. Even Heston's role as spokesman for the NRA = doesn't make their passion any more intelligible to someone outside their ideological bubble. Do the 3 million mainly lower-middle-class and working-class members of the NRA want to see children die? Would the legislation they defeated have indisputably saved those children or others to come?=20 The fact is that there are 20,000 gun laws already on the books, 17 of = which were violated by the Columbine killers. What would one more law accomplish that the other 20,000 could not? Especially one that would merely mandate background checks on buyers at gun shows? Is there any evidence that these shows are the sites of a significant number of criminal purchases or that such legislation would have any effect on armed crimes?=20 The Brady Bill has been violated on 250,000 occasions, according to police records, but not a single violator has been punished. Is there any correlation at all between stringent registration laws and low gun deaths? Apparently not. A social scientist named John Lott has just published a study that claims that communities in which citizens are armed have lower incidences of gun violence than communities where guns are relatively absent.=20 In places where gun violence has actually been reduced, like New York, = where the murder rate has been cut by a phenomenal 60 percent, the reason = appears to be aggressive police methods, which have come under fire from many of these same liberals who think gun control is the answer. Do the people who hate Chuck Heston adore Rudy Giuliani? Hardly.=20 I do not intend this as an argument for or against the gun legislation = that was proposed and that failed in the wake of Columbine. It is merely a case for sobriety in assessing the issues that make up the dispute. The gun legislation in question may have been worthy or not. The point is that any difference it might make is so insignificant that it could not justify the foam-at-the-mouth response of its proponents or the stigma they have attached to people, like Heston, who disagree with them about it.=20 Why are liberals so hypocritically bigoted? It's not a question that can = be casually dismissed. After all, the conservatives who would shun a Barbra Streisand make no fetish out of "diversity" the way liberals do, nor do = they wave the bloody flag of past witch-hunts whenever they come under attack, = as liberals are known to do as well.=20 Moreover, the little auto-da-f=C8 over the possibility that Chuck Heston = would materialize at a charity event is no aberrant case. George Stephanopoulos' recent memoir captures a parallel moment at the very center of the = political process. Before impeachment irretrievably embittered the atmosphere of the Clinton White House, Stephanopoulos and the president were discussing an open congressional seat and the prospect of an upcoming special election. "It's Nazi time," Clinton remarked to Stephanopoulos, meaning time to get back to campaigning against Republicans. Two years later, at the outset of another campaign, Clinton told Dick Morris, "You have to understand, Bob Dole is evil, what he wants is evil." This of a war hero who had played the role of consensus builder in his = years as Senate majority leader.=20 =09 Nor is Clinton alone in his rabid hatred of the Republican opposition. = Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., publicly referred to House Republicans as "Nazis" = merely for proposing to keep the expansion of Medicare within the rate of = inflation lest the whole system go bankrupt, as a presidential commission indicated = it would.=20 Other Democrats, like Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., referred to Republicans as racist for similar disagreements on budgetary allocations. As in the case = of gun control legislation, there is no perceivable connection between the offenses and the demonization of the offenders by liberals. Outside the KKK-Farrakhan hate fringe (which embraces bigots on the left = and right), there is no conservative analog to this liberal paranoia. Perhaps there is a Republican officeholder who every now and then enters the electoral cycle with the war cry "It's commie time," but I certainly = haven't met him. The current Clinton security leaks are grave enough to have generated a hundred Joe McCarthys, but not one has yet appeared.=20 There is simply no analog to the liberal passion of conservative bashing that has unfairly stained the reputations of figures as disparate as Bork, Thomas, Gingrich, Barr, Connerly and now DeLay. Conservatives have not = even laid a glove on such obvious targets as Barney Frank and Maxine Waters. = They tend to think of their opponents as irresponsible or simply misguided. But they do not treat them as agents of the devil. But then Republicans are political amateurs. They typically leave a = business in the business sector to go fight City Hall over practical matters. They want to restrain the leviathan that is suffocating enterprise. Or, less nobly, they want to harness it to some self-interested goal.=20 Liberals have a grander design. Their interest in politics is missionary. They see government as a means to social redemption, to change the world. They're not there to tinker with gun control laws. They're there, as = Hillary Rodham Clinton put it, "to define what it means to be human in the 21st century." In the nightmares of NRA supporters, this means to do whatever = it takes and to trample over any rights necessary to remove all 240 million guns from public possession in the quest for a utopia where violence no longer exists.=20 The reason liberals are so bigoted lies in a vision that has ancestral = roots in the Puritan origins of the American new world. They see themselves as soldiers in the army of the saints -- a vision incomplete without the counter-army of Satan, the dark adversary corrupting the innocent and blocking their progress. People like Charlton Heston stand in the way of their impossible dream. In the fantasies of these liberal Lenins, all the little dead children killed in drive-bys across America could be walking = the safe streets of the 'hood if only the Chuck Hestons of this world would disappear.=20 salon.com | July 6, 1999 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: OT: U.S. Army Soldiers Magless and Muzzled Way Down in Date: 07 Jul 1999 15:00:12 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:37:33 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA13360; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:17:17 -0600 Received: from (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA04846; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <37838451.7B2953A2@mainstream.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.net Reply-To: ferriscc@mainstream.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Say it ain't so, Senator Robert "Cool Ranch" Dolito. In an AP photo printed on page A6 of the July 5, 1999 issue of The Boston Globe, there you sit, enjoying some G.I. chow at a "holiday barbecue" at Camp Bondsteel near the southern Kosovo town of Vitina, as highlighted by the AP photo's accompanying caption. Propped against the near end of the wooden table at which you and a half-squad of BDU-clad soldiers sit is one of those Clintonista-feared and Clintonista-hated assault rifles, a real, bona fide M-16A2 black rifle capable of celebrating (functional) diversity either in semi-automatic or full automatic mode. (Well, what do you know? It actually takes a battle rifle in the hands of an honorable American of character to save a village! How about that?) Back to the main point. Missing from the empty well of the M-16A2 rifle shown in the photograph is a Clintonista-feared and Clintonista-hated high capacity magazine loaded with 30 rounds of 5.56mm mil spec ball ammunition! It also appears as if that M-16A2 rifle's muzzle is covered by a protective plastic cap, ostensibly to prevent WASPs, Roman Catholics or other assorted "Christian Right" extremists from deciding to nest, along with a copy of The Ten Commandments, deep inside that rifle's barrel during Senator "Cool Ranch" Dolito's visit? Humor aside, reflect back to the date of the infamous, horrific truck bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Recall that over 240 brave U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy corpsmen assigned to the U.S. Marine unit stationed there lost their lives as a smiling, suicidal Saracen drove his explosives laden lorry past USMC sentries who, by policy, were not allowed to have their M-16 rifles' magazine wells charged with loaded magazines, which heightened state of readiness might have allowed them to instantaneously chamber live rounds upon detecting danger and to bring significant firepower to bear on an advancing terrorist madman. Would the sentries alone have been able to stop the Beirut truck bomber? We will never know, will we, because some special assistant to an assistant bonehead at either the Department of State or the Department of Defense or at some other stratospheric level within the Pentagon probably intimidated the local USMC commanding officer into conforming with stateside, peacetime policies mandating the carriage of unloaded weapons at a military facility if not on a supervised rifle range.. Hey, we would not have wanted to anger the Hezbollah Hollow Hee Haw Boys' Choir, now would we? What would the Hezbollah terrorists active in Lebanon have thought if camouflage-clad U.S. Marines had actually been allowed to perform sentry duty at their barracks while carrying weapons charged with fully loaded magazines? Again, we will never know, will we? But we sure as heck know now that Senator Bob Dole, a decorated war hero, is apparently content to sit in southern Kosovo, a confirmed unsecured combat zone, with U.S. Army soldiers next to whom one unloaded and oh-so-Clintonally-child-safe M-16A2 rifle rests as a powerful symbol of all that is wrong with a still superbly trained and highly motivated U.S. military that has been used worldwide as a political football by so-called President Clinton and his (liquor) cabinet of (it takes a) village idiots. President Clinton, Secretary of Defense Cohen and Senator Dole, if you should happen to see a copy of this e-mail message, which I sincerely hope will be forwarded to selected members of Congress who serve on U.S. House and U.S. Senate Armed Forces Committees, would you please advise the Chairman of the JCS and commanders in the field that unloaded personal weapons in combat zones may lead (again) to unloaded coffins bearing the bodies of soldiers or Marines (killed in action) who should have been prepared to take up, to chamber a live round in, and then to fire their already loaded magazine-equipped rifles at a second's notice in the event of a sudden attack upon their camp or compound? Our brave soldiers' rifles "magless" and "muzzled" in Kosovo? Shame on President Clinton, shame on Secretary Cohen, shame on General Clark (commander of NATO forces in Kosovo) and his boss at the JCS in the Pentagon, shame on local U.S. Army unit commanders, and some shame, too, on Senator Dole for sitting by and not demanding unequivocally that soldiers in his presence be ordered to bear rifles, pistols and other issued automatic weaponry charged with fully loaded magazines to enable an immediate, aggressive defense against any enemy's assault on their position. Combat zones are inherently unsafe. Mandating that our soldiers (and our Marines) carry unloaded weapons way down in Kosovo is an unforgivable blunder that must be corrected before lives are lost in action with hostile forces. Correct this unfortunate situation, now, Mr. President, Secretary Cohen, General Clark and Senator Dole. Just do it. Let soldiers be soldiers. Let Marines be Marines. Stop "managing" combat zones as if they were Clintonized, politically correct Fortune 500 office environments. One telephone call should make "loaded weapons" happen at Camp Bondsteel and elsewhere, way down in Kosovo. Thank you, gentlemen, for attending, in prompt fashion, to this important matter. Respectfully, Christopher C. Ferris (Street address deleted) Nashua NH ferriscc@mainstream.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun rights vs. Property rights Date: 08 Jul 1999 16:14:00 -0700 At Reams I found a copy of the Salt Lake Valley News, East Valley News Edition, Vol. 3-10 May 31, 1999 -- June 14, 1999 with an editorial that calls for a response. The publisher is Kim Folsom. Message Center: 493-7880, Fax 467-0597. Apparently no Web or email presence. Any takers? Scott Bergeson scott.bergeson@ucs.org Editorial: Gun rights vs. Property rights Recently the Salt Lake Valley News received a press release from GO Utah which is an organization that says it is, "Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gu Rights Network, No Compromise, No Retreat, No Surrender, Not Now, Not Ever." This is kind of talk you may have heard at the Alamo or maybe from those two teenagers that killed their classmates in Colorado. I worry about any organization that believes the NRA is week in its approach. This is not the time to take sides, but to use our logic. Yes the rights of gun owners could be threatened by public sentiment about recent shootings. Something should be done. We should try to find out what will solve the problem and put those measures into action. I agree that restrictions may not be the answer but what is? We need to keep guns out of places guns should not be anyway. You may have the right to carry a gun but not at church, or at school or in private businesses and homes where your gun is not welcome. Property rights are more important than gun rights. Authorities should have access to all information that would have a bearing on a person's ability to be responsible with a firearm. Mental problems that would impact this ability or prior violent criminal behavior should be accessible. If you have contrasting opinions send them to Salt Lake Valley News Box 520905 Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-0905. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: Alert; Range protection Date: 08 Jul 1999 17:07:35 -0600 --------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Marksmen and Interested Shooters: I have attached an anouncement of the public hearings which will take place this month (July 1999) on the proposed destruction of the Tooele Army Depot 30 position military range on the far southwest corner of the Depot. Your immediate action is needed. Please write comments opposing the destruction and closure of this range, and plan on attending the July 14, and the July 29, 1999 public meetings. Your support is urgently needed. Elwood Powell President Utah State Rifle & Pistol Association Important Meetings Wednesday, July 14, 1999 and Thursday, July 29, 1999 at Tooele There is a superb rifle range at the Tooele Army Depot. It is fully developed with 30 firing points at 200 and 300 yards and full target pit facilities. It is designed so that firing points could be added at 600 yards. The Army intends to destroy this range rather than turn it over to Tooele County for future use. Reportedly this is based on environmental issues. With the rapid population growth in Utah it is harder and harder to find safe places to shoot. It is nearly impossible to acquire suitable land to build new ranges anywhere near population centers. Rapid growth in the Tooele area and Eagle Mountain makes preservation of this range vitally important. Preserving this range will ensure a safe facility is available for shooters so they will not be tempted to use open areas that may inadvertently endanger people or livestock. There will be a public meeting Wed. July 14, 1999 at 9:30 AM in Building 7 at the Tooele Army Depot. This is a quarterly meeting of the TAD Restoration Advisory Board/Technical Review Committee. They will "review environmental projects, increase community awareness and assure that the interest of the community is addressed during the decision making process." For more information contact Larry McFarland, TEAD Environmental Management Division (435) 833-3504; or Randi Nelson, Kleinfelder Community Relations Coordinator. (775) 689-7800. The public comment period on the proposed plan of destruction is June 28 to July 28, 1999. There is an another public meeting scheduled for July 29, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tooele County Courthouse, Tooele, Utah. Written comments should be sent to Larry McFarland/SDSTE-IRE, Environmental Management Division, Tooele Army Depot, Building T8, Tooele, Utah 84074-5000. You need to let these people know that preservation of this range facility is very important to the citizens of the community. Tax dollars paid for the facility and if necessary more taxpayer funds should be spent to preserve it rather than closing it. Options such as only allowing use of a smaller pistol type range nearby are not acceptable. Please attend the meeting if at all possible, dress appropriately and be polite. If you cannot make the meeting, then call the numbers above to express your concerns. If you live in Tooele, contact Representative Ron Allen, Senator Jim Gowan and also the Tooele County Commissioners. and ask them to formally request that this range be preserved. ---END FORWARDED MESSAGE--- ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: ALERT: The Treachery Of Orrin Hatch Date: 10 Jul 1999 09:47:00 -0700 ----- Sen Smith has announced he's leaving the GOP for a third party. I hope he picks us. Attention Utah Gun Owners: Betrayal in the Beehive State! Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org (July 9, 1999) -- Your Senator, Orrin Hatch, is at it again. In May, Senator Hatch helped push Clinton's gun ban agenda through the Senate and then voted for S. 254, a bill that was replete with gun bans and gun owner registration. That was bad enough. But now he's gone one step further. Senator Hatch is avidly working to send this bill to President Clinton. But thankfully, a pro-gun Senator from New Hampshire has placed some procedural roadblocks in the way of this anti-gun bill. That Senator is Bob Smith (R-NH), who is using every parliamentary maneuver imaginable to keep Clinton's anti-gun crime bill bottled up, and has placed a "hold" on the juvenile crime legislation. A "hold" is a parliamentary procedure that can indefinitely delay unconstitutional legislation-- as long as the leadership is willing to honor the "hold." Unfortunately, Senator Orrin Hatch does not agree with Sen. Smith. And that presents a problem for gun owners. Sen. Hatch, as the Judiciary Committee Chairman, is one of the most powerful men in the U.S. Senate. In a one-on-one battle between Senators Smith and Hatch, the Judiciary Committee Chairman is going to win. And that's why your help is needed immediately. It is imperative that Sen. Hatch hear a huge outcry from the grassroots in his state. He needs to know that folks like yourself don't want this anti-gun legislation going to the President's desk. ACTION: Please mail or fax the letter below, and encourage your family members and friends to do the same. You can contact Senator Hatch at: Office Phone: 202-224-5251 Office Fax: 202-224-6331 Judiciary Com. Phone: 202-224-5225 Judiciary Com. Fax: 202-224-9102 Toll-free phone: 1-888-449-3511 E-mail: senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov Address: Sen. Orrin Hatch, SR-131 Russell SOB, Washington, DC 20510-4402 ----------------- Clip-n-Send -------------------- Dear Sen. Hatch, I was disappointed to see that you voted for the horrendous juvenile injustice bill in May (S. 254). All the gun control proposals that you voted for will do NOTHING to stop crime, and they are all infringements of the rights guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment! I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to undo the damage that's already been done. I was also disappointed to hear that as our nation was getting ready to celebrate Independence Day, the Republican leadership in the Senate (which of course, includes you) was saying they were going to "push forward" with this juvenile injustice bill, even though Senator Bob Smith has a "hold" on this awful legislation. The Washington Times (July 3, 1999) reports that the Republican leadership wants to "appoint Senate conferees despite Mr. Smith's threat [to filibuster]." Senator Smith is, quite frankly, doing the job you guys should be doing. You should be supporting him, not opposing him. The "hold" that Smith has placed on this terrible legislation is exactly the kind of leadership that I am asking you to provide. I do not want ANY of the anti-gun provisions in S. 254 going to the President's desk. If they do, I will know that you have betrayed the gun owners of your state and of this great nation. After all, you have the power, as the Judiciary Committee Chairman, to kill any such legislation that comes out of your committee. Don't bother telling me that the Democrats might retaliate by offering their anti-gun provisions as amendments to other bills. Let them try. If they do attempt such a plan, then why don't you adopt the House strategy that was so effective in killing gun control in that chamber? The House leadership encouraged truly pro-gun amendments to be offered to their juvenile crime bill. An amendment allowing D.C. residents to own guns and another amendment partially repealing the Brady law were more than the anti-gun Democrats could bear. These pro-gun provisions forced the anti-gun zealots in the House to VOTE AGAINST H.R. 2122, the anti-gun juvenile bill. As you know, the House passed a separate juvenile bill that focused more on "cultural" solutions to crime, rather than gun control. Please learn from the successes of the House leadership. I hope that you will honor Senator Smith's hold, and I hope that you will keep any of the anti-gun provisions from S. 254 from ever going to the President's desk. In short, it is my wish that you work tirelessly to bury this legislation. This issue is very important to me. Thank you. Sincerely, ************** Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail Alert Network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to goamail@gunowners.org and include the state in which you live, in either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert and ask to be removed. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Fuehrer Gore and Biometric Gun Licenses Date: 13 Jul 1999 10:50:00 -0700 ---------- I doubt anyone on this list would consider voting for OwlGore, but this will define the terms of the debate.... http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560261526-711 01:37 AM ET 07/12/99 Gore To Unveil Anti-Crime Agenda By KAREN GULLO Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) _ Vice President Al Gore is proposing an anti-crime agenda that includes photo licenses for all new handgun owners, a ban on cheap handguns, increased spending on police training and a constitutional amendment for victims' rights, The Associated Press has learned. In one of his first major pronouncements since kicking off his presidential campaign last month, Gore will propose sweeping changes in the criminal justice system designed to get tough on criminals. It includes a new policy that includes more federal money for the nation's court system and a requirement that criminal defendants pledge to get off drugs if they want to stay out of jail. The vice president, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, was to announce the proposals in a speech today at the headquarters of the Boston police department, said sources familiar with his plans who spoke on condition of anonymity. While many specifics of the agenda, including how much it will cost, were not available, the most far-reaching proposals deal with gun control. School shootings this year in Littleton, Colo., and Conyers, Ga., have turned gun control into a major issue in the 2000 presidential campaign. Gore wants every new gun owner to have a photo license. At present there is no federal requirement for gun owners to carry licenses. Cheap, easily concealed handguns, known as "junk guns" or "Saturday night specials," would be banned under Gore's proposal. The junk gun industry traces its roots to a crackdown on handguns that followed the June 1968 assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy by Sirhan Sirhan, who used a European-made .22-caliber revolver. Until then, most cheap handguns sold in the United States were made overseas. Congress then banned the import of such weapons but did not outlaw their manufacture in this country. Under current federal law, semiautomatic rifles equipped with detachable magazines and certain other features are banned. Similar guidelines are imposed on handguns and shotguns. Gore also wants tougher penalties for gun trafficking. The vice president has already said he supports raising the age for handgun possession from 18 to 21; barring juveniles from possessing assault weapons or large-capacity ammunition clips; imposing new penalties for adults who sell guns to minors; and requiring safety locks on guns. Whether Gore's new gun-control proposals would be approved by Congress is questionable. The vice president cast a tie-breaking vote in May when the Senate passed legislation expanding a system of background checks on firearms purchases so they would cover all such buys at gun shows and pawnshops. His campaign hoped that the moment of drama would add momentum to his campaign. But political squabbling between Democrats and Republicans helped kill a House gun-control bill in June. Bill Bradley, Gore's only announced opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, has put forth his own gun-control plan, including a proposal that all handguns be registered and a ban on the manufacture and sale of cheap handguns. Gore's anti-crime package includes a "Stay Clean to Stay Out" policy that says defendants in drug-related crimes who are awaiting trial must get off drugs to stay out of jail. Criminals on parole also would have to stay off drugs to stay out of jail, under the proposed policy. Ever the technology buff, Gore would make increasing use of computers in law enforcement, investing in software that community police could use to map and target high-crime areas. Other features of the anti-crime package include establishment of "gang-free zones," more aid for professional development and retraining of police officers and increased spending on after-school programs for youths and anti-drug efforts. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Interesting thoughts Date: 13 Jul 1999 16:29:17 -0600 I am talking to every liberal friend I have. I tell them I don't care=20 whether they shoot or don't, own a gun or don't, but that it is time for = them=20 to realize the shooters have had about all they will take. I politely = tell=20 them this is not about sporting purposes or hunting, it is about a = basic=20 Constitutional liberty. I ask them if they feel so strongly about=20 registration and the resulting confiscation that they are willing to = declare=20 millions of Americans felons, because that is what will happen when we = don't=20 comply. I also ask if they are willing to endure a long and bloody = guerilla=20 civil war that will make Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia or Lebanon look like = a=20 picnic, because once I am a felon, I really have nothing left to lose. = I=20 point out that if just ten per cent of the registered hunters decided = to=20 resist it would put about 1.5 million armed citizens on the line. I = tell=20 them that we have been willing to play by the political rules, even = thought=20 we have have lost every round, so long as the Second Amendment was there = as a=20 final check. However, registration always leads to confiscation, and = that=20 will certainly lead to war. Lautenburg is registration, and it is time = for=20 them to decide how far they want to go. I am not confrontational. I tell them it is my sole intent to prevent = what=20 will surely happen if they continue in their ignorance of shooters and = their=20 motives. I ask them to consider the following: would they stand still = for=20 an usurpation of the First Amendment? If not, then do not expect = millions=20 of us to stand by while they take the Second. I tell them this is like=20 America in the 1850's with neither side understanding the other enough = to=20 avoid the civil war. Clearly, the left may have an agenda, or it may = be=20 ignorance, but from now on, I do not disguise the fact that we are going = to=20 fight this, first in the legislature, then in the courts, and finally in = the=20 streets if neccesary. We can argue about the amount of welfare, or where = the=20 next road will be built, but there is no arguing on the destruction of = the=20 Constitution. Surprisingly, this quiet little talk has got more of them to think than=20 anything else I have ever argued with them. No one has ever told them = this=20 is what will happen. No one ever calculated a few numbers (10 % of = hunters,=20 for example) and they never once considered the ramifications fo what = would=20 happen if the armed citizenry decided to resist with force in order to = keep=20 our liberty and be left alone. Note: I NEVER advocate revolution, I never advocate overthrow of the = gov't,=20 but I do stress that for millions, the idea that the majority vote can = take=20 away a basic constitutional liberty is not acceptable for us. I tell = them I=20 am scared to death because for the first time ever, I am beginning to see = no=20 way out except this end. I travel a lot in my job, and I hear this = from=20 even top executives now. When they are talking like this, you can be sure = it=20 is on more than a few peoples' minds. So, rather than try to convince = the=20 media, I am trying one on one to make our case and to warn of the=20 consequences. =20 So long as the other side sees no teeth, hears no objections and feels = no=20 restraint, you can be sure they will keep coming. They need to hear = blunt,=20 not boastful or inflammatory, talk from everyone in the movement, and I = mean=20 from all of us. They need to understand these votes do have consequences = and=20 that millions of Americans, other than right wing radical militias,=20 anarchists and the like fringe elements, are seriously contemplating = the=20 exact point the reason the Second was put in the bill rights will come=20 needed. Jefferson's quote about the Second just lying there until it = is=20 needed is not a bad one to keep on hand, either. Some will take these words as proof that more control is needed. = However,=20 for the first time, at least some of my liberal friends have some = serious=20 evaluating of their policies going on. I believe it is now time for all = of=20 us to politely start drawing that line in the sand. For years, we have = all=20 debated when it is theoretically appropriate for armed resistance to = begin. =20 It varies, but the concensus in my discussions over the years has always = been=20 "Registration and then confiscation". OK, we are almost there. Does = the=20 other side really understand what these concepts mean to us? Do they have = a=20 clue what the consequences will be if they keep it up? If they don't, it = is=20 because they can marginalize the extremes of our group, but only if = they=20 don't hear this from the mainstream. It is one thing if a Rambo in = fatigues=20 is yelling this, and something else when the local executives, business=20 leaders, clergy and educators and basic citizenry are quietly, firmly = telling=20 them that this couse of action, if unchecked, will lead to civil war. = King=20 George III didn't really understand the ramifications of a gun confiscation= =20 raid on Lexington. Lets make sure our opponents are fully aware where = that=20 road leads. Scott Harmon - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Claire Wolf - Carty slugs it out with Compromisin' Sam Date: 14 Jul 1999 09:06:01 -0600 Carty slugs it out with Compromisin' Sam=20 =A9 1999 Claire Wolfe This is embarrassing, and you probably won't believe it anyway.=20 But our little mid-nowhere town of Hardyville has one political=20 throwback. This guy actually thinks that the way to get smaller=20 government is to vote for bigger government. That's right: He thinks you get smaller government by voting, year=20 after year, for bigger, more powerful government. I know. It=20 sounds too crazy for anyone to credit, but there it is.=20 He calls it "compromise." And we call him "Compromisin' Sam."=20 Most of us ignore him and go on about our business. After all,=20 there's room in the world for all kinds. But there's one guy who=20 just can't resist getting in Sam's face. Carty -- true blue, retired=20 military, Jesse Ventura lookalike -- gets on Sam every time Sam=20 gets into town. They were at it this week, as they ran into each=20 other near the Statue of the Drunken Cowboy.=20 A crowd gathered as Carty barked, "If you don't stand for=20 something, you'll fall for anything."=20 Sam spluttered, "You people gotta quit being so pie-in-the-sky, if=20 you want to get anything done. You look at what you can get, and=20 what you can't, then you accept reality. You compromise."=20 "I'll compromise," said Carty. "On tactics. But the minute you=20 compromise on principle, you've not only lost the battle but lost=20 your a--."=20 "But you're gonna lose it, anyway, standing around saying, 'We=20 won't bargain. We have to have everything our own way.'"=20 "OK. I'll compromise, then. Tell you what: There are 20,000 gun=20 laws in the country and every single one violates the Second=20 Amendment. I want 'em all gone tomorrow. But just to show you I=20 can compromise, I'll settle for having 10,000 of them repealed in=20 the next five years -- and I'll even let Charles Schumer and Dianne=20 Feinstein choose which 10,000. There's your compromise. See?"=20 "That's ridiculous."=20 "Is it? But it's not ridiculous to always do half of what the other=20 guys want? Maybe you and your pals can tell me how come=20 compromise means we only move in their direction instead of=20 them movin' in ours?"=20 Nat Lyons chipped in, "I think I know. I once went down to the=20 Territorial Capital, thinking I might get with the big gun-rights=20 lobby group down there. You know what? They were sittin'=20 around and one guy was sayin', 'Well, we'd really like to have this.'=20 Then everybody else would go, 'Naw, the legislature'll never let us=20 have that.' So then they'd try to figure out what they could get, and=20 that's all they'd ask for. So 'course, the legislature knew they'd take=20 even less. I mean, can you picture the Teamsters starting out=20 saying, 'Well, we can't ask for that 'cause General Motors won't let=20 us have it'?"=20 "It figures," Carty nodded. "I've heard they do that in D.C., too.=20 One guy who knows told me -- on this new gun-control bill they're=20 still tryin' to get passed -- a gun-rights lobbyist was going to=20 senators and begging them to vote for it, the whole time his big=20 famous group was publicly yellin' about how bad it was. I believed=20 it, because the guy was using the group's old line, 'But if you don't=20 vote for this, you could get something worse.' Where have I heard=20 that before?"=20 "Have you heard about this Bob Smith guy?" Grouchy asked.=20 "He's not like that. He's up there in the Senate right now, stopping=20 that gun bill from getting into the conference committee. Now,=20 there's a guy who's like the Founding Fathers."=20 "Yeah," Carty scoffed: "But you know why Mr. Senator Smith's=20 putting on that big show -- I mean, aside from trying to impress=20 people who want him to run for president in a third-party?"=20 "Why?"=20 "Because -- and I'm tellin' you his own words, now -- because he=20 wants 'the weaker gun control provisions.' -- House version instead=20 the Senate version. This dude's no hero, takin' a big stand to save=20 the Second Amendment. He's just gun-grabber 'lite.' Then he goes=20 around on talk shows, sayin' he doesn't want any gun control.=20 [Male bovine byproduct.] Don't get me wrong, he's better than the=20 rest of those [bearers of the bar sinister]. I wish more of 'em had=20 his guts. But don't go all starry-eyed. He ain't your savior."=20 Compromisin' Sam nodded. "That Smith understands reality. You=20 can't buck public opinion."=20 "[Homonym of buck] public opinion," snarled Carty. "I'm talking=20 about rights."=20 "You can talk about rights all you want to," Sam says, "but that=20 isn't gonna get you anywhere."=20 "So where've we been getting with your [unfavored in the eyes of=20 the deity] compromisers?" Carty countered. "Have we gotten some=20 gun-rights back with the NRA making 'reasonable compromises'?=20 Have your pet Republicans stopped us from getting national ID?=20 Have they made government smaller? Got rid of the IRS? What?=20 Tell me."=20 "They've kept things from getting as bad as they could have," Sam=20 insisted.=20 "Look, you [child of a politician], things are getting that bad,=20 anyway! You expect me to be grateful because -- thanks to your=20 compromising pals -- it'll take 10 years for us to become complete=20 slaves instead of six? Or 20 years instead of 12? You want me to=20 tell you exactly how grateful that makes me? Let's just get it over=20 with. Let's have it now, right out in the open where we can fight it.=20 The only thing your compromising friends are doing is numbing us=20 down so we'll get used to it and learn to take it."=20 "But if we just support--"=20 "You do what you want, bud. But one thing you can stop doing,=20 right now -- and that's asking me to help you and your political=20 pals steer on down the road to tyranny. I don't care whether you're=20 going fast or slow. Here's the fact. I ain't goin' there. So don't=20 waste your time trying to tell me why George Jr. or a new tax or a=20 'compromise bill' or some other politician who says one thing and=20 votes the opposite deserves my support. Those guys are all going=20 the same direction.=20 "See that road over there? Hardyville Main Street? It runs in the=20 exact opposite way. Some of the people on it are usin' sports cars=20 and some are usin' 18-wheelers and a bunch more are towin' horse=20 trailers. But not one of 'em's goin' your way. We're goin' toward=20 freedom -- not away from it -- no matter how we have to get=20 there.=20 "You go wherever you want, Sam. And have a nice trip. But when=20 you find your pals have stranded you in the sagebrush with=20 nothing but a broken down old political wreck, and you're dying of=20 thirst for freedom and can't get a single drop, don't expect anybody=20 to ride to your rescue. You knew where you were heading when=20 you set off."=20 _______ NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this=20 material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed=20 a prior interest in receiving the included information for research=20 and educational purposes. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Sue The Mayors Date: 14 Jul 1999 17:19:31 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:29:40 -0600 Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA23006; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:09:12 -0600 Received: (from petidomo@localhost) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA30826; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:17:18 -0700 Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA30823 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:17:18 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (sdn-ar-003fltampP244.dialsprint.net [158.252.77.6]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA07917; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000801bece2d$919ba760$064dfc9e@oemcomputer> Reply-To: NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com Sender: NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com Precedence: list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_FEA84937.86E78949" --=_FEA84937.86E78949 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Note the following link: How would it be if we, as a group, filed a federal civil rights violation against Buckhorn and with whomever he conspired to sue the gun manufacturers? They are, after all, interfering with the exercise of a Constitutional right. http://www.amfire.com/helpguns.html Chuck Hoskinson "US Army, Retired ... and still serving proudly" --=_FEA84937.86E78949 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Sue The Mayors.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.amfire.com/helpguns.html [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.amfire.com/helpguns.html Modified=00089E072DCEBE0167 --=_FEA84937.86E78949-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: FW: Desnews on Legislative Gun Movements. Date: 15 Jul 1999 09:30:00 -0700 ----- Please let members of the Judiciary Committee know you oppose a special session as well as additional gun control legislation! A list of committee members follows the article. And, of course, if you can attend next week's meeting, Wednesday, July 21, 1999, 2 PM, Room 403, State Capitol, please do so! Wednesday, July 14, 1999 Leavitt's gun ideas make slight headway Legislative panel to vote on 3 bills, but . . . ? By Bob Bernick Jr. Deseret News political editor Gov. Mike Leavitt's gun violence and school safety proposals will at least get a formal vote in one legislative committee. But the likelihood of a special legislative session on guns in October appears doubtful, if talk Tuesday afternoon in the Legislature's Judiciary Committee is any indication. When committee members questioned the need to deal with guns in special session, Senate Majority Leader Lyle Hillyard stepped in to salvage at least a committee vote next week on Leavitt's ideas for restricting guns in schools, to the mentally ill and to those with violent misdemeanor convictions? "Yep. That's what I'm doing," Hillyard, R-Logan, said after the confusing three-hour meeting. He said he would draft bills on the three specific areas that Leavitt, also a Republican, told lawmakers could be solved quickly, if not easily, in a special session. Those bills will be presented at a committee hearing during next week's legislative interim study day. But what happens then is unknown. At least for now. "I'm presenting them. And I think I can make a good argument for each. But some (of the bills) may be so terrible that I'll be voting against them myself," Hillyard said. House Republicans on the joint House/Senate committee were moving toward a vote not to even have a special session on guns when Hillyard read the mood and intervened, asking members to allow him to draft "global" bills on several issues. As the meeting dragged on and specific issues were taken off the table for debate, Hillyard said he was going to present bills on the issues Leavitt wanted considered. "At least he gets that," Hillyard said later. The gun control debate was first ignited after the Legislature in 1995 made it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit. The issue flared again this year in the wake of two fatal shootings in Salt Lake City and the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado. At Tuesday's meeting, one after another conservative Republican on the committee said they didn't see the need or the wisdom of a special session on guns. "We're in a fish bowl on this" issue, said Rep. Glen Way, R-Spanish Fork. "Does the governor think we're dumb sheep getting marching orders" on gun matters? "For cryin' out loud, we have a say" on whether a session is called or not. On the mentally ill possessing guns: "I think we need to do something. . . . But in a special session?" questioned House Majority Whip Dave Ure, R-Kamas, about the mentally ill possessing guns. "Who can tell me how we define someone who is mentally ill? Some would say we (legislators) are all mentally ill for bein' here." On banning legally permitted concealed weapon holders from taking their guns in schools: "We need to enforce the current law on taking guns in schools" by students, Ure said. "I think (some school administrators) are being a good boy to Johnny who is bringing a heater." House Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake -- a leader in the gun-control fight -- brought one of his proposed bills to the committee. Although not a committee member, Jones distributed the bill and asked committee members to at least read it. He left without making further comment. Jones said his bill would require that violent misdemeanor convictions be included on gun-buying background checks, that all gun sales at gun shows and other such venues come with a background check (not all do now) and that people adjudicated mentally ill or who have used an insanity plea as a defense in a criminal trial be denied gun purchases. Earlier in the day, Jones told the Deseret News that he fully expects GOP legislators -- a majority in the House and Senate -- to "stall" the gun debate, avoiding a special session on the matter if possible. The great frustration of lawmakers, expressed again and again Tuesday, is that they believe there is little they can do that will affect gun violence or school safety. The white supremacist who shot people last week in Chicago tried to buy a gun from a dealer, but the background check showed previous criminal convictions, so he was denied. "He went out on the street and bought one anyway. And anyone can do that," Hillyard said. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Sen. Terry Spencer, Senate Chair Rep. A. Lamont Tyler, House Chair Sen. Lyle W. Hillyard Sen. David H. Steele Sen. Pete Suazo Rep. Patrice M. Arent Rep. Chad E. Bennion Rep. Afton B. Bradshaw Rep. Katherine M. Bryson Rep. Gary F. Cox Rep. Greg J. Curtis Rep. David L. Gladwell Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson Rep. J. W. "Bill" Hickman Rep. LaWanna "Lou" Shurtliff Rep. Martin R. Stephens Rep. John E. Swallow Rep. David Ure Rep. Glenn L. Way Contact info can be found by going to www.le.state.ut.us and clicking on either "House" or "Senate". - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Fw: California plans to confiscate guns Date: 15 Jul 1999 14:52:53 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:35:22 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00596; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:14:43 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10395 for noban-presents; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10387 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bugbox (ppp170.fai.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.170]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA13189 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:24:15 -0800 Message-ID: <000601becef7$a8a0b160$aa0b81ce@bugbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-noban@mainstream.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: noban@mainstream.net ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 10:49 AM CALIFORNIA ANTI-GUN ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S SECRET PLANS TO CONFISCATE FIREARMS UNCOVERED News/Current Events Extended News Free Republic Source: www.gunowners.com / Bob Evans Vs Tom for 2000 Published: 7/14/99 Author: Bob Evans Posted on 07/15/1999 07:47:36 PDT by Bob Evans Subj: CA: Confiscation Plans Reply-to: goamail@gunowners.org (Gun Owners of America) ANTI-GUN ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S SECRET PLANS TO CONFISCATE FIREARMS UNCOVERED Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org Gun Owners Of California 10100 Fair Oaks Blvd Suite 1 Fair Oaks, CA 95628 916-967-4970 http://www.gunownersca.com gunownca@gunownersca.com >>Please direct all questions to GOC.<< Pro-gun groups, including Gun Owners of California, have obtained copies of documents which outlined the Attorney General's plan to confiscate privately owned firearms from citizens who registered their firearms according to former Attorney General Dan Lungren's instructions. The documents include: * A Department of Justice Information Bulletin addressed to "ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES" entitled "RELINQUISHMENT OF ASSAULT WEAPONS" and dated June 11, 1999, signed by Doug Smith, Chief of the Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis for Bill Lockyer, A.G., * A letter on Attorney General Bill Lockyer's stationary, entitled "NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS WHO ATTEMPED TO REGISTER AN ASSUALT WEAPON IN CALIFORNIA AFTER MARCH 30, 1992", dated June 8,1999, signed by Mike Broderick, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis for Bill Lockyer, A.G. * A form entitled "LIST OF ASSAULT WEAPONS SUBJECT TO RELINQUISHMENT" which will be sent to all gun owners listing the "illegal assault weapons" and instructions for relinquishment and a request for a refund of the REGISTRATION FEE only! This is what "law abiding" gun owners get for trying to do the right thing by registering their guns according to Attorney General Dan Lungren's instructions. This proves the point that the ultimate goal of registration is to facilitate CONFISCATION! Of course, now that the documents were inadvertently leaked, the Department of Justice is denying that they plan to confiscate anything and that these documents were merely "drafts" and "for discussion only" and that they have no plans to implement it at this time. All law abiding gun owners should feel free to register their outrage by calling Governor Gray Davis and Attorney General Bill Lockyer. As I promised all of you after last years election, I will be soon announcing my return engagement against our loved Congressman Tom Lantos. This will be my second run for this office , and it will prove secessful ...... with your help. Sincerely. Bob Evans 340 Foerster St. SF, CA 94112 415-334-9923 1 Posted on 07/15/1999 07:47:36 PDT by Bob Evans (bob0159@pacbell.net) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Provo Herald Gun Control Poll Date: 15 Jul 1999 21:50:00 -0700 ----- ---------- Vote against gun control! The following was forwarded by Utah State Senator Howard Stephenson (R-Draper): The Provo Herald has a poll asking if concealed weapons should be allowed in schools. It's currently running 80-20 in opposition. I wonder if the question had been reworded to ask, "Should the police and those passing an FBI check be prohibited from carrying concealed weapons in schools?", would the results be different? Their address is: http://www.heraldextra.com/dh/fppoll.nsf/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Fwd: Connecticut Police Given Power to Confiscate Weapons! Date: 16 Jul 1999 22:19:00 -0700 ----- Kick a cat in Connecticut and they'll take your guns. ---------- What this article does NOT mention is that the NRA SUPPORTED this new law! Expect to see NRA support for a similar bill in Utah to deal with the "mentally ill" so-called "problem". WALLINGFORD, Connecticut -- Some Connecticut gun enthusiasts are up in arms about a new law signed this week by Gov. John Rowland that gives police the right to seize firearms from the home of a person whom authorities believe may be considering a criminal act. It's considered to be the first law in the nation that allows confiscation of a gun before the owner commits an act of violence. "For them just to come in and blatantly want to take your guns, I believe it's wrong," said one gun owner at the Blue Trail gun range. "The Constitution is being broken apart, piece by piece," said another opponent of the new law. Police would have to show probable cause that the gun owner posed an imminent risk. Among the factors to be considered by the judge issuing the gun seizure warrant: Threats or acts of violence, cruelty to animals, and drug or alcohol abuse. Law passed after shootings at lottery office Connecticut passed the law after the shootings deaths of four people at the state's lottery headquarters last year by one employee whose behavior had worried co-workers. "It gives police the authority when it's clear that someone's become dangerous -- and you know they have guns -- to go in and take the guns before a tragedy takes place," said Rep. Michael Lawler. But challenges are expected on the constitutionality of the law. Some opponents call it the 'turn in your neighbor' law. They fear some people might attempt to use the law to try to resolve petty disputes or to impose their views about guns on their neighbors. Some critics, such as gun lobbyist Bob Crook, say there are already too many gun laws on the books that are not enforced. But he says that in this case, the intent, at least, is on target. "If the law is enforced, and it's enforced adequately, then what we've done is taken a firearm or firearms away from a person who's mentally disturbed and who shouldn't have them to begin with," said Crook. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Utahns head for gun vote Date: 17 Jul 1999 10:08:00 -0700 http://www.desnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,100011391,00.html Deseret News, Friday, July 16, 1999, 12:00 AM MDT Utahns head for a gun vote Coalition keeps vow for a ballot initiative By Lucinda Dillon Deseret News staff writer A growing coalition of educators, religious officials and community leaders have made good on their promise to take the emotional gun issue to voters. Lawmakers and Gov. Mike Leavitt still have not decided if or how they will address the issue of gun control in a special fall session of the Legislature. No matter, says a coalition that includes the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City, Episcopal Diocese, Utahns Against Gun Violence, Utah Hospital Association, Utah Children, Utah Pediatrics Association and the Utah Education Association. On Friday, the coalition -- bolstered by the recent addition to its ranks of higher education's Utah Board of Regents -- finished its first draft of a ballot initiative that would allow guns, including those carried by holders of concealed-weapons permits, to be banned from schools, churches, hospitals and colleges. The initiative is a direct result of the Legislature's "failure to follow the will of the people," said Bill Nash, a member of the coalition and head of Utahns Against Gun Violence. In the past two weeks, Linda Plouzek, legislative vice president for the PTA, has received eight or 10 calls -- from school board officials to individual citizens -- who want to be involved. "They feel like the time is right because of the safety issue," she said. Harden Eyring, executive assistant to Cecelia H. Foxley, commissioner of the Utah System of Higher Education, represents the regents, the coalition's newest participant. Eyring, who is in charge of policies and procedures for the higher education system, attended a coalition meeting Tuesday. At its June 4 meeting, the regents reaffirmed their long-standing, no-guns-on campus position. Higher education administrators started talking with the coalition shortly after. "We reached an agreement that we would join in the effort," he said. Higher education's formal support and involvement adds a formidable wallop to the ballot efforts. Nine public colleges and universities and one private, Brigham Young University, are included in the proposal. "It's a big organization and indeed our sense is that the feelings are quite strong on the campuses -- just as they are in the public at-large -- in support of this initiative." But Elwood Powell, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, says the initiative is driven by a minority of Utahns. "There is a vocal part of the population that believes this is neither necessary nor wanted." And if the initiative includes more than public schools, it will run into trouble, he said. "If they want to sweep in colleges and universities, they're going to have a real fight on that." People feel differently about removing guns from colleges than they do about banning guns in public schools, Powell said, because the students are adults and the environment can be more threatening. Still, support for the coalition has continued to grow. New people attend each meeting of the coalition. A group of women in their 70s who meet monthly to talk about various issues attended. Pediatricians, emergency room officials and victims of gun violence ll have taken part. The broad feedback has been invaluable, she said. The group will work out wording of the initiative in a meeting Monday so the language is simple for voters at the ballot. "I feel good about the direction it's going," Plouzek said. Once the initiative is finalized and submitted, members of the coalition must set about gathering nearly 70,000 signatures that will earn the initiative consideration at the ballot box. "We've got such a broad-based group involved in the process -- we're really expecting a lot of organizations to help," Plouzek said. By state law, the signatures must come from 20 of the state's 29 counties, in order to show broad support for the idea. Plouzek has met with Leavitt, House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, and Senate President Lane Beattie, R-West Bountiful. Efforts by the governor and House Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake City, to change laws have been stymied by the GOP-dominated House, whose members believe a special session on guns is unnecessary. Stephens has suggested an option could be avoiding the petition drive and have the Legislature put the question to Utah voters as a referendum in 2000. The coalition hopes to deliver its draft initiative to Stephens prior to the interim meetings of the Utah Legislature Wednesday, she said. The communication is still open (with lawmakers)," Plouzek said. "Ideally, this could be addressed in the special session, but it doesn't look like that is going to happen." The growing support for the coalition is no surprise to Plouzek. It mirrors state polls that show the vast majority of Utahns want guns out of their schools and churches. "What is surprising to me is that this hasn't been addressed before this," she said. "For our children and for our safety, we have to take a stand." The group has received a couple of letters from writers concerned about the coalition's actions. But the initiative was born in broad public sentiment and in the voices of 146,000 PTA members in Utah. PTA takes its direction from 650 local "units" located throughout the state. Copyright 1999, Deseret News Publishing Corp. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Firearms alert! WEDNESDAY! Date: 19 Jul 1999 17:51:00 -0700 ----- Please attend if you can. ---------- The final meeting of the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice interim committee will be held this WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, at 2 PM. This committee will then make its final recommendations to Gov. Leavitt regarding a special session and/or the "need" for additional gun control. While this should be reason enough to attend the meeting, there's an extra incentive: Prof. John Lott, Jr. of the University of Chicago, author of the landmark study showing that concealed carry reduces violent crime and also of the book _More Guns, Less Crime_ will be testifying at the committee hearing. According to today's Wall Street Journal, "The number of U.S. violent crimes fell 7% to 8.1 million last year from 1997, the Justice Department said. The decline continues a trend that began in 1994 and the violent-crime rate, down 27% since 1993, is now the lowest since it began to be tracked in 1973." While these numbers do not _prove_ that the dramatic increase in concealed carry has led to a decrease in violent crime, they do refute the claims of gun-grabbers that "all those evil guns" are causing an epidemic of crime. (Of course, Prof. Lott's work _does_ show a correlation between concealed carry and a decrease in violent crime!) The agenda for the meeting follows: AGENDA LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERIM COMMITTEE Wednesday, July 21, 1999 - 2:00 p.m. - Room 416 Utah State Capitol 1. Committee Business Approval of minutes of the June 16, 1999 meeting 2. Youth Weapons Violations at School Verne Larsen, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator, State Office of Education Captain Bob Lavin, Granite School District Police Department Chase Rogers, Director of Plans and Security, Davis School District Mike Christensen, Chief, Juvenile Division, Salt Lake District Attorney's Office Ray Wahl, Juvenile Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts 3. Effects of Gun Control on Crime Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., School of Law, University of Chicago 4. Committee Discussion and Recommendations for Report on Gun Violence Committee Members 5. Public Safety Fee Establishment Process John Massey, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Chyleen A. Arbon, Research Analyst, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel Herb Katz, Director of Criminal Investigations And Technical Services, Department of Public Safety 6. Other Items / Adjourn PLEASE CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE! Let them know that you OPPOSE a special session and that you oppose more oppression of law-abiding gun owners! The following list of committee members was provided by USSC. I have not cross-checked it for errors. Members: Joint Law Enforcement Committee (6/99) Michael Waddoups, (R) Dist 6, SL: Co-Chairman (H) 801-967-0225 (W) 801-355-1136 Fax: n/listed E-mail: mwaddoup@le.state.ut.us Blake Chard, (R) Dist 15, Davis Co: Co-Chairman (H) 801-773-7474 FAX: 801-773-0709 E-mail: bchard@le.state.ut.us Paula Julander, (D) Dist 1, SL, Member (H) 801-363-0868 801-929-6019 FAX: n/listed E-mail: pjulande@le.state.ut.us Trisha Beck, (D) Dist 48, SL, Member (H) 801-572-2325 FAX: 801-572-9347 E-mail: tbeck@le.state.ut.us Duane Bourdeaux, (D) Dist 23, SL, Member (H) 801-596-8784 (W) 801-322-4411, or596-9081 FAX: 801-322-4435 E-mail: dbourdea@le.state.ut.us DeMar Bowman, (R), Dist 72, Beaver/Iron, Member (H) 435-586-8174 E-mail: dbowman@le.state.ut.us Perry Buckner, (D) Dist 42, SL, Member (H) 801-964-8215 (W) 801-856-6754 E-mail: pbuckner@le.state.ut.us David Hogue, (R) Dist 52, SL, Member (H) 801-254-1668 (W) 801-253-7586 FAX: 801-253-7586 E-mail: dhogue@le.state.ut.us Susan Koehn, (R) Dist 18, Davis, Member Hm/Office: 801-296-1761 E-mail: skoehn@le.state.ut.us Carl Saunders, (R) Dist 11, Davis/Weber, Member (H) 801-476-1110 (W) 801-476-7070 Mobile: 801-547-5510 E-mail: csaunder@le.state.ut.us Marlon Snow, (R) Dist 58, Utah, Member (H) 801-224-6163 (W) 801-486-7121 or 722-4162 E-mail: gsnow@le.state.ut.us Nora Stephens, (R) Dist 13, Davis, Member (H) 801-825-3792 801-731-5346 FAX: 801-825-3792 E-mail: nstephen@le.state.ut.us THANKS! I hope to see as many of you as possible Wednesday! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #21- 19 July 1999 Date: 20 Jul 1999 10:35:00 -0700 ----- Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. Visit our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! GOUtah! Alert #21- 19 July 1999 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "Under the 'New Cultural Order,' of thinking, common men aren't trusted to exercise what we used to consider common freedoms." -- Charlton Heston, NRA President NRA President's Column, March 1999 If you wish to continue to receive this information under the GOUtah! banner, you need to do nothing. If you wish to be added to or taken off the GOUtah! list, please log onto our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! or send an e-mail to GOUtah3006@aol.com or send a fax to (801) 944-9937 asking to be added to or removed from the GOUtah! list. If you wish to forward or share this copyrighted information with others, you are welcome to do so, on the condition that you pass along the entire document intact and unmodified, and that GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original source of the material, unless otherwise noted. Leavitt's Gun Control Proposals in Trouble, but Your Immediate Action is Needed to Stop Special Session! Remember to Attend Joint Interim Committee Hearings - 2:00PM on Wednesday, 21 July at State Capitol! Professor John Lott Scheduled to Testify on CCW Issues! The Interim Committees of interest on Gun Control issues will be the Education Committee, the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee and the Judiciary Committee. All Interim Committees meet at the Utah State Capitol in Salt Lake City. Please make plans to attend. The Committee room assignments and agendas are posted on the Third Floor bulletin board next to the House of Representatives. This information is also available on the Legislature's website at: www.le.state.ut.us The Utah print and broadcast media is widely reporting information indicating that Gov. Leavitt's gun control proposals are now in trouble, and facing increasing resistance from GOP legislators. Your earlier efforts are having a positive impact. YOU MUST KEEP UP THE PRESSURE TO PREVENT A SPECIAL SESSION. Contact your Utah House and Senate members again today. Ask them to continue to hold firm against any further restrictions of your gun rights. You should make the following points in the gun control proposals before the Utah legislature. 1: A special legislative session is neither needed nor warranted. 2: A Referendum either by citizen petition or by Legislative bill is neither needed nor warranted. The Utah Constitution is specific that the Legislature has responsibility for Utah gun laws, not the Governor, the media, the PTA, the teacher's union, or a religious institution. 3: Establishment of a two-level permit system takes Utah gun owners right back to the abusive DPS/BCI 'proving need' situation we so long endured before earning 'shall issue' CCW legislation in 1995. The life of every Utah citizen has equal value. CCW permit holders are not second class citizens, and we will not be treated as such! 4: Remind Legislators them that it was Governor Leavitt who opened this political can of worms and dumped it in their laps. They should scoop the worms back up and return them to Governor Leavitt and let him deal with it, rather than letting the Legislature take the heat for this unpopular idea. 4: Make it clear to Legislators that you will be watching their votes and their statements on this issue carefully, and you will be very active in party political activities as a delegate and in informing and organizing voters in their districts in the next election. Important Utah Legislative Contacts: Rep. Marty Stephens, 3159 N. Higley Rd, Farr West, UT 84404, (801) 731-5346 Res, (801) 538-1930 Off, (801) 594-8229 Fax. Email: mstephen@le.state.ut.us Sen. Lane Beattie, 319 State Capitol, SLC, UT, 84114, (801) 292-7406 Res, (801) 538-1400 Off, (801) 538-1414 Fax, Email: lbeattie@le.state.ut.us Gov. Mike Leavitt, State Capitol, SLC, UT 84114, (801) 538-1000, Email: gov_leavitt@state.ut.us GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch "It's a Bill of Rights, not Suggestions." -- As seen on a t-shirt being worn by Utah ACLU Staff Attorney Stephen Clark If you have a gun rights quote you'd like to share, please send it, along with a verifiable original source reference to GOUtah! That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #21 - 19 July 1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal! Copyright 1999 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Fwd: A Sheriff Who Sees the Future and Is Taking Action Date: 20 Jul 1999 15:51:38 -0600 >X-Sender: gunmoll@POP3.aros.net (Unverified) >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 >Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:49:01 -0600 >To: (Recipient list suppressed) >From: Gunmoll >Subject: A Sheriff Who Sees the Future and Is Taking Action > >Do we have a few (or even one) good sheriffs in Utah? > >http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5454 > >Gary North's Y2K Links and Forums > >Summary and Comments >(feel free to mail this page) > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Category: Government >Date: 1999-07-19 19:17:45 >Subject: A Sheriff Who Sees the Future and Is Taking Action >Comment: > >There are over 3,000 counties in the United States. Every one of the >sheriffs of these counties should send out a letter like this one. > >It's real. I have verified it. I have decided to remove his name and >his county's name. He might suffer ridicule from reporters who do not >live in counties as safe as this one, but who will wish they did next >January. > >* * * * * * * * * * * > >Dear Concealed Weapons Permit Holder: > >These are troubling times. I personally believe that the potential >exists for some very trying, perhaps even catastrophic events to come >to pass during the next few years. And I strongly suspect that we may >enter into this era of turbulence within the next 6 to 12 months. > >Any number of events could precipitate a series of reactionary social >responses, which would almost certainly lead to times of deep unrest, >hardships, and lawlessness of a magnitude unprecedented in our memory. >I think the Y2K situation is far from being resolved. A stock market >crash or other economic crisis could lead to a social breakdown with >great and grave consequences. One would have to be totally deceived or >deluded not to perceive the depravity and lawlessness present in our >nation today. > >Recently I attended a law enforcement conference, which dealt with >murder and serial killers. A number of detectives and investigators >from major metropolitan areas detailed cases of such an horrendous >nature that the ordinary mind boggles at the evil and malevolence of >the acts committed. One of the instructors said, "If you knew how many >of these psychopaths are among us you would be scared to death." > >I'm sure by now you are wondering why I am telling you all of this. >The fact is the sheriff's office may need your help in a time of >crisis. If that time should come we must be able to rely upon people >who are solid, decent of character, and law-abiding. As a holder of a >permit to carry concealed weapons you have been certified, by virtue >of a background investigation, as morally and psychologically fit to >accept the responsibilities which accrue to the possession of these >permits. If I would have had no faith in your stability, integrity, >and character, I would not have given this permit to you. There are >roughly 400 concealed weapons permit holders in XXX YYY County. And it >occurred to me that our permit holders comprise a great reserve of >trustworthy individuals. > >I don't know if major disruptions or catastrophes will actually occur, >but if they do we will almost certainly experience the collapse of >many state and federal agencies, or an inability of those who staff >these agencies to respond appropriately to the crisis. Most of the >state and federal law-enforcement agencies are ill-equipped by >training or experience to deal with local enforcement exigencies. >Ironically, as you know, the major portion of your tax dollars are >siphoned off to the state and federal branches of government, thereby >depriving local government of the means to provide some really >necessary services. > >The XXX YYY County Sheriff's Office has a force of fifteen sworn peace >officers to uphold the law and provide for the safety of 32,000 >residents, roughly one officer for every 2,133 residents. No matter >how well-equipped, trained, or dedicated these officers are it is >plainly evident that we are simply too few to cope with a complete >breakdown of social order. And this is where you come into the >picture. > >I propose to put together a stand-by force comprised of concealed >weapons permit holders. This would be strictly a volunteer pool of >trustworthy people that I could summon in dire times. I further >propose to issue to those who accept this invitation to volunteer for >this list an identification card denoting the holders status as a >stand by subject to call and deputization should an actual crisis >occur. I urge you to give serious consideration to this call for >volunteers. I have provided, with this letter, a short form of >acceptance of this invitation. If you would be willing, during times >of grave emergency, to work with the active members of the sheriff's >office, please complete this form and return it to this office in care >of my attention. This call for volunteers is restricted to the holders >of valid XXX YYY County concealed weapons permits. > >I would like to close with a personal observation and opinion. Our >nation was founded by mostly Christian men and any authority the >federal government was allowed to possess was to derive solely from >the purposely narrowly drawn tenants of the Constitution. Sadly and >tragically this nation has renounced the Christian principles upon >which it was founded. As a nation we have mocked the Sovereign God who >blessed us, and we have denied Jesus Christ who saved us from eternal >destruction. Be not deceived good friends, God will not be mocked. >Whatever we sow we will reap. If God withholds His presence from this >nation and leaves us to our own devices, we are indeed in deep >trouble. And I do believe that time is at hand. Believe in Jesus and >look to Him alone for leadership and guidance, and He will be with you >even unto the end of the world. > >Sincerely yours, > > >Sheriff > >P.S. A reminder that we all need to take the proper measures to >protect and sustain our families and neighbors should a complete >breakdown of social order come to pass. > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: ALERT! Tomorrow's Gun Debates at Capitol! Date: 21 Jul 1999 11:22:00 -0700 ----- This Wednesday various Interim Committees will be meeting to consider proposals to ban firearms ownership and their lawful use. The three we must be concerned with are the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Judiciary, and Education. The first two are meeting at 2 PM (links to the notice and agenda are below), while Education is meeting at 9 AM in Room 305, according to a source I have. Please note that Education is not posted on the Internet, and has the fewest supporters of the Second Amendment on it. Please plan to attend these meetings, and contact the Committee members tomorrow night to let them know there are already far too many gun control laws, none of which have had any negative effect on criminals. Be advised of the approach they (the gun banners) are now taking. They are seeking to have the ability to have extra-judicial declarations of mental incompetence, after which all of the firearms of a person so declared will be permanently taken under federal law. They advocate "mental health" courts, that I'd be nearly certain are lacking an essential element of justice: a jury. Please don't allow recent favorable newspaper articles to allow you to let your guard down. We must press our attack on these insidious proposals more vigorously than ever. http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1999/interim/html/0721juda.htm http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1999/interim/html/0721lawa.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: the freedom to own a gun Date: 21 Jul 1999 11:22:00 -0700 ----- Orlando Sentinel July 20, 1999 Worry about the freedom to own a gun -- even if you don't Charley Reese The most intense effort to infringe on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms is now under way, led mainly by Democrats. This is a constitutional matter, not a matter of hardware or crime-fighting. All Americans, including those who don't own guns, should be concerned with guarding a right that has been recognized in America for more than two centuries. Some of us might not choose to exercise a right, such as speech or assembly, but nevertheless we should not want that right taken away. So it is with the right to keep and bear arms. No one has to exercise that right, but all should rally to its defense. It, more than any other right, signifies that Americans are a free people and that sovereignty rests with the people, not with the government. If you are not a gun owner, then think of the Second Amendment as a symbol of your status as a free person with unalienable rights, which are a gift of God, not of the government. And right here is a good time to point out that the Constitution does not, I say does not, grant anyone any rights whatsoever. What the Constitution does is simply acknowledge already-existing rights. If you read the first 10 amendments attentively, you can see that the language itself clearly indicates this. Nowhere will you find language such as "the right to . . . is granted." Let's look at the Second Amendment, for example, from a grammatical point of view. The text is as follows: "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." Notice that it does not state that the right of the states to have militias shall not be infringed. This amendment consists of a nominative absolute and a subject and verb. The nominative absolute is the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The subject of the sentence is "right." The verb is "shall be infringed" modified by the adverb, "not." Thus the main sentence states plainly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So what's with the nominative absolute? Does it limit the right to keep and bear arms? Not at all. It merely answers the question, why should the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed. Harper's English Grammar has this to say about nominative absolutes: "The nominative absolute is, as a rule, the equivalent of an adverbial clause . . . ." Adverbs, you may recall from high school, modify verbs, other adverbs or adjectives. They do not modify nouns, which in this case is "right." A modern way of writing might state, "Because a well-trained militia is essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The only modifiers of the noun "right" are the phrases "of the people" (note, please, it refers to people, not state, not militia) and "to keep and bear arms," which tells us which right. At the time these amendments were written and ratified, the militia was the people. And the word "regulate," in 18th-century usage, meant to train or discipline. Today, we generally use the word to mean control. Some might say the Second Amendment is obsolete. Our own century shows us that it is not. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot and Mao all saw to it that people were disarmed prior to commencing their reigns of terror and tyranny. God forbid, but Americans, too, could find themselves some day having to choose between submission or resistance to a tyrant. An unarmed people are never a free people. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: A poll, please pass on Date: 21 Jul 1999 11:22:00 -0700 ----- ---------- An anti-gunners site is offering a poll...Please take it and post this address on all other lists everyone is on.... http://www.intecomp.com/csc/ | Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners | | P.O. Box 14014, Lansing, MI 48901. Membership $15/yr. | | http://www.mcrgo.org/ | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: URGENT! VOTE & LISTEN NOW Date: 22 Jul 1999 11:20:21 -0600 Current results look good. Let's make sure they stay that way. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- To All, KSL radio has a poll: Did the Utah republicans blow it by not calling for a special legislative session to deal with gun issues? http://www.ksl.com/radio/ I wouldn't want to influence your _NO_ vote. VOTE NOW THE ARE REFERING TO THE VOTE EVERY FEW MINUTES ON THE RADIO! KSL is talking about the gun issue until noon. I think the poll only runs till then also. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: July 21 column -- guns bad Date: 22 Jul 1999 23:21:27 -0600 ---------------- Charles Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 21, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz A gunfight on every streetcorner? In response to my July 11 column, pointing out there were no serial killings in Santa Clara, California over the Fourth of July weekend thanks to an armed gun-store employee was able to put a stop to a would-be mass murderer's rampage before it got started, one B.R. wrote in, asserting: "So, if'n we arm everyone, we can have real Viet Cong type snipers and fire fights every Time we get a hankerin. ..." I replied: # # # Greetings, B.R. -- In Switzerland, every head of household -- being a member of the militia -- is expected to keep a machine gun in his home. No one pretends this right and duty has anything to do with fending off bears or Wild Indians ... or even "legitimate sporting use" (a phrase coined by Joseph Goebbels.) Yet firefights are notably rare in that extremely peaceful, modern industrial nation. Before 1912, when there was no "gun control" in this nation and machine guns could be purchased through the mail, foreign visitors found America one of the most peaceful and polite nations on earth -- a condition which six decades of "gun control" and the accompanying Cult of the Omnipotent State are now, finally, beginning to destroy. In Germany and elsewhere in Eastern Europe in the 1920s, most citizens -- notably including the Jews -- tried to prove they were "law-abiding" by turning in their firearms as required by law. Many of them found cause to regret that decision in the years immediately after 1939. In desperation and at incalculable expense, the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto did finally fight a two-month rebellion against their armed oppressors. (Why is it those who say they "want to get rid of all the guns" can only laugh at our silliness when we propose that they start by disarming their own government police? Can it be they don't really mean (start ital)everyone(end ital) would give up their guns, at all -- that they instead mean to duplicate here the government (start ital)monopoly(end ital) on arms which prevailed in Nazi-occupied Europe from 1939 to 1945?) Starting on April 19, 1943 (a date which Janet Reno and Bill Clinton decided to commemorate quite remarkably in 1993), those residents of the Warsaw ghetto launched a hopeless rebellion with only 14 rifles and fewer than 50 pistols. (You can still read all about in Leon Uris' great novel, "Mila 18.") That rebellion nonetheless proved to the world that -- pushed to the limit -- Jews (start ital)could(end ital) fight to defend their children and their culture from utter extinction, and fight with nearly superhuman zeal. It was, in great measure, that demonstration which made thinkable the birth of the sovereign modern nation of Israel, in 1948. (And here we find another nation, by the way -- like peaceful Switzerland -- where no one has to worry any longer about children being shot up by terrorists or madmen in the schools. And why not? Because the Israelis finally wised up and issued their teachers semi-automatic pistols, at which point terrorism in Israeli schools stopped overnight. Oh, sorry, was I not supposed to bother your with any inconvenient facts?) Are you saying you believe the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto had no right to revolt against those who had imposed "gun control" upon them -- and who were starving their children, raping their women, shipping off hundreds of thousands of their neighbors and family members to the extermination camps, and otherwise casually shooting them down in the streets like dogs? That if you had it in your power, you would see to it that they started their revolt with (start ital)fewer(end ital) than 14 rifles and a few dozen pistols? If I had it in my power to go back to that time and place and carry along one thing, I would take them a .30-caliber Browning machine gun, and as many loaded ammo belts as I could carry. Instead, I can only strive to prevent it all from happening again ... here. For what are you willing to dedicate your life? To see this becomes a nation of disarmed slaves, subject to the whim of an armed, para-military police force? If so, then I am glad to discover I have finally found the person for whom I was long ago entrusted with a message. It was you, it turns out, whom Samuel Adams was addressing when he said, at the Philadelphia State House on August 1, 1776: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." You -- the smug, fascist toadie. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. His new book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at $21.95 plus $3 shipping ($6 UPS; $2 shipping each additional copy) through Mountain Media, P.O. Box 271122, Las Vegas, Nev. 89127. The 500-page trade paperback may also be ordered via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html, or at 1-800-244-2224. Credit cards accepted; volume discounts available. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * ------ If you have subscribed to vinsends@ezlink.com and you wish to unsubscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your OLD address, including the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: June 18 column -- summer mreading Date: 22 Jul 1999 23:20:10 -0600 ---------------- Charles Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 18, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Summer reading: Sorry, no elves or unicorns This was the week Democratic heir-apparent Al Gore called for the government registration -- photo ID cards, fingerprinting, the whole nine yards -- of every handgun owner in America. Of course, in a careful minuet, Mr. Gore thus carved out a victim disarmament position slightly more "moderate" than that of his Democratic rival, former New Jersey Sen. and NBA Power Forward Bill Bradley, who surely remembers how to execute the old picket fence. Mr. Bradley calls for the federal registration of every single firearm, historically the last step before confiscation. Presto: Gore the "Moderate." Regular readers will not be distracted by the fancy ball-handling. This has nothing to do with "reducing crime" -- crime rates are now falling everywhere, except among police officers, who are now getting dismissed at record rates for torturing and murdering innocent "civilians." (But we wouldn't want to disarm (start ital)them(end ital), surely?) Rather, the goal here is to divide America into two classes. One class will be our rulers and their armed minions, who will dress in battle gear and carry assault rifles and instruct us in our new duties while being "protected by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States." The second class will be the rest of us -- the tax-paying, disarmed serfs. It was in this context that I sat down to come up with this year's "Summer Reading List," where regular readers will know better than to expect any escapist romps soon to star Harrison Ford in a multiplex near you. (What is with this "Tom Clancy" guy, anyway? Is that actually an individual, or some sort of collective brand name, like "Pillsbury," or "Smith & Wesson"?) If you haven't read it in 35 years, the most important book you can pick up this summer, as we contemplate an America where the armed government goons will soon gather unrestricted power to have their way with us, is Leon Uris' classic novel of the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto, "Mila 18." What abuses, indignities, and outright tortures will a peaceful people endure before they finally take up arms in a desperate struggle against tyranny? (One would be tempted to call it "a hopeless struggle," though in fact the ability of a handful of untrained civilians to hold off battle hardened units of the Wehrmacht for two months in the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 stunned the world, and was in large measure responsible for the fact that an armed and free state of Israel was even judged feasible.) The Bantam paperback edition of "Mila 18" is readily available. Not so easy to find, yet, is the thinner new novel "The Mitzvah," by Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ("Lethal Laws"), and by veteran novelist and Second Amendment advocate L. Neil Smith ("Pallas," "The Probability Broach.") "The Mitzvah" recounts the tale of middle-aged Chicago Catholic priest John Greenwood, who discovers he is actually a Jewish Holocaust orphan, a revelation that forces him to rethink many of his "received" opinions, including the notion that the best solution to an increasingly violent urban America is further victim disarmament. Mind you, in competition for a permanent place in the literary pantheon, "Mila 18" is the heavyweight. But if you're looking for an outreach tool for folks who might find a modest 243 pages more easily digestible, "The Mitzvah" is $10.95 postpaid from JPFO, P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, Wisc. 53027. On the non-fiction front, we would be remiss not to mention that the work of Jim Bovard ("The Fair Trade Fraud") keeps getting better. In his latest hardcover, "Freedom in Chains" ($26.95, St. Martin's Press), Jim seems almost ready to join the radicals, declaring: "The achievements of government will be forever limited by the primary tool of government -- coercion. ... The people are irrevocably labeled as 'free' until the government completely wrecks the economy or slaughters a statistically significant percentage of the population. People have worshipped government too long. ... At this point, marginal reforms should suffice only for those who believe citizens deserve marginal lives -- lives consisting of what politicians choose not to confiscate and bureaucrats deign not to prohibit. To be overgoverned means lives thwarted, hopes dashed, creativity suppressed, potential squandered, character subverted, and dignity destroyed." By George, I think he's got it. Finally, in the video aisle, producer Mike McNulty (the Academy Award-nominated documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement") reports September is now the target date for release of his sequel, "Waco: A New Revelation," which promises further documentation of the purposeful use of government snipers to keep women and children trapped in the burning building on the day of the Branch Davidians' final incineration, while federal agents blocked access to fire engines. (A federal judge in Texas ruled this month those very charges have sufficient credibility to go forward at trial, with sniper Lon Horiuchi -- the killer of Vicky Weaver -- as a named defendant.) Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal, is author of the new book "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement 1993-1998." *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * ------ If you have subscribed to vinsends@ezlink.com and you wish to unsubscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your OLD address, including the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: July 11 column -- nothing happens in Santa Clara Date: 22 Jul 1999 23:19:41 -0600 ---------------- Charles Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 11, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz No serial killings this week in Santa Clara Racist nut Benjamin Nathaniel Smith killed two and wounded nine in a series of drive-by shootings of blacks, Asian-Americans, and Orthodox Jews in Illinois and Indiana before dying in a struggle with police on the Fourth of July. Smith had tried to buy firearms from a federally licensed gun shop in Illinois on June 23, the AP reports, but was turned down when he failed the "background check." Did he lie when filling out the federal form? Of course -- all such forms ask whether the applicant is under a court restraining order. Is lying on that form a federal felony? It is. Did anyone try to detain, locate, arrest, or prosecute this would-be killer in the ensuing 11 days? Of course not. So -- confirming the fact that such "gun control" laws never work (confirming, in fact, that the folks who pass them have no intention of (start ital)trying(end ital) to make them work, counting on their predictable failure to justify further steps to disarm law-abiding folk by making gun ownership even (start ital)more(end ital) expensive, inconvenient, and embarrassing), Smith remained free to buy pistols in .22 and .380 caliber -- not "assault weapons," as some would have it -- illegally, from an unlicensed dealer already under investigation by the BATF. Now, Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's insane crime spree brings predictable calls for more "gun control." What do they propose to do: make it illegal to buy guns illegally? Meantime, no one mentions that again, as in Colin Ferguson's terrible shooting spree on the Long Island Railroad a few years back (in a jurisdiction where none of the victims were allowed to carry arms), and as in the worst American mass shooting in recent memory, in which 23 occupants of the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas were shot down like dogs because state law required them to leave their firearms out in their cars ... none of Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's victims were armed. Such squirrelly characters are cowards at heart. Would someone like Benjamin Nathaniel Smith even have (start ital)attempted(end ital) such a thing if it were known that as many as 30 percent of blacks, Asian-Americans, and Orthodox Jews in the Midwest were now carrying concealed weapons, and had received training in how to use them? No. Yet instead of urging more folks to buy and carry guns and learn how to use them, the "reformers" can only think of ways to create more disarmed victims! "Oh, being armed is no solution," the mincing minions of genocide will surely simper. "The bad guy will only take your gun away and use it on you." OK: Let's take a look at what really happened last week when the intended victim of such a would-be shooter turned out to be armed: Reuters reported on July 6 from Santa Clara, California: "A shoot-out at a California shooting range ended a bizarre hostage drama during which three gun store employees found themselves staring down the barrel of one of their own rented rifles, police said Tuesday. "Sgt. Anton Morec of the Santa Clara Police Department said the aspiring gunman, 21-year-old Richard Gable Stevens ... 'intended to go out in a blaze of glory,' noting Stevens had accumulated more than 100 rounds of ammunition for his rented 9mm semi-automatic weapon. " 'It certainly looks like he intended to take a lot more people out.' "Morec said Stevens arrived at the National Shooting Club Monday evening and rented the rifle for target practice. ... After several minutes on the range, however, Stevens returned to the club's gun store and shot at the ceiling. He then herded three store employees out the door into an alley, saying he intended to kill them. "Unknown to Stevens, one store employee was carrying a .45 caliber handgun concealed beneath his shirt. When Stevens looked away, the employee fired, hitting Stevens several times in the chest and bringing him to the ground." After police arrived, Stevens was taken to a hospital, where he was listed in critical condition. Finding a note from Stevens to his parents, predicting they would be bankrupted by lawsuits from the relatives of his intended "victims," police concluded "The quick action by the gun club employee may have headed off a massacre," Reuters reports. Yet which case made the front pages and the evening news -- the tragedy with the unarmed victims, or the story that proves, not in theory but in real life, the best way to (start ital)stop(end ital) such crimes before they start? Speaking of the 1991 Luby's cafeteria massacre, Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp was there. She had left her firearm in her car, as required by law. She therefore had to watch both her father and mother -- along with 21 others -- butchered before her eyes. Dr. Hupp, who won election to the Texas legislature in 1996 on a "right to self-defense" platform, will speak on the Second Amendment and recent calls for more victim disarmament at the monthly breakfast of the Nevada Republican Liberty Caucus, 7:30 a.m. Monday July 12, at the Country Inn in Green Valley. Tickets are $25; call Chuck Muth to see if any spaces are still open: (702) 454-0350. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. His new book, "Send in the Waco Killers" is available at $21.95 plus $3 shipping through Mountain Media, P.O. Box 271122, Las Vegas, Nev. 89127, or at 1-800-244-2224. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * ------ If you have subscribed to vinsends@ezlink.com and you wish to unsubscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your OLD address, including the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: No Rest for the Righteous Date: 22 Jul 1999 18:48:00 -0700 Jim Dexter provides: ----- To All: With God's help; we've won this round and have stopped the special session. But we have only won a defensive action -- a retreat. With our backs to the wall, we have only slowed the enemy down in their unrelenting attacks on our freedom. The question is: Are we going to pat ourselves on the back now and go back to sleep? Will we sit back again and wait for the enemy to inevitably force us into another corner? WAKE UP!!! Now is the time to go on the offensive, not sit in complacency while the more-persistent liberals are plotting their next strike! Everyone within the reach of this e-mail must DO the following: 1) Thank and reinforce those legislators who stood fast (or at least tried) in the face of Leavitt's and the media's onslaught to rob us of our rights; 2) Find out the locations of the upcoming regional meetings on gun control and absolutely stack them! Post these regional meeting locations and times on e-mail so we can help each other; 3) Build your circles of influence now WHILE WE STILL HAVE TIME! We need to multiply our numbers and add bodies to the fight! Find 5 new people to help you fight this fight. Organize your 5-man team via the e-mail or some other convenient mechanism; 4) Locate and commit a candidate in every state house and senate district of those who are pushing this crap. In addition, think about lining up a third party candidate to at least knock out the really big losers like Patrice Arent, Adolf Buckner, etc. (if you have questions on who other big losers are, let me know). Work with these third party folks to steal the 5-10 percent neccessary to help knock these jerks out!; 5) For you partisan-types, stack your party's caucuses NOW!!! Don't wait until next year to start thinking about this! NOW IS THE TIME! If you don't know how, ask; Patton's guiding philosophy was simple: Always attack; never defend. We have found the gap in Leavitt's armor and must now drive the sword into his heart! Each of us must now attack with everything we personally have -- or watch helplessly as Leavitt and his liberal band of gangsters pat each other on the back this January! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: Fw: The Filibuster Is * On * Date: 23 Jul 1999 17:42:39 -0600 ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- >Senator Smith Throws Down the Gauntlet! > -- Stands up to Trent Lott by forcing filibuster on anti-gun crime >bill > >Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert >8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 >Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 >http://www.gunowners.org > >(Friday, July 23, 1999) -- Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has set >the Senate wheels in motion for a series of votes to stop Senator >Bob Smith's filibuster on the juvenile crime legislation. The first >vote has been set for Monday, July 26. > >So far, Senator Smith (I-NH) has prevented any progress on the >anti-gun crime bill by promising to use the ancient art of >"filibuster." Yesterday, that promise became reality when Smith >objected to a motion by Sen. Lott to move the bill along. > >This is truly a David v. Goliath stand-off. The Senate leadership, >led by the Majority Leader, is trying to roll Senator Smith and >bring his delaying tactics to an end. > >Of course, Senator Lott must first clear at least six parliamentary >"hurdles" that have been erected by Senator Smith. > >The key vote will occur on Wednesday or Thursday when the Senate >will determine whether the Gore/Lautenberg gun control crime bill >(S. 254) will move forward. > >That vote will be on an effort to shut down debate on Sen. Smith's >filibuster-- known in Washington as "invoking cloture" on the >filibuster-- and will decide whether Sen. Lott can substitute the >virulently anti-gun crime bill (S. 254) in lieu of the crime bill >that was passed by the House. > >Eventually, Senator Lott wants to send the crime legislation to a >House-Senate conference committee to iron out the differences >between the two bills. But that can only come after he's cleared >the Smith "hurdles"-- a process that should take several days. Lott >can clear each one of these hurdles with a 60-vote majority in the >Senate. > >If that happens, President Clinton will be one step closer to >signing a crime bill that is replete with gun bans and gun owner >registration. > >But if our side gets 41 votes at any point along the way, then >Senate rules will allow Smith to continue filibustering the bill-- >which could entail his standing on the Senate floor and reading long >passages from a library of pro-gun literature. You may want to tape >this from C-Span and label it "Second Amendment books on tape by >Senator Smith." > >Smith is willing to do that. He is committed to doing whatever it >takes to defend the 2nd Amendment. But he needs 40 other Senators >to stand with him! > >Again, Monday's vote will begin a whole series of votes on this >issue. Each one is slightly different, and GOA will do its best to >keep you informed as to what is coming down the pike. > >Until then, please start asking your Senators to support the Smith >filibuster. > >Senator Smith is without question THE defender of 2nd Amendment >rights in the Senate. Tell your Senator that you would like him or >her to follow Smith's lead on the upcoming series of votes. > >CONTACT INFORMATION: > > * Toll-free at 1-888-449-3511. [Please be patient when calling >this number; sometimes it rings for quite a while. But they will >answer!] > * The regular Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121. > * Fax and e-mail contact info is available at >http://www.gunowners.org/s106th.htm on the GOA webpage. > > >P.S. There has been quite a bit of confusion in the media as to >what is actually transpiring on Monday. Some in the media are >reporting that Monday's vote is about the appointment of Senate >conferees. This is incorrect. Technically speaking, the purpose >for Monday's vote in the Senate is to bring up the House crime bill >(H.R. 1501) for debate. As stated above, Lott eventually wants to >appoint conferees, but that will only happen if he can overcome >every Smith filibuster. > > >************** >Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if >you use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online >store. > >************** >Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to >date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail >Alert Network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the >volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to >goamail@gunowners.org and include the state in which you live, in >either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert >and ask to be removed. > > ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Interim report and ACTION ITEMS 1/2 Date: 23 Jul 1999 22:39:00 -0700 Jim Dexter provides (from whom?): ----- ---------- What you won't read in the newspapers.... (This is an extremely biased report; but at least I admit it!) The most offensive thing about the committee hearings, as always, was the list of people who were on the agenda to "speak officially". With the exception of Prof. John Lott, Jr., every single speaker was an unelected bureaucrat. Each one of these people is supported fully by OUR tax dollars. Each one advocated expanded funding for his or her department (more taxes!), expanded power for the government, and the revocation of the constitutional rights of citizens. Each one stated that s/he "knows best" what "is good for us", and that we are too stupid to manage our own lives, make our own decisions, or rear our own children. While these people were given nearly unlimited time to espouse their socialist agendas, members of the public were given only a minute or two to express their thoughts and opinions. If you find this as offensive as I do, please let your legislators know that you would like them to conduct official business with more respect for the citizens who elect them and pay their salaries! EDUCATION COMMITTEE Speakers: Steve Laing, Superintendent of Public Instruction who espoused the usual party line of giving government control of children and banning guns from schools. Rich West, Center for the School of the Future (USU) who spoke about CSF's successful pilot program for reducing violence and helping "at-risk" students. Interestingly, West repeatedly made the point that coercion is counterproductive and creates resistance, while respect and trust encourage cooperation and promote safe behavior. Unfortunately, neither he, nor the committee members, were able to extrapolate this to conclude that treating law abiding gun owners with respect and trust, instead of threatening them with arrest and revoking their rights, might actually make our schools safer and go a long way toward ending the current hostilities. Why we should treat juvenile delinquents with respect while treating law-abiding adults as criminals is beyond me! Susan Burke, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, who spoke about various programs to deal with violence and "at-risk" youth. Ms. Burke did a responsible job of pointing out that programs need to be evaluated objectively, and that program _design_ needs to be evaluated independently of the success of charismatic program members. While she advocates increased spending (big surprise!), she did have good suggestions for doing so in a more responsible manner. John Watson, Chairman, State Board of Education, who read an amazingly offensive statement calling for a total ban on firearms in schools and on school premises, except, of course, for law enforcement officers. Verne Larsen, State Office of Education who talked a lot and didn't say anything that made any sense, at least to me. He did state that the two words students overwhelmingly use to describe school are "boring" and "sucks". (Could it be that the real problems are public schools and the UEA, and not guns?) Jill Kennedy (?) State Board of Education, who actually testified that if she brought a gun to school she would be dead because the students would murder her to get it! No one explained (nor did anyone ask) why "serious and habitual offenders" are still attending classes at public schools where they endanger other students. Rep. David Jones, who once again presented his proposed legislation calling for a ban on guns in schools, churches, houses of worship, and private residences. Based on a quick reading, this was identical to his previous bills on the subject. Once again he demanded that anyone who has a gun announce it before entering his home, because he's too lazy (or is it cowardly?) to ask. Does he really think that a criminal is going to announce his intent? (Why aren't gun RIGHTS advocates this stubborn and persistent?!) Members of the public were allowed to speak for one minute each, and the majority of speakers opposed both Jones's bill and a ban on concealed firearms (carried by those with permits) on school property. Speakers included Scott Engen (GOUtah!), Bill Clayton (GOUtah!), Terry Trease, Sarah Thompson, Ruth Andrus, and Dave Hansen. (Apologies to anyone I forgot! You were great!) USSC apparently did not know about this meeting, and so was not represented. Jones's legislation was rejected by the committee. Following that, the committee debated a list of 16 proposed "solutions to school violence", debating gun control proposals and other proposals separately. The gun control proposals were defeated. Several other proposals, including sharing records between schools and law enforcement, increasing counseling services, etc. were passed. (I don't yet have an accurate list of which ones were passed. Most of them appeared to be expensive "feel-good" measures intended to show that "the legislature is doing something".) Friends on the committee who particularly deserve your thanks: Rep. Matt Throckmorton, Rep. Bill Wright, Rep. Tammy Rowan, Rep. Nora Stephens. (The vote was straight party line, so all Republican members of the committee deserve credit!) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE The Judiciary Committee considered two proposals, which Gov. Leavitt had requested be considered as one proposed bill. Sen. Terry Spencer refused to allow consideration of a ban on guns in schools because the Education Committee had rejected the proposal just a few hours earlier. The first proposal was to make it easier to commit persons to a mental institution, by removing the criterion that the person pose an immediate danger to himself or others and including such vague criteria as posing a non-immediate danger (at anytime in the future!), will suffer severe and abnormal mental or emotional distress, will experience deterioration in ability to function, and anti-social behavior. (As one committee member pointed out, this would include failure to pay child support in a timely manner! Another example offered by Dr. Meredith Alden of the Department of Mental Health, was a "mentally ill" woman who engaged in prostitution.) Of course commitment to a mental institution (whether or not it was appropriate, and whether or not the person has recovered) results in a lifetime ban on firearms ownership. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Interim report and ACTION ITEMS 2/2 Date: 23 Jul 1999 22:39:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Who's mentally ill? Everyone did their best to ignore this issue. But the written statement from Robin Arnold-Williams, Executive Director of the Department of Human Services reads: "Severe mental disorder" means schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar disorder, delusional disorders, psychotic disorders, and _other mental disorders as defined by the board_. In other words, if DHS _says_ you're mentally ill, you are! Testifying for Gov. Leavitt's proposal were Meredith Alden, Director of the Utah Division of Mental Health, Camille Anthony of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (I think!) and another woman whose name I didn't get. (No printed agenda was available.) The arrogant paternalism (maternalism?) of these women was appalling; they know what's best for everyone. Rights are irrelevant and so is any research that contradicts their agenda. Alden seemed particularly confused, alternately stating that the proposal was intended to "help people" and that violence was a peripheral issue, and stating that the proposal was necessary to "protect the public health" from violent mentally ill people. (Of course hauling someone off to a mental hospital at gunpoint, restraining him and drugging him is an odd approach to "help". And there isn't any evidence that mentally ill people who are not substance abusers are more violent than the general public. Those who testified against this proposal included Ruth Andrus, John Spangler of USSC, and Sarah Thompson. (Again apologies to anyone I forgot!) The committee voted not to change the criteria for involuntary commitment. However they did approve a proposal to allow BCI to access records of involuntary commitments for the purpose of background checks. Although in my opinion this is wrong because there is no provision for due process petitioning for restoration of rights, its hard to argue with the committee's action since this is already existing law, and they were only making it possible for BCI to check for commitments. The next proposal was to expand the criteria for revocation of firearms rights for "attempt to commit a felony" or a "violent misdemeanor". A felony conviction has been the standard for revocation of rights since the founding of this nation, but that's no longer "good enough" in this age of plea-bargaining. The prosecutors say that actually prosecuting violent felons is "too expensive". And actually proving their case is also too difficult and expensive, so they even suggested punishing people based on the _charges filed_, instead of the actual conviction. (Imagine being charged with attempted murder for driving too fast, being convicted of speeding, and having your rights revoked for a speeding ticket because you were _charged_ with a felony!) The violent felony nonsense is just as bad. Examples of "violent felonies" include: criminal mischief, damage to or interruption of a communications device, false alarm, harassment, interference with a public servant, obstructing justice, carrying a concealed weapon (so much for permitless carry!), domestic abuse in the presence of a child (yelling at your spouse if your kids can hear it), cruelty to animals, and improper sales of crystal iodine. The intent of Gov. Leavitt's proposed legislation is clear. Since he can't get away with banning guns outright, he intends to make it impossible for anyone to qualify to own one. So even if you're a law-abiding, responsible citizen, you can be declared mentally ill, or be disqualified based on a trivial offense with a vague definition. And should you manage to qualify, it will be illegal to actually carry the gun anywhere outside of your own locked bathroom. The committee voted to "further study" this issue because the meeting started 1.5 hours late and didn't have time to discuss it fully. There also wasn't time for public comment, but Chairman Spencer did say that he will accept written comments from the public. (Sen. Terry Spencer, 319 State Capitol, SLC 84114-0111 or Fax to 801-538-1414) Friends on the committee who deserve your thanks: David Ure, Glenn Way, David Gladwell, Chair Terry Spencer, and John Swallow. (Rep. Swallow needs to hear from some friendly people who can educate him so he stops embarrassing himself by saying things like "Getting guns out of the hands of the mentally ill will stop gun violence".) LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE I did not attend this meeting which was so packed that people were lined up in the hall outside. Hopefully someone who did will provide us with a more detailed report. From what I heard, Prof. John Lott, Jr. did an excellent job of presenting his research showing that concealed carry laws prevent violent crime, and that concealed carry decreases multiple-victim shootings. We can only hope that our legislators paid attention! Apparently no specific legislation was discussed at this meeting. If you would like additional information on Prof. Lott's research, the gun violence and mental illness issue, or the proposed legislation, please let me know. (Plans are afoot for getting much of this information on the Web soon!) If you have additions, corrections, clarifications, etc. please let me know. I make no claims to being a perfect reporter, and will happily and promptly correct errors. PLEASE REMEMBER TO: 1. Thank friendly legislators. These folks really went out on a limb by openly opposing Gov. Leavitt and they need to know that we appreciate them and will do what we can to help them in the future. Speaker Marty Stephens in particular deserves our thanks. 2. Make sure you call and/or write to Sen. Spencer and other members of the Judiciary Committee and let them know that revocation of rights based on misdemeanor violations is not even remotely acceptable and should be rejected outright. 3. Let the liberal media, all of whom are whining about "evil Republicans who support murdering children", know that legislators did the right thing, and back up your claims with scientific research. 4. Educate your friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. and get them involved. 5. Start planning and organizing now for the next caucuses, elections and general session! Thanks also to GOUtah! for their excellent alerts, testimony, and badges for gun rights supporters and to USSC for hosting Prof. Lott. (I don't know for sure who contacted him and arranged this.) And thanks to each and every one of you who called, wrote, attended, testified, organized, and otherwise worked to protect and defend our freedom. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Clinton and 'martial law' 1/2 Date: 24 Jul 1999 11:44:00 -0700 Clinton and 'martial law' Posse Comitatus Act no check on White House power, attorneys claim By Sarah Foster May 21, 1999 WorldNetDaily President Clinton doesn't need to sign an executive order to start a full-scale gun grab. He doesn't need to declare martial law if he wants to use the armed forces to deal with public unrest. And if he figures a state government isn't doing all it should to enforce some federal law that nobody likes, he can use federal troops to make certain that the law is complied with -- even if the governor and everyone living in the state are adamantly opposed to it. He can do all these things on his own, without seeking advice or approval from Congress. Not even the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which Congress intended as a shield to protect citizens from the military, places any significant limitations on presidential power. That's what Virginia attorneys William Olson and Alan Woll discovered when they looked into the matter for Gun Owners of America, a Washington- based lobbying organization dedicated to defending the Second Amendment. Last December Olson and Woll published an analysis on "Executive Orders and National Emergencies: Presidential Power Grab Nearly Unchecked," which was featured in WorldNetDaily. This earlier work prompted Larry Pratt, president and executive director of GOA, to commission the attorneys to examine a related issue. "I asked them to look at all the executive orders and see if there was a nexus with guns; some kind of hook that would allow the government to get a hook on our trigger guards, so our guns can be pulled from our hands through some power they had delegated to them- selves by executive order," Pratt recalled in a telephone interview. Though unable to find a direct reference that would permit gun confiscation, "What they discovered was worse," said Pratt. "The president doesn't have to sign an executive order. He already has the power to go after our guns." The 35-page Olson-Woll report entitled "Presidential Powers to Use the U.S. Armed Forces to Control Potential Civilian Disturbances," developed naturally from their earlier research, but it is written as though it were a memo to the president, from a "Counsel's Office," in response to a White House request for a legal opinion about how far the president can go in using the military for law enforcement purposes in the event of a Y2K or other crisis: Would a declaration of martial law be necessary to call out the military? What about the Posse Comitatus Act? "This memorandum is fictional but accurately depicts the broad powers assumed and exercised by presidents to utilize U.S. military forces to regulate civilian activity," the authors state in a disclaimer. "We wrote it that way to draw peoples' attention to the issues," Olson explained by telephone. "We hoped that using this format to present the information would make it more real. A lot of what we talk about sounds like history, but it's quite current, and one could imagine the president asking for advice on this very issue." The answers to the hypothetical questions came as a "complete surprise" to Larry Pratt and to the authors themselves. "We had no idea that his powers were so broad," said Olson. "The fact that there are these vast standby statutory powers is shocking. I'm afraid Congress keeps passing the laws that grant this power and never stands back and asks, 'What have we done?' It's time that they start looking and asking." The statutes referred to are found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which deals with the Armed Forces. Through them the president is given authority to intervene with military force in a state's domestic disputes, upon request from the state legislature or governor -- or without it. Some examples cited by Olson and Woll: Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 331: Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or its governor ... use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 332: Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory ... he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 333: The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, if it hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State ... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws ... Olson and Woll discovered that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1863 that the president can unilaterally decide whether an insurrection is in effect and determine how much force is necessary to suppress it. He can "brand as belligerents the inhabitants of any area in general insurrection." Equally shocking, in Olson's view, as the fact that the president can use the military against civilians, is the fact that former presidents have done so on "many occasions" -- none of them declaring martial law. For example, in 1914 President Woodrow Wilson deployed federal troops in Colorado to suppress a labor dispute. Olson-Wolls point out that Wilson ordered the U.S. Army to disarm American citizens -- including state and local officials, sheriffs, the police and the National Guard; to arrest American citizens; to monitor the state judicial process and re-arrest (and hold in military custody) persons released by the state courts; and to deny writs of habeas corpus issued by state courts. Earlier, in South Carolina in 1871, without declaring martial law, President Grant sent troops into nine counties of South Carolina to enforce a proclamation commanding the residents to give up their arms and ammunition. Grant suspended the writ of habeas corpus. More than 600 arrests had been made by the end of 1871. Between 1807 and 1925, federal troops were used more than 100 times to quell domestic disturbances -- sometimes the presence of the troops alone was enough to discourage the participants. "Look at the history," Olson exclaimed. "None of what's happening is new. Could you ever imagine that the President of the United States could order the Army to disarm sheriffs, disarm police, and disarm the National Guard? Isn't that beyond what you'd ever dream? "But it has happened. It's the fact that this has happened that should cause people to take this issue seriously." [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Clinton and 'martial law' 2/2 Date: 24 Jul 1999 11:44:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] But doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act provide restrictions against the use of the military? This is the act that prohibits the Army or Air force from acting as a posse comitatus -- "the population of a county the sheriff may summon to assist him in certain cases." "No one should ever think the Posse Comitatus Act is any check whatsoever on the ability of the federal government to employ military might against civilians," said Olson. "We were surprised at how weak the Posse Comitatus Act is," he continued. "There have been no prosecutions ever, and it doesn't apply to any branch of the armed forces except the Army and the Air Force. It has a huge exception -- that deployment of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus is a crime, 'except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.' "That 'Constitution or Act of Congress' exception is so broad you can drive a truck through," Olson remarked. "The final thing that surprised us was that that the military doesn't need an order from the president to have control over civilians," Olson said. "I had always thought only the president could declare martial law, but apparently not. Apparently any commander can do it, can suspend all civil rights." Larry Pratt considers this last the most egregious of all the Olson-Woll findings. "Military commanders can act on the basis that there is an emergency," said Pratt. "They don't have to wait until martial law is declared. The powers that they have in their hands are tremendous. "People can't expect President Clinton to sit there in front of a camera and say, 'Tonight I have declared martial law,'" Pratt said. "You'll just find out about it when you try and get on the main highway and there's a humvee with a soldier who says, 'Turn back.' And when you ask why, he puts his gun into ready position and says, 'I'm only following orders. Please turn back.' "You can challenge that. You can say they -- the commander or the soldier -- have no constitutional authority for this, and you may be correct. But you will be arguing on the wrong side of a barbed wire fence. They can simply do it. It will not be debated. "It's wonderful," Pratt noted, ironically. "It goes beyond what [White House spokesperson] Paul Begala said about executive orders: You know, 'Stroke of a pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.' Martial law could be initiated by one commander sending an e-mail to a guy at the base to muster his troops. "Stroke of a keyboard, martial law. Kinda cool," Pratt said. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: TO THE POINT: Don't Violate the Rights of the Mentally Ill Date: 23 Jul 1999 23:01:00 -0700 *********************** To the Point *********************** To the Point: A Sutherland Institute Public Policy Perspective July 23, 1999, 99-13 Don't Violate the Rights of the Mentally Ill By Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services (DHS) has proposed several changes to Utah's mental health laws, changes that have been enthusiastically endorsed by Governor Leavitt. These proposals claim to address the problem of "gun violence," but in actuality they would deprive Utahns of their human rights. The DHS proposal would make it easier to commit individuals even if they pose no threat to themselves or others. The criteria suggested by DHS are so vague that it would be possible to commit virtually anyone based on misdemeanor violations, arguments with neighbors, poor hygiene, or an individual's refusal to take psychiatric medications. In effect, people would be committed based on the content of their thoughts, rather than on the basis of behavior that places themselves or others at physical risk. Once a person is committed, he would also be subjected to involuntary medication. In addition, DHS wants to legalize outpatient commitment. This means that innocent people living peacefully in the community could be sentenced to forced medication. Those who don't cooperate would be incarcerated and injected with medications until they "agree" to cooperate. These medication sentences could be imposed for relatively trivial reasons, as previously noted. Because most psychiatric medications cause long-term changes in brain chemistry, stopping them often causes a worsening of symptoms. Thus persons who are subjected to forced medication are usually facing a lifetime of continued medication, even if the commitment is withdrawn. Outpatient commitment would be implemented through Programs for Assertive Community Treatment (P/ACT), the so-called "hospital without walls," which attempts to create hospital-type treatment for those living in the community. While psychiatric medications can be life saving for people who need them and respond well to them, they do not work for all patients. Side effects, ranging from unpleasant to disabling to lethal, are not uncommon. In addition, many people choose not to take these medications for personal or religious reasons, or prefer to try approaches other than medication. Unfortunately, psychiatrists are often unwilling to consider any treatment other than medication, and may be openly hostile to less intrusive measures such as pastoral counseling, alternative medicine, and lifestyle changes. P/ACT makes no allowance for individual, family, or religious choice; medication is mandated. With this in mind, it is understandable that some of the strongest advocates of P/ACT are organizations funded heavily by pharmaceutical companies. Forcing a peaceful person to take medication that may permanently disable him -- even kill him -- should not be acceptable in a free society. No one should be forced to sacrifice his life for the alleged "good of society." While P/ACT would benefit drug companies, it is unlikely to have a positive effect on violent crime. Although recent tragedies have generated a lot of hysteria, the truth is that mentally ill people living in the community are no more violent than their non-mentally ill neighbors are, as shown in a 1998 study by H.J. Steadman (Steadman, H.J., et al, _Archives of General Psychiatry_, May 1998, p. 393-401). Mental health professionals are not able to predict which people will become violent. Substance abuse, a history of violent behavior, and head injuries are all greater risk factors for violence than are schizophrenia or psychosis. Thus, there is no justification for routinely revoking the rights of the mentally ill, the vast majority of whom are non-violent. Ultimately, P/ACT would be expanded to include the entire state, and would have its own "mental health courts" to handle commitments. In addition, law enforcement officers would be trained to identify those who might be mentally ill and to initiate commitments. These proposed special courts, that presumably would use different procedures than those used in all other legal proceedings, are unnecessary. While it would be helpful for law enforcement officers to know more about compassionately interacting with the mentally ill, there is no reason to encourage them to begin practicing medicine. While there are social costs from people with serious mental illnesses who refuse treatment, there are similar costs from people who refuse to take insulin, blood pressure medication, and so on. Yet DHS has not considered creating P/ACT teams to force people to take non-psychiatric medications, nor to incarcerate people who are "non-compliant" with smoking cessation, diet, or exercise programs. The only difference is that the mentally ill are irrationally feared and stigmatized and often unable to fight for their own rights. Providing convenient, comprehensive, in-home care to seriously mentally ill people who choose to accept it is a humane and often cost-effective alternative to confusing and intimidating health care systems, which would make it easier for people to obtain optimal care. But such programs must remain voluntary, and not be used as an excuse to revoke civil rights. Once a precedent is created for incarcerating and drugging people for minor deviations from "normal" thoughts and behavior, how far are we from creating a system such as that used by the former Soviet Union, where people were incarcerated and drugged for politically incorrect beliefs? The DHS plan is another expensive government mandate that would adversely affect all Utahns. It would require Utah's taxpayers to fund a program designed to invade the privacy of their fellow citizens, force them to take powerful drugs against their will, incarcerate those who do not cooperate, and erode the civil rights of everyone. Such flagrant and abusive violations of civil liberties should not be tolerated. ###### Sarah Thompson is a medical doctor and policy specialist who authored this piece for the Sutherland Institute, a Utah public policy research organization. Permission to reprint this article in whole or in part is granted provided credit is given to the author and to the Sutherland Institute. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Gun control logic Date: 25 Jul 1999 14:07:00 -0700 ----- In the Sunday, July 11th edition of the Ogden subStandard Examiner the following ranting letter was printed. "With guns everywhere, the mayhem continues. Last month a 10 year-old in Vernal had half his brains splattered on his living room wall, thanks to a shotgun and another 10-year old kid. This week in Illinois and Indiana, several dozen people, one of them a 15-year-old, were shot at by a wacko who, just a few days earlier, had been an ordinary, decent, law-abiding citizen who happened to own a couple of handguns. Nothing to worry about, right? Several of his victims died, including a young man from Korea. The body count would have been higher, except he apparently wasn't a very good shot. Perhaps he should have taken shooting lessons from the National Rifle Association. Meanwhile, dozens of kids are killed with guns every day in this country, and their deaths don't even make the evening news. The reason they are dying in such numbers is the ready availability of guns, the gruesome efficiency of many of them as killing machines and their ubiquitous nature. Guns are everywhere, especially those that do much of the killing - i.e., handguns and high-powered, rapid-fire assault weapons. Until we start rounding up a lot of guns and really start regulating their distribution, sale and conditions of ownership, nothing is going to change. The whole gun system in America stinks and it is getting worse every day. Hey, hey, NRA, how many kids have you killed today? Hal Elliott, Ogden" AT first I thought there is no way possible to respond to this absurd type of logic but later decided to use a Rush Limbaugh tactic, respond to the absurd with the absurd. The following is my response and was printed in the subStandard Examiner on July 24th. "Strict regulations needed to stop car deaths. The July 11 letter, "With guns everywhere, the mayhem continues," impressed me and I feel the author may be on to something. Perhaps the same logic should be applied to the carnage happening on our highways. With cars everywhere, the carnage continues. Last month a cyclist was seriously injured by a pickup truck driven by an ordinary, law-abiding drunken driver. The cyclist had his life changed forever when it became necessary to amputate his leg. Meanwhile, thousands of men, women and children are being injured, maimed for life or killed every day on our highways. The reason this carnage continues in such numbers is the ready availability of cars, the gruesome efficiency of many of them as killing machines and their ubiquitous nature. Cars are everywhere, especially those that do much of the killing - i.e., SUVs, Cadillacs and Corvettes. Until we start rounding them up and really start regulating their distribution, sale, condition of ownership and discard the Constitution, nothing is going to change. The whole car situation in America stinks and is getting worse every day. Hey, hey, AAA, how many kids have you killed today? Don Kingsley, Syracuse - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Mayors Face Lawsuit by Second Amendment Foundation Date: 25 Jul 1999 14:07:00 -0700 ----- I hope this is one lawsuit that happens! Mark X-Mailing-List: piml@egroups.com X-Url: http://www.egroups.com/list/piml/ Amendment Foundation [Free Republic] Reply-To: snetnews@world.std.com Source: Second Amendment Foundation Published: 7-19-99 Author: A Navy Vet Posted on 07/19/1999 01:39:21 PDT by A Navy Vet Second Amendment Foundation 12500 NE Tenth Place 7 BELLEVUE, WA (December 9, 1998)-The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), a gun owner advocacy and educational organization, notified the US Conference of Mayors in a faxed letter dated Dec. 8 that it plans to sponsor a "damage action" against the cities of Chicago and New Orleans for conspiracy to violate civil rights, abuse of process and undue burden on interstate commerce. The Foundation's letter to J. Thomas Cochran, executive director of the US Conference of Mayors, said that a steering committee of distinguished law professors, who will serve without compensation, has been assembled as a response to the "frivolous suits" which New Orleans and Chicago filed recently against firearms manufacturers, their trade associations and federally licensed firearms dealers. SAF warned the mayors' conference on the eve of its scheduled Dec. 10 meeting in Chicago that the suit which it expected to file in Louisiana early next year will also name any other cities which follow the New Orleans and Chicago lead. Noting that the mayors had invited lawyers involved in the suits against the firearms industry to address the meeting, Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, encouraged the conference to also invite a rebuttal presentation by a member of the 12-member steering committee, Daniel D. Polsby, Kirkland & Ellis professor of law at Northwestern University. "From coast to coast, noted law professors seem to agree with the many newspaper editorials which have suggested that the lawsuits filed by the cities of New Orleans and Chicago against firearms manufacturers and marketers are ill-conceived, ill-advised and totally without merit," said Gottlieb. "Whatever problems the cities may have with the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms, their suits against the gun manufacturers make as much sense as suing the National Weather Bureau for the cost of storm damages," Gottlieb added. Even newspapers and magazines which advocate strict controls over firearms and their purchasers have with unusual consistency questioned the advisability of the kind of suits that have been filed by the cities against the firearms industry. They see these as an attempt to pervert the concept of product liability as an extension of the arguments used in the state attorneys general suits against the tobacco industry. "The nature and status of guns and tobacco are not analogous," said Joseph P. Tartaro, president of SAF. "Firearms have a significant beneficial use in our society beyond recreation, since independent research shows they are used over 2 million times a year to prevent or terminate predatory criminal assaults." "The New Orleans and Chicago lawsuits are not only frivolous they are dangerous because they are an extension of legal and political buccaneering that will rape Americans of the means to self-defense while looting a legal industry." "The Foundation's primary interest is to safeguard the traditional legal rights of law-abiding and peaceable American gun owners," Gottlieb said. "We are not industry advocates. Gun makers and sellers just happen to be the visible targets of the frivolous actions brought by New Orleans and Chicago. If these were standard product liability suits, we wouldn't have more than a passing interest in what the cities are attempting to do." The law professors on the Foundation's steering committee for the lawsuit against the cities besides Prof. Polsby are: Steven Calabresi, professor of law, Northwestern University, Chicago; Robert A. Carter, professor of law and Judge Alexander P. Waugh Sr. scholar, Rutgers University-Newark; Robert J. Cottrol, professor of constitutional law and legal history, George Washington University, Washington, DC; Michael I. Krauss, professor of law, George Mason University, Arlington, VA; Gary S. Lawson, professor of law, Northwestern University, Chicago; Calvin R. Massey, Hastings College of Law, San Francisco; John McGinnis, Cardozo Law School, New York City; Glenn Harlan Reynolds, professor of law, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN; Charles E. Rice, professor of law; Notre Dame University, South Bend, IN; Larry Soderquist, professor of law and director of the Corporate and Securities Law Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN;, and George Strickler, professor, Tulane University Law School, New Orleans, LA. The Second Amendment Foundation is a tax-exempt education, legal action and publishing group founded in 1974 and now has over 600,000 individual citizen supporters nationwide. It previously has funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3792e4391247.htm For subscription info, go to: http://www.egroups.com/list/piml -> Send "subscribe snetnews" to majordomo@world.std.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Same stuff, different time Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:16:00 -0700 http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/071199_reese11_21.htm Same stuff, different time -- past replayed in the here and now Published in The Orlando Sentinel on July 11, 1999. The more you know about the past, the more you realize that there has been a great deal less change than some folks think. Take the year 1925. Guess what: People were proposing to ban handguns to reduce crime. The proposal came from the magazine "The Nation". This magazine is still published. It came during alcohol prohibition. Our current ban-the-devil-firearm proposals are occurring during drug prohibition. Trying to ban alcohol produced the following effects: a product dirt cheap to make became expensive on the black market; huge crime organizations grew wealthy; bribery and corruption became rampant; there grew a general contempt for the law. Perhaps that seems familiar. At any rate, in 1925, H.L. Mencken, one of America's greatest and most libertarian journalists, was writing columns for the "Baltimore Evening Sun". The proposal to ban handguns produced this from Mencken: "The new law that it [the magazine] advocated, indeed, is one of the most absurd specimens of jackass legislation ever heard of, even in this paradise of legislative donkeyism. Its single and sole effect would be to exaggerate enormously all of the evils it proposes to put down. It would not take pistols out of the hands of rogues and fools; it would simply take them out of the hands of honest men." Mencken even pointed out that prohibition agents could not stop liquor coming in by the shipload of bulky cases, and they certainly would not be able to stop something as small as a pistol. "Thus the camel gets in," Mencken said, "and yet the proponents of the new anti-pistol law tell us that they will catch the gnat. Go tell it to the Marines." In our own times, a government unable to keep out drugs by the tons and illegal aliens by the hundreds of thousands will certainly play heck trying to stop firearms should Congress ever be silly enough to ban guns. And Congress may be seized by such an attack of silliness. Outbreaks of legislative silliness seem to be occurring with greater frequency. If Mencken thought his era was a time of legislative donkeyism, he should look down from heaven and see what nonsense consumes our public servants. Mencken stated in his column that he owned two pistols and that his brother had six and that they would certainly sell them on the black market rather than let the government seize them. Indeed while Englishmen and Aussies meekly surrendered most of their guns recently, I doubt seriously that America's 80 million gun owners would do so. I personally would not want the job of going around to confiscate folks' firearms. I grew up in a part of the country where folks would shoot you for a whole lot less than that. But the point is that human nature never changes. There are always people who think you can legislate paradise on Earth. There are always people unwilling to allow others to be free, if what those others want to do with their freedom (drink or snort) doesn't meet the do-gooders' high standards for OPB -- other people's behavior. Man is a fallen, sinful critter, but there is no salvation to be found in a law book or the courthouse. Nor will any paradise ever be created by legislation. Attempts at perfecting society through coercion have produced human-rights disasters on an unprecedented scale. Freedom means living with warts and risks, so to speak. But free people just deal with the warts and risks on an individual basis. They know that you cannot legislate warts and risks out of existence. But people won't change, and maybe that's an argument for knowing nothing about the past. At least then you wouldn't realize how repetitious it all is. [Posted 07/10/1999 11:51 AM EST] Charley Reese Commentary Send Charley Reese e-mail Meet Charley Reese Charley ReeseCommentary Recent columns 7/18:Result of Kosovo conflict: Situation is even worse than before 7/15Whole idea of a free lunch has no place on 21st century menu 7/13:You can catch bad guys without spying on the rest of America 7/11:Same stuff, different time -- past replayed in the here and now 7/8:Politicians should do more than talk about saving children 7/6:Worry about the more humble among us, not the rich elitists 7/4:Precious independence is nibbled around edges all the time 7/1:Revolution brewing: Disregard laws that violate conscience - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Foreign troops here to practice rounding up "dissenters"! Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:16:00 -0700 ----- Foreign Troops and National Guard Preparing for Y2K Grayling, Michigan was the location for a unique training exercise called the Partner Challenge 1999, which took place during the weekend of June 18th and ended Tuesday, June 22. Three states and three European countries were in the middle of peacekeeping games as they trained at Camp Grayling. It couldn't be better, said Col. Joe McDowell of the Michigan National Guard - quoted in the Traverse City Record Eagle, June 19th. To bring people in (from) three states and three different countries and have everything jell perfectly is just amazing. According to the Record Eagle, Soldiers also will take in a land navigation course and will practice taking over and securing an area where they face dissenters and people begging for food and money. After some training, these guys will be very good at their American tactics and they will learn a lot here, Lt. Ervins Gailas, platoon leader of Latvian National Guard said. Franklin Frith - y2kcoming.com, attended the Michigan State Police - Emergency Management Division Y2K Regional Symposium on June 23, 1999 in Grayling, Michigan. Col. Dennis Hull, Emergency Management Coordinator for the Michigan National Guard stated that the armories throughout the State of Michigan have been trained to respond without higher level command. The response that Col. Hull refers to was referred to by Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre in his memo to the various military departments in February 1999. It is also referred to in the Department of Defense Directive .1 - Military Support to Civil Authorities. The documents have been referred to by Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for response to Y2K consequences. Col. Hull also stated that the national guard is prepared to activate state military emergency operations center and joint military operations. We have developed a special national guard response plan for Y2K. Conducting exercises with foreign troops to handle dissenters begging for food and money may be due to the fact that Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre stated that the armed forces and reserves would fulfill their first responsibility of meeting war-fighting abilities before providing military support to civil authorities. Col. Hull stated that the National guard is federally funded, trained by the federal government and all of the equipment is owned by the federal government...The president can federalize the guard and use them however he wants. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has said that the Federal Response Plan operations will be functional through the Y2K conversion period. The Department of Defense Memo dated, February 22, 1999 defines the transition period to be from September 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000. In the event of a major disaster requiring a national response on behalf of FEMA, the U.S. Army would be the executive agent. According to Col. Hull, there is a plan with the department of Army for a Y2K event on a national level. The Army has a plan to use the National Guard. The national guard would be federalized for the Army to use them. In response to problems in Michigan, Col. Hull stated that an Executive order already has been typed up for the State to declare either an emergency or disaster for a fast response. Public act 390 - Michigan Emergency Management Act explains the powers of the governor and the consequences of disobeying his orders. Describing the Guard's view of the Y2K problem, Col. Hull stated We do not know the level of this man-made emergency. Franklin Frith has contacted various individuals with the National Guard and will provide more information in the near future. For more information, contact Franklin D. Frith at (810) 796-2037 or Email him at franklin@y2kcoming.com. Franklin addresses communities at no costs and works on donations only. He has addressed hundreds of local governments, communities and churches regarding the real consequences of Y2K with documented facts. No opinions, rumors or commentary. You can visit his web-site for more information and his speaking schedule. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: The Times' new policy on gun ads Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:16:00 -0700 Coming soon to a noosepaper near you? http://www.qctimes.com/opinion/990717_story2.html [Opinion] The Times' new policy on gun ads By Times editorial staff, QUAD-CITY TIMES -- July 18, 1999 "We don't need more gun laws. What we need is better enforcement of existing gun laws." For years, that has been the mantra of the National Rifle Association and its supporters. And while some might take issue with the first part of that statement, as this newspaper has on several occasions, there does seem to be widespread recognition that police and prosecutors could do a better job of enforcing the laws now on the books. Unfortunately, some of these laws were written in such a way as to make enforcement very difficult. Take, for example, the federal law that requires background checks on the prospective buyers of handguns. As you might expect, this law applies to all licensed gun dealers. The trouble is, the law still allows for the sale of guns by unlicensed individuals -- and those sales are not subject to background checks and waiting periods. Typically, these unregulated sales take place at gun shows or through the classified ads of newspapers. And, naturally, it's the newspaper ads that are of particular concern to the Quad-City Times. Through its editorials, the Times has consistently favored legislation to close the loopholes on the unregulated sale of guns. Now, however, the Times is advancing that same argument in a different way -- by applying this editorial philosophy to its own business practices and refusing any gun-for-sale ads that do not come from licensed dealers. Predictably, this new policy has already sparked complaints. Some people have asked why a newspaper would refuse ads that facilitate the legal exchange of goods that citizens have a right to own. The answer is simple. When Congress passed the Brady Bill in 1993 and it approved the National Instant Criminal Background Check that went into effect last year, it did so with the clear intention of preventing guns from falling into the hands of felons and other unqualified buyers. But because of the loophole for unlicensed dealers -- defined as people who sell guns only "occasionally" -- the intent of these laws is being thwarted. Unqualified buyers, knowing they can no longer purchase a gun through a licensed dealer, need only visit a gun show or scour the classified ads of their local newspaper to find their weapon of choice. The rules of good corporate citizenship dictate that a business should always consider the public welfare when making decisions that have an impact on the general populace. And on this issue, there's no question: The publication of ads from unlicensed dealers undermines the intent of federal legislation by providing an unregulated marketplace for the sale of weapons to felons and other unqualified buyers. Generally speaking, advertisements are both a source of revenue for a newspaper and a conduit of information for its readers. And while the business interests of the Times clearly are not served by turning away revenue and restricting the flow of information from potential advertisers, the Times has an overriding interest in making this community a safer place in which to work, live and raise a family. That's why the Times will now only accept gun-for-sale ads from dealers who are licensed and subject to the provisions of federal law. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Part 1, COLUMBINE & Other Gov't Massacres Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:16:00 -0700 ----- Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.freedom,talk.politics.guns Part 1, COLUMBINE & More Gov't Engineered Massacres Folks, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence in the United States and in Europe indicating that the Columbine Massacre was engineered by black operations specialists within the national intelligence apparatus. It has become apparent that the New World Order has adopted the same tactics and techniques that were used by the Nazi Party to seize power in Weimar Germany of the 1930s. This earlier historical strategy of state terror was termed "the Politics of Tension" by the surviving heirs of Hitler's and Mussolini's intelligence corps in Europe following the surrender of Germany at the end of the Second World War. The story of how and why American intelligence rescued and promoted, instead of destroying, Hitler's Gehlen-led spy network, is one that has been largely ignored by the complicitous mass media for the past half-century. Little wonder that the mass media chooses to withhold this profoundly crucial story from the people, considering that the CIA has maintained supervision and direction of mainstream newspapers, magazines and television networks for decades. These episodic reports are done with a sense of urgency, rather than with prime regard for meticulous organization. So, when you see story lines branching out in diverse directions, and with organization neither by paragraph nor by thought, please understand the urgent need to give you the essence of this tangled and sordid web of evil, because that evil is sweeping over your life and mine. And time becomes more precious as it runs out. How soon and how close to your daughter and my son will come the next Columbine massacre? You can see that I'm going to need your help on this, since this story is much too big for one man to cover alone. So please stay close; research the names, titles, events, places and dates that I'll be throwing out, and then compose your own reports for broadcast to the Internet and whatever other communications media to which we can gain access. Our children are under assault by zombified shooters in their school corridors, and this assault is only the beginning stage of a nationwide assault on Americans' freedom to live, to earn a decent living, and to enjoy a lifetime of contentment. So, work with me, folks. I need your help in order to search out this vital evidence and present it to the media-deluged people, media-deluded people, while they still have the time and openness of mind to recognize that termites have deeply infested the structural members of our beloved home, America, and that our house is about to collapse upon all our heads. ... Intelligence researcher Dave Emory has earned the credit for much of this vital information. The first thing you should do is go to www.spitfirelist.com, peruse the myriad of descriptions of archived radio broadcast tapes that Dave Emory has done over the years as a broadcaster on KFJC-FM radio, out of Foothills College in Los Altos Hills, California. Order some of Dave's extremely valuable and esoteric broadcast tapes, and then do your own research from there. ... The story begins with ODESSA. ODESSA is an acronym for veterans of the Nazi military apparatus. ... When it became apparent that Germany was going to lose the war, many of Hitler's highest officers made a deal with the OSS, the United States Office of Strategic Services, our spy agency, soon to become the Central Intelligence Agency. Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, in particular, was(is) a man whom the OSS felt it needed as desperately as Gehlen needed to save his neck from the Nuremburg executioner, for Gehlen alone had developed an intelligence network capable of dealing with the emerging Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the mortal enemy of the American capitalist system. OSS chief Wild Bill Donovan and future Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles ushered nazi Gehlen and his intelligence staff into the warm, protective wings of America's ultra-secret "Puzzle Palace" (the title of a worthwhile book on the CIA which you might ask your librarian to search out and lend to you). ... In moving more directly toward the Columbine Massacre through this vast field of intelligence information encompassing acres of data and decades of time, let us examine the Stockton Schoolyard Massacre, an event having a body of related facts which cast deep suspicion upon black operations specialists within the national intelligence apparatus. ... In 1989, Patrick Edward Purdy opened fire with an automatic rifle on Asian-American schoolchildren in the schoolyard of the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California. Note the congruence of racial targeting in this case to the racial targeting against the student gunned down by Harris and Klebold at Columbine High School. Note, also, the further congruence of this racial targeting to that aimed against African-Americans in the Fourth of July 1999 drive-by shootings committed by Benjamin Smith, who so conveniently later killed himself; likewise, Harris and Klebold also conveniently killed themselves, leaving no way in this world to reach into their heads and find the MK-ULTRA mind control mechanisms that were likely planted there in a documentable pattern of premeditated state terror -- scientifically-conceived terror with a purpose, that is. Yet again likewise, Patrick Edward Purdy killed himself at the end of his bloody spree. This clear pattern of the crazed shooter who wastes himself at the end of his bloody spree is a pattern that occurs over and over again. A favorite recipe from the CIA's cookbook of how-to-create-a-mind-control-assassin-with-no-aftermess-to-clean-up. Now, here are a number of facts about Purdy gleaned from inconspicuous newspaper articles printed in Stockton-area newspapers. The following information comes from Dave Emory's archive radio broadcast tape M55, titled "The Stockton Schoolyard Shootings". By ordering this and other tapes from Dave Emory's spitfirelist, you will obtain a great deal of information cherished by anyone who would cherish freedom enough to fight for it. Stay Tuned for PART 2 of this series on The Columbine Massacre and Other Government-Engineered Acts of Terror. Please disseminate these reports and your own subsequent reports as widely as you can, because, folks, AMERICA IS UNDER SIEGE, to quote the title of a New World Order videotape expos'e by Linda Thompson. These should be motivating you to help develop and publicize the whole appalling story of how and why the long-conspiring New World Order persists in inflicting terror upon our nation's innocent people. As you would surmise, state terror is designed to inflame the citizenry to cry out for tough government controls, whence the state terrorists will promptly slam-dunk us all into their totalitarian New World Order slave plantation. These ruling elite every day dream and drool about their envisioned world slave plantation. Don't wait until you have to risk your life to stop it, folks. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: The Filibuster Is * On * Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:16:00 -0700 ----- Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 6:37 PM Senator Smith Throws Down the Gauntlet! -- Stands up to Trent Lott by forcing filibuster on anti-gun crime bill Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org (Friday, July 23, 1999) -- Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has set the Senate wheels in motion for a series of votes to stop Senator Bob Smith's filibuster on the juvenile crime legislation. The first vote has been set for Monday, July 26. So far, Senator Smith (I-NH) has prevented any progress on the anti-gun crime bill by promising to use the ancient art of "filibuster." Yesterday, that promise became reality when Smith objected to a motion by Sen. Lott to move the bill along. This is truly a David v. Goliath stand-off. The Senate leadership, led by the Majority Leader, is trying to roll Senator Smith and bring his delaying tactics to an end. Of course, Senator Lott must first clear at least six parliamentary "hurdles" that have been erected by Senator Smith. The key vote will occur on Wednesday or Thursday when the Senate will determine whether the Gore/Lautenberg gun control crime bill (S. 254) will move forward. That vote will be on an effort to shut down debate on Sen. Smith's filibuster-- known in Washington as "invoking cloture" on the filibuster-- and will decide whether Sen. Lott can substitute the virulently anti-gun crime bill (S. 254) in lieu of the crime bill that was passed by the House. Eventually, Senator Lott wants to send the crime legislation to a House-Senate conference committee to iron out the differences between the two bills. But that can only come after he's cleared the Smith "hurdles"-- a process that should take several days. Lott can clear each one of these hurdles with a 60-vote majority in the Senate. If that happens, President Clinton will be one step closer to signing a crime bill that is replete with gun bans and gun owner registration. But if our side gets 41 votes at any point along the way, then Senate rules will allow Smith to continue filibustering the bill-- which could entail his standing on the Senate floor and reading long passages from a library of pro-gun literature. You may want to tape this from C-Span and label it "Second Amendment books on tape by Senator Smith." Smith is willing to do that. He is committed to doing whatever it takes to defend the 2nd Amendment. But he needs 40 other Senators to stand with him! Again, Monday's vote will begin a whole series of votes on this issue. Each one is slightly different, and GOA will do its best to keep you informed as to what is coming down the pike. Until then, please start asking your Senators to support the Smith filibuster. Senator Smith is without question THE defender of 2nd Amendment rights in the Senate. Tell your Senator that you would like him or her to follow Smith's lead on the upcoming series of votes. CONTACT INFORMATION: * Toll-free at 1-888-449-3511. [Please be patient when calling this number; sometimes it rings for quite a while. But they will answer!] * The regular Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121. * Fax and e-mail contact info is available at http://www.gunowners.org/s106th.htm on the GOA webpage. P.S. There has been quite a bit of confusion in the media as to what is actually transpiring on Monday. Some in the media are reporting that Monday's vote is about the appointment of Senate conferees. This is incorrect. Technically speaking, the purpose for Monday's vote in the Senate is to bring up the House crime bill (H.R. 1501) for debate. As stated above, Lott eventually wants to appoint conferees, but that will only happen if he can overcome every Smith filibuster. Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if you use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online store. Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail Alert Network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to goamail@gunowners.org and include the state in which you live, in either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert and ask to be removed. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: How gun show was shut down Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:42:00 -0700 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/19990716_xnjdo_how_gun_sh.shtml [WorldNetDaily] FRIDAY JULY 16 1999 [WND Exclusive ] How gun show was shut down FBI turns off insta-check system, halts business By Jon E. Dougherty =A9 1999 WorldNetDaily.com Despite a turnout of "record numbers" of people at the Crossroads Gun Show in Phoenix, Ariz., not one gun dealer sold a single firearm. That's because earlier in the day on Sunday, July 11, the Federal Bureau of Investigation turned off its instant background database system for, according to a source who spoke with FBI officials, "routine maintenance." As a result, dealers were not able to perform the required background checks on potential customers and, hence, could not sell any guns. "In what seemed like an arbitrary and capricious attack on U.S. commerce, the FBI, without warning, closed gun shows and the firearms business in general," said Alan Korwin, noted gun law expert and an opponent of the FBI's background check system, who attended the Phoenix event. Korwin is the author of "Gun Laws of America," a reference almanac that lists every state and federal law pertaining to firearms in the country. The move sparked widespread anger and resentment from local Phoenix firearm dealers and patrons alike, as well as charges of an anti-gun conspiracy by the federal government. Though Korwin admitted the move was dubious, he told WorldNetDaily there was "absolutely no evidence" that the FBI "maliciously" turned off NICS "for the sole purpose of thwarting national gun sales." However, he said, "Did the FBI know such a move would thwart gun sales? Of course they had to know that because they're not stupid. I'm just saying I don't know if the move was malicious or conspiratorial." The system, which is known as the National Instant (Background) Check System, or NICS, is a result of the Brady Law, which mandated such a system by Nov. 30, 1998. Specifically, it is a computer database located in Clarksburg, W.Va., and is used to "check available records on persons who are disqualified from receiving firearms." Clinton administration advocates have touted the system as a legitimate crime-fighting tool. Critics of the system, however, claim that NICS is a waste of taxpayer money and violates Second Amendment restrictions on the "infringement" of the right to keep and bear -- and purchase -- firearms. At the Phoenix event, Korwin said that although licensed dealers were unable to sell firearms, private transactions between individuals occurred. "And as you know," he added, "there currently is a move to close that so-called loophole in the law as well." President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and a number of Republican lawmakers have recently said they will seek legislation mandating that all firearms transactions -- including those at gun shows -- also be subjected to a NICS check. Korwin said the most frustrating aspect of the July 11 incident was that gun dealers "had no prior knowledge" that the system would be shut down. "That was quite a surprise" to dealers, he said. But he added, "I don't think any attention was paid, that I'm aware of, that this action could put people out of business by stopping commerce. It was government regulation of free enterprise in a way that had never been done." According to the FBI's own "fact sheet" on the NICS system, "In accordance with the Brady Act, the NICS shall allow Federal Firearms Licensees ... to contact the system by telephone or by other electronic means in addition to the telephone, for information, to be supplied immediately." If the gun buyer has no disqualifying criminal record, the transaction is approved and a "NICS transaction number" (NTN) is assigned to the purchase. "If the FBI determines that disqualifying information exists on the prospective purchaser," the rules state, "the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) will be advised that the transfer may not proceed and will be given an NTN to record on the ATF Form 4473 and retain the form for auditing purposes." States can also decide if they want FFLs to contact a state agency for sales approval instead of the federal government. Korwin said that in the event the NICS system is down for any reason, the Brady law "only requires its use if it is up and running." He said gun dealers may sell guns without a background check if the system is down, "but dealers don't do that because they are terrified of reprisals by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" -- the agency primarily responsible for regulating firearms sales. He also said the NICS system "has been temporarily down before, but never for a full day." "I've asked them for information on their down time," he said, "but so far I haven't gotten any." Typically, he said, the system "glitches" from time to time, which does not suggest any duplicity on the part of the FBI. On the other hand, he added, when the system is down it is costly for gun dealers. "There are some 23,000 guns sold daily in this country, so you can imagine the economic impact" of repeated system glitches or prolonged down time, Korwin said. He also said the Arizona show promoter, Bob Templeton, "spoke with the FBI (on the day of the Phoenix show) and Templeton told me the FBI had shut off the NICS system for the day." Templeton could not be reached for comment. Also, an attempt was made by WorldNetDaily to fax a list of questions to the FBI facility in West Virginia, per the agency's request, without success. Korwin questioned the necessity of the NICS system on the whole, and said the weekend shut down illustrates why it is important to prevent the government from overregulating the firearms industry. ------- Jon E. Dougherty is a senior writer and columnist for WorldNetDaily, as well as a morning co-host of Daybreak America. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Gun turn-in in SLC Date: 27 Jul 1999 15:27:13 -0600 I wonder if any effort will be made to make sure a gun isn't stolen and to return it to its rightful owner before it is destroyed or how many murderers will have their evidence destroyed for them, no questions asked? From today's DesNews: S.L. residents get plea: Turn in surplus weapons The Salt Lake Police Department is launching a campaign to get as many guns off the street as possible. Residents are urged to bring unwanted and unused weapons to the Public Safety Building at 315 E. 200 South to turn them in. All weapons will be destroyed to decrease the availability of firearms for unlawful use or accidental injury by mishandling. The police department joins other agencies that in the past have initiated gun relinquishment campaigns in an effort to deter street violence. Guns remain a popular item stolen in burglaries of homes and cars. In many cases, they are later sold or traded on the streets for drugs. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Kids and Guns Date: 28 Jul 1999 00:02:36 -0600 --=====================_35679208==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560452277-cb4 How can this be? Vermont isn't a safe place for raising children - people there carry GUNS! Wouldn't kids be safer someplace like Washington, D.C. with its strict gun control laws? ---------- 10:45 AM ET 07/27/99 Maine Is Best for Raising Children Maine Is Best for Raising Children By CHRIS GOSIER= Associated Press Writer= PORTLAND, Maine (AP) _ Compiling data on factors ranging from immunization to juvenile crime, a national advocacy group concluded that Maine is the best state in which to rear a child. Maine advanced from eighth place last year, when Iowa was No. 1 in the rankings compiled by the Children's Rights Council. Behind Maine were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire. Bringing up the rear, in descending order, were California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana and Washington, D.C. The council, based in Washington, was announcing the rankings today. The report measured rates of abuse and neglect; the rate of immunizations under age 2; the dropout rate; children in poverty; the child death rate; the infant mortality rate; those not receiving natal care; total juvenile crime; the divorce rate; and the teen birth rate. The states were ranked by calculating the average of all 10 factors for each. The report draws on data from public and private sources including the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services, The Annie E. Casey Foundation and state law enforcement agencies. An increase in the high school graduation rate and decreases in the child poverty and teen birth rates helped Maine take the top spot, said Maryellen Dougherty, legislative assistant at the council. The top five slots shifted to New England in part because the council changed its calculation methods to focus more closely on the factors that directly affect children, she said. Data on deaths from drugs and alcohol were dropped because not all affected children, and data on the ones that did were not available. Also, data on single-parent households, unwed births and teen births were found to overlap last year, so the teen birth rate was the only one of the three included this year, she said. ``We felt that that unfairly weighed one area of raising a child,'' she said. Figures on the rates of immunization and prenatal care were included for the first time this year, she said. Maine officials took pride in the No. 1 listing but acknowledged that there's still room for improvement. ``It's nice to be recognized. We're going to pat ourselves on the back a little bit,'' said Dennis Bailey, spokesman for Gov. Angus King. He said King has made child welfare a top priority with programs such as the Children's Cabinet, formed in 1994 to let the heads of five state agencies collaborate on policies affecting parents and children. But he also noted that some areas for improvement aren't shown by the figures, such as those showing a low high-school dropout rate. ``What we don't do well in is the number of graduates going on to college or technical school,'' he said. ---------- --=====================_35679208==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560452277-cb4

How can this be?  Vermont isn't a safe place for raising children -
people there carry GUNS!  Wouldn't kids be safer someplace like Washington, D.C. with its strict gun control laws?



10:45 AM ET 07/27/99

Maine Is Best for Raising Children

 Maine Is Best for Raising Children
 By CHRIS GOSIER=
 Associated Press Writer=
          
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) _ Compiling data on factors ranging from
 immunization to juvenile crime, a national advocacy group
concluded
 that Maine is the best state in which to rear a child.
          
Maine advanced from eighth place last year, when Iowa was No. 1
 in the rankings compiled by the Children's Rights Council.
          
Behind Maine were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New
 Hampshire. Bringing up the rear, in descending order, were
 California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana and Washington,
 D.C.
          
The council, based in Washington, was announcing the rankings
 today.
          
The report measured rates of abuse and neglect; the rate of
 immunizations under age 2; the dropout rate; children in poverty;
 the child death rate; the infant mortality rate; those not
 receiving natal care; total juvenile crime; the divorce rate; and
 the teen birth rate.
          
The states were ranked by calculating the average of all 10
 factors for each. The report draws on data from public and 
private
 sources including the FBI, the Department of Health and Human
 Services, The Annie E. Casey Foundation and state law enforcement
 agencies.
          
An increase in the high school graduation rate and decreases in
 the child poverty and teen birth rates helped Maine take the top
 spot, said Maryellen Dougherty, legislative assistant at the
 council.
          
The top five slots shifted to New England in part because the
 council changed its calculation methods to focus more closely on
 the factors that directly affect children, she said.
          
Data on deaths from drugs and alcohol were dropped because not
 all affected children, and data on the ones that did were not
 available. Also, data on single-parent households, unwed births
and
 teen births were found to overlap last year, so the teen birth
rate
 was the only one of the three included this year, she said.
          
``We felt that that unfairly weighed one area of raising a
 child,'' she said.
          
Figures on the rates of immunization and prenatal care were
 included for the first time this year, she said.
          
Maine officials took pride in the No. 1 listing but acknowledged
 that there's still room for improvement.
          
``It's nice to be recognized. We're going to pat ourselves on
 the back a little bit,'' said Dennis Bailey, spokesman for Gov.
 Angus King.
          
He said King has made child welfare a top priority with programs
 such as the Children's Cabinet, formed in 1994 to let the heads 
of
 five state agencies collaborate on policies affecting parents and
 children.
          
But he also noted that some areas for improvement aren't shown
 by the figures, such as those showing a low high-school dropout
 rate.
          
``What we don't do well in is the number of graduates going on
 to college or technical school,'' he said.
           
          
--=====================_35679208==_.ALT-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Communications with Phyllis Sorensen on Guns. Date: 28 Jul 1999 12:15:00 -0700 ----- This is an interesting exchange. Start at the bottom ---------- To All: Perhaps my recent communications with UEA Pres. Phyllis Sorensen will be helpful to you as you deal with others of this mindset. Maybe I have no tact or discretion, but I think it is time to call the sick bluff of these lunatics and let them begin to feel the heat. Mr. Black >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:09:21 -0600 >To: Phyllis Sorensen >From: "Mr. Black" >Subject: Re: A Concerned Parent Who Can't Understand What You Are Doing. >In-Reply-To: <19990727030808.28316.rocketmail@web205.mail.yahoo.com> >Sorensen, >Agree to disagree? AGREE TO DISAGREE?! Have you ever sent one of your own children to a dangerous school? Have you ever been robbed or otherwise molested? Have you ever personally felt helpless when confronted by violence directed at you or your children?! >I was the second person on the scene of the Murray bank robbery a few weeks ago and spent several minutes trying to keep a "licensed, trained law enforcement officer" from bleeding to death because he couldn't stop 2 punks from filling him full of bullet holes. I held his guts in my hands and watched his face turn white because the ambulance and his back-up weren't getting there fast enough! Where were your precious law enforcement officers to save the day, hmm?! >If this had occured in a school, what would you and your angelic squad of unarmed nurturers have done?! You would have done the same thing the teachers did in Colorado -- run like hell while they gunned down our children! And, like at Columbine, you would probably wait outside singing hymns for 4 hours while listening to the screams of children being butchered. Why? Because the police would probably again be too stupid to let anyone with a gun go into the building and try to rescue them; and also too stupid to trust law-abiding, responsible teachers and adults with firearms to deter crime and protect our children in the first place!!! >I can tell you with 100% certainty that even when police ARE there, they often can't stop violence by themselves (my father was a police officer in this state for several years and I also have law enforcement experience). >But you would leave our children utterly defenseless, and publicly proclaim our public schools a relatively risk-free bloodfest for any whacko out there who wants to go in and start shooting them up. You are worse than an idiot in an ivory tower! You are purposely callous and oblivious to human life and common sense! You are sick and demented! Make absolutely certain I am no longer on your e-mail list(s)! >Mr. Black >At 11:08 PM 7/26/1999 -0400, you wrote: >>Thank you for your comments. We'll have to agree to disagree on the >>concealed weapons in schools issue. I have no problem with licensed, >>trained law enforcement officers being in schools and having these >>weapons, but teachers are there to nurture, teach and create a secure >>and safe environment for children. I apologize that it took me so long >>to return an email. I've been out of town. Thanks again. >>--- "Mr. Black" wrote: >>> Phyllis Sorensen, >>> How can you say that guns have no place in schools? >>> Police can't be >>> everywhere. Do you seriously want potential >>> criminals and mental cases to >>> know that our children are unprotected in this day >>> and age? Would you >>> seriously announce to all the nuts of the world that >>> your own home is >>> completely unprotected? Of course not. >>> You are a school teacher and I know you pride >>> yourself on concerning >>> yourself data and facts, right? Phyllis, you need >>> to get the facts about >>> concealed weapons permit holders (by the way, I am >>> NOT one). The fact is >>> that they have never committed a violent crime in >>> the history of the >>> program, but on the other hand, they have stopped >>> thousands of crimes from >>> being committed in Utah and also in other parts of >>> America. >>> Why can't you see that THE MERE CHANCE that a >>> trained, law-abiding adult >>> with a concealed weapons permit MIGHT be at a school >>> is a SERIOUS DETERRENT >>> TO VIOLENT CRIME. Objective research has proved >>> that this deterrent saves >>> the lives of men, women, and children. How can you >>> ignore the research and >>> turn your back on the facts that can save the lives >>> of our children? >>> If you are willing to put aside the fears and >>> emotions that have been >>> ingrained in you long enough to get the very best >>> facts, I am very willing >>> to share them with you. I believe I have made my >>> point and am not >>> interested in arguing. If you are truly an open and >>> honest person, this >>> will be enough for you to investigate further. I >>> hope, for you even more >>> than this issue (I mean that), that you are humble >>> enough to investigate >>> and -- after you have seen the unassailable facts -- >>> that you are also >>> humble enough to publicly reverse your position on >>> concealed weapon permit >>> holders in our schools. >>> Why is this so important to me? Because if you are >>> successful from banning >>> guns from law abiding citizen-adults in Utah, >>> statistics show that your >>> actions will eventually cause the deaths of >>> children. You will then be >>> personally liable for that inevitable tragedy. >>> Mr. Black >>> Salt Lake City >>=== >>Phyllis Sorensen >>Utah Education Association - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Guns and mental illness Date: 28 Jul 1999 16:05:26 -0600 For those of you who are unfamiliar with Russ Laing's case... Mr. Laing is a firearms enthusiast and collector who lives in Pennsylvania. In April, 1996 he was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital by the local sheriff's department, and his gun collection was seized. The basis for the commitment was that he had failed to show up for work on time, and hadn't called in, and was therefore "suicidal and dangerous". Under Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act, he was barred from ever possessing a firearm again. That multiple psychiatrists testified that Mr. Laing had no evidence of any mental illness, and that the commitment was improper, was irrelevant; the law said that he couldn't own firearms because he had been committed. This is why we need to be fighting both Gov. Leavitt's gun control proposals and his "mental health" proposals. I suspect that Leavitt knows that he won't get very far with outright gun bans, and is trying to do an end run around our rights by simply disqualifying everyone from owning firearms based on dubious claims of "mental illness" or "violent misdemeanors" (most of which aren't even remotely violent). If he succeeds, what happened to Mr. Laing can (and likely will!) happen to each and every one of us. The good news is that Mr. Laing has won his case, the PA law has been amended, and he has regained custody of his firearms collection. His "victory announcement" follows. *************RUSS LAING RESPONSE: Victory Announcement********* July 27, 1999 Chris Stark Director, Gun Owners Alliance In Re: Russell Laing Case (Gun Confiscation Based on Non-Adjudicated Detention for Psychiatric Observation) Dear Chris, Last night I picked up my entire, totally intact gun collection from the local township police station, where it had been held for the past three years while I fought my way through eight different court systems, and three different criminal prosecuting attorneys from the Allegheny County District Attorneys Office here in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. I fought for the return of my property, and the right to keep and bear arms, which had been taken from me under the pretext of an involuntary mental health commitment which I was subjected to in April 1996 by a local township policeman acting without a warrant. The return of my property was the final step in a hard-fought battle waged against the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office, represented by Assistant DA Dan Fitzsimmons. Three years ago my first attempts to obtain justice were rebuffed, as DA Fitzsimmons characterized my gun collection as a "veritable arsenal" and argued that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms did not apply to private citizens. Subsequent appeals to higher courts were denied without ever being heard, based on procedural filing technicalities. An initial attempt to legally challenge the mental health commitment actions by the police was at first rejected by the courts, and then pended for more than a year while deciding whether my petition had been filed on a timely basis. Completely frustrated by a court system that was alternatively hostile or indiffferent to my case, I turned to the grassroots supporters of freedom. Gun Owners Alliance joined the cause by posting several Alerts on the GOA website, which culminated in a flood of e-mails to Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge urging justice for my case; I have received copies of such messages from virtually every state in the union, and some from overseas. What followed was nothing less than miraculous: 1. Pennsylvania amended its Uniform Firearms Act (Act 17 of 1995) with PA Act 70 of 1998, which instantly removed the state provisions barring me from the right to keep and bear arms. (June 1998) 2. I tested the revised law by successfully purchasing firearms and passing PA State Police Instacheck System (July 1998) 3. My previously revoked Liscense to Carry Firearms is reinstated by court order (August 1998) 4. The United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, issues a written ruling on my case in which they declare unconstitutional the Pennsylvania's Firearms law barring gun ownership for individuals who have been subjected to a non-adjudicated detention for psychiatric observation. In their ruling, the BATF states that such laws deny the basic constituional right of due process under the law, a right so fundamental that it pre-dates the formation of this country. (September 1998) 5. The police officer who ordered the siezure and confiscation of my firearms is fired, based upon 21 different charges brought by his supervisor, the Chief of Police. One of these charges is referred to as the "Laing charges" and other allegations include accounts of making false or misleading police reports on other local residents. (early 1999) 6. A lawsuit which I had filed against the police department and the hospital involved in my case is settled in a manner which I found to be very satisfactory. (May 1999) I have no criticism of either the police department or the hospital. I have since spoken directly with the Chief of Police and believe him to be a good and honorable man, as I believe others of his department to be in my interactions with them during the recent return of my property. 7. A court ruling is made that overturns (vacates) the mental health commitment action taken against me, under a statute which states that there was insufficient evidence to support my being detained at all. The same court also orders that my record be expunged, thereby clearing my reputation. (June 1999) 8. In a final dramatic showdown, I renew my original petition for return of my gun collection in the same court where I had started out three years ago, which had then denied my petition. This time, under an avalanche of evidence and testiomony, the anti-gun Assistant DA Fitzsimons is reduced to making a series of snivelling references to my "assault rifles". Judge David Cercone isn't buying any of it, however, and becomes visibly frustrated and angry with DA Fitzsimmon's absurd technical arguments, finally asking him questions like: "What constitutional principle are you basing this on?", and... "What about fairness?". DA Fitzsimmon's closing arguments are hardly more than a barely audible muttered whimper, spoken even as Judge Cercone is reaching over to sign my court order to return my property. I search for a way to thank you, Chris, and the numerous members of Gun Owners Alliance who wrote to Governor Ridge with such power and sincerity. No need anymore to ask Governor Ridge about where Russell Laing's guns are -- they are right here in his lawful possession, along with all of his other constitutional rights. These many freedom-loving patriots brought me the due process that the freedom-robbing anti-gun-hysteria laws of Pennsylvania had denied to me. The weight of the combined voices of free men became so great that even the most untouchable and arrogant gun-grabbers in the District Attorney's Office were shaken right out of their safe little tree of state authority, and believe me they landed on the ground with a resounding thud that was heard all the way from Pittsburgh to Texas! Let's make no mistake, we really clobbered them. And in the end, even though I had a legal means of avoiding it, my case was finally resolved in the very same court system where it had first been initially lost. This time we met the opposition head on, straight up, and with no apologies of any kind. And we won by an overwhelming margin. Please accept my sincere thanks, on behalf of all your members, for their support in my pursuit of justice. May we all be united by our common yearning for freedom. Russ Laing - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: The reason for the Second Amendment 2/2 Date: 29 Jul 1999 11:20:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for human self-control, but this approach won't wash. It is the human moral will that saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons. We should reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause of violence. Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should be banned because "they have no purpose except to kill people." It is people that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to do so, if killing is in their hearts where love of justice should be. This week a 7-year old boy in Chicago apparently used a pair of underwear to commit murder, because he wanted a bike. So let's get down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we moral children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control our will even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the exercise of our natural rights. If we are only children, then all the particularly dangerous toys must be controlled by the government. But this "solution" implies that we can trust government with a monopoly on guns, even though we cannot trust ourselves with them. This is not a "solution" I trust. Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it can only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That's why I don't understand those who say "save us from guns," even while they cling to the coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth except what they "choose" to assign to it. If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of all Americans with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all human beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of moral responsibility and self-restraint -- of assuming responsibility for governing himself. This is the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and indeed of the entire American project of ordered liberty. It is the business of every citizen to preserve justice in his heart, and the material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These things constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain. And to fulfill our duty to be such a people we shall have to return to the humble subjection to the authority of true moral principle that characterized our Founders, and that characterized every generation of Americans, until now. We must regain control of ourselves. Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the assertion that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral order that God has decreed must govern our lives. And just as we have no right to shirk our duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no right to shirk our duty to preserve unto ourselves the material means to discipline our government, if necessary, so that it remains a fit instrument for the self-government of a free people. The preservation of 2nd Amendment rights, for the right reasons, is a moral and public duty of every citizen. The Clinton Administration's flirtations with executive tyranny should remind us that we have a duty to remain capable of disciplining our government if necessary. Bill Clinton's comprehensive avoidance of personal responsibility for his own actions, and our revulsion at the kind of character which that avoidance has produced in him, should be a kind of horrific preview of the kind of people we will all become if we continue to let our government treat us as though we were incapable of moral self-control. And Senator Smith's successful effort to defeat several policies that treat us that way is precisely the kind of principled defense of our liberty -- and of the premises of our liberty -- that make him so worthy to be a representative of a free people. Alan Keyes Web Site is http://www.AlanKeyes.com Send e-mail to Alan Keyes Go to Alan Keyes' Archive Go to WND Exclusives Archive Go to Page One c 1998 Western Journalism Center This page was last built 8/14/98; 12:46:47 AM Site scripted with UserLand Frontier Direct corrections and technical inquiries to matlanta@mindspring.com <> (Forwarded for information purposes only - K. Furrer) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: The reason for the Second Amendment 1/2 Date: 29 Jul 1999 11:20:00 -0700 ------- Friends, First, this interesting fact. Ladies & gentlemen: Those liars at Handgun Control Incorporated never talk about Vermont. That's because Vermont has no restrictions, no limitations and no permits or fees for her law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. If you are so inclined, you simply pack your favorite sidearm under your jacket or other suitable ensemble and go about your daily business. There are no wild-west style shootouts in the streets, in the bars or in the schools, and the folks who live in Vermont seem to be unusually polite, helpful and friendly. Oh, and by the way: Vermont was just named one of the ten best states in which to raise your children. Go figure. Carl F. Worden Also, the Battle Lines are forming in the Senate -- Senator Bob Smith forces colleagues to decide between God or gun control. Though you must tire of these endless alerts to stop more gun control laws, please ask your Senator to support Smith's filibuster of a "substitute" law embodying the language of the Senate anti-gun crime bill (S. 254). Jim Hardin The Freedom Page http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com To receive Freedom Page mail, put "Subscribe" as subject to freedompage@mindspring.com To be removed, put "Remove" as subject. Alabama Committee To Get Us Out of the UN http://themustardseed.home.mindspring.com James, I came across this article today, and even though it is almost a year old, it bears repeating. As long as Americans blame everyone and everything except themselves for their problems, this country will continue to slide ever closer to a dictatorship. Mr. Keyes states that it is the DUTY of every American to keep and bear arms -- not to fight each other with--but to be prepared in case our government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. We cannot defend ourselves against a tyrannical, oppressive government without being armed. Kathy in Idaho fglass@cmc.net http://www.worldnetdaily.com/keyes/980814.comak.html FRIDAY AUGUST 14, 1998 Alan Keyes is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. His WorldNetDaily column appears every Friday. You can hear his radio program over the internet via Real Audio. The reason for the Second Amendment Sen. Bob Smith has succeeded in amending an upcoming appropriations bill to beat back the latest wave of Clinton administration disrespect for two key elements of a free citizenry -- privacy and the right to keep and bear arms. Smith's amendment to the Justice-State-Commerce appropriations bill would foil FBI plans to keep records of private identifying information on law-abiding citizens who buy guns. The amendment also forbids a proposed tax on gun purchases, and authorizes citizens to sue if the FBI doesn't observe these restrictions. Senator Smith is to be praised for keeping his eye on some balls that might have been lost in the smoke of scandal and misinformation that the Clinton Administration seems endlessly to emit. Actually, few things could make the need for vigorous defense of 2nd Amendment rights clearer than the ongoing spectacle of Clinton contempt for the citizens he is supposed to serve. For the 2nd Amendment is really in the Constitution to give men like Bill Clinton something to think about when their ambition gets particularly over-inflated. The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' content. This is not to say that hunting game for the family dinner, or defending against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms, particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the real purpose of the Amendment. The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms. In our time there have been many folks who don't like to be reminded of all this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word "people" in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn't mean in any one of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say that, for some odd reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of putting in "states" they put in "people." And so it refers to a right inherent in the state government. This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of legitimate historical evidence. At one point in Jefferson's letters, for example, he is talking about the militia, and he writes, "militia -- every able-bodied man in the state. ..." The militia was every able-bodied man in the state. It had nothing to do with the state government. The words "well-regulated" had to do with organizing that militia and drilling it in the style of the 19th century, but "militia" itself referred to the able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth -- not to the state government. It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses. But the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to our capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper reason that the defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Update: Showdown On S. 254 Date: 29 Jul 1999 11:20:00 -0700 ----- Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 10:36 AM Battle Lines Forming in the Senate * Senator Bob Smith forces colleagues to decide between God or gun control Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org (Tuesday, July 27, 1999) -- What does one do when outgunned by the other side? Call for Divine help of course. Senator Bob Smith (I-NH), who is fighting a lonely battle in the U.S. Senate, has done just that. It still appears that on this Wednesday, Smith will force a showdown between two different approaches to fighting crime: one that emphasizes the role of the Ten Commandments and prayer (the House crime bill) and one that imposes even more gun control (the Gore-Lautenberg version passed in the Senate). Smith's parliamentary maneuvering resulted in yesterday's expected vote being cancelled-thus leaving the ultimate showdown for later this week. On Wednesday, the Senate will vote on whether to shut down Smith's filibuster of a "substitute" embodying the language of the Senate anti-gun crime bill (S. 254). If Senators Trent Lott (R-MS) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) are successful in overcoming Smith, then they will replace the House crime bill (H.R. 1501) with the anti-gun Senate version. IT IS CRITICAL THAT SENATORS VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE SMITH FILIBUSTER. The Smith filibuster is the ONLY thing keeping the anti-gun S. 254 language from advancing in the legislative process. Senators Lott and Hatch want to take the gun control language in S. 254 and substitute it into the House crime bill. The House bill contains language reaffirming the role of the Ten Commandments and prayer in public schools; prohibiting the release of dangerous criminals solely on the basis of prison conditions; and recognizing the role of media violence, the impact of certain music, and lack of school discipline in tragedies such as the one which occurred at Columbine. The House bill is not a perfect bill, but one can see the interesting dilemma that Senator Smith has put his Senate colleagues in to. As Smith is framing it, Senators must decide between choosing morality (in the House bill) or choosing a Senate bill that contains the Al Gore/Frank Lautenberg gun control provisions-including one that would almost certainly put gun shows out of business (see Talking Point #4 below). As far as Second Amendment rights are concerned, the ultimate yardstick is to STOP S. 254 AND THE "SENATE SUBSTITUTE" THAT EMBODIES IT!!! Thus, the message gun owners can relay to their Senators is that for every crime bill vote that arises in the next couple of weeks, they should always vote against the anti-gun Senate language. HERE'S WHAT TO DO: * Please call both of your Senators toll-free at 1-888-449-3511. You can also call them using the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Ask your Senators to vote in support of the Smith filibuster and to vote AGAINST the S. 254 language at every point along the way. * Please forward this message to as many interested people as you can. * Many of you have already sent numerous faxes and e-mails to your Senators, and we thank you for that. But at this late date, it is imperative that we flood their offices with phone calls. TALKING POINTS (Gun control in the Senate bill, S. 254): 1. Young adult gun ban. This ban, introduced by Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO), could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic "assault weapon." While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a "semiautomatic assault weapon"? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. While a gun manufacturer will pay handsome salaries to attorneys to decipher such convoluted definitions, it will be considerably harder for a parent to determine which of his family firearms are so-called assault weapons, and suspect under this provision. 2. Extending the ban on moderate-capacity magazines. This provision, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), would ban the importation of any magazine that can hold over 10 rounds-no matter when the magazine was manufactured. 3. Hatch-Kohl "Lock-up your safety" requirements. Senators Orrin Hatch (r) and Herb Kohl (D) introduced this amendment which forces gun sellers to include trigger locks with every handgun sold. 4. Banning private sales of firearms at gun shows. This amendment offered by Sen. Lautenberg of New Jersey would ban private sales at gun shows-sales between two PRIVATE individuals-unless the buyer first submits to a background registration check. Under this provision, even displaying a firearm at a gun show, and subsequently transferring that gun to a non-dealer (if it is displayed with a notice that it is for sale), will result in a two-year prison sentence-five years for the second violation. This amendment would also impose a series of restrictions and requirements upon gun show promoters-requirements that would almost certainly put gun shows out of business. For example, this Lautenberg provision allows gun show promoters to be imprisoned for two years for failure to notify EVERY attendee of his legal requirements. Finally, this provision grants BATF open-ended inspection authority to harass vendors at gun shows, and explicitly gives BATF the right to keep a gun owner registration list for up to 90 days. ************** Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if you use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online store. ************** Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail Alert Network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to goamail@gunowners.org and include the state in which you live, in either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert and ask to be removed. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #23 - 29 July 1999 1/2 Date: 30 Jul 1999 18:11:00 -0700 GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. Visit our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! GOUtah! Alert #23 - 29 July 1999 Today's Thoughts on Liberty: "The framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny..." -- Judge Sam R. Cummings U.S. v. Emerson, If you wish to continue to receive this information under the GOUtah! banner, you need to do nothing. If you wish to be added to or taken off the GOUtah! list, please log onto our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! or send an e-mail to GOUtah3006@aol.com or send a fax to (801) 944-9937 asking to be added to or removed from the GOUtah! list. If you wish to forward or share this copyrighted information with others, you are welcome to do so, on the condition that you pass along the entire document intact and unmodified, and that GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original source of the material, unless otherwise noted. Utah Gun Owners Win a Major Battle! The War on Your Gun Rights Continues! Utah's gun owners proudly responded to the call to protect their rights and scored a major political win against Governor Leavitt, the Utah State Senate, House Democrats, educational and religious groups, the media and other anti-gun interests in a hard fought battle to protect the rights of self defense and gun ownership. The conservative and freedom loving members of the Utah House of Representatives, primarily Republicans, stood by your rights and held the line against this frenzied onslaught. When the smoke cleared, Utah's gun laws were left intact, but clearly the war is not won and we still have much to do. On Wednesday, 21 July, members of the House and Senate met at Interim Day to discuss gun control proposals and decide of the need for a Special Legislative Session. In all three committees, proposals from the Governor to impose further restrictions on Utah CCW holders were rejected. Professor John Lott of the University of Chicago carried the day in his testimony before the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee with hard-hitting, in-depth research demonstrating the overwhelmingly-positive social benefits of private firearms ownership and liberalized concealed carry laws. Suggestions for barring purchase of firearms to the mentally ill and to violent misdemeanants were forwarded by the Judiciary Committee, but there is still opportunity to derail these suggestions. There was clearly a lack of support among a majority of House members for the Special Session, and in a closed caucus session, Governor Leavitt was forced to strike his colors on more gun laws for 1999. Legislators instead proposed a series of town meetings around the state where additional public input can be obtained. This is a tremendous opportunity for Utah gun owners to meet face to face with legislators and the media, to continue to spread the message the peaceable gun owners are not the problem, and as such their right should not be infringed. GOUtah! will provide you with the schedule and location of these meetings as soon as it becomes available. GOUtah! will also supply you with facts, figures and other information which will help you make your case in these meetings. Predictably, the Governor, Utah Democrats, the media and other anti-gun interests are having a field day bashing gun rights, gun ownership and concealed carry permit holders, along with those House members voting against the special session. However, the media's own polls are beginning to show a steady erosion of support for the anti-gun side of the debate, and the huge majorities of anti-gun sentiment seen earlier in the year are now within the margin of error for these surveys. We as gun owners will need to aggressively push back against this propaganda barrage with some propaganda of our own. Now is the time to make points for our side in the public opinion arena. Utah gun owners also need to take this time to further organize, build our own coalitions and support networks, improve our lines of cooperation and communication, and begin to make additional inroads into the mainstream political process and within the organization of all major Utah political parties. GOUtah! will have additional information and training available in the near future to help you in these efforts. Utah's gun owners have done very well in this effort! You should be very proud of your success, but also cautious that this early success does not turn into arrogance or complacency. Take a breather, give yourself a pat on the back, sharpen your political and information skills and prepare for the political battles soon to come! There is still much left to do. Here is what you as a GOUtah! activist must do! 1: Contact your Utah House and Senate members again. Thank them for holding firm against the political opportunism and hysteria of the anti-gun political agenda. Ask them to continue to hold firm against any further restrictions of your gun rights. Tell them you'll be involved in and monitoring this issue as the days and weeks progress. You should make the following points about the current gun control proposals: 1: A Referendum either by citizen petition or by Legislative bill is neither needed nor warranted. The Utah Constitution is specific that the Legislature has responsibility of Utah gun laws, not the Governor, the media, the PTA, the teacher's union, or a religious institution. 2: Establishment of a two-level permit system takes Utah gun owners right back to the abusive DPS/BCI 'proving need' situation we so long endured before earning 'shall issue' CCW legislation in 1995. The life of every Utah citizen has equal value. CCW permit holders are not second class citizens, and we will not be treated as such! 3: Any limitation on purchase or possession of a firearm by someone on the grounds of mental illness should only be after a full measure of due legal process, a capable and impartial medical evaluation, court adjudication and the physical confinement or state custody of the patient. 4: No further limitation on purchase or possession of a firearm for anything less than a felony conviction, ever. Promote the concept of ending plea bargain options for all crimes of violence, regardless if any weapon is involved. Reinforce that any loss of gun rights should also result in a loss of voting rights, holding public office, and similar restrictions. Any new restrictions based on past misdemeanor records constitutes an 'ex post facto' law by increasing punishment for a given behavior after the fact, and is unconstitutional. 5: Make it clear to Legislators that you will be watching their votes and their statements on this issue carefully, and you will be very active in party political activities as a delegate and in informing and organizing voters in their districts in the next election. Important Utah Legislative Contacts: Rep. Marty Stephens, 3159 N. Higley Rd, Farr West, UT 84404, (801) 731-5346 Res, (801) 538-1930 Off, (801) 594-8229 Fax. Email: mstephen@le.state.ut.us Sen. Lane Beattie, 319 State Capitol, SLC, UT, 84114, (801) 292-7406 Res, (801) 538-1400 Off, (801) 538-1414 Fax, Email: lbeattie@le.state.ut.us Gov. Mike Leavitt, State Capitol, SLC, UT 84114, (801) 538-1000, Email: gov_leavitt@state.ut.us [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #23 - 29 July 1999 2/2 Date: 30 Jul 1999 18:11:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Senator Lott's Betrayal of Gun Owners Nearly Complete - Majority Leader rolls Sen. Smith and Moves Gun Control Forward From Gun Owners of America, 29 July 1999 "On the juvenile justice bill [S. 254], I could have gone through all kinds of contortions and gyrations to try to block that, but I thought . . . we ought to take it up. . . . I didn't run around out here trying to block [the anti-gun amendments]. Some of my colleagues said I should have done that."--Majority Leader Trent Lott on his role in pushing the anti-gun crime bill, July 26, 1999 (Thursday, July 29, 1999) -- It's official. Majority Leader Trent Lott has finally succeeded in breaking Senator Bob Smith's stranglehold on the anti-gun crime bill and has sent the bill forward to its next destination in the legislative process. The Senate voted 77-22 yesterday to break Senator Bob Smith's filibuster and then moved to send the legislation to a conference committee that will iron out the differences between the House and Senate crime bills. The Senate rules would have allowed Smith (I-NH) to continue filibustering the gun bill if he could garner 41 Senators to support him. Smith fell 19 votes short of stopping the Gore-Lautenberg gun control bill. Ironically, Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle (SD) praised Senator Lott for his leadership on this legislation. "I will say I support the effort made by the majority leader to move this bill to conference and the method he has employed to do so," Daschle said. "We have had a very good debate on this bill. [Democrats] have had an opportunity to offer amendments. I cite S. 254 as the model I wish we would follow on all bills." Indeed, Senator Lott has been instrumental in moving this gun control legislation at every point along the way. Consider that the Majority Leader: * Scheduled a vote on a crime bill during the midst of the hysteria following the Columbine shooting in May; * Voted for several of the anti-gun provisions when they were offered as amendments to the bill; * Voted for final passage of the anti-gun S. 254 on May 20; * Jump-started the whole gun control debate again this month by taking the anti-gun Senate language (S. 254) and substituting it in place of the relatively innocuous House crime bill (H.R. 1501); * Dusted off his arsenal of parliamentary tricks to prevent Senator Smith from offering constructive amendments to the crime bill during yesterday's vote; * Voted against the Smith filibuster yesterday; and finally, * Allowed the Senate to send notoriously anti-gun Senators like Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy to conduct negotiations in the conference committee, while specifically excluding Senator Bob Smith, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee. While Senator Smith promised yesterday to filibuster the bill once it clears the conference committee, Senate rules will greatly restrict his parliamentary options for delaying the bill. [The Senate conferees are Hatch (R-UT), Kennedy (MA), Leahy (VT), Sessions (AL), and Thurmond (R-SC).] At this point, no one knows how long the crime legislation will remain in the conference committee. It is possible that it will remain there until after the August recess. Eventually, both Congressional houses will have to vote on an identical bill before they can send it to the President. Gun owners will stand the best chance at defeating this legislation in the House, seeing as how they succeeded in getting that body to defeat similar legislation (H.R. 2122) in May. Please stay tuned for further updates. Both Utah Senators Bennett and Hatch voted in favor of ending the Smith filibuster and against your interests as a gun owner. Call Senator Hatch to share your feelings about his betrayal vote at: Senator Orrin Hatch DC Office Phone: 202-224-5251 DC Office Fax: 202-224-6331 DC Judiciary Com. Phone: 202-224-5225 DC Judiciary Com. Fax: 202-224-9102 Toll-free phone: 1-888-449-3511 SLC Office Phone: (801) 524-4380 SLC Office Fax: (801) 524-4379 E-mail: senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov DC Address: Sen. Orrin Hatch, SR-131 Russell SOB, Washington, DC 20510-4402 SLC: Sen. Orrin Hatch, Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84138 GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch "In a free society, making sure that the people control the government is a higher value than making sure the government controls the people" -- David Kopel, The Independence Institute If you have a gun rights quote you'd like to share, please send it, along with a verifiable original source reference to GOUtah! This concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #23- 29 July 1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal! Copyright 1999 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah on SLC Gun Turn-In Date: 31 Jul 1999 11:36:00 -0700 GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. Information Release to All Media- 29 July 1999 GOUtah! Suggests Informed Decisions and Economic Alternatives to the Latest Salt Lake City Gun Turn-In and Destruction Program As a broad-based network of responsible firearms owners in Utah, we are concerned that the upcoming Gun Turn-In and Destruction Program to be conducted by Salt Lake City from 3-13 August 1999 may not be in the best interests of either the individual firearm owner or the public at large. First, the firearms to be turned in will likely come from otherwise peaceable citizens, who pose no threat to the safety or security of the community. GOUtah! suggests that before anyone gives up their firearm without any compensation to the government for destruction, they first take it to a licensed firearms dealer for an appraisal of its current value. Many firearms, even those which are old, have been well used or even inoperable may still have a substantial dollar value to collectors, hunters, target shooters and other legitimate users of firearms. The licensed dealer will be able to give you a value of the firearm, and may even offer to purchase it from you or place it on consignment sale in their place of business. Licensed gun dealers city-wide are listed in the yellow pages of the telephone directory under "Guns." Another legitimate concern is the "No Questions" approach to this gun turn-in program. This may have the effect of allowing a significant piece of evidence to be destroyed without any attempt to identify or apprehend the criminal. Also, under Utah law 76-10-525, all law enforcement agencies in the state are required to determine the true owner of any recovered weapon and promptly return it to them. There is no indication as yet that the Salt Lake City program will obey this law, and thus many innocent individuals who have had their firearms stolen would then also have their property destroyed without compensation by the government, all in order to make a dubious political or social statement. -end- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Filibuster Broken; Gun Control Advances Date: 31 Jul 1999 11:36:00 -0700 Please note that by voting to end the filibuster, Senators Hatch and Bennett are in violation of the resolution passed by the Republican State Convention. Once again, they're in bed with Kennedy, Feinstein and Lautenberg! Senator Lott's Betrayal of Gun Owners Nearly Complete -- Majority Leader rolls Sen. Smith and moves gun control forward Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org "On the juvenile justice bill [S. 254], I could have gone through all kinds of contortions and gyrations to try to block that, but I thought . . . we ought to take it up. . . . I didn't run around out here trying to block [the anti-gun amendments]. Some of my colleagues said I should have done that." --Majority Leader Trent Lott on his role in pushing the anti-gun crime bill, July 26, 1999 (Thursday, July 29, 1999) -- It's official. Majority Leader Trent Lott has finally succeeded in breaking Senator Bob Smith's stranglehold on the anti-gun crime bill and has sent the bill forward to its next destination in the legislative process. The Senate voted 77-22 yesterday to break Senator Bob Smith's filibuster and then moved to send the legislation to a conference committee that will iron out the differences between the House and Senate crime bills. The Senate rules would have allowed Smith (I-NH) to continue filibus- tering the gun bill if he could garner 41 Senators to support him. Smith fell 19 votes short of stopping the Gore-Lautenberg gun control bill. Ironically, Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle (SD) praised Senator Lott for his leadership on this legislation. "I will say I support the effort made by the majority leader to move this bill to conference and the method he has employed to do so," Daschle said. "We have had a very good debate on this bill. [Democrats] have had an opportunity to offer amendments. I cite S. 254 as the model I wish we would follow on all bills." Indeed, Senator Lott has been instrumental in moving this gun control legislation at every point along the way. Consider that the Majority Leader: * Scheduled a vote on a crime bill during the midst of the hysteria following the Columbine shooting in May; * Voted for several of the anti-gun provisions when they were offered as amendments to the bill; * Voted for final passage of the anti-gun S. 254 on May 20; * Jump-started the whole gun control debate again this month by taking the anti-gun Senate language (S. 254) and substituting it in place of the relatively innocuous House crime bill (H.R. 1501); * Dusted off his arsenal of parliamentary tricks to prevent Senator Smith from offering constructive amendments to the crime bill during yesterday's vote; * Voted against the Smith filibuster yesterday; and finally, * Allowed the Senate to send notoriously anti-gun Senators like Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy to conduct negotiations in the conference committee, while specifically excluding Senator Bob Smith, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee. While Senator Smith promised yesterday to filibuster the bill once it clears the conference committee, Senate rules will greatly restrict his parliamentary options for delaying the bill. [The Senate conferees are Hatch (R-UT), Kennedy (MA), Leahy (VT), Sessions (AL), and Thurmond (R-SC).] At this point, no one knows how long the crime legislation will remain in the conference committee. It is possible that it will remain there until after the August recess. Eventually, both Congressional houses will have to vote on an identical bill before they can send it to the President. Gun owners will stand the best chance at defeating this legislation in the House, seeing as how they succeeded in getting that body to defeat similar legislation (H.R. 2122) in May. Please stay tuned for further updates. Senator Smith Responds To Senators After Yesterday's Vote On Missing The Real Problem In Society. "What happened at Littleton was a terrible tragedy. People used this on the Senate floor and mounted an unprecedented assault on the second amendment rights of law-abiding American gun owners. Not one law-abiding American citizen had anything to do with Columbine, not one. . . . They cast the blame, though, on the law-abiding gun owner . . . . The problem is guns, they said, not the culture. It is interesting that we take prayer and values out of the schools. What comes in? Violence, drugs, condoms. Hello, America, wake up." --Congressional Record, July 28, 1999 On Trampling The Constitution. "[The Second Amendment] is pretty clear: '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.' Tell me where there is anything in that amendment that allows us to do this under the Constitution of the United States of America? I stood right there where the pages are sitting and took the oath twice when I came to the Senate to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that is what I am doing now, and that is what I will continue to do. "There is nothing in those words about background checks. There is nothing in there about the people having a right to keep and bear certain kinds of arms. There is nothing in there that says handguns can be kept or not kept where shotguns can. Nothing. I sure do not see anything in there that gives Congress any leeway whatsoever to infringe second amendment rights whenever some group of anti-gun zealots think what they like to call the 'public interest' requires it. The public interest is to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. That is what the public interest is and nothing else. You trample on the Constitution; you trample on the public interest." --Congressional Record, July 28, 1999 On His Intent To Continue Filibustering The Anti-gun Crime Bill. "I am proud to stand up for the second amendment in the Chamber of the Senate, and I will stand up here again and again, year after year, month after month, whatever it takes to make this case because I know I am right, and I am going to continue to do it. When this bill [S. 254] comes out of conference, I am going to filibuster it again for as long as I can. I am going to do everything I can to kill it, whatever I can do. I am only one person." --Cong. Record, July 28, 1999 -