From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: SAYE: It's Time For "A Gun-Free Zone Liability Act" Date: 01 May 2003 14:00:10 -0600 It's Time For "A Gun-Free Zone Liability Act" If you make a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes. Since the gun-grabbers want your guns, and you can no longer protect yourself at church, at the post office, the bank, at school, on the job, and so many other places, don't you think it is about time to make those persons liable, if they refuse to allow you to have a gun to protect yourself, and/or your family? I do! No one has the right to stop me, or my family from being protected; I don't care who they are! If they cannot guarantee my safety, then they need to be held responsible, if they will not let me protect my family and myself. It's time to take action! Call talk radio and your legislators to introduce the "Gun-Free Zone Liability Act." It would say: "Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from any criminal assault that occurs in such gun-free zones, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of firearms could have helped defend against said assault. In the event the assault is a result of a terrorist attack, or adversely affects innocent children under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply. For the purposes of this section, the term 'gun-free zone' shall mean a place, area or in or upon a conveyance where a person's right of ability to possess firearms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, ordinance, utterance or posted signs." In fact each and every city in the state of Nevada, and the Nation for that matter, should pass an Ordinance which states: Heads of households to maintain firearms. (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore. (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability, which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony. In March 1982 the city of Kennesaw, GA. did just that! This is the famous ordinance that shocked the nation! They had to be crazy! Nuts! Insane and so on! But they weren't as crazy, nuts or insane as people thought! Wouldn't it be nice if each city in the state of Nevada were able to report the same as Kennesaw, GA. did? Crime Statistics Report 1982 - 1998 FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) statistics for the year 1998 based on incidents of crime per 100,000 population indicate: Overall Crime for the City of Kennesaw is approx. half the state and national rates. Burglary incidents are approx. half the state and national rates. Violent Crime incidents are approx. four times less than the state and national rates. Violent Crime Burglary Total Index Crimes Kennesaw: 107 347 2567 Georgia: 553 951 5200 U.S.: 566 862 4616 Note: Violent Crime includes Murder, Non-Negligent Manslaughter, Rape, Aggravated Assault and Robbery. Part 1 Index Crime includes all violent crime plus Burglary, Larceny, Auto Theft and Arson. To control for population differences and make descriptions and comparisons between jurisdictions more accurate and meaningful, index crimes are reported at the rate per 100,000 persons. The rate is figured by dividing the number of crimes by the total population and then multiplying by 100,000. Crime Statistics also indicate that incidents involving the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime make up less than 2% of all reported Part 1 Crimes. Since 1982 approx. 4,900 Part 1 Crime incidents were reported with approx. 59 involving the use of a firearm. 1981 (Year prior to Gun Ordinance) Population: 5,242 Burglaries: 54 Total Part 1 Crimes: 228 1982 (Year Gun Ordinance Passed) Population: 5,308 (+1%) Burglaries: 35 (-35%) Total Part 1 Crimes: 165 (-27%) 1998 (Compared to 1981) Population: 19,000 (+275%) Burglaries: 36 (-33%) Total Part 1 Crimes 227(+0%) It is amazing to me how various individuals, who call themselves "Americans" would deny other American's their right to exercise their [text missing] Consider the history of gun control: 1) In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917,1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend them, were rounded up and exterminated. 2) In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 3) Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 4) China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 5) Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 6) Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 7) Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This places the total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated. Well, I've had my say for this week. What do you have to say? You can e-mail me at: PatriciaSaye@hotmail.com or write me at the Las Vegas Tribune - 608 South Third Street - Las Vegas, Nevada - 89101. - 30 - I thought you might like to see one of the articles I wrote for the Las Vegas Tribune. Patricia Saye WAGC NV State Coordinator - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Interview on KSL Radio concerning CCW at schools Date: 05 May 2003 13:08:49 GMT Sorry for the very short notice, I didn't get to my email over the weekend. Friday morning, on behalf of GOUtah! I did an interview with a reporter from KSL Radio concerning the expected effects of SB 108 (which went into effect at midnight this morning) on schools. He had already spoken to Jordan Schoool District officials which were, to their credit and unlike the UofU, altering their employment policies to comply with the new law which specifically allows CCW at schools and prevents public school officials from prohibiting the otherwise legal possession of self-defense weaspons. The spot is suppose to air this morning (Monday) on KSL radio at 10 past the hours of of 6am, 7am, 8am, and I think, 9am. It should be about 2 minutes long. I don't listen to the radio while at work, so if anyone gets a chance to hear the interview, let me know how it sounds. We spoke for about 10 minutes, so he's got plenty of room to edit. The main points I made (some in answer to his questions): 1-This will make our teachers, other school employees, and students safer as it is now clear that schools are not defenseless victim zones. 2-We are now finally treating teachers like the professionals that they are and allowing them to make the personal decision about whether a self-defense weapon makes sense in their individual personal circumstances. 3-Other than for the few teachers or other school employees who choose to carry, this change in law and employment policy will be transparent. No one else even need to know whether or which teacher might have personal need for a self-defense weapon. 4-Self preservation is the first law of nature and a teacher's right to self defense trumps a parent's supposed right to not have his child taught in a classroom where the teacher has a gun. A parent has no more right to demand that his child not be taught by a teacher who can defend herself, than he does to demand that his child not be taught by a teacher of a different gender, race, religion, or political persuassion. Possession of a self-defense weapon is a private matter, like religious or political views and it is none of anyone else's business. Anyway, I'd welcome any reports of what actually survives the editing room and makes it to the air. Thanks. Charles Hardy Policy Director GOUtah! ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: GOUtah! LTE in Deseret News Date: 05 May 2003 18:34:24 GMT FWIW, http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,485034266,00.html Seeing the light on guns I'm writing in response to your April 28 editorial, "Arming UTA guards is good." Thank you for finally seeing the light. Quoting from the editorial, "In any event, it seems obvious to expect that fewer people will want to cause trouble once they know the officer nearby is packing heat." This is exactly what gun owners have been saying for years. It seems obvious to expect that fewer people will want to cause trouble (or commit violent crimes) once they know their intended victim could be carrying a self-defense weapon. May we hope that this latest editorial marks an end to the Deseret News' irrational attacks on the rights of law-abiding adults to defend their lives, safety, and loved ones. Charles Hardy policy director GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah) ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: APSA ACTION ALERT! Date: 08 May 2003 17:25:46 GMT May be of interest to some. ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- APSA Action Alert May 7, 2003 PASS THIS ALONG TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. The first class of 44 pilots was deputized as FFDO’s on April 19, 2003. The Aviation Subcommittee in the House of Representatives chaired by Congressman John Mica (R-FL) is meeting tomorrow, May 8th at 10:00 am to review the current FFDO (Federal Flight Deck Officer) program. There are several issues of concern that need prompt Congressional oversight. Please call your Representative and Senators, identify yourself as an Airline Pilots’ Security Alliance (APSA) supporter, ask for the Aviation Staffer, then relay the following points as problem areas that need to be addressed: · Pilot Applicant Screening. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is tasked with the implementation of the FFDO program. They need to encourage participation by the greatest number of pilots possible. Screening methods should only eliminate the overly aggressive and should not intimidate pilots from volunteering for this important task. Congress rejected all attempts to build in limits of participation. Congress has clearly passed a law that allows a permanent wide- ranging armed pilot program. · Firearm Carry Protocol. The method of custody and carry of the firearms should be the safest, most secure possible. Standards used for other law enforcement officers should be the model for the FFDO program. · Time Off for Training. The initial time off for training must be accommodated by airline schedules. Pilots are volunteering their time without pay but may find it impossible to arrange the time in their schedules without assistance from their respective airline. Airlines have accommodated military reserves requirements for many years to allow pilots to serve their country in this important way. This is no different. Pilots need to be able to have the time to attend initial training for the FFDO program. This is a once in a lifetime event that is vital to our national security. APSA is committed to an FFDO program that will be successful with great participation. We call on all supporters to contact Congress and ask them to perform their vital oversight function of the agency assigned this responsibility. These pilots that apply for the FFDO program are answering the call of President Bush to volunteer to serve their country. Airline pilots are already highly scrutinized professionals entrusted with the lives of their passengers and crew. We call on the TSA to give them the respect, training, and tools they need to maintain the security of our aircraft, skies and citizens on the ground. Please call your Representative today. Ask them to review all aspects of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. Ask them to ensure that the Transportation Security Administration is implementing the intent and will of Congress. The Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121. The operator can connect you to your Representative by giving them your zip code. Thank you for your support. Your calls do make the difference. Visit our new and improved web site at http://www.secure-skies.org While you are there please make a donation if you can. We are working for you and any financial help is greatly appreciated. REMEMBER TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS AN APSA SUPPORTER. HAVE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE AND ESPECIALLY CHAIRMAN MICA FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF THE ARMED PILOT PROGRAM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WILL BE POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE ON THE ALERT PAGE To OPT OUT of future APSA emails, click here: https://secure-skies.org/APSAMembershipUpdate.asp Note: You may have to "cut and paste" the above links to your web browser. Your email address is your username and your password (unless you've changed it) is "temp." www.secure-skies.org ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Group discussing gun laws and making recomendations for changes Date: 08 May 2003 21:59:24 GMT I have never heard of this groups before, but this article caught my attendtion. Anyone know anything more? Charles http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05082003/utah/54913.asp SLC Students, Officials Talk Gun Laws By Tasha Williams The Salt Lake Tribune Salt Lake City students met with Corrections and judicial officers Wednesday at the Youth Summit on Gun Violence to discuss parents keeping firearms out of children's hands and communication between officials and students. Youth City Government sponsored the event with Salt Lake Peer Court, an alternative juvenile justice system, as well as city police and judicial entities. The discussion, which drew about 90 students, focused on legal consequences of firearms policies and how they affect teens. Angela Romero, Youth City Government program coordinator, said the group has about 25 active members who will use the discussion to make suggestions on gun laws to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Romero said the discussion promoted progress. "You can never predict who you're going to impact. The message we sent was that we want you to be a part of this process." Romero said Youth City will continue researching the topic by following up with different groups before the students file a report. The panel, whose discus- sions ranged from juvenile crime penalties to how to guide a troubled child, got mixed reactions from attendees. One woman broke into tears while sharing a story about the 60-year federal court sentence her 24-year-old son received. Other teens, obviously enraged with the legal system, rebutted panelists' statements about community leaders' efforts to help. Mike Hamideh, a detective with the Salt Lake City Police Department Community Action Team and a member of the 10-member panel, said he works to ensure solutions are long-term. He said it is important to remember that problems may be caused by larger social or criminal issues. "It's bringing the police department into a whole new light," Hamideh said. "We're being proactive and receptive to feedback." The panel also stressed bettering a student's future rather than reacting to immediate desires ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Arizona Senate Supports Gun Shows Date: 09 May 2003 12:03:50 -0600 On 09 May 2003 12:00:15 -0600 Jim Dexter wrote: Something we should push our legislature to do. 5/5/03 Arizona First State In US To Pass a Resolution Supporting Gun Shows Phoenix, AZ - With an overwhelming majority Arizona's Legislature became the first in the nation to pass a resolution recognizing the legitimacy, values and traditions that gun shows represent in America. The resolution will be transmitted to the United States House of Representatives and Senate. This "post card to congress" was passed today by the Arizona Senate by a wide margin with 19 senators voting yes, 9 voting no and 2 not voting. It passed the Arizona House on March 4, 2003 with 39 members voting yes, 18 voting no, and 3 not voting. In recent months the US Congress has considered numerous measures that would severely restrict gun shows and possibly drive them out of business. One measure is sponsored by Senator John McCain of Arizona and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. This is a great victory for gun owners because it sends a clear message to the US Congress that gun shows are a great American past time that should be allowed to continue operating, unhindered by further regulations which threaten to shut them down. Todd J. Rathner Member, NRA Board of Directors 520-404-8096 Text of resolution follows: ARIZONA HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2025 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING GUN SHOWS. Whereas, the Arizona Constitution, in article II, section 26, recognizes an individual right to bear arms by stating unambiguously that, "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired"; and Whereas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Emerson found, in harmony with long-standing United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, that the phrase "the right of the people" used in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is as much of an individual right guarantee as the identical phrase in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and Whereas, courts have found that gun shows are places where citizens exercise their First Amendment rights to free commercial speech and to peaceably assemble; and Whereas, in order for law-abiding residents to exercise their state and federal constitutional rights to keep and bear arms they must have the means of purchasing and transferring arms by engaging in a system of free enterprise and commerce; and Whereas, since territorial days, gun shows have provided the state's citizens with a place where like-minded people are able to gather to exercise their rights and to be freely involved in the exchange of firearms and related equipment and supplies; and Whereas, thousands of Arizonans attend gun shows annually to take part in wholesome family events that generate substantial positive economic and commercial impact on the state and its political subdivisions; and Whereas, the so-called gun show "loophole" is a fallacy generated by groups whose ultimate goal is to eliminate gun shows and all private firearms transactions; and Whereas, the same federal and state laws that apply to firearm transfers outside of gun shows apply equally to all transfers inside gun shows; and Whereas, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division of the Department of Justice, in a survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates documented that less than 0.6 per cent of criminals who used firearms acquired their firearms from gun shows; and Whereas, terrorist organizations are based in areas of the world that are awash in weaponry not available at gun shows, including fully automatic firearms, rocket launchers, grenades, mortars and other explosives. The claims that these terrorist groups are acquiring their weaponry from American gun shows are baseless in fact; and Whereas, the terrorist attacks against this nation are being manipulated by special interests to advance their political agenda; and Whereas, this state believes the primary responsibility of government is to preserve the freedom of its residents. Therefore Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring: 1. That the Members of the Legislature recognize that gun shows provide a safe, historical, valuable and indispensable community service for those citizens who choose to exercise their constitutional rights. 2. That such peaceable public assemblies should be protected from those who would further regulate, encumber or eliminate them through a campaign of misinformation. --- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: Re: Youth Summit on Gun Violence Date: 12 May 2003 16:34:49 GMT All, A correspondant has provided the following on the youth group dicussing gun issues. FWIW. Charles ----------Begin forwarded message---------- Charles, A little bit of searching on the orgs has brought me to the suspicion that this group, Youth Summit on Gun Violence is connected with the dosomething.org operation. From my wife's school teaching days I recognized this group. They "sponsor" activism for school students on various issues. Their reference materials for gun issues typically come from HCI. Our school tax dollars at work again. ;-) ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: SLTRIBUNE: U. of U. Takes Its Gun Ban Lawsuit to State Court Date: 13 May 2003 08:11:52 -0600 Fred Esplin alleges the U of U has effective exclusion of concealed guns; i.e. that the entire campus be a secure, controlled access area. Must be those invisible fences and metal detectors. (Or is this notice the U of U intends to wall itself off?) Shalom, Scott Salt Lake Tribune Article: U. of U. Takes Its Gun Ban Lawsuit to State Court http://www.sltrib.com/2003/may/05132003/utah/56344.asp - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: URGENT GOUTAH MEDIA COMMENT REQUEST from Fox 13 Date: 13 May 2003 17:12:41 GMT Our local Fox station is doing a spot on the UofU's latest efforts in their anti-gun lawsuit. It will air live on their noon broadcast. We were not able to arrange an on camera interview, but I did offer some sound bites and perspective to the reporter who said he would try to use some of them. If anyone has the chance to watch the noon broadcast and wants to drop me an email letting me know what is said, I'd appreciate it. I believe they are also planning on a spot during their 9:00 broadcast this evening. We may be able to arrange an on camera interview for that broadcast. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: SLTrib editorializes in favor of lawlessness Date: 15 May 2003 15:40:28 GMT From today's SLTrib. A few thoughts: Unlike all other bans on legal CCW, the U ban is NOT locational, it is class based. IOW, Guns are NOT banned from campus. Rather, by the U's own admission, students, faculty, and other employees are banned from bringing guns onto campus. The vast majority of Utah's 52,000 permit holders who are students or employees of U are perfectly free, under both law and the U's policy, to carry their weapons on campus, including to ball games, at will. The SLTrib seems to be confusing the public policy issue of whether guns should be at campus with the legal issue of whether the U should obey the law. The legislature and AG have not failed to act. They have not ignored the U. They have simply disagreed and passed and attempted to enforce laws with which the U disagrees. The U now asks the courts to legislate from the bench and the SLTrib agrees. Rebbuttal letters to the editor might be helpful here. " * When submitting letters to the Public Forum, please include your full name, signature, address and daytime telephone numbers. Information other than your name and the city in which you live are kept confidential. * Keep them short. Concise letters developing a single theme are more likely to be published. * For hard copy submissions, please type and double space throughout. * Letters are condensed and edited. * Because of the volume of mail received, not all submissions are published. " http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05152003/opinion/56869.asp Academic Disarmament Guns do not belong on college campuses. With a few exceptions, that simple truth should be the core of firearms policy at the University of Utah and the state's other colleges. But since the gun hawks in the Legislature, egged on by the attorney general, do not recognize the wisdom of that simple policy, the U. of U. must defend it in court. Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has opined that the state's firearms and concealed-weapons laws nullify the university's sensible firearms policy, which generally prohibits students, faculty, staff and employees from possessing guns on campus. The university makes a few exceptions, such as for military cadets, the pistol marksmanship team, police officers and for someone whose life has been threatened, who has obtained a protective order from a court, who holds a valid gun permit and has the permission of the university police chief. In particular, Shurtleff argues that state law allows any person with a concealed-carry permit to bring a gun onto campus. At last check, that is about 50,000 Utahns. For reasons that should be self-evident, the university vehemently disagrees. President Bernie Machen argues rightly that his administration is required by state law and policy to provide a safe learning environment in which students and faculty can vigorously debate ideas without having to worry about someone pulling a gun from a backpack and opening fire. If academic freedom and the ideals of free speech embodied in the First Amendment mean anything, they must stand for the force of reason, not the force of arms. This seems lost on Shurtleff and the Legislature's advocates of universal concealed-carry rights for anyone who can pass a criminal background check. They are obsessed by the notion that criminals can ignore the university's policy and illegally pack heat on campus, so law-abiding gun owners should have the right to defend themselves. But there is precious little evidence to suggest that an arms race at Utah colleges will make the academic community safer, and plenty of evidence to suggest that inviting people to bring guns to school will inevitably lead to tragedy, whether it is a suicide in a dormitory or a shooting after a football game. Besides, the U. has not witnessed a gun crime in class, the libraries, cafeterias or dorms in more than 30 years. Except to push an ideological agenda in the ongoing political battle over gun rights, there is no reason to change the university's gun policy. Unfortunately, for that ideological reason alone, the university now finds itself in court defending itself from the charge that its gun policy is an act of making firearms law in defiance of the Legislature. Clearly, that charge is half-cocked. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: DesNews likes so-called assault weapon ban Date: 15 May 2003 15:50:53 GMT Must be something in the water. This is from today's DesNews. I guess they forget about the Korean Shop Keepers during the L.A. riots. Letters can be emailed to < letters@desnews.com > Charles http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,505033061,00.html Assault-arms ban sensible Deseret News editorial President Bush, in a carefully calculated move, has somewhat distanced himself from the gun rights lobby by supporting the continued ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. Bush backs a measure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., which would extend the 1994 nationwide ban on the sale or possession of such weapons. Feinstein also seeks to ban the import of large-capacity ammunition clips. Existing law prohibits domestic manufacture of the clips. Bush's support of this measure shouldn't be read as a reversal of his previous staunch support of the National Rifle Association's politics. Rather, Bush, like most Americans, understands that the assault-weapon ban was implemented as a means to deter crime. No big-game hunter or homeowner who owns a gun as a means of protection employs a semiautomatic assault weapon. They are the tools of thugs bent on committing crimes. Moreover, Bush made a campaign promise to continue the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, which has broad popular appeal with voters and is plain common sense. The ban in no way impacts the vast majority of gun owners who are sportsmen or who own weapons for personal protection. Frankly, it is refreshing that Bush is not in complete lockstep with the NRA. While some may view his support of the assault-weapons ban as a political risk as the 2004 election looms, others believe that Bush has ample support in other quarters so that he can disagree with the NRA on this issue. Rest assured, the NRA will lobby Congress intensely to prevent further restrictions on semiautomatic assault-weapon sales, if not kill the reauthorization effort. That would be the worst-case scenario, considering that assault weapons are not the weapons of choice of the vast majority of gun owners in this country. Although Bush has made his position clear, he should also encourage House Republicans to bring the issue to a vote. There may not be political will to enhance the ban, but it makes no sense to allow the existing law to expire. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: The British Gun Closet - LONG Date: 16 May 2003 11:59:35 -0600 On 16 May 2003 11:30:18 -0600 Jim Dexter provided from WAGC-Canada via Janalee: ---------- "The National Review" May 14, 2003, 10:20 a.m. "The British Gun Closet" by David Kopel Slowly, the country is learning the hard way. LONDON - When I arrived in London, I expected to find a very depressing situation for gun rights, as the formerly robust British right-to-arms is nearing extinction. Yet there are signs that the public is waking up to the failure of gun prohibition. To be sure, the present circumstances in Britain are awful. A world-class British rifle shooter explained to me that he never tells ordinary people that he is a marksman, for fear of their reaction. British shooters today, like homosexuals in Oklahoma in 1950, feel so intimidated by the hostility of the surrounding culture that they must be careful not to expose themselves, except to known members of their minority group. The British government is more abusive than ever to people who use force for lawful protection, and as accommodating as ever to violent criminals. The news that two Britons carried out a terror bombing in Israel has not resulted in calls from the government or from the "posh," non-tabloid press for cracking down on the clerics who incite terrorism. The tabloid Express takes a harder line. The bombers grew up in England in a secular, English-speaking, integrated environment, but then fell under the influence of hateful clerics in England, so the connection between terrorist incitement and terrorist action is clear enough. The civil-liberties merits of tolerating terrorist clerics is far outweighed by the massive loss of liberty for non-terrorist citizens that would follow the nearly inevitable advent of jihad bombings in Great Britain. Non-terrorist criminals also continue to get an easy ride from the government. Some teenagers who perpetrated an unarmed gang homicide on a random stranger were last week sentenced to terms of 2-4 years. The same week, reports the Evening Standard (4/29), "An evil young killer who stabbed a complete stranger through the ear with a hunting knife" was sentenced to seven years in prison. Meanwhile, the government is introducing a five-year mandatory minimum for carrying a gun illegally. So, merely carrying a gun merits a sentence in the same range as murdering someone. Using force to resist a crime seems to trouble the government a great deal. A businessman who hit a pair of burglars with a brick was prosecuted and called "an unmitigated thug" by the government (Daily Mail, 5/1). Yet the jury acquitted the victim, since British jurors do retain the right to acquit a morally innocent defendant who has technically violated the law. A masked man with a cape and a mask who was on his way to a costume party intervened to save someone who was being beaten by a gang of thugs. The local police spokesman was very unhappy with the man's altruism, since only the police are supposed to resist criminals (Daily Mail, 5/3). A gun "amnesty" has resulted in the surrender of about 25,000 arms, and was proclaimed a great triumph by the government. Civil-libertarian Stephen Robinson noted in the Telegraph: "The police were strangely reluctant to specify how many of the guns were handed over in inner city areas, fueling the suspicion that many of the weapons were family heirlooms. . . . Many appear to have been handed in by the elderly and law-abiding who fear becoming criminalized in a society in which private gun ownership is slowly being outlawed." The gun-prohibition lobbies and their many government and media allies, not sated by the near-destruction of mainstream firearms sports, are now setting their sights on air guns and replica firearms. Home Minister David Blunkett wants to ban public possession, whereas London mayor Ken Livingston is pushing total prohibition of replica guns. A teacher was fired for allowing a student to bring a replica gun to school as part of a science exhibit. Overall, Britain now suffers from a higher violent crime rate than the U.S., and has reverted to its medieval status of being substantially more dangerous than most of the European continent. (Continental gun laws are generally more repressive than in the U.S., but moreliberal than in England.) The lesson: More gun bans, more violent crime. The 1997 extermination of Britain's pitiful minority of handgun target shooters did not directly increase crime, since existing laws made it impossible for a lawful handgun owner (or any other lawful gun owner) to use a firearm for self-defense. Rather, the handgun confiscation of 1997 was the continuation of a trend that began in the 1950s that has resulted in the destruction of the law-abiding gun culture, and the suppression of every form of non-government use of force against criminals. As a result, criminal violence and a criminal gun culture are 50 times more prevalent than they were in the early 20th century, when there were no antigun laws, and no laws against the use of reasonable force against violent criminals. And yet there are signs that the public is finally awakening to the fact that the gun-prohibition movement can deliver hatred and repression, but comes up very short on public safety. The 1997 handgun ban is perceived by many as a failure, as gun crime has risen substantially since then. An April 29 poll in the Birmingham Post reported that 68 percent of Britons believe it should be legal for householders to shoot a burglar or other criminal invader. Twenty-two percent of Britons said that they would carry a handgun for protection, if they legally could. Only 7 percent of Londoners would exercise that choice compared with 55 percent in Yorkshire. Although many recognize the failure of gun control, this does not mean that they are against licensing, registration, and background checks. But it does mean that Britons are beginning to understand that a nation without legal guns is a nation at the mercy of gangs and criminals. Peter Hitchens has just come out with a major new book, "A Brief History of Crime: The Decline of Order, Justice, and Liberty in England." Hitchens, a columnist for the Sunday Mail, argues that British governments have helped cause the tremendous increase in crime over past decades by refusing to punish criminals strictly, and by making excuses for criminals. As crime has soared, the government has responded by cracking down on the law-abiding population and on civil liberties. The right to silence has been abolished, the right to jury trial has been restricted, surveillance cameras are pervasive, and wiretaps and e-mail intercepts are skyrocketing. Hitchens devotes a chapter to the failed campaign against guns, explaining how the deprivation of the means of self-defense causes more crime. Of course, there's a long way to go between the beginning of popular recognition of a problem and the repeal of the government policies that caused the problem. But the British do appear to be making the tentative first steps in the right direction, and that's a notable change from last decade. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: RKBA Poll at Daily Herold Date: 16 May 2003 21:04:08 GMT The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very satisfactory results, but some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be aware of it. http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?pollID=136 ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: RKBA Poll at Daily Herold Date: 16 May 2003 22:02:33 -0600 16 May 2003 21:04:08 GMT Charles Hardy wrote: The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very satisfactory results, but some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be aware of it. http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?pollID=136 ----- Is this a joke? Neither that document nor billoreilly.com contains any data. Have the conservative Republican fascists blocked connectivity to XMission? Shabbat Shalom, Scott - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: RKBA Poll at Daily Herold Date: 16 May 2003 23:47:23 -0600 On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 22:02 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > 16 May 2003 21:04:08 GMT Charles Hardy wrote: > > The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very > satisfactory results, but > some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be > aware of it. > > http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?pollID=136 > ----- > > Is this a joke? Neither that document nor billoreilly.com contains any > data. > Have the conservative Republican fascists blocked connectivity to > XMission? well, I use xmisison as my isdn provider and I have no problem. Get rid of the ----- at the end of the URL though and you might have more luck Chad > > Shabbat Shalom, > Scott > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: RKBA Poll at Daily Herold Date: 16 May 2003 23:58:13 -0600 they seem to have been hacked or something. I was there earlier this evening but now I just get the default apache page that appears when you first install apache... Chad On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 22:02 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > 16 May 2003 21:04:08 GMT Charles Hardy wrote: > > The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very > satisfactory results, but > some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be > aware of it. > > http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?pollID=136 > ----- > > Is this a joke? Neither that document nor billoreilly.com contains any > data. > Have the conservative Republican fascists blocked connectivity to > XMission? > > Shabbat Shalom, > Scott > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: RKBA Poll at Daily Herold Date: 17 May 2003 00:54:30 -0600 It's back up On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 22:02 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > 16 May 2003 21:04:08 GMT Charles Hardy wrote: > > The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very > satisfactory results, but > some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be > aware of it. > > http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?pollID=136 > ----- > > Is this a joke? Neither that document nor billoreilly.com contains any > data. > Have the conservative Republican fascists blocked connectivity to > XMission? > > Shabbat Shalom, > Scott > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Don't try to disarm Iraqis Date: 17 May 2003 14:52:00 -0600 On 17 May 2003 09:33:19 -0500 Jon Roland wrote: Dear Mr. President: This is in response to an Associated Press report that "U.S. military tells Iraqis to turn in all guns or face arrest" http://www.wmtw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1279311&nav=7k6sBu3V . If true, it is a disastrous mistake. You should direct Lieutenant General David McKiernan to rescind the order and apologize to the Iraqi people for even thinking about depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms. Even Saddam didn't have the gall to try to do that. If the Coalition Administration wants to make Iraq a modern republic, it should be issuing already-confiscated weapons to local militia for self- defense and law enforcement, and training them to perform those duties effectively. It is reasonable to confiscate weapons from those individuals who abuse the right, but the citizenry generally should be presumed to be righteous until they prove otherwise. Of course Coalition troops would like to operate in an environment in which they are the only ones armed. That isn't going to happen. And if Gen. McKiernan continues this misguided policy, he will cause the Iraqi people to turn against the Coalition and make our continued operations there untenable. One of the surest ways to provoke armed resistance is to try to disarm good citizens. Just try it in this country and see what happens! A danger to Coalition troops? Of course. They are in the same position that civilians all over the world are in every day. Get used to it. But Gen. McKiernan has no more authority to disarm good citizens than he has to tell them how to speak, publish, worship, or exercise any other right recognized by the U.S. Bill of Rights and the International Covenant of Human Rights. How does he expect the Iraqi people to defend themselves and enforce the law if they lack the means to do it? Indeed, you should go farther than ordering Gen. McKiernan to rescind his order and apologize. He should be sacked, as an example for anyone else who might make a similar mistake. -- Jon Roland Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org jon.roland@constitution.org - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Alaska to get "Vermont Carry" Date: 20 May 2003 17:40:08 GMT I just received a phone call from Clark Aposhian (USDIN) who told me that NRA lobbyist Brian Judy just let him know that the Alaska Legislature has just passed a "Vermont Carry" bill (overwhelming in the house, virtually no debate in the Senate, it seems) that is expected to be signed by the Governor. Once that happens, Alaska will become the second State in Union to recognize citizens' RIGHT to own AND CARRY weapons suitable for self defense. I do not know any further details at this time. However, I suspect, given NRA involvement and support, that the bill/soon-to-be-law, leaves the CCW permit in place and simply adds permitless, carry-by-RIGHT, as an option. Congrats to Alaska. May Utah's legislature/governor soon see the light and follow in the example of our two northern examples. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: CNN rapped over misleading broadcasts Date: 21 May 2003 07:59:09 -0600 http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030519-110144-7123r.htm CNN rapped over gun segment By Robert Stacy McCain THE WASHINGTON TIMES CNN has found itself the target of criticism for misleading viewers about the types of weapons prohibited by a federal law due to expire next year. Two CNN broadcasts last week, which featured firing demonstrations by the sheriff's department in Broward County, Fla., suggested that firearms banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons. Yesterday, CNN admitted that was not true. "In fact, if you fire the same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same impact," CNN's John Zarella told viewers yesterday. One of the Thursday broadcasts incorrectly reported that fully automatic weapons are included in the 1994 ban on 19 types of semiautomatic rifles. The 1994 law - which will expire in September 2004 if Congress does not renew it - banned some military-style rifles that are semiautomatic, meaning they fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Fully automatic weapons, such as machine guns and AK-47s, are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not among the semiautomatic guns prohibited by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The NRA and other gun rights groups say the banned guns are only cosmetically different than many legal types of firearms, and that the news media have consistently confused the semiautomatics with fully automatic weapons, such as the M-16. "Either it was a deliberate attempt to fake the story, or the reporter had a complete ignorance of the story he's covering," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "This whole ban was lied into law 10 years ago, and it seems to me we can do better than lying again," Mr. LaPierre said. Yesterday, CNN aired another broadcast that clarified which weapons are banned under the 1994 law, saying the ban is based on whether the gun has external features, such as a flash suppressor or a pistol grip. In one of the segments, Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne introduced a detective with "an old Chinese AK-47 that has been banned." Mr. Zarella, CNN's Miami bureau chief, then said: "That is one of the 19 currently banned weapons." In fact, that weapon is not covered by the 1994 ban. In the first of the two segments that aired Thursday, a Broward County detective fired the AK-47 in semiautomatic mode, and the camera showed bullets hitting a cinder-block target. The detective then fired a legal semiautomatic weapon, and CNN showed a cinder-block target with no apparent damage. After the detective fired 6 shots, Mr. Zarella said: "OK. Now that was semiautomatic," and Sheriff Jenne said: "Now this is automatic." The detective then fired a machine-gunlike burst at a cinder-block target, prompting Mr. Zarella to exclaim: "Wow! That obliterated those blocks. ... Absolutely obliterated it. And you can tell the difference." On Friday, CNN admitted that the detective had not been firing at the cinder block. In 2000, Sheriff Jenne, a former Democratic state legislator, supported a bill in the Florida Legislature, HB-363, that would have banned several types of rifles under a broad definition of "assault weapons" and also would have prohibited many handguns. The bill died in committee. Some law enforcement officers who saw the Broward County sheriff's presentation on CNN called the NRA to say they were "horrified that a law enforcement official would mislead the public this way," said "NRA Live" host Ginny Simone. A CNN anchor introduced yesterday's segment by saying: "On this program on Thursday, we aired a live demonstration CNN set up with law enforcement officials of a banned semiautomatic rifle and its legal counterpart. We reviewed that demonstration and one on another CNN program, and decided that a more detailed report would better explain this complex issue." "We caught them red-handed, in the act. Now they're backpedaling," Mr. LaPierre said after yesterday's broadcast. ### You can see CNN's and the Sheriff's lies here: http://www.NRALive.com/content/flash/20030516-034801r55.swf You can contact CNN here: http://www.CNN.com/feedback/ You can contact Sheriff Jenne here: http://www.Sheriff.org/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: FW: CNN rapped over misleading broadcasts Date: 21 May 2003 09:36:13 -0600 To keep the heat on them, we should write letters to the editors of our local papers and point out the problems and how shameful it is that journalists make up crap in their reports to support their political activism and pass it off as news... Chad On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 07:59 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030519-110144-7123r.htm > CNN rapped over gun segment > By Robert Stacy McCain > THE WASHINGTON TIMES > > CNN has found itself the target of criticism for misleading viewers > about > the types of weapons prohibited by a federal law due to expire next > year. > Two CNN broadcasts last week, which featured firing demonstrations by > the > sheriff's department in Broward County, Fla., suggested that firearms > banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons. > > Yesterday, CNN admitted that was not true. "In fact, if you fire the > same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same > impact," > CNN's John Zarella told viewers yesterday. > > One of the Thursday broadcasts incorrectly reported that fully > automatic > weapons are included in the 1994 ban on 19 types of semiautomatic > rifles. > The 1994 law - which will expire in September 2004 if Congress does not > renew it - banned some military-style rifles that are semiautomatic, > meaning they fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. > > Fully automatic weapons, such as machine guns and AK-47s, are > regulated by > the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not among the > semiautomatic guns > prohibited by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of > 1994. > > The NRA and other gun rights groups say the banned guns are only > cosmetically different than many legal types of firearms, and that the > news > media have consistently confused the semiautomatics with fully > automatic > weapons, such as the M-16. > > "Either it was a deliberate attempt to fake the story, or the reporter > had a complete ignorance of the story he's covering," said Wayne > LaPierre, > executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "This whole > ban was lied into law 10 years ago, and it seems to me we can do better > than lying again," Mr. LaPierre said. > > Yesterday, CNN aired another broadcast that clarified which weapons are > banned under the 1994 law, saying the ban is based on whether the gun > has > external features, such as a flash suppressor or a pistol grip. > > In one of the segments, Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne introduced a > detective with "an old Chinese AK-47 that has been banned." Mr. > Zarella, > CNN's Miami bureau chief, then said: "That is one of the 19 currently > banned weapons." > > In fact, that weapon is not covered by the 1994 ban. > > In the first of the two segments that aired Thursday, a Broward County > detective fired the AK-47 in semiautomatic mode, and the camera showed > bullets hitting a cinder-block target. The detective then fired a legal > semiautomatic weapon, and CNN showed a cinder-block target with no > apparent > damage. > > After the detective fired 6 shots, Mr. Zarella said: "OK. Now that was > semiautomatic," and Sheriff Jenne said: "Now this is automatic." The > detective then fired a machine-gunlike burst at a cinder-block target, > prompting Mr. Zarella to exclaim: "Wow! That obliterated those blocks. > ... > Absolutely obliterated it. And you can tell the difference." > > On Friday, CNN admitted that the detective had not been firing at the > cinder block. > > In 2000, Sheriff Jenne, a former Democratic state legislator, > supported a > bill in the Florida Legislature, HB-363, that would have banned several > types of rifles under a broad definition of "assault weapons" and also > would have prohibited many handguns. The bill died in committee. > > Some law enforcement officers who saw the Broward County sheriff's > presentation on CNN called the NRA to say they were "horrified that a > law > enforcement official would mislead the public this way," said "NRA > Live" > host Ginny Simone. > > A CNN anchor introduced yesterday's segment by saying: "On this > program on > Thursday, we aired a live demonstration CNN set up with law enforcement > officials of a banned semiautomatic rifle and its legal counterpart. We > reviewed that demonstration and one on another CNN program, and decided > that a more detailed report would better explain this complex issue." > > "We caught them red-handed, in the act. Now they're backpedaling," Mr. > LaPierre said after yesterday's broadcast. > > ### > > You can see CNN's and the Sheriff's lies here: > http://www.NRALive.com/content/flash/20030516-034801r55.swf > You can contact CNN here: http://www.CNN.com/feedback/ > You can contact Sheriff Jenne here: http://www.Sheriff.org/ > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: The Second Amendment: A Judge's Magnificent Dissent Date: 23 May 2003 12:26:06 -0600 -------- Original Message -------- Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:09 PM The Second Amendment: A Judge's Magnificent Dissent In early May, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of California's Assault Weapons Control Act and refused to recognize an individual - rather than a collective - constitutional right to bear arms. Federal Appellate Judge Alex Kozinski was one of six judges dissenting from this decision - and his passionate and informed dissenting opinion is magnificent. After boldly declaring that some anti-Second Amendment judges deliberately misread the Second Amendment in order to enforce their prejudices, Judge Kozinski finished with these ringing words that cut to the heart of why the Second Amendment is so very important to a free people: "The majority falls prey to the delusion - popular in some circles - that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth - born of experience - is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble. "All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. "My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. "Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough: '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.' "The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion - the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text - refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it - and is just as likely to succeed." Judge Kozinski knows, from personal experience, the helplessness of unarmed people in the face of brutal tyranny - a native of Romania, he fled that country to escape the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu. There are now two circuits in conflict over the meaning of the Second Amendment (the Ninth and the Fifth). The stage thus may be set for a momentous Supreme Court decision. (Source: Full text of Judge Kozinski's dissent can be found here - it starts on page 2, and ends on page 6 of this pdf file: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/019661EF3BAAF4C488256D1D00793D3A/$file/0115098o.pdf?openelement ; Thanks to Joe Williams) --- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: Chuck Muth's News & Views - May 27, 2003 Date: 27 May 2003 15:22:09 GMT A few gun items from Chuch Muth's newsletter of 5/27. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- ****************************************** Judge Decides Gun Battle in NJ "Public schools in Montclair, N.J., can't distribute gun control literature to students, then refuse to distribute materials explaining the other side of the story, a court has ruled," reports CNSNews.com. "This settlement will put school districts around the country on notice that they can no longer prevent both sides of the Second Amendment debate from being heard," said Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Let's hope he's right. ****************************************** Guns, Not Butter, On "Always Right" Tonight Guns, guns and more guns. Did I mention that guns will be our topic of discussion on Always Right tonight? My guest will be the aforementioned Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation. From McCain/Feingold to the Clinton gun ban, from Bowling for Columbine to gun manufacturer lawsuits. Will touch all the bases tonight at 8:00 p.m. EST. The link to listen in is... http://www.theotherradionetwork.com/srv1.asx ****************************************** TSA: Taking Scissors Away "What good is the $5 billion Transportation Security Administration if it can't keep armed impostors from breezily bypassing security checkpoints and boarding planes? "According to U.S. State Department and federal court documents, a man from Brazil was able to con his way onto at least one domestic flight by posing as a U.S. State Department diplomatic security dignitary protection agent. Why bother paying 50,000 TSA screeners at more than 420 U.S. airports to stand around, confiscating scissors and baby nail clippers in the name of homeland security, when any computer geek with proficiency in Adobe Photoshop can sweet-talk his way on board a plane with help from a gullible airline employee?" - Columnist Michelle Malkin *************************************** ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: ADVISORY: Firearms debate planned at Utah Pride celebration Date: 27 May 2003 22:39:12 -0600 This may be one of the more entertaining debates on guns ever held... At least it won't be some "bigoted" heterosexual beating up on the poor transgendered professor. ---------------- Charles Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- NEWS ADVISORY For immediate release Sunday, May 25, 2003 Contact: David Nelson David Nelson Communications(TM) Post Office Box 112095 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147-2095 (734)661-0667 Facsimile david.nelson22@att.net Tear sheet requested a000 rp ^BC-Gay,000< FIREARMS DEBATE PLANNED AT UTAH PRIDE CELEBRATION SALT LAKE CITY -- With the recent introduction of the new Utah Safe Havens of Learning ballot initiative to ban state concealed-firearm rights at schools, an unprecedented debate about firearms is planned to be included on June 8 as part of the annual state gay and lesbian Pride celebration. The debate will engage the ideas and information of gay political leader David Nelson and transgender university professor Barbara Nash. Utah Pride Celebration Firearms Debate June 8 -- 12:00 noon to 12:30 p.m. Salt Lake City Public Library Amphitheatre 210 East 400 South -- Salt Lake City Nelson serves as the founder of Pink Pistols of Utah (http://www.PinkPistolsUtah.org/). PPU is a group of gender- and sexual-minority firearm advocates and owners in the state, and supporters of the Pink Pistols idea that was described nationally in 2000 by writer Jonathan Rauch for the legal, safe and responsible use of firearms for their self defense and shooting-sport competition, including those of them who are gay and lesbian, and that of their families and friends. The group is the largest such group in the United States with more than 196 members. Nash serves as a representative of Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah (http://www.gvpc.org/). GVPC and its lobbying affiliate Gun Violence Prevention Campaign of Utah were founded in 2001 by a group of citizens who believe that people need to, and can, do far more to protect society from the misuse of guns. They also believe it is possible to accomplish this and still maintain the ability of citizens to own and possess guns for legitimate hunting, sporting and self-defense purposes. The group is the successor of Utahns Against Gun Violence. Both debaters are state Concealed Firearm Permit holders. -end- ===== David Nelson http://www.PinkPistolsUtah.org/ Salt Lake City ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: [LPUtah] Fw: Ten Reasons Why... Date: 28 May 2003 21:05:02 GMT FYI... (Fundraising effort to help the case at the end.) ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:17 PM > ...THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HEAR SILVEIRA V. > LOCKYER and DECIDE THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO > KEEP & BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND & FOURTEENTH > AMENDMENTS > > Some people argue that the U.S. Supreme Court will refuse to hear > the Second Amendment case Silveira v. Lockyer , which will be > appealed from the Ninth Circuit Court in California. Here are ten > (and more) reasons why we think they are wrong, and why you > should support the Silveira case as a rare and important > opportunity for success. > > (1) The Supreme Court has not heard a case on the fundamental > right to keep and bear arms since United States v. Miller in 1939 - > 63 years ago. The Court hears First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth > Amendment cases virtually every year. And if only four of the nine > Justices decide to hear the case, it will be heard. > > (2) There are conflicts of federal circuit courts that need to be > resolved by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court's ruling > in Silveira is directly contrary to the Second Amendment findings > in the Emerson case from the Fifth Circuit Court. Furthermore, > six Ninth Circuit Court judges dissented in Silveira because they > thought Judge Reinhardt's ruling on the Second Amendment was > wrong. Six dissents are rare and a huge factor in the U.S. Supreme > Court deciding to grant certiorari (to hear the case). Those six > votes in Silveira may be the most important votes for the > individual right to keep and bear arms in the entire past one > hundred years. > > (3) The conflict of circuits is long-standing, another factor in > granting certiorari. Emerson conflicts with the First, Second, > Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh federal > US Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court may have refused to > hear Emerson because the certiorari petition (the formal request > that the Supreme Court hear a case) focused on the commerce > clause, instead of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear > arms. > > (4) The certiorari petition in Silveira is thorough and complete. > Hundreds and hundreds of careful hours of research and writing > have gone into this important project. It cleanly presents the clear > Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals to keep > and bear arms for family, home, business, and community defense. > It is a civil case, not a messy criminal defense. And it does not have > wasteful side arguments that clutter other firearms litigation. > > (5) Extensive modern scholarship suggests that Emerson and the > dissenting views in Silveira have the better argument regarding the > meaning of the Second Amendment. The Silveira certiorari > petition references over twenty of the relevant books and articles, > and develops the points succinctly. > > (6) Since 1939 the Miller case has been cited to support negative > decisions in every federal circuit but the Fifth in Emerson. The > Silveira cert petition exposes the poor reasoning of Miller > thoroughly and asks that those parts of it that are historically and > constitutionally wrong be overruled. > > (7) Silveira presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to > write on a clean slate, to overrule Miller, and to overrule Presser v. > Illinois, which refused to apply the Second Amendment to the > States. There is an overwhelmingly powerful argument on our > side: the Fourteenth Amendment, and the fact that most of the > "individual right" amendments have been ruled as applying to the > states. For example, Massachusetts cannot deny its citizens > freedom of the press because they are protected by the First > Amendment; nor Wyoming force its citizens to testify against > themselves because they are protected by the Fifth Amendment. > > (8) The lower court decision in Silveira was written by the most- > reversed federal circuit judge, Stephen Reinhardt, a notorious > liberal activist judge. The dissents, however, were written by > several very well respected circuit judges: Kozinski, Kleinfeld, and > Gould, and joined in by an unusually large group of additional > dissenters. They send a strong message to the Supreme Court to > hear Silveira and reverse Reinhardt. > > (9) Specific detailed issues about different kinds of firearms, i.e., > what the anti-gun crowd mendaciously call "assault weapons", are > reserved for trial by the Silveira cert petition, since there has been > no trial to determine facts as yet. The Supreme Court is not a trial > court and will only hear the fundamental constitutional questions > raised by the Silveira certiorari petition - that is, does the Second > Amendment, like so many other Amendments, apply to the states? > And is it an individual right, like all the other rights spoken about > in the Bill of Rights? These questions have become extremely > important in both legislation and in politics in the last few years. > The Court will have to deal with them - and we believe they will > deal with them now, rather than later. > > (10) The certiorari petition, brief and other materials in Silveira > make a deliberate, carefully crafted effort to persuade all nine > Supreme Court Justices of the need to recognize a strong > individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. > Arguments are being developed that should resonate with the > various viewpoints held by the different Justices. The individuals > working on Silveira have decades of experience in Bill of Rights > litigation before the Supreme Court with a great deal of success in > other very difficult areas of law. Earlier Second Amendment > activists largely slept through the civil rights movement and made > no progress at all for individual rights until Emerson. Every effort > is being made to present the Silveira arguments in ways that > maximize prospects for success. > > One final note: A real danger for us is that some messy criminal > firearms case might get to the Supreme Court first with Second > Amendment issues poorly presented in a horrendous context. > > In contrast, Silveira is a clear, straightforward case that involves > upstanding citizens. It has been very well and thoroughly thought > out. > > KeepAndBearArms.com IS RAISING FUNDS THAT GO > DIRECTLY TO THE SILVEIRA LITIGATION WORK. > > This is your opportunity to MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Your > support is vital now and in the next several months. Please -- give > generously to the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit fund, via credit card > or mail: > > Credit Card > https://www.keepandbeararms.com/donations > > Regular Mail > http://keepandbeararms.com/silveira/mail.htm > > ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: Man storms Quantas cockpit with wooden knife; 4 Date: 29 May 2003 21:08:02 GMT And we thought airport security was a hassle now. Wait until they start strip searching to look for sharp sticks. ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88040,00.html SYDNEY, Australia — A man shouting threats used a sharpened wooden instrument to try to force his way into the cockpit of a domestic Qantas (search) flight Thursday, stabbing two flight attendants in his attempt, the government said. The plane had departed the southeastern city of Melbourne (search) for the southern island of Tasmania when he tried to storm the cockpit, Transport Minister John Anderson told reporters in a hastily arranged press briefing. Two flight attendants with Australia's national air carrier were stabbed and two other passengers were also injured as they overwhelmed the man, who Anderson described as "an individual who was less than stable." Anderson said he did not believe it was a terrorist attack and did not identify the man. "Although it looks premeditated, it doesn't look like it was an act of terrorism," Anderson said. The man was now in custody and being interviewed by police, said Jane O'Brien, spokeswoman for the Australian Federal Police. Anderson said the wooden weapon had gone through security checks unnoticed, calling the oversight a "lesson about unforeseen tools being used." He said the man shouted threats as he attempted to storm the cockpit but did not elaborate. He said there were no sky marshals on board the flight. "We'll leave no stone unturned, plainly we don't want to see a repeat of this," Anderson said. The plane turned around and landed at Melbourne not long after it had departed, where police and emergency services rushed to the scene. Police met passengers in the departure lounge at Melbourne's airport for further questioning. A Qantas spokeswoman told The Associated Press that the national carrier could not make any statement until it had more information. The flight attendants, a man in his late 30s and a woman in her 20s, were taken to a nearby hospital. They were in stable condition with facial injuries, Metropolitan Ambulance spokesman James Howe said. Two passengers were treated by paramedics at the scene for minor injuries, Howe told reporters. ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! -