From: Charles C Hardy Subject: No CCW storage at federal couthouse Date: 03 Sep 2002 14:50:43 -0600 Hello all, For a while, I've heard off and on that while our own State courts refuse to obey the clear intent of the law and provide storage for legally carried CCW weapons, the federal courthouse does provide storage. Today, I called the court clerk to check for sure. She thought there might be someplace to secure a personal defense weapon as the Federal Marshall service inside the court apparantly has "some little lock boxes." She gave me the number to the Marshalls and I called to check. The lady there was very pleasant and put me on hold to double check. Her answer after coming back to the line was, "No, I'm sorry, there is no place to store a firearm and you won't be allowed to bring it into the buidling." If anyone has any PERSONAL experience contrary to this information (IE, they really will store your weapon if you show up and ask them to.) please let me know. Otherwise, I'll have to now believe that no courts in this State are offering weapons storage for non-LEOs. Thanks. Charles ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: WITH APOLOGIES TO DICKENS (A TALE OF TWO CITIES) Date: 07 Sep 2002 09:38:51 -0600 Gun Owners Alliance Alert WITH APOLOGIES TO DICKENS (A TALE OF TWO CITIES) GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE !!ALERT!! Chris W. Stark - Director P.O. Box 419 Woodland Park, CO 80866-0419 Ph. 1-719-687-8747 http://www.GunOwnersAlliance.com/ mailto:Director@GunOwnersAlliance.com 06 August 2002 WITH APOLOGIES TO DICKENS (A TALE OF TWO CITIES) Copyright © 2002 by Gun Owners Alliance. Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original state. Another good look at the life of Texas Representative Suzanna Hupp. You can also hear Suzanna Hupp's testimony with the help of RealAudio at: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-7.htm ...or go to... http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm This year, we won't have to do anything for Suzanna Hupp's re-election campaign in Texas. For the first time, she doesn't have an opponent. They finally gave up fighting her re-election bid. With Respect, Gun Owners Alliance Chris W. Stark - Director *************************** With Apologies to Dickens (A Tale of Two Cities) Copyright by MAGGI BAUER mailto:maggibauer3@juno.com The hyperattention being given to females (we have to assume only moms, as opposed to singles, are parading in various locations this day) to aid those who are bent on eliminating the 2nd Amendment birth right of ALL Americans, which includes men by the way, centers on two states, New York, and Texas. It centers also, on two women. In 1991, in Texas, a deranged man (note I said deranged) shot and killed among others, the parents of a young woman named Suzanna Hupp. In 1993, in New York, a deranged man boarded a train on Long Island, and shot and killed among others, the husband of Carolyn McCarthy. Each of these women became outraged, and rightly so, following these incidents. One, the young woman from Texas, had the means to defend not only herself, and her parents as well. Unfortunately, she couldn't, because she followed then current Texas State law, and her means of defense was in her car, not in her purse. The other woman's husband (she was nowhere around) had no means whereby to defend himself, although New York has had since about 1938, I'll stand corrected if wrong, 63 different gun violation laws under what is called the Sullivan Act. SIXTY-THREE LAWS. Mr. McCarthy could have had a means of defense. He chose not to, which was HIS right. Each of these two woman took a course of action which led them to where they stand, today. I fully appreciate what each of these women must have gone through in the days and weeks that followed these incidents. And yet I must and indeed have to say that each has profited. But in two very different ways, and for two very different reasons. Thus, a Tale of Two States, a Tale of Two Women. The one, Suzanna Hupp, because she was prohibited, by law, from having with her the means, a handgun, and by her own admission, the capability of using that .38 S&W, was denied her parents future time with her. She has always been angry at a state and government that denied her the probability that she could have defended herself and her parents. She went on to elected to the Texas Legislature using her parents untimely deaths as her "cause", and to become a champion for all the other women, and men, in Texas, that should the day come, they too, might well have to do what she was denied. Ultimately, Texas has a right to carry concealed law. And Suzanna has, this day, spoken on behalf of women and men everywhere that under that 2nd Amendment, they too, should have the same right. Suzanna fully understand what "shall NOT be infringed" means. Now, we have the other woman, the one from New York, Carolyn McCarthy. She, too, used her husband's death, to profit. She ran for office and was elected to the House of Representatives, using her husband's death as her springboard. She, however, has used her office to at very turn support the "infringement" of every part of that 2nd Amendment. She is determined under the tutelage of Bill Clinton and egged on by Chuck Schumer (N.Y. Sen.) to force the national registration and fingerprinting of every American whose rights under that Amendment "shall not be infringed", and force registration and fingerprinting, make no mistake about this, is a deliberate infringement. You know that OXFORD book (the one from Clinton's college, would that he'd read it ) to which I refer frequently? The one for 49.95? Well, it has a rather good comment on infringement. It says INFRINGEMENT: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege. The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It is a birthright. Carolyn McCarthy is encroaching. She's also trespassing. So are all the Clintons, Schumers, and Feinsteins and all the rest who deem ad nauseum, that Americans will be, shall be infringed upon, and they're gonna do their utmost to see that fully law-abiding Americans are. They call forced background checks, registration and fingerprinting a minor inconvenience. I call it an encroachment and trespass. Suzanna Hupp is doing her utmost to see that law-abiding Americans are not encroached or trespassed upon. Of the two women, which one is standing with the principals of that birthright? Our Bill of Rights? # # # # Maggi Bauer is a retired Member of the New Hampshire General Court, House of Representatives, elected in 1969, serving until end of term in 1974, from District 5, Carroll County. A staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment in her former position as an elected official, today, she continues her struggle to fight the victim disarmament crowd, and win back our 2nd amendment rights. Maggi Bauer may be contacted at mailto:maggibauer3@juno.com or you can join her in our gun rights discussion list. Read more about the discussion list at: http://www.GunOwnersAlliance.com/Email.htm Scroll down to the bottom of the above URL, to read about the discussion list, or, to Join, send an e-mail to: GunOwnersAlliance-subscribe@yahoogroups.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Help Support the work of Gun Owners Alliance! Suggested contributions? As an opener, the price of a box of ammo ($15-$20). Contribute at: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Join.htm +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Copyright © 2002 by Gun Owners Alliance. Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original state. The views herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual or organization, than Gun Owners Alliance. For more information, go to: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/sig.htm +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ONLY THE E-MAIL ADDRESS USED TO SEND US A SUBSCRIBE REQUEST, CAN BE SUBSCRIBED. WE DO NOT SHARE, LEND, OR SELL OUR E-MAIL LIST FOR ANY REASON. YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS REMAINS CONFIDENTIAL WITH US FOREVER. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: mailto:gunownersalliance-SUBSCRIBE@listserv.gunownersalliance.com No subject line or message necessary. http://www.gunownersalliance.com/GunOwnersAlliance.asc - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Gun control as class warfare Date: 09 Sep 2002 09:59:57 -0600 Gun control as class warfare ---------- Totse by Rosemary Fury A left-anarchist critique of gun control, which points out how guns benefit women, especially in domestic abuse situations. A rare defense of gun ownership from the left. (09/08/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/17650813.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Gun Control - Simple Solutions for Simple Minds Date: 09 Sep 2002 13:58:59 -0600 http://www.federalobserver.com/print.php?aid=3856 Gun Control - Simple Solutions for Simple Minds Ten Good Reasons To Ban Guns - a satire by Bruce Gold 1.) Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year. However, this makes the attempted crime a "non-event", which necessarily complicates the Police investigation. Without civilian ownership of guns, these Police investigations would not have been compromised. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police, who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion. 2.) Some .004% (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime each year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned. 3.) Guns are unnecessary. In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you clearly don't need a gun. This proves that the guns are unnecessary. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses. 4.) Guns cause criminal migration. In tough gun-law Washington, D.C., violent crime rates are very high. This high crime rate is caused by the migration of criminals from gun havens like Virginia. This migration is caused by the criminal's cowardly avoidance of armed householders and concealed-carry civilians. This criminal migration is detrimental to helpless unarmed citizens in no-gun areas and must be stopped. Guns should be banned everywhere. 5.) Most gun crimes are committed by inner city gangs and drug dealers. These relatively small and geographically restricted groups consistently commit the majority of gun crimes, which usually peak as turf wars erupt over Drug War changes. The best way to prevent this is by denying guns to all law abiding people everywhere. 6.) No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder. The Police will protect women by investigating the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection anyone really needs. 7.) Guns' owners are disrespectful of authority. Good citizens should completely rely on the authorities. A failure to do so is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. Failure to completely and absolutely trust and depend on the authorities is excessive democracy and sends a bad message to children. 8.) Guns' owners engaging in self-defense are taking the law into their own hands. This is wrong. Only the Police and Criminals have the right to take the law into their own hands. It should be kept out of the hands of citizens. 9.) Children and young people should remain ignorant about guns. Real guns and real gun knowledge dissipate the fantasies created by violent video games and TV. Ignorance, once lost, can never be restored and needs to be protected. Not to mention the lost sales of all the violent movies, TV shows, video games, etc! 10.) Guns reduce people's reliance on the Police and Government. This fosters a mistaken belief in "rights". No person has the right to question authority. No person should be less than 100% dependent on authority. This is fundamental to social order. Banning guns will help to establish the Order the authorities want. This is good. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Judges and Guns?!?! Date: 10 Sep 2002 12:46:55 -0600 So, as hard as it may be to believe, if this SLTrib article is correct, conviction of a felony does not spell automtic disbarrment or dismissal for a judge. So it is conceivable that we could end up with a person whom the Feds and the State consider too dangerous and/or of too feable of judgement to buy, own, or carry a firearm for self defense, sitting in judgement of someone else's life, liberty, or property. If I can't trust someone with a gun, I sure don't want to trust them with the authority that comes with being a Judge. Charles Full story at: http://www.sltrib.com/09102002/utah/utah.htm From the last paragraph of the article emphasis added: Colin Winchester, executive director of the Judicial Conduct Commission -- a judicial watchdog agency -- said he was barred from saying whether Harding was under investigation. But Winchester noted that being charged, or **even convicted, of a felony** does **not** spell "automatic anything" for a judge. "Conviction of a felony is one criteria for which a judge **can be** disciplined," he said. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: word from your sponsor about tomorrows gun show Date: 20 Sep 2002 15:16:36 -0600 Hi All Most of you don't know this yet, but I moved back to Utah from New Hampshire over Labor Day. As such, I am pursuing my business as a Dillon Precision dealer (with other other items like MPro7) as well here in Utah and will be having a table tomorrow, Saturday the 21st, at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Sandy/SLC. We will not be there on Sunday, as that is our Sabbath. See you there! Stop by and say HI! utah-firearms maillist sponsor Chad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Anti-gun editorial in Sunday's Deseret News. Date: 30 Sep 2002 14:52:21 -0600 The following editorial appeared in Sunday's (September 29th) Deseret News. It calls for extending pre-purchase background checks on firearms buyers to private sales at gun shows. It dismisses our legitimate concerns as nothing more than black-helicopter conspirarcy theories. I encourage you to take a moment to pen a short letter to the deseret news' editor. A few obvious topics: 1-There is no such thing as an "unlicensed delaer." ALL firearms dealers must be licenese under federal law. If a person is not a licensed dealer, he is either a private citizen selling a private piece of property within the limits of existing law, or else he is already violating federal gun laws. 2-Registration of guns and gun owners is not some kind of paranoid concern. It HAS been used numerous times to confiscate guns or otherwise infringe the rights of gun owners. Registration preceeded confistaction in Nazi Germany. New York City used gun registration roles from the Sullivan Act to confiscate guns. California State has used and continues to use registration of mis-called "assault weapons" to enable confiscation of those guns there. 3-No mention is made of how many innocent persons have had their rights delayed or denied due to various governmental errors. 4-Of the large number of people supposedly prevented from buying a gun, how many were actually arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed? Lacking this, a criminal intent on getting a gun is not prevented from doing so, he is simply encouraged to look elsewhere. When it comes to claiming dangerous felons and wife beaters were prevented from buying guns, only the number convicted really matters. 5-Many police departements in Utah are still not conducting background checks on their officers to check for convictions of misdemeanor domestic violence. The Deseret News wants to make sure that private citizens with such convictions cannot buy a gun at a gun show. Yet a police officer with such a conviction is likely to retain access to weapons that are not available to the general public and to wield tremendous power so long as these departments rely on an "honor system" of having officers report all their past convictions--convictions which would likely mean and end to their police careers as the Lautenburg gun ban provided no exemption for police officers. Letters can be emailed to: letters@desnews.com Be sure to provide a snail-mail address and phone number along with real name. Only name and city/State are published. Shorter letters stand a better chance of being published. Here is the link and full article. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,410015440,00.html Close gun show loophole Deseret News editorial Federally-required background checks disqualified 1,830 people from buying guns in Utah last year. Since the intended purpose of the law is to keep guns out of the hands of people who are prohibited from possessing them, that's good news. However, the new U.S. Justice Department figures show that Utah's rejection rate of 2.8 percent is much higher than the national average. This means either Utah's background checks are more thorough or a greater number of people prohibited from buying and possessing guns — felons, fugitives, illegal aliens or those with a history of mental illness or family violence — are attempting to obtain guns in Utah. Given that Utah allows private citizens and non-licensed dealers to sell guns at gun shows without conducting background checks, one can surmise that fewer background checks are conducted in Utah than in states that have closed the gun show loophole. Among the known purchase attempts, Utah's rejection rate is nearly double the national average. Yet, the Utah Legislature has been skittish about taking the next step in regulating gun shows, requiring all vendors at gun shows to require background checks. Given Utah's less than distinguished showing in this new Department of Justice report, lawmakers should reconsider this issue. More regulation will not, of course, prevent someone who really wants a gun from buying it from a private citizen who takes out a classified advertisement in a publication or, for that matter, stealing a weapon. But when sellers gather under a promoter's business license, there would seem to be a legitimate reason for government to establish some baseline requirements. The gun-rights lobby frets that requiring an airtight background check system could lead to the government keeping records on everyone who owns a gun. This sounds like the stuff of black-helicopter conspiracies. Of all groups, the gun lobby should be concerned about guns ending up in the wrong hands. The actions of felons and scofflaws give legitimate, law-abiding gun owners a bad, undeserved reputation. More than half of the rejections nationwide — 58 percent — were for felony convictions or indictments, the Justice Department said. Another 14 percent of prospective gun buyers were rejected for a domestic violence misdemeanor. Since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act took effect in 1994, guns have been kept from 840,000 people out of 37.91 million background checks for gun purchases. The good news is the Brady bill is keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. The law could be even more effective in Utah if state lawmakers would close yet another venue where guns can be purchased without background checks. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -