From: Sarah Thompson Subject: HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF 10101: No joy in Mudville Date: 03 Nov 1996 05:19:39 -0700 Just my opinion, but this is an excellent reason why we MUST vote our= conscience and not "settle" or "compromise" our rights in the name of pragmatism. The= =20 lesser of two evils is still EVIL. Sarah >Return-Path: rjtavel@iquest.net >X-Sender: rjtavel@pop.iquest.net >Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 12:18:08 -0500 >To: jwoodrum@seidata.com >From: "R. J. Tavel, J.D." >Subject: HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF 10101: No joy in Mudville > >THE ELECTION LESSONS OF HISTORY=20 > >Fearful Austrians Decide That a Vote for Hitler Is the Lesser of Two Evils > >[reproduced and excerpted WITHOUT permission of the author Douglas W.= Phillips] > >"Fret not thyself because of evil men . . . For there shall be no reward= for >the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out" (Prov. 24:19, 20). > >In 1938 the voters of Austria were faced with a dilemma: Would they >voluntarily elect to have their nation assimilated into Adolf Hitler's= Third >Reich? Hitler had every intention of seizing Austria. He could take the >country by overt force, or he could offer the Austrian people an= opportunity >to give their blessing to this "Anschluss" through a national= plebescite.=3D20 > >Austrians understood that a vote for Hitler would mean a loss of their=20 >national sovereignty. Many recognized that the unification of Austria and >Germany would result in open oppression for sections of the Austrian >population. Yet Austrians were faced with a dilemma: Those who voted for= the >assimilation of Austria into Hitler's Third Reich might curry favor with= the >Nazis. Perhaps they would even be "players" in the new regime, able to work >for incremental change, but their votes would facilitate evil and result in >their country's loss of freedom and autonomy. On the other hand, those who >voted against the Anschluss might be singled out for persecution. = Moreover, >even if Hitler were to lose the election he would assuredly march into= their >country and take power by force. Neither choice was appealing. Under such >circumstances a vote for Hitler appeared to be a choice for the lesser of >two evils.=3D09 > >In the final analysis, only a small handful of Austrians voted against the >Anschluss -- .25 per cent of the voting population to be exact. The=20 >remaining 99.75 per cent voted to allow a Nazi take over of their sovereign >country. >Why did so many Austrians vote for Hitler? Fear and pragmatism were the >primary reasons. Fear led them to pragmatism and pragmatism enabled them to >rationalize that it would be less of an evil to have Hitler run their >country with the tacit approval of the Austrian people than by the barrel= of >a gun. > >Today, little is remembered of the 99.75 per cent who hoped to avoid a >fearful outcome by pragmatically choosing to cast their ballots for a >"lesser evil." They won the election and bought themselves a little time, >but the cost of their political victory was immeasurably high. These men >loved peace more than freedom and they ended up losing both. In the name= of >incrementalism and political expediency they decided to vote for Hitler >rather than oppose him and risk war. History remembers these men as >compromisers and cowards. > >Of the .25 per cent that affirmatively opposed the Anschluss, at least one is a=20 >household name to the last two generations of Americans -- Captain Georg= von=20 >Trapp of The Sound of Music fame. The amazing story of this man, his >opposition to the Anschluss and his willingness to risk his life, his >security, and even his family--rather than compromise with evil-- has been= a >source of inspiration to millions. His side lost the election of 1938, and, >for a season, he lost his country. But he has earned the respect of untold >millions for his principled and self-sacrificing stand against evil. > >On November 5th, Americans will go to the polls and cast their vote for >President of the United States. The issue confronting these voters is not >dissimilar from that facing the Austrians of 1938. Is it better to cast off >fear and pragmatism by taking a principled stand against evil, but in so >doing to risk losing an election and suffering seemingly dangerous= political >consequences, or is it better to compromise by embracing a "lesser of two >evils" strategy in the hope of minimizing short term pain and gaining "a >seat at the table?" > > > >A vote is an endorsement. That is why we must recall Solomon's words: =20 >He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous' him shall the people= curse, >nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and= a >good blessing shall come upon them. (Prov. 24:24, 25). Will you be >among that number? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The one good thing about being wrong is the joy it brings to others. . .= . > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum, Indiana-FIJA, Inc.=20 >=A0=A0 Url: http://www.iquest.net/~rjtavel=20 > ************************* >Not a high-tech law firm brochure. Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and >Sovereign Law Library is also the Homepage of R. J. Tavel, J.D Libertarian >Mediator. Check out the free online legal help with Pro Se manuals, actual >pleadings, reference tools, international media contact tools, and more. > ************************* > "There are no magic answers, no miraculous methods to overcome the >problems we face, just the familiar ones: honest search for understanding, >education, organization, action that raises the cost of state violence for >its perpetrators or that lays the basis for institutional change--and the >kind of commitment that will persist despite the temptations of >disillusionment, despite many failures and only limited successes, inspired >by the hope of a brighter future."=20 > > "If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American >president would have to be hanged." -- Noam Chomskey > For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D. Sarah Thompson, M.D. Vote Libertarian! PO Box 271231 Harry Browne in '96 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 Don't trust Demopublicans! 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: More on why to vote Libertarian Date: 03 Nov 1996 23:27:59 -0700 >>Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 07:19:01 -0500 >>From: Brian Wilson >>Subject: Re: November Legislative Report >In response to: >>>Many persons have expressed the view that they will vote for either Reform >>or Libertarian party candidates as a protest. While no vote is thrown away, >>votes for candidates who have little chance of being elected actually help >>Clinton by diluting the "Dole vote". It was this type of protest vote that >>allowed Clinton to win in 1994. Don't make the same mistake again. Dole may >>not be your friend but Bill Clinton is certainly your sworn enemy. > > >Brian Wilson wrote: >>I respectfully disagree. There is no doubt that Clinton will carry MD. The >>suggestion that a strong Dole >>vote will somehow influence the Clinton camp is misleading. Nothing -- >>including the limits of the Constitution, the rule of law, medai exposure, >>common deceny and/or the Bible -- have had any influence on him. Indeed, >>Dole's dedication to big government, the UN, GATTT, NAFTA, WTO, his >>rejection the principle of National sovereignty in general and his stated >>commitment to the 2nd and 10th Amendements in particular, makes it obvious >>even a surprise victory would not spell r-e-l-i-e-f for gun owners and >>freedom lovers. With a 2 party system, we will always be faced with "the >>lesser of two evils".If, then, you are going to vote for "evil" anyway, why >>not go all the way and vote for Clinton and expedite the next Revolution? >> >>There is an alternative; a "long range" view. Start this year to lay the >>foundation for a legitimate 3rd party. >>One that will honor Constitutional principles as well as the moral >>principles on which America was founded >>and you no doubt endorse. The libertarian philosophy is based on individual >>freedom, choice and responsibility. Most people who stop,look and examine >>themselves discover they are, in fact, libertarians in their hearts and >>minds.Ballot access laws in this state require if a party doesn't get 3% of >>the popular vote, it must collect 100,000 signatures for each election to >>field a candidate. This squanders essential time and resources that could be >>better spent exposing voters to the hypocrisy of the 2 party system and the >>opportunties for freedon and liberty that await them. By voting for Harry >>Brown and other Libertarian candidates, the "message" sent will say you are >>fed up with the corruption and lies from the no-alternative 2 party system >>so jealously guarded by the Reps and Dems; a system that guarantees no >>choice at all -- just different faces. >>If you truely believe in principle of individual freedom, the morality of >>self-ownership and non-agression, the essence of the Constitution and its >>acompanying Bill of Rights, the foundation on which our Republic was >>established, you should vote your conscience and your beliefs with the long >>term in view. Whether Clinton or Dole win this election, your freedom, >>liberty and individual rights lose in the long run. But you can start this >>time by voting for change and to lay the foundation for change in the next >>election and the one after that and the one after that. > >>Brian Wilson >>Power corrupts; absolute power is kinda neat! >>Talk Show Host/Author >>"the little black book on WHITEWATER" >>http://www.myrmidon.w1.com >>1.800.862.1731 > >Reposted with permission > >Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax) http://www.therighter.com "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Decline of liberty among English-speaking nations Date: 04 Nov 1996 11:51:57 -0700 >Return-Path: suntzu75@ccnet.com >X-Sender: suntzu75@mail.ccnet.com >Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 10:13:21 -0700 >To: suntzu75@ccnet.com >From: "Sun Tzu's RKBA" >Subject: Decline of liberty among English-speaking nations > >Question 46, creeping tyranny and the decline of liberty >in the English-speaking nations. The results to Question 46 >(see below) were that a whopping 26.34% of the 300 Marines >answered in the affirmative. Yes, they would shoot their >fellow citizens. Another 12% were undecided. > >In the history of the world, no nation which began a hard >turn into tyranny, has ever turned back. > >Judging from media accounts, there is now a coordinated and >phased campaign of firearms confiscation underway in the British >Commonwealth as the authorities in Great Britain, Canada, >Australia and New Zealand consolidate their monopoly on power. >Among the great English-speaking nations that leaves the United States >as the lone holdout, a condition which might hinge on tomorrow's election. > >In the British Commonwealth, indoctrination of the populace >is adequate to the task, that is, defanging and disarming of the >general public, the natural condition of enslaved populations. > >Therefore, resistance to firearms confiscation in the >British Commonwealth may be expected to be light and ineffective. > >But what will happen in the United States? It now seems possible >that the results of Question 46 of Guy Cunningham's May 1994 >Combat Arms Survey are about to acquire an eerie quality of >prophecy. The Waco Massacre will no longer be discarded as an >aberration of government power, it will be held up as an example >of the Founding Father's chains breaking. > >After being drowned out at the soapbox, smashed at the ballot box, >and blocked in the courts, will American firearms owners resist? >Will federal authorities break down doors and shoot Americans to >enforce repressive property laws including destruction of RKBA? > >Question 46. > >The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, >transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A >thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms >to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this >period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. > >The statement that the U.S. Marines were asked to respond to: > >I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation >of firearms banned by the U.S. government. > >The published results to Question 46 were that a whopping 26.34% >of the 300 Marines answered in the affirmative. Yes, they would >shoot U.S. citizens that refused to turn over their privately >owned firearms (private property) to the government. > >Another 12% were undecided. http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/q-46.htm >Sun Tzu Organization -- http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/ > >"A familiar sight provokes no attention" > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax) http://www.therighter.com "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Global GC: Japan to UN Security Council Date: 04 Nov 1996 13:13:55 -0700 >Return-Path: suntzu75@ccnet.com >X-Sender: suntzu75@mail.ccnet.com >Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 11:20:37 -0700 >To: suntzu75@ccnet.com >From: "Sun Tzu's RKBA" >Subject: Global GC: Japan to UN Security Council > >Japan and Canada have been working behind the scenes at the U.N. >to "harmonize" world gun laws and impose global gun controls. >If elected, Clinton may try to back door gun control in the U.S. >by conforming to U.N. treaties or agreements. > >Japan has won a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council, >ousting India and Australia. Japan joins Costa Rica, Kenya, >Portugal and Sweden to serve on the Security Council for >two years, beginning Jan. 1, 1997. In an AP story (Wednesday, >October 23, 1996 2:52 am EDT) titled "Japan Gets U.N. Power Boost", >AP Writer Robert H. Reid wrote; "The races attract limited attention >but point to important trends in world power politics." There are >five other temporary members; South Korea, Guinea-Bissau, Egypt, Chile >and Poland, with terms that expire in December 1997. The five permanent >members of the Security Council; the United States, Britain, Russia, >China and France hold permanent seats. > >Reid wrote; "Council membership is a country's ticket to the diplomatic >big time. The council is effectively the U.N. board of directors. Membership >gives a country, no matter how small, the opportunity to contribute to >global policy on issues such as Iraq, Bosnia and peacekeeping missions in >Africa." > >Continuing; "Hailing the victory, Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Seiroku >Kajiyama said Tokyo will now play a bigger role in the United Nations, >which he said ``has become more important in the post-Cold War era.'' >Although council activities generally attract little attention in the >United States or other permanent members, the other 180 U.N. states >compete vigorously for the two-year temporary seats, allocated by region." > >".....More important, the elections, which are by secret ballot, reflect a >country's influence and status on the world stage." > >".....As the world's leading donor country, Japan has demonstrated its >influence among the developing countries. The United States, among others, >has suggested Japan and Germany be given permanent council seats in recognition >of their economic clout. Some European diplomats agree that Japan has >made a convincing case. Following the election, Japanese Foreign >Minister Yukihiko Ikeda said Tokyo ``intends to play an even more >active role for world peace and prosperity as it further enhances its >cooperation with the United Nations.'' > >COMMENT: (1) Five factors in this story bode ill for US RKBA, especially >if Clinton keeps the Presidency. (1) Japan's increased "influence and status >on the world stage"; (2) Under Clinton, the US representation to the UN is >urging that Japan have a permanent Security Council seat, (3) Japan's >traditional and perpetual state of gun control imposed on an accepting >populace, (4), although a Republican dominated Congress has cut US payments >to the UN by about 40%, the US is still a member, and many politicians and >Americans think that this indebtedness is bad, and that the UN is a good deal; >finally (5), the statement of Japan's Foreign Minister Ikeda, that Japan; >"intends to play an even more active role for world peace and prosperity >as it further enhances cooperation with the United Nations". >Sun Tzu Organization -- http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/ > >"A familiar sight provokes no attention" > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. Vote Libertarian! PO Box 271231 Harry Browne in '96 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 Don't trust Demopublicans! 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@es.com (Charles Hardy) Subject: [ghostpwr@dmi.net: Conservative Info Distribution] Date: 06 Nov 1996 15:42:54 -0700 Forwarded from FAP, please respond to with any info. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- fratrum@netside.com, liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, noban@mainstream.net Hello folks, and my apologies for this semi-spammage - but it's important, and we need your help :) My partner and I have started a corporation, Media Access, with the plan of essentially doing for small conservative publications nation-wide what the Associated Press does for the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media. We're almost ready to go public with our plan but we're looking for more alternative publications to become associates. The goal is to build an association of credible publications to instantaneously distribute the most important stories all over the country in an effort to challenge the credibility of dominant media associations in the minds of the American public. I believe that if we're going to keep America from going down the tubes completely, the key is in educating the public. Most people at this point have a "feeling" that they're not getting the whole truth from the network news or their newspapers, but they don't know where to turn for the truth; we'd like to remedy that. If any of you have a local conservative newspaper/magazine/talkshow/e-zine/ etc., please let me know how to contact them; we'll take it from there. We desperately need to get the truth out to the people in America, and I think we may have stumbled on a major way to accomplish that. Much thanks, and my apologies to those who see this on more than one mailing list; but it's important enough to risk the wrath of the Spam Police in this case :) - Monte ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious." -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: A British gunner's advice Date: 06 Nov 1996 21:05:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Having been on Guntalk since I think 1993, I would like to say something, so indulge my ramblings. It is my now confirmed opinion that gun owners are too sophisticated for politicians. I constantly read on here, rec.guns, my own list, etc, about how this law means that, how this act will do whatever, how the Government won't be able to do whatever because of this, etc. And then a lot of you become exceptionally esoteric, delving into the metaphysics of it all, talking about God, race and all the rest of it. The simple fact of the matter is that politicians don't give a toss. You may say, "The Government will never be able to take my guns because hey are not registered, we have rights, we outnumber them etc." Rubbish. If you say these things you are being utterly naive. If you seriously think the Second Amendment is worth anything you are wrong. What matters is that you make people _believe_ that it is worth something. We have a Bill of Rights in the UK. I can guarantee you 99% of the popula- tion have never heard of it, let alone read it. It is not even published anymore by HM Stationary Office because there is so little interest in it. There may be half a million hardcore gun enthusiasts in the US, but try keeping your guns when the people have been brainwashed with do-gooder nonsense, and it's you against 263 million people. If you think you and half a million gun owners can defeat the armed forces of the US while lacking public support, you are wrong. Try hiding your guns when shooting is less socially acceptable than smoking, and the Government has "hotlines" for your neighbours to rat on you. And they will be warmly rewarded and regarded as heroes for turning in what the general public see as a "nutter". Politicians couldn't care less about your rights. They would wipe their backsides with the Bill of Rights if they thought it would win them votes. The only thing they understand is _power_, your ability to turf them out of a job, your ability to make their lives hell. If you are strong, they will leave you alone. If you are weak they will walk all over you. If you are strong, they will do what Bill Clinton is trying to do, turn public opinion against you, because you point out flaws in his vote winning strategies. If every criminological study ever written showed that more guns = more deaths, I can guarantee you if the NRA had 20 million members who wrote to their members of Congress and voted on the gun issue alone there would be virtually no gun laws in the United States. Attacking or even bothering with people like Sarah Brady is a waste of time. They are what Lenin described as "useful idiots". Clinton has no secret agenda. He is not a communist, he is not a totalitarianist. He just wants to use the sympathy for crime victims to win him votes so he gets a nice cushy job. So he supports more gun laws. Clinton is too dense to have the intellectual honesty to be a dictator. To expect dictators to emerge in the TV-saturated/fastfood driven society we live in is wholly unrealistic. The fervor of revolution perished long ago. If you spend time trying to figure out the socialist/UN/NWO strategy of Clinton, you are wasting your time, because he doesn't have one. All you will find is the ingredient list of a quarter pounder with cheese. Speaking to members of Parliament in this country has been an eye-opening experience. The only ones truly committed ideologically to a gun ban are quite simply at the low end of the IQ scale. They fail to see the illogic of it because they cannot think logically. Others are misinformed. So you inform them, and they turn into the next type - Most MPs I have spoken to know full well that a gun ban will not make one iota of difference in terms of public safety. They support it solely because they think the public supports it, ergo they will more likely get re-elected if they support a ban. They agree whole-heartedly with your facts, they acknowledge that you are correct, but in the end, you have only one vote, the press hysteria has created many more votes for the opposing opinion, and they don't give a damn about your rights, your guns, or you. The ones who agree with you fall into their own classes - The first is the one who has an interest in your issue, in this case he/she is a gun owner. The second is the one who sees votes in supporting a minority cause because he will get money and other things out of you. The third is the rarest breed of all, the politician with PRINCIPLES. And in my experience, nearly all of them are not running for re-election. I can guarantee you that the newspaper headlines the day after I fail to turn my guns in and the police haul me away will make me out to be a "crazed firearm enthusiast, a cancer in the local community", but I no longer care anymore, because my conscience is frankly worth more than all the newspapers in this country put together. Steve. "Liberty does not consist in mere general declaration of the rights of men. It consists in the translation of those declarations into definite action." - Woodrow Wilson, July 4, 1914. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Illegal Roadblocks Date: 08 Nov 1996 11:05:56 -0700 >Subject: Illegal Roadblocks > >http://www.techmgmt.com/restore/roadblck.htm > >> Posted to texas-gun-owners by Joe Horn <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Speaking of roadblocks, Saturday, the New Mexico State Police had one >> set up on NM#404, (14 officers and one Sgt.) stopping all traffic both >> ways on a desert mountain pass between El Paso and White Sands. When I >> was stopped, a courteous automaton approached, hand on pistol and >> asked for my DL and insurance card, and did a visual search of my car. >> Immediately angered and resentful of this State intrusion and >> violation of my rights, I handed him the requested documents, and >> having checked my paperwork, he looks through the window at the back >> seat area and asks me "what's under the blanket?" I told him his >> search was going to have to be limited to what he could see as I was >> not granting a consent search beyond what he could see through the >> windows of my vehicle after illegally stopping me at this roadblock. >> Illegal? Pull over there and talk to the nice officers, says he. Yes I >> said, stopping people for searches in the pretext of seeing their >> paperwork. Says he: the court said it's ok (in limited Roadbloacks )as >> long as we stop everyone. Says I, the court is wrong and it's still >> unconstitutional, you do not have a warrant and I have broken no law. >> To me, the fact they did NOT ask for vehicle registration indicated >> they were fishing. The robot calls his Sgt over, who takes over and >> warns me that this can become very unpleasant, and at this point, I >> show him my retired badge and ID, asking how unpleasant is that? He >> then says, why didn't you say something, you coulda been gone by now? >> I told him that I am a plain citizen and suggest he knows what he's >> doing is wrong and that it's a pure fishing expedition. He angrily >> said:(and he really surprised me) "Hey, I'm just doing what I'm told, >> now get outta here before I decide to ruin your day". >> >> They cut me loose and drove off, keeping my Ithaca 37 which was under >> the blanket and 1911A1 under the center console. >> >> My point is that this is out of control, and folks are going to start >> getting hurt in these little European-like (vere are your papers?) >> roadblocks, fishing for whatever they can find. If I didn't have >> masterbadge and I.D., I would have been illegally and >> unconstitutionally searched against my will. Very few people have a >> badge to get them out of something like this, and deferring to >> intimidation by armed authority, most will have their rights violated. >> My sense of the roadblock personnel was that excepting the Sgt., they >> didn't know they were wrong or didn't care. The average age of the >> officers was late 20's early 30's. >> >> Now that they're going to start these around schools, and I assure you >> that it will be in as high handed a manner as they can manage. Many >> people don't see or don't want to see what's happening to the >> Constitution or our human rights recognized by that Constitution, or >> the Police State being assembled right around the Constitution, in the >> name of the "drug war" or the "chirrun". It's here and it's here now >> and if you don't strenuously object to these searches and roadblocks >> whether for DUI, Drivers License/Insurance/ guns/drugs, and drive your >> political reps nuts about it, sooner or later you will get the anal >> probe of an illegal search in the name of the "drug war" or for guns >> near schools. Of course those that like and feel safer with more >> unenforceable, useless law and more intrusion (with no effect on >> criminals, just the violation of honest citizens rights) may you be >> hoisted on your own petard, and soon. >> >> As I waited in line to be searched in this desolate and remote desert >> location, I reflected on my extensive police and military training and >> experience and thought that these roadblocks are really quite >> vulnerable out there in the desert so far from backup. Quite >> vulnerable......It's going to get ugly one day when folks decide >> they've had enough. And if statists don't think it can happen here, >> just visualize a larger scale resentment of the "man" beyond Watts. >> Like the black minority, the white minority within the white majority >> has it's limits in absorbing the abuses and effects of the ever >> intrusive Police State. >> >> What really bothered me, (inspite of my training and familiarity with >> police operations) was my own barely repressible reaction of fear, >> being trapped, resentment, mistrust, disrespect and intense dislike >> and the powerful urge to immediately, actively and physically resist >> this infringement of my right of unrestricted and peaceful travel. >> Fortunately, I didn't have to act because unlike most of my fellow >> citizens, I had a retired peace officer's badge. What about those that >> feel like that and do not have a getoutta jail/roadblock exit badge? I >> guess we'll soon find out when some get stopped and fight rather than >> have their rights violated. It's no longer a matter of if this is >> going to happen, just when. >> >> regards >> >> Joe Horn >> List retired cop and no longer proud of it. Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax) http://www.therighter.com "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: New Legislative Leadership and Membership Date: 11 Nov 1996 07:22:31 -0700 This is a great resource, especially for those who are active in lobbying their legislators - on firearms issues or anything else. A lot of the info is free, but some of it does require a subscription. Please note that I have absolutely NO affiliation with Code-Co (other than the fact that I use their services), and I'm offering this information solely as a service to those who may be interested. Sarah >To: users@code-co.com >From: Byron Harward >Subject: New Legislative Leadership and Membership > >Most of the leadership for next year's session of the State Legislature has >been elected and we have the names and addresses for you on Code-Co's page. > >The newly elected members of the legislature have elected three of the four >leadership groups for 1997-1998. Both House caucuses have elected their >leaders. The Senate has elected Minority leadership but not the Majority >Leadership as of today. The names of the new leaders are all linked from > >www.code-co.com/utah/leg/leglist.htm > >We are also pleased to let you know that complete membership lists of the >new Utah State Legislature are now on our page. You can reach them from the >link above. > >As soon as the Senate Majority Leadership is elected, we will include it at >the same spot as these lists. > >If you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know. > >Byron Harward > > > >======================================================= >| Byron Harward Internet Access to Utah Law: | >| General Manager www.code-co.com/utah | >| Code-Co Law Publishers Email: byron@code-co.com | >| P.O. Box 1471 Utah County:(801) 22-6876 | >| Provo, UT 84603-1471 Salt Lake: (801) 364-2633 | >| Formal Hours: M-F 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.MST | >| (But we are here far more than that, try anytime) | >======================================================= > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: American Firearms Association (1/2) Date: 11 Nov 1996 21:53:17 -0700 >Return-Path: rangio@shell.aros.net >Date: 11 Nov 96 14:59:34 EST >From: Thomas Burke <73404.711@CompuServe.COM> >To: BlindCopyReceiver:; >Subject: American Firearms Association (1/2) >Sender: owner-cebs@c2.net > > I don't know how many of you have run across this organization >yet. They don't seem to me to be as much of a pro-gun organization as >they are an anti-NRA organization. > Seems to me that they have quite a convoluted view of the >Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They don't seem to think there is >any difference between the States and the United States and it >appears they would use my state Constitution for toilet paper. > But, maybe it's just my radical, constitutionalist attitude. > You can find their site at . >A comment can be left at their site. Please be nice because it appears >they have taken exception to profanity in some people's rebuttal. > >Tom > >*************************************************** >Fom the American Firearms Association (AFA) homepage > >Position Summary-- A quick glance > >Contrary to what you may have heard or read about the AFA by those who are >frightened by the prospect of moderate discussion, the AFA is not an >anti-gun organization. We are as we appear: a politically moderate, gun >owners organization dedicated to trying to find the middle ground between >the rights of gun owners, and the needs of society. Accordingly, we judge >each gun control initiative based on its own merits, or lack thereof, and >not according to any inflexible and paranoid ideology. Here is a quick >sketch of some of the AFA's positions: >*************************************** > Pro-NRA Agenda > >Support for the NRA's efforts to >preserve the U.S. Army's Division of >Civilian Marksmanship program. > > Support for the NRA's sport shooting >and hunter education programs. > >Support for the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" >educational program for kids. > >Support for the NRA's resistance >to > any ban on gun show sales > >*************************************** > Anti-HCI Agenda > >Opposition to holding gun >merchants responsible for gun >deaths, when a legal transaction >has taken place. > >Opposition to increasing dealer >license fees to prohibitive levels. > >Opposition to any initiative to >tax handgun and ammunition sales >to prohibitive levels. > >Opposition to any proof of > liability >insurance purchase > requirement. >*************************************** > Anti-NRA Agenda > >Rejection of the NRA's irresponsible >anti-government rhetoric and agenda. > >Rejection of the continued drain of >funds from sport, recreation and >educational shooting programs to >punish legislators who disagree with >us. > >Rejection of the continued suppression >of dissent in NRA councils. (Un-American!) > > >Rejection of the unreasoning >opposition to all gun-control >legislation, no matter how worthy. >*************************************** > Pro-HCI Agenda > >Support for the Brady Law and >Assault Weapons Law. > >Support for a prohibition of gun >ownership by persons convicted of >violent misdemeanors and felonies, >including spousal and child abuse. > >Support for the five-year >renewable Handgun Purchase License >concept. > >Support for a freeze on the sale >of Teflon coated ammunition and >other unsporting types of rounds. >*************************************** > >* The AFA also encourages gun owners and AFA members to utilize > high-quality gun safes to store their firearms in, but does not feel > that this should be made a legal requirement. > > * The AFA is prepared to support only such concealed weapons > legislation as establishes the highest standards for permit applicants > (i.e. mandatory background and fingerprint checks, mandatory safety > and competency training, etc.). > > * The AFA opposes all so-called "animal rights" organizations as > contrary to the interests of Hunters and Sportsmen. > > * The AFA endorses and supports the efforts of all conservation groups > which recognize the legitimate rights of Hunters and Sportsmen, and > the important role they play in wildlife management. We urge the NRA > to renew their active support for these kinds of organizations. > > * The AFA has not yet developed a position on legislation mandating > child-proof safety devices on handguns. > >For those of you who may disagree with one or two aspects of our agenda, we >urge you to ask yourself if you are in complete agreement with everything >that either HCI or the NRA stands for. > >If not, we urge you to support whichever organization best represents your >views. It's the American way. > >Join the American Firearms Association today. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax) http://www.therighter.com "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Gun Owners of America's view of the '96 elections Date: 13 Nov 1996 01:04:24 -0700 >Return-Path: rangio@shell.aros.net >From: Jay Banks >To: "'cebs@c2.org'" >Subject: Gun Owners of America's view of the '96 elections >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:39:02 -0600 >Sender: owner-cebs@c2.net > > > The '96 elections and Your Gun Rights: > Win, Lose or Draw > > by Gun Owners of America > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 > > > The 1996 elections offered few surprises and little change. >We went into the elections with a Democrat in the White House and >the Republicans in control of Congress, and that's the way we >came out. > > This means, of course, another four years of battling for >our gun rights with the most anti-gun President in American >history. So the real issue is how did pro-gun forces fare in the >Congress? Will we be able to withstand the onslaught of anti-gun >proposals sure to be put forth by a President no longer concerned >with being reelected? > >Little Change in Congress > > The overwhelming majority of House and Senate incumbents who >ran for reelection were able to retain their seats. 400 >incumbents fall into this category, with 94% of them winning a >trip back to Washington. (Several races were still undecided at >press time.) > > Of the 22 incumbents who were defeated, eight were rated "A" >by GOA. Of these eight, seven were replaced by anti-gun >challenges, so the loss of pro-gun incumbent seats is seven. > > Meanwhile, there were many open seats, 27 of which were >previously held by pro-gun legislators. Pro-gun candidates won >25 open races, indicating a loss of two pro-gun seats. > > Therefore, the pro-gun cause, on paper anyway, suffered a >net loss of nine seats in the Congress. Virtually all of the >loss occurred in the House. > >House Summary > > All the news on election day wasn't bad, however. Several >staunch pro-gun candidates prevailed in House races. Space does >not permit naming all the candidates, but following is a sampling >of folks who should be Second Amendment leaders: > > In the 3rd district of Kansas, Vince Snowbarger defeated his >opponent although he was continually assailed for having >introduced pro-gun legislation in the state senate. Kansas, >noted for being one of the more moderate midwestern states, >improved greatly overall on the firearms issue. > > Bob Schaffer of Colorado also has a pro-gun record in the >state senate. Mr. Schaffer was in a bitterly fought primary, >with two other candidates trying to woo pro-gun voters. GOA was >instrumental in pointing out to voters that the two other >challengers had been less than candid about their anti-gun >record, which helped push Schaffer over the top. > > In Virginia, Democrat Virgil Goode will become far and away >the most pro-gun Democrat in Congress. Sadly, another pro-gun >Democrat, Harold Volkmer, lost his reelection bid. > > Maryland Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, who has introduced several >pro-gun bills in Congress, won handily over his opponent. >Throughout the campaign, Bartlett was attacked for aligning >himself with pro-gun "special interest groups." > > Similarly, Helen Chenoweth of Idaho endured a ruthless >attack, which centered around her being "too extreme" on the gun >issue. She will continue to be one of the gun owners' very best >friends. > > Ron Paul of Texas is a familiar name to gun owners, as he >was formerly in Congress, and had run as the Libertarian Party >presidential candidate in 1988. GOA knows Ron Paul to be a man >of his word, and is looking forward to working with him to stem >the tide of the Clinton agenda. > > Finally, in Texas, Representative Steve Stockman was singled >out by Handgun Control, Inc. and others as the number one target >to defeat in 1996. Over the past two years, Rep. Stockman >introduced legislation to repeal the Brady law, the "assault >weapons" ban, the Washington, D.C., strict liability law, and >legislation to protect gun dealers from BATF harassment. > > Rep. Stockman isn't out of the woods yet, however, as he now >prepares for a December 10th run-off election against an anti-gun >tax assessor, Nick Lampson. > >Senate Summary > > In the U.S. Senate, gun owners actually made substantial >gains. Of course, it would have been hard not to have had an >improvement over last session's Senate, which did next to nothing >for gun owners. > > Most notably, in Wyoming, pro-gun candidate Mike Enzi >prevailed over Kathy Karpan. Ms. Karpan tried to convince voters >that she was every bit as pro-gun as Enzi, and she was even >effective in neutralizing other pro-gun organizations. GOA was >able to get involved in the race and help point out the >differences between the candidates, and ultimately help get Mr. >Enzi elected. > > In Colorado, Wayne Allard has been a consistent, though >quiet, friend of gun owners for a long time. Also, the two >Kansas Senate seats should be a vast improvement over the >previous incumbents. > >Sarah's Newest Darlings > > A couple of races were particularly noteworthy in that >vehement anti-gunners were elected. In the 4th district of New >York, Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat, ran on one issue: gun >control. There is no doubt that Mrs. McCarthy will be aligned >right next to her fellow New Yorker, Charles Schumer, as a bomb >thrower for Sarah Brady and Handgun Control, Inc. > > In Texas, a Brady can potentially win a seat in the House. >Kevin Brady, a Republican from the 8th district, is no relation >to Sarah, except ideologically. Mr. Brady is blatantly anti-gun, >and will have no qualms about pushing the other Brady's agenda. > > There is a chance that Brady will not make it to Washington, >as he must face pro-gun candidate Gene Fontenot in a December >10th special election. > > Perhaps the greatest disappointment on election night was in >Louisiana. Staunch pro-gun state senator Woody Jenkins was >narrowly defeated by extremely anti-gun Mary Landrieu. Ms. >Landrieu may rival Diane Feinstein in her zeal to take away your >guns. > >Presidential summary > > Republican politicians in Washington, D.C. should learn from >this election. Anti-gun views do not get Republicans elected to >the White House. Ronald Reagan (in 1980 and 1984) and George >Bush (in 1988) were able to pull pro-gun Democrats over to their >side by using the gun issue to their advantage. > > But Bob Dole instead followed Bush's example from 1992, >telling gun owners in effect that they have nowhere else to go. >Well, apparently they did find somewhere else to go. > > Bob Dole not only took gun owners for granted, he insulted >them, stating that he would veto any bill that repealed the gun >ban, and that he would encourage other Republicans to abandon >efforts to repeal it. (Source: The Washington Times, July 12, >1996.) > > Dole just didn't get it. Even President Clinton admitted >after the 1994 elections that the gun issue had cost him the >control of Congress. In the end, Dole not only lost voters, but >maybe even more importantly, he lost grassroots activists who >would have helped him to turn out the vote. > > >The Fight Goes On > > So what does all this mean in practical terms? Well, any >hope of a veto-proof Congress is lost. Gun owners should be >prepared for another two years of intense battle to protect our >right to keep and bear arms. And this is where you must play a >vital role. > > We must pressure the Congress to bring up for a vote >legislation to repeal Bill Clinton's gun control. But remember, >they're not going to want to do this! The excuse will be the >same one we've been hearing for two years: President Clinton will >veto it anyway, so why hold the vote? The reason they need to >vote on this issue, of course, is so that we, the voters, can >determine who our true friends are. We can then take that >information with us to the polls the next time around. > > GOA is prepared for the excuses. 58 newly elected >representatives have committed in writing to cosponsor >legislation repealing the assault weapons ban and the Brady law. >GOA will be notifying its members who live in any of these >districts. And then you can put the pressure on the Congress. >After all, if someone has already committed in writing to >cosponsor a bill, it should take no time at all to put their name >on a piece of legislation. If they don't, that means they were >not totally up front with you before the election. > > That's why it is so important to keep your GOA membership >current. We will be applying the pressure on Capitol Hill, but >nothing can replace the impact of thousands of cards, letters, >faxes and phone calls from concerned constituents pouring into a >congressional office. > > If together we can pressure those 58 representatives (in >addition to others who should be supportive of our efforts) to >cosponsor pro-gun bills, it will be difficult for the leadership >in Congress to ignore us. > >Think Long-Term > > Remember, we're in this battle for the long haul. Of course >we would have liked to have done better this year, but it didn't >work out that way. Now we must do all we can over the next two >years to hold our legislators accountable and then come back in >the next election and turn things more in our favor. As the >founders were fond of saying, eternal vigilance is the price of >liberty. > > > >TTYL >-=JB=- > >No-Compromise Campaign '96 at: http://www.c2.org/~patriot >Invest in what you believe to be right. > >C-TEK BBS 903.723.8855 > jay.banks@e-tex.com > P.O. BOX 194 > Montalba TX 75853 > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Clinton slips up again Date: 13 Nov 1996 10:42:01 -0700 >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:55:45 -0800 >From: "John H. Josselyn, Legislative VP" >Organization: Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. >Subject: Clinton slips up again > >Attached please find an interesting story about Clinton stretching the >truth...again > > >-- >John H. Josselyn, Legislative V.P. >Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. >P.O. Box 20102 >Towson, MD 21284-0102 >(410) 296-3947 (phone & fax) > > > CLINTON WORKS TO DISARM EVERY AMERICAN > > > > Clinton caught in the "BIG LIE" > > > >Clinton, during his campaign and while promoting his radical plan for the > >national registration of all handguns and the licensing of all handgun owners > >repeats over and over this story. He claims that a good friend of his sold a > >gun to an escapee from an insane asylum who then used it to murder six innocent > >people. The gun sellers life is then shattered because of his role. > > >This story leaves many in an audience on the verge of tears. Some have said > >that this alone is reason enough to pass more anti-gun bills. > > >"The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette" made a search of back newspaper files and said > >they could not find any case of an escaped mental patient killing anyone in > >Arkansas. > > >Arkansas state police director, Col. T. L. Goodwin, says there were two mass > >killings back in the 1970s but both the killers were women. Neither had ever > >been in a mental institution, much less escaped??? > > >The New York Daily News questioned White House aids. They said that Clinton did > >not want to name his FRIEND so as not to cause him any notoriety. The White > >House now says that Clinton refuses to discuss the story. He will not divulge > >any further details about the case??? > > > > WHAT CLINTON SAID > > "Don't let anybody tell you that this won't work. > > I've got a friend back home who sold a gun years > > ago to a guy who escaped from a mental hospital, > > that he hadn't seen in 10 years, and he pulled out > > that old form from the 1968 act and said, "Have > > you ever been convicted of a crime, have you ever > > been in a mental hospital?" The guy said, "No, no," > > and he put the form back in the drawer, and 12 hours > > later six people were dead and my friend is not over > > it to this day. Don't tell me this bill will not > > make a difference. That is not true. (applause) > > That is not true." > > > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Atlanta: Mom Kills Suspected Carjacker Date: 15 Nov 1996 14:51:20 -0700 >From: Harvey Wysong >Subject: Handgun Protect Innocents...Again > >The story below appeared in The Atlanta Journal/The Atlanta >Constitution of Tuesday, Nov.12, 1996, page E2. > >College Park, Georgia is a municipality on the southern side of >Atlanta -- adjacent to the Atlanta airport. Hope you find it informative. > >-- Harvey > ================================== > >MOM KILLS SUSPECTED CARJACKER > >Gunman refused College Park woman's >plea to set her and her toddler free, she tells police. > >By Bill Montgomery >Staff Writer > > A College Park woman shot and killed an armed man she says was >trying to carjack her van with her and her 1-year-old daughter inside, >police said Monday. > > Police plan to ask Fulton County prosecutors to determine whether >any charges should be brought against Shantell Jackson, 26, of Godby Road, >in the Saturday night shooting. > > Jackson told police that the gunman accosted her as she drove into >the parking lot of an apartment complex on Camp Creek Parkway. She had >planned to watch a broadcast of the Evander Holyfield-Mike Tyson fight with >friends at the complex. > > She fired after the man pointed a revolver at her and ordered her to >"move over," she told police. She offered to take her daughter and give up >the van, but the man refused, police said. > > "She was pleading with the guy to let her take the baby and leave >the van, but he blocked the door," said College Park Detective Reed Pollard. >"She was protecting herself and the baby." > > Jackson, who told police she bought the .44-caliber handgun in >September after her home was burglarized, said she fired several shots from >the gun, which she kept concealed in a canvas bag beside her car seat. "She >didn't try to remove it," Pollard said. "She just fired." > > Police said they could not locate her gun at the scene of the >shooting and were looking for it Monday afternoon. Police said it was >unclear Monday whether the woman had a permit for the gun. > > Shot in the chest, shoulder, thigh and back as he attempted to flee, >Ernest DeWayne Mayfield, 30, of the Pine Crossing Apartments on Camp Creek >Parkway, collapsed and died at the scene, Pollard said. > > Mayfield had a length criminal record, including arrests and >convictions for robbery, aggravated assault and drug offenses, Pollard said. Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Atlanta Constitution Editorial 11/14 Date: 15 Nov 1996 15:56:43 -0700 >"NRA's extremism goes global" > > The bizarre paranoia of the National Rifle Association knows no bounds >- not even national borders. Consider the following alert sent out this= year >to NRA members: > "The lengths to which the Clinton Administration will go to restrict >our Second Amendment rights knows no bounds - not even international= borders!" >the alert begins. It goes on to suggest that the federal Arms Control and >Disarmament Agency, which handles international nuclear disarmament issues, >poses some unspecified threat to the right of Americans to own pistols and >rifles. > It also warns that President Clinton has enlisted the United Nations in >what it calls a "gun-control initiative financed mainly by Japan and= staffed in >part by Canadian gun control officials." > And they fly around in black helicopters, no doubt. > There is a kernel of truth to the NRA's story. Several countries, >including Japan, Mexico and Colombia, have become increasingly worried= about >the illegal flow of U.S.-made weapons into their countries. It's a= legitimate >concern on their part, just as the United States is legitimately concerned >about the flow of illegal drugs into our own country from Mexico and= Colombia. > A study group, the U.N. Panel of Government Experts on Small Arms, was >formed to consider the problem of illegal arms smuggling. The United= States is >a member of that group, which is supposed to issue a report next year. > To the NRA, that panel constitutes proof that "the White House has >chosen foreign policy as its weapon of choice in the war on our [Second >Amendment] rights." To frustrate that effort, the NRA has applied to= become an >official U.N. lobbying group. > "We had members concerned about what was going on at the United >Nations," NRA lobbyist Tanya Metaksa explained to The Associated Press, >although she refused to be specific about how the U.N. effort might= actually >threaten civilian ownership of guns in the United States. > To some of her supporters, no explanation is necessary. They already >view the United Nations as some international conspiracy to usurp U.S. >sovereignty, and they no doubt see the gun-smuggling panel as confirmation= of >the United Nations' evil intentions. First it grabs the guns, then it= grabs >the country. > That's nonsense, of course. But it's nonsense that unfortunately can't >be ignored, given the influence that the NRA continues to enjoy with so= many >U.S. politicians. Nope. No way. The UN isn't any sort of "international conspiracy to usurp= US sovreignty". Total nonsense, as the AJC says. That must be why OUR military is going to Rwanda/Zaire under FOREIGN= command. DUH! Today's vocabulary lesson for the journalistically impaired: sovereignty (s=F2v=B4er-=EEn-t=EA, s=F2v=B4r=EEn-) noun plural sovereignties 1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state. 2. Royal rank, authority, or power. 3. Complete independence and self-government. 4. A territory existing as an independent state. The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright =A9 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. Sarah Thompson, M.D. =09 PO Box 271231 =09 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 =09 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Re: Guns for Brits-- 1940 Date: 16 Nov 1996 01:22:32 -0700 >From: Brian Wilson >Subject: Re: Guns for Brits-- 1940 > >THe good old days..... > > >> Sb: A Defenseless Britain >> >> After the fall of Dunkirk, Britain found itself short of arms for island >> defense. The Home Guard had to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, >> pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a >> sporting shotgun - ill-suited for military use because of it's short >> range and bulky ammunition. British government advertisements in U.S. >> newspapers and magazines asked Americans to 'Send a Gun to Defend a >> British Home - British civilians, faced with threat of invasion, >> desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The ads pleaded >> for 'Pistols, Rifles, Revolvers, Shotguns, and Binoculars from American >> citizens who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes >> (1).' >> >> Pro-Allied organizations in the United States collected weapons; >> the National Rifle Association shipped seven thousand guns to Britain, >> which also purchased surplus WWI Enfield rifles from America's >> Department Of War (2). Prime Minister Winston Churchill's book 'Their >> Finest Hour' recalls the arrival of the loads of guns. Churchill >> personally supervised the deliveries to ensure that they were sent on >> fast ships and distributed first to Home Guard members in coastal zones. >> Churchill thought that the American donations were 'entirely on a >> different level from anything we have transported across the Atlantic >> except for the Canadial division itself. Churchill warned his First >> Lord that 'the loss of these rifles and field-guns would be a disaster >> of the first order.' Their Finest Hour recalled: 'When the ships from >> America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains >> were waiting in all the ports to receive their cargos. The Home Guard >> in every county, in every town, in every village, sat up all through the >> night to receive them... By the end of July we were an armed nation... a >> lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands.' >> >> (1) Advertisement, American Rifleman, November 1940. The full ad: >> >> SEND A GUN TO DEFEND A BRITISH HOME >> >> British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion, desperately >> need arms for the defense of their homes. The American Committee >> for Defense of British Homes has organized to collect gifts of >> pistols, rifles, revolvers, shotguns, binoculars from American >> civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in the defense of >> British homes. Those arms are being shipped, with the consent of >> the British Government, to Civilian Committee for Protection of >> Homes, Birmingham, England. The members of which are Wickham >> Steed, Edward Hulton, and Lord Davies. You can aid by sending any >> arms or binoculars you can spare to American Committee for Defense >> of British Homes, C. Suydan Cutting, Chairman, Room 100, 10 >> >> Warren Street, New York, NY. >> >> (2) Yardley and Stevenson, p. 69; Edwards, "The Disarmament of Great >> Britain," American Rifleman, January 1988, pp. 36-37. >> >> >> --- End of Forwarded message --- Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax) http://www.therighter.com "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andelain Subject: Well we did it, now for our payment: Date: 16 Nov 1996 23:25:56 -0700 (MST) [There are some who will be offended at what follows. If you offend easily, read no further. If you are one of those who have worked tirelessly for the CCW (or other RKBA) laws, I exclude you from this screed. For those who find the shoe uncomfortably secure, redeem yourself.] This is my absolute and total frustration speaking. I go to gun shows and listen to the complaints about how you can't buy this magazine, that accessory, that we have too many gun control laws, that we have to do something about Klinton and Sarah. I stand around in the gun stores and listen to dealers complaing about all the regulations. I listen to friends and acquaintances talk about getting CCW permits, getting guns for their wives and girlfriends, because they might need to protect themselves, yet, when asked to donate $40 to the USSC because this year is gonna be a bad one at the Legislature, they can't scrape it together. Besides, the USSC and the NRA will somehow "protect" us. Well....we ridiculed Bresnahan and helped him lose his election, we let Sue Lockman, Darlene Gubler and others of our "friends" lose theirs. We kept Jones and Montgomery in. Now we get our pay. Enclosed is how we can look forward to getting down on our knees and beg those scum we elected to "allow" us to have our rights back. The USSC has no money, they have had to let their (our) lobbyist go. The American Gun Review is trying to do what they can with limited funds. Women Against Gun Control keep asking that women (and men) poney up a couple of bucks or show up at a committee meeting. We complain and moan that we don't have the couple of bucks, that we have a tight schedule of Jazz games and family home evening, besides, we're only concerned with "range access" or "sport shooting" or "habitat", meanwhile, these bastards are violating their oaths of office and preparing laws which will take away our fundamental right to self defense, leave our women and children standing at the bus stop, with a government guarantee that they can be murdered, raped, sodomised, kidnapped, beaten with absolute impunity. We, as gun owners should be ashamed. Now, it's time to stop bitchin' in the kitchen and standing around at the gun shows "talkin' the talk", and get to work. There is a meeting of the Public Transportation and Safety Interim Committee on Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 2:00 PM. The following "draft" legislation will be considered. The UTA will be holding a "regular meeting of the board of directors" at 2:30 PM on Wed, Nov. 20th in the board room at the Meadowbrook Facility and Maintenance Complex located at 3600 So, 700 W to discuss the "proposed legislation concerning concealed firearm permits". Gun control is government sanctioned murder, and those who support it are murderers. ************************************************************************** PROPOSED (DRAFT) LEGISLATION AFFECTING UTA TO BE INTRODUCED AT THE 1997 LEGISLATURE REGARDING RESTRICTION OF CONCEALED FIREARM PERMITS Alternative No. 1: Section 53-5-710.1 is enacted to read: 53-5-710.1 Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 53-5-704 or 705. (1) no person may carry a concealed firearm: (a) in a church, as defined in Section 32A-a-105(9) or otherwise on the grounds or property owned, leased or used by a religious organisation, unless expressly authorized by such church or religious organisation: (b) in violation of Section 53A-3-502 or Section 53B-3-201, relating to public and private schools and institiutions of higher education: (c) in any law enforcement, detention, jail or correctional facility, or in any office or building owned, occupied or controlled by the state or any political subdivision: (d) in a public park located in any county having a population greater than 60,000: (e) in any meeting of the Legislature or its committees, or at any meeting of the governing body of any political subdivision: (f) at a demonstration or parade for which a permit is issued or required from a political subdivision: (g) where a public school or collegiate sporting event is taking place: (h) in vehicles while used for public transportation, such as buses, streetcars, railway coaches and related waiting areas, or inside the passenger terminal of any airport, except that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any concealed firearm into the terminal if such firearm is encased for shipment, for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft: (i) in any polling place: (j) where alcoholic beverages are sold, or allowed to be sold, for on-premises consumption pursuant to a permit issued or required under Chapter 4, 6 or 7 or Part 2 of Chapter 10, Title 32A: (k) in a hospital licensed under Chapter 21, Title 26: (l) in any place where a conspicious notice that carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited has been posted by a person in legal possession, custody or control of such place: (m) in the private residence of another without first receiving the consent of that person: or (n) where possession of a firearm is prohibited under any other provision of law: Alternative No. 2: 3 Any person legally owning, possessing, managing, operating or controlling a place of business may request that any concealed firearm carried into such place of business be removed from such place. Any person receiving such a request shall immediately leave the place of business or otherwise remove the concealed firearm from such place. Neither the rights granted pursuant to this subsection nor the excercise therof shall require or depend upon posting of any notice pursuant to subsection (1) (l) above. 4. The provisions of this part do not apply to a peace officer as defined under 5-77-la [Limitiation of Liability] Section 53-5-710.2 is enacted to read: 53-5-710.2 (1) No person shall be liable civilly for injury to the person or property of another arising by reason of the lawful excercise or enforcement of any right granted under this part to restrict the carrying of a concealed firearm. (2) An employer may prohibit an employee holding a permit from carrying a firearm (a) (I) in any place where the employee conducts or is to conduct any work as a part of his employment by employer: (ii) in any motor vehicle furnished or provided by the employer to the employee in connection with such employment or any work pursuant thereto: or (iii) in any motor vehicle which he employee is required by the employer to furnish or use as a part of such employment. (b) Nothing contained in this part shall require the employer to give notice of any such restriction in any particular manner. An employee shall be deemed to have received notice of such restrictions if it is included in any employment agreement, employee manual or policy statement given by the employer to the employee or disclosed pursuant to any other notice given to the employee, including those posted by the employer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: URGENT PETITION! Save our CCW! Date: 17 Nov 1996 21:29:59 -0700 Dear fellow RKBA'ers, As another member posted previously, the UTA has proposed legislation that would totally gut our hard-won "right" to carry concealed. It is ESSENTIAL that this legislation, and similar legislation proposed by the League of Cities and Towns, which would invalidate the state pre-emption law, NOT BE ALLOWED to pass! This issue will be discussed at the interim committee meeting of the Public Safety and Transportation Committee at the State Capitol on Wed. Nov. 20 at 2 PM. It will also be discussed at the UTA Board Meeting, at UTA Headquarters, 3600 S. 700 West, in SLC, on the same date at 2:30 PM. PLEASE!!!!! Call the UTA and tell them you oppose this legislation and oppose banning LEGAL concealed carry on public transit. Their phone number is 262-5626. Call your State Representative and Senator and tell them you oppose the UTA proposed legislation. Show up at one of the above meetings, particularly at the Capitol, if you can. (I realize most people work during those hours.) Finally, SIGN the petition! Instructions for petition: 1. Include your name, full address, and e-mail address on the first empty line. We would appreciate phone numbers, but they are not required. 2. Forward the petition to as many Utahns as you think would be willing to sign it. (Please don't forward this to other members of utah-firearms; you're all getting a copy of this simultaneously - I hope!) 3. Every tenth signer (i.e. if you signed on line 10, 20, 30, 100, etc.) should *send a copy of the petition to ME* at gunmoll@therighter.com. 4. If you are not going to forward the petition, return it to me at gunmoll@therighter.com 5. Please sign only ONCE! I hope to have a copy of the petition up on my WEB page soon. That address is http://www.therighter.com The petitions will be presented to the legislature and the UTA on Wednesday. So far we have about 400 signatures but we need MORE! If you have questions, let me know. Thanks for your assistance! Petition to the Utah Transit Authority and Public Transit District Task Force The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) wants to forbid the carrying of concealed weapons on all UTA vehicles. Such a policy violates the Utah State Constitution as well as the Concealed Carry Law and the State Pre-Emption Law passed by the Legislature. The UTA does NOT have the authority to enforce this policy. The right to carry concealed is unrestricted in Utah. This rule is discriminatory and unfairly endangers those people who choose not to own a car, the disabled and elderly, as well as the poor who cannot afford cars and often live and work in neighborhoods most at risk for violent crime. We, the undersigned Citizens of the State of Utah therefore demand: 1. That the UTA positively affirm the right of lawful holders of concealed carry permits to carry on UTA property and vehicles. 2. That the Public Transit District Task Force of the Utah State Legislature positively affirm the right of lawful holders of concealed carry permits to carry on UTA property and vehicles. 3. That the UTA and the Legislature work together to enact enforceable and legal methods of ensuring the safety of UTA riders and employees and increase penalties for illegal carrying of weapons on public transit. Name Address E-mail Phone 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. This petition is sponsored by Women Against Gun Control. http://www.therighter.com/wagc/wagc.htm Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: [Fwd: LIABILITY] Date: 18 Nov 1996 00:08:22 -0700 >http://www.mojones.com/mother_jones/JF94/nra.sidebar2.html > > [The MoJo Wire] [Image] > >[MoJo Wire Site Directory] > >LIABILITY > >For over a dozen years, Stephen P. Teret has been researching and thinking >about gun violence in America. In his position as director of the Johns >Hopkins University Injury Prevention Center, Teret has become interested in >the question of whether weapons manufacturers can be held liable for the >damage their products cause people. > >One promising area would be to hold gunmakers accountable for making their >guns as safe as possible. > >"There are things that could be done with existing technology to make >handguns safer," says Teret, "and reduce dramatically certain types of >tragic shootings--such as the child who plays with a parent's gun, a >teenager who commits suicide, or an owner shot with his own gun by an >intruder. > >"The way to do this is to personalize the gun to the owner. The low-tech way >is to provide a combination lock on the gun. The owner is the only person >who knows the combination, so when it is 'locked' no one else can shoot it. > >"The high tech way involves implanting an electrical component or receptor >in the gun that is activated only by a transmitter that the owner keeps in a >bracelet or ring. > >"Guns can easily be child-proofed in these or other ways," adds Teret. "In >fact, Smith & Wesson used to sell a 'child-proof' model. Now, however, they >are pushing their LadySmith handgun on young women, but they are not >child-proofed even though common sense says a lot of these young women are >going to be around children. So the question is, will the company be liable >when something terrible happens? > >"Who has moral blame? The shooter or the manufacturer, or both? What about >the board of directors of the company making the guns? They are discharging >a pollutant into the stream of commerce. They make decisions that have >life-and-death implications for other people, but they make them on the >basis of profit and loss, because of the lack of regulation by the >government." > >[MoJo Wire Site Directory] > > Home | Subscribe | MoJoWorld | Contact Info | All Rights Reserved | Search > Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax) http://www.therighter.com "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SLFCX@cc.usu.edu Subject: Re: URGENT PETITION! Save our CCW! Date: 18 Nov 1996 11:43:47 -0600 (MDT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@es.com (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Well we did it, now for our payment: Date: 18 Nov 1996 12:49:18 -0700 On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, andelain posted: >Jones and Montgomery in. Now we get our pay. Enclosed is how we can >look forward to getting down on our knees and beg those scum we elected >to "allow" us to have our rights back. I agree with your frustration at gun-owner apathy. However we never had out rights. State issued CCW permits do not grant a person the *right* to do anything. States do not grants rights, they may only grant privledges. Rights are inherent in every person. We have not been able to exercise the *right* to carry arms in defense of ourself since the first law limiting such carry was passed--probably back in territorial days. The CCW is a State granted priglege and may be regulated, restricted, or revoked at will. We got down our knees and begged the elected officials to "allow" us to get fingerprinted, photographed, and otherwise treated like crimminals when we got the CCW law. Maybe there was no other way to realisticaly move from where we were to where we need to be. But anyone who doesn't support unrestricted, Vermont style carry as teh ultimate goal doesn't understand the difference between a right and a privlege. Let's be sure we use the proper nomanclature when refering to our CCW law. It is not a right. It is a privlege. That privlege of carrying a gun in compliance with statute may make exercising our right to self defense a little easier than facing the wrath of big brother for exercising a right. But it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, what was intended by the founders right to carry guns. >Gun control is government sanctioned murder, and those who support it >are murderers. If fingerprints, photographs, and background checks are not gun control, what is? The biggest problem with permit system, after the fact that they infringe my right to own and carry, is the apathy they inspire. Most of those who give a rat's petute about carrying a gun now "have theirs" and will feel no need to exert further effort until "theirs" no longer does them any good. Do not misunderstand me. I oppose efforts to limit where one may carry. I just don't want us to ever lose sight of the goal of being able to exercise our rights rather than a gubt granted privlege. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms... The phrase "the people" meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments -- that is, each and every free person. A select militia defined as only the privileged class entitled to keep and bear arms was considered an anathema to a free society, in the same way that Americans denounced select spokesmen approved by the government as the only class entitled to the freedom of the press." -- Stephen P. Holbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right", University of New Mexico Press, 1984, pp. 83-84. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: Well we did it, now for our payment: Date: 18 Nov 1996 14:58:46 -0700 er...sorry. hit the send button 'stead of the delete button. Realistically, we ain't gonna get the *right* back until we have a majority, win the PR war, turn the tide, etc. There is no *allow*. There is, however, a dis-allow. They are doing it. We are letting them. Insisting on Vermont, (which will never happen here, I'm afraid) at the expense of *privledge* is .... ah....screw it. I've gone three steps beyond the ability to noodle about the philosophical basis for self-determinism and the semantics of 2nd Amendment. (Actually, I disagree that CCW is an unalienable right...but that's another story.) I have just had it with the whole business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Petition now on the WEB Date: 18 Nov 1996 16:31:36 -0700 The petition to stop the UTA from banning guns on public transit, as well as in most other public places, is now on the WEB. Check out either: http://www.therighter.com OR http://www.therighter.com/wagc/wagc.htm Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Do guns cause murder? Date: 18 Nov 1996 22:40:26 -0700 >FROM: Don Kates > > I am in receipt of three communications which may be of interest. >1) Prof. Horrocks, Richard Munday and several other English analysts have >received Home Office figures on crime and gun ownership. These indicate an >INVERSE correlation, i.e., the areas of England and Scotland w/ the >greatest gun ownership have the highest level of violent crime and >homicide. [NOTE that this correlates w/ the American phenomenon that: a) >geographic areas with the highest firearms ownership have the least >violence; and b) demographic groups with the highest levels of gun >ownership have very low levels of homicide, much lower than the demographic >groups w/ the highest levels.] To get this British research I believe that >all you need to do is write >ftp//ftp.islandnet.com/ForgeConsulting/res/crimstat.zip. NOTE: I don't >understand anything about internets, BBS, computers etc. All I am doing >here is printing what is on the bottom of the fax they sent me. > >2) An entirely different "English" source, Derek Bernard on the Isle of >Jersey, suggests another line of inquiry: In 1971 Ireland confiscated all >legally held handguns. Since then Irish homicide has steadily risen. At >least that is what Bernard believes, based on isolated newspaper comments >by Irish police officials. Bernard does not have access to international >criminological statistics. Anyone who does should send him such Irish >statistics as they possess at 44-534-6946-0; fax -6946-6; Chalet Abaco, >Green Rd., St. Clement, Jersey, British Isles JE2 62A > >3) For those interested in the Lott & Mustard article, its citation will be >26 J. LEGAL STUDIES #1, p. 1 (1997) > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Re: Do guns cause murder? Date: 19 Nov 1996 06:10:53 -0700 >Date: 19 Nov 96 04:34:51 EST >From: Steven Kendrick/UK <73612.2132@CompuServe.COM> >To: GunTalk >Subject: Re: Do guns cause murder? >Sender: owner-cebs@c2.net > >Well, I'm glad to see someone has noticed our hard work finally! > >Actually it was my friend Pete Jackson who was primarily responsible for this >analysis showing an inverse correlation between gun ownership and homicide in >the UK. These stats have been around for years, but no-one thought of doing the >comparison until now. > >The Home Office response when they were presented with this analysis (by the AG >of Scotland, no less) was: "We are not banning handguns because of the >statistics, we are banning them because they are dangerous." > >Obviously the mind of someone with a keen intellect! > >Steve. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVEL@cc.usu.edu Subject: Re: URGENT PETITION! Save our CCW! Date: 19 Nov 1996 13:34:10 -0600 (MDT) I have a question about the petition - How can I e-mail you signatures? Are names and addresses ok? Thanks for working on this! Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Re: URGENT PETITION! Save our CCW! Date: 19 Nov 1996 15:24:27 -0700 At 01:34 PM 11/19/96 -0600, DAVEL@cc.usu.edu wrote: >I have a question about the petition - How can I e-mail you signatures? Are >names and addresses ok? > >Thanks for working on this! > > Dave > It's not easy mailing signatures, unless you've got yours digitalized! All I need is name, full address, and e-mail address. Phone numbers would be nice so we can put together a phone tree, but are not needed. You can use the petition I posted to utah-firearms or the one on my Web page at http://www.therighter.com I need petitions back by this evening so I can have them available for tomorrow. Thanks for YOUR help! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: AGENDA: NOVEMBER 20, 1996 Transportation and Public Safety Date: 19 Nov 1996 16:28:42 -0700 >Subject: AGENDA: NOVEMBER 20, 1996 Transportation and Public Safety Interim Committee > >http://www.code-co.com/utah/leg/agenda/itr1kka.htm > >>=20 >> Code-Co's Internet Access to Utah Law: http://www.code-co.com >> =20 >> Agenda for the >> Transportation and Public Safety Interim Committee >> NOVEMBER 20, 1996 - 2:00 P.M. - ROOM 414/416 STATE CAPITOL >>=20 >> NOTICE OF MEETING >>=20 >> TO: Transportation and Public Safety Interim Committee >>=20 >> FROM: Benjamin N. Christensen, Research Analyst >>=20 >> DATE: November 7, 1996 >>=20 >> SUBJECT: November Meeting >>=20 >> Sen. John P. Holmgren and Rep. Don E. Bush have scheduled the next >> meeting of the Transportation and Public Safety Interim Committee as >> follows: >>=20 >> DATE: November 20, 1996 >> TIME: 2:00 p.m. >> PLACE: Room 414/416 State Capitol >>=20 >> An agenda is included. If you are unable to attend, please call me at >> 538-1032. >>=20 >> COMMITTEE MEMBERS >> Sen. John P. Holmgren, Senate Chair >> Rep. Don E. Bush, House Chair >> Sen. R. Lane Beattie Rep. Brian R. Allen Rep. Peter C. Knudson >> Sen. Wilford R. Black, Jr. Rep. Steven Barth Rep. Tom Matthews >> Sen. L. Alma "Al" Mansell Rep. Ron Bigelow Rep. Joseph G. Murray >> Sen. Eddie "Ed" P. Mayne Rep. DeMar "Bud" Bowman Rep. Lowell A. Nelson >> Sen. Michael G. Waddoups Rep. Marda Dillree Rep. Norm L. Nielsen >> Sen. David H. Steele Rep. Christine R. Fox Rep. Kurt E. Oscarson >> Sen. Robert C. Steiner Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson Rep. Daniel H. Tuttle >> Rep. Gerry A. Adair Rep. Robert H. M. Killpack Rep. David L. Zolman, >> Sr. >> AGENDA >> TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY INTERIM COMMITTEE >> Wednesday, November 20, 1996 - 2:00 p.m. - Room 414/416 State Capitol >> (Approximate >> Time Frame) >> 2:00 p.m. 1. Committee Business >>=20 >> Consideration of minutes of the October 16, 1996 meeting. >>=20 >> 2:05 p.m. 2. Public Transit District Task Force Report >>=20 >> During the 1996 General Session, the Legislature passed H.B. 501, >> "Public Transit District Task Force," which created a task force to >> study issues related to the governance of the Utah Transit Authority. >> The bill requires that their final report, including any proposed >> legislation, be presented to the committee. >>=20 >> * Senator L. Alma "Al" Mansell, Co-chair >> * Representative Raymond Short, Co-chair >>=20 >> 2:45 p.m. 3. Air Quality, Transportation, and Land-Use Task Force >> Report >>=20 >> During the 1996 General Session, the Legislature passed S.B. 243, >> "Task Force on Air Quality, Transportation, and Land-use," which >> created a task force to study and recommend a comprehensive policy >> regarding the interrelationship of air quality, transportation, and >> land-use. The bill requires that their final report, including any >> proposed legislation, be presented to the committee. >>=20 >> * Senator LeRay McAllister, Co-chair >> * Representative Gerry A. Adair, Co-chair >>=20 >> 3:20 p.m. 4. Status of Reconstruction of I-15 and Long-Term Funding >> for the Centennial Highway Fund >>=20 >> During the last meeting, the chairs expressed the need to have >> continuous written and oral progress reports by UDOT on the >> design/build contract for the reconstruction of I- 15. The first >> progress report will be given. In addition, the committee has not >> decided whether or not to formally develop or support any funding >> proposal for the reconstruction of I-15 and other major projects in >> the state. A funding plan for these projects will require the >> identification of ongoing revenue sources in amounts sufficient to >> cover the obligations currently being incurred by the state. It will >> also require the development of legislation. >>=20 >> * Thomas R. Warne, Utah Department of Transportation >>=20 >> 4:50 p.m. 5. Other Committee Business >>=20 >> 5:00 p.m. 6. Adjourn >> =A9 Copyright 1996 Code-Co. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. =09 PO Box 271231 =09 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 =09 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Re: RELEASE: Letter from NRA-ILA Responding to Attack by Date: 20 Nov 1996 05:52:34 -0700 >Date: 20 Nov 96 01:54:27 EST >From: Thomas Burke <73404.711@CompuServe.COM> >To: Drew Boswell >Cc: Network CEBS >Subject: Re: RELEASE: Letter from NRA-ILA Responding to Attack by Atlanta Newspaper >Sender: owner-cebs@c2.net > >> >> You may refuse to understand. You may decline to probe the impact of >> >> world events on a segment of our culture that is 65 million Americans >> >> strong. Meanwhile, we will do what we must and go where we must to >> >> protect freedom, even if it means lobbying the world body. > >>DAMN RIGHT! > > Probably have more luck there than lobbying the White House. > >Tom > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax) http://www.therighter.com "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: NRA reply to whining of media Date: 20 Nov 1996 05:57:00 -0700 >Return-Path: macroff@shell.aros.net >From: Jay Banks >To: "'cebs@c2.org'" >Subject: NRA reply to whining of media >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:53:35 -0600 >Sender: owner-cebs@c2.net > >November 19, 1996 > >The following letter -- to date, unprinted -- from Mrs. Tanya >K. Metaksa, NRA-ILA Executive Director, responds to yet another >editorial attack on the NRA from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. > >======================= > >November 15, 1996 > >Letters to the Editor >Atlanta Journal and Constitution >PO Box 4689 >Atlanta, Georgia 30302-4689 >VIA FAX > >To the Editors: > >By consistently spreading false information about the National Rifle >Association of America and consistently refusing to print one of our >letters in rebuttal, you've pretty well established the editorial page >from Marietta Street as One Way always. > >So, in an effort to set the record straight with you if not your >readers, let's observe the following about the ridiculous assertions >of your November 14 editorial. > >It is preposterous to suggest that NRA has any interest in preventing >nations from moving against illegal gun trafficking. The purpose of >NRA attaining NGO status is to discover precisely what the various >member-states and U.N. Committees are contemplating and determine how >the initiatives might impact the rights of law-abiding Americans. Our >concern is American citizens who value their Second Amendment rights >and have considerable interest in 'transnational gun control' -- the >term coined by a Clinton Administration official with whom we met to >raise concerns earlier this year. Consider the facts in the matter: > >* NRA's U.N. involvement was sparked by the study launched in May 1995 >by the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, an arm >of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in New York. That >study looks directly at civilian firearms ownership, thus NRA's >involvement is completely appropriate. > >* As you stated, the charter of the disarmament panel (formal title: >Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms) appears to be concerned >with military matters. It strikes me as odd that you, as journalists, >wouldn't look behind mere titles. Had you done so, you would have >found that the literature published by those doing the intellectual >groundwork for the disarmament panel reveals no distinction between >arms used for sport and self- defense in the United States and the >matters in which the panel is ostensibly interested. I'll cite two >examples: > > - One of the groups providing input to the disarmament panel > is the British American Security Information Council > (BASIC). BASIC's Natalie Goldring specifically calls for > "Improving domestic gun control" in a treatise she co-wrote > for the UN panel. (Ironically, on CNBC's Business Insiders > November 12th, Goldring said the U.N. effort "is not about > U.S. gun control.") Later in the paper, she calls for bans > on affordable handguns used by American citizens to defend > self and family. > > - In her U.N. paper on small arms proliferation in South > Africa, Jacklyn Cock begins a discussion of hunting by > blurring the distinction between legitimate hunters and > criminal poachers. She refers to hunting as part of a > "culture of brutality" and identifies hunters as "a > significant social category who create a demand for [the] > light weapons" she seeks to control. > >The reference to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as "posing >some unspecific threat" to gun rights is awfully slipshod. On March >29, 1996, U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) and U.S. Rep Lee >Hamilton (D-Indiana) restored a long-standing prohibition against >interference in Second Amendment rights by the Arms Control and >Disarmament Agency (ACDA) through the Foreign Relations Revitalization >Act of 1995. > >The ACDA mandate is directly related and limited to foreign affairs, >not domestic affairs, certainly not the rights of our citizens. To >limit ACDA authority, Congress inserted this language in the Arms >Control and Disarmament Act -- back in 1963: > > "Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to > authorize any policy or action by any Government agency > which would interfere with, restrict, or prohibit the > acquisition, possession, or use of firearms by any > individual for the lawful purpose of personal defense, > sport, recreation, education, or training." > >This language remained the law -- without interruption -- until 1994 >when it was removed in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for >FY94 and FY95. Why was it removed? Conference report wording (Report >103-482) suggests that the omission was an attempt to broaden the >scope of the ACDA Director's ability to formulate recommendations on >issues regarding ordinary firearms lawfully owned by U.S. citizens. > >You may refuse to understand. You may decline to probe the impact of >world events on a segment of our culture that is 65 million Americans >strong. Meanwhile, we will do what we must and go where we must to >protect freedom, even if it means lobbying the world body. > >Sincerely, > >Tanya K. Metaksa >Executive Director >NRA Institute for Legislative Action > >TTYL >-=JB=- > >Join Jay's Rebellion! http://www.c2.org/~patriot >Forget Washington, we're taking out the media first! > > jaybanks@e-tex.com > P.O. BOX 194 > Montalba TX 75853 > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Re: NRA and the UN Date: 20 Nov 1996 06:01:28 -0700 >Return-Path: macroff@shell.aros.net >Date: 20 Nov 96 06:33:17 EST >From: Steven Kendrick/UK <73612.2132@CompuServe.COM> >To: Jay Banks >Cc: GunTalk >Subject: Re: NRA and the UN >Sender: owner-cebs@c2.net > >Britain has not yet passed a ban on anything. > >A vote was held on monday night on the issue of banning all handguns, it was >defeated 306 to 281 in the House Of Commons. However, the primary bill which >bans centrefire handguns has passed on this reading of the bill, but it has not >yet received the third reading and still has to pass through the House Of Lords >and go to report stage yet. > >There is growing concern over the compensation costs. It will certainly be in >the hundreds of millions, and many MPs are now tilting towards disassembling >handguns instead of banning them. This is not what the press is reporting but >then the press is incredibly biased. > >Really, the Washington Post looks objective by comparison. > >The papers have been drivelling on about Tory "rebels" who voted for the >amendment to ban .22s, but there were only four of them. By comparison, there >were over two dozen Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs who abstained from the vote. >Significantly, the amendment lost by 25 votes. > >It is also important to note that many of the MPs who did vote for the ban on >.22s did it because they see the exemption for .22s as being a back-door ban on >gun clubs without compensation. They know they can't stop the whole bill, so >they would rather ban the lot so fair compensation is paid. Sir David Steel, >former Prime Minister, significantly fits into this category. > >So I would say the fight is not over yet. > >As the Public Inquiry recommended disassembly of handguns rather than banning >them, and seeing as that report was written by Lord Cullen, I would say >interesting things could happen in the House Of Lords, especially seeing as they >are beholden to the public as they don't have to worry about being voted out. > >In any case, the bill is so badly drafted that it in fact does not ban all >handguns anyway. It is quite easy to make a revolver which does not fit the >description in the bill. > >Also, there is an exemption for CO2 guns which is being added to the bill, which >may not sound significant but CO2 guns have been subject to licensing until now. > >There are also lots of bizarre exemptions in the bill, for war trophies and >antiques. Given that the courts have never agreed with the Government >definition of antique, many guns made before 1939 may go out of the licensing >system altogether if this bill becomes law. > >The most interesting point about this bill is that it violates EU law, and the >European Commission has all but said so. Thus it can be easily challenged, as >it is a restraint of trade. Many firearm dealers here will still be able to >sell handguns to people in other EU states, but the reverse will not be true. >Ergo the bill violates the European Treaty, which is the "Supreme Law of the >Land". > >Suffice to say we're not dead yet! > >Steve. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Fwd: Forwarded Msg/request Date: 20 Nov 1996 23:56:03 -0700 >Date: 96-11-04 21:40:46 EST > >Subject: > Against all enemies, foreign and domestic > Date: > Sun, 03 Nov 1996 23:04:52 -0500 > From: > Harvey Wysong > To: > hwysong@mindspring.com > > >MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS > >Dear M R, > A few days ago, a solicitor for the Fraternal Order of Police >called >to ask for my financial support. What he got was an earful. I'll not bore >you with the details. > For some time, I've been trying to find an instance where a >police >officer or military officer refused an order because it violated the >Constitution. I know that Michael New did it. And I have one friend on >this >mailing list who is a police officer who has done it. But do *you* know >of >anyone who has done it? > I'm of the opinion that it is an event so rare that it is almost >non-existant. Even casual observers can determine that most of the >legislation in this Country is a violation of the Constitution. In other >words, there are an awful lot of folks out there who are violating their >oaths of office. > But, if you know of someone who has been faithful to his oath of >office and, thereby, endangered himself, I'd sure like to hear about it. >And >please forward this request to a wide audience. > >Thanks, > >Harvey > >P.s., "his" includes women. > **************************************************** > TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL RIGHTS > **************************************************** > "If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt > for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it > invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the > criminal law the end justifies the means -- to declare that the > Government may commit crimes in order to secure the convic- > tion of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retributions." > --Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, > Olmstead et al. v. United States, 277 U.S. 485 (1928) > **************************************************** > Please remember the above when you read about the deeds of > "confidential informants" on the government's payroll. > **************************************************** > Harvey Wysong > National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association > 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. > hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 > **************************************************** > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax) http://www.therighter.com "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: In their own words: Date: 21 Nov 1996 09:45:04 -0700 >Return-Path: brian@shell.aros.net >From: Jay Banks >To: "'cebs@c2.org'" >Subject: In their own words: >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 03:00:38 -0600 >Sender: owner-cebs@c2.net > > > > The only way to discourage the gun culture is > to remove the guns from the hands and > shoulders of people who are not in the law > enforcement business. > -- New Your Times, September 24, 1975 > > The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but > we also have to take a step at a time and go for > limited access first. > --Joyner Sims, Florida State Health Dept., deputy > commissioner, Chicago Tribune, November 7, 1993 > > > Gun violence won't be cured by one set > of laws. It will require years of partial > measures that will gradually tighten the > requirements for gun ownership, and > incrementally change expectations about the > firepower that should be available to > ordinary citizens. > -- New York Times, December 21, 1993 > > > By a curiosity of evolution, every human > skull harbors a prehistoric vestige: a reptilian > brain. This atavism, like a hand grenade > cushioned in the more civilized surrounding > cortex, is the dark hive where many of > mankind's primitive impulses originate. To > go partners with that throwback, Americans > have carried out of their own history another > curiosity that evolution forgot to discard as > the country changed from a sparsely > populated, underpoliced agrarian society to a > modern industrial civilization. That vestige is > the gun -- most notoriously the handgun, an > anachronistic tool still much in use. > -- Time, April 13, 1981 > > > In Washington, James Brady -- the > shooting victim and former Reagan press > secretary for whom the bill is named -- > joined gun control advocates in calling for > "Brady II" -- a bill that would add new gun > licensing and registration requirements. And > Attorney General Janet Reno, touring > Boston's high-crime areas, said the Brady > law "is the first step. Now we must move > forward." Separately, federal officials > ordered new restrictions and taxes on several > "street-sweeper" style, rapid-fire shotguns. > -- USA Today, March 1, 1994 > > > We are beyond the stage of restrictive >licensing and uniform laws. We are at the point >in time and terror when nothing short of a strong >uniform policy of domestic disarmament will >alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and >perilously present. Let us take the guns away >from the people. Exemptions should be limited >to the military, the police and those licensed for >good and sufficient reasons. >-- Patrick V. Murphy, New York City Police >Commissioner, December 7, 1970 > > > We are inclined to think that every firearm in >the hands of anyone who is not a law >enforcement officer constitutes an incitement to >violence. Let's come to our senses before the >whole country starts shooting itself up on all its >Main Streets in a delirious kind of High Noon. >-- Washington Post, August 19, 1965 > > > We are now supporting the President's Bill >which provides stringent restrictions on rifles >and shotguns. We shall also get behind the Bill >which provides for national registration and >licensing if the states do not act within six >months and a year respectively. >I personally believe handguns should be >outlawed and provided the substance for such a >bill to Senator Percy and Congressman Conyers >about a week ago. Our organization will >probably officially take this stand in time but we >are not anxious to rouse opposition before we >get the other legislation passed. >-- Letter from J. Elliott Corbett, Secretary, National >Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy.. June 17, 1968 > > > Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a >handgun. In the meantime, we think there out to >be strict licensing and regulation. >-- Michael K. Beard, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. >Washington Times, December 9, 1993 > > >My general counsel tells me that while >firearms are exempted from our jurisdiction >under the Consumer Product Safety Act, we >could possibly ban bullets under the Hazardous >Substances Act. >-- Richard O. Simpson, Chairman, U.S. Consumer >Product Safety Commission. 1973 Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Terse verse Date: 21 Nov 1996 10:05:33 -0700 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 04:10:50 -0500 >To: Sarah Thompson >From: Brian Wilson >Subject: Terse verse > >For your dining and rhyming pleasure.... > >Paul's Midnite Ride - 1996 > >Listen my children and you shall hear >Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere. >To arms! To arms! To spades and hoes?!? >Bury all your guns, before the king knows! > > Imagine the redcoats, thrilled with delight- > Not one colonist stood ready to fight. > Lexington and Concord? Burned to the ground; > Crackling flames, the only sound. > > More taxes were levied, more rights denied; > for lack of arms, patriots died. > So listen my children, and you SHALL hear: > No country was born, only suffereing and fear. > > No man escapes when freedom fails- > The best men rot in filthy jails. > And those who cry *Appease! Appease!* > Are hung by those they tried to please. > >If tyranny you want, then bury and pray >For the speedy arrival of that "brighter day". >But- if Liberty you love, and you yearn to be free- >Then live by this motto: DON'T TREAD ON ME! > >BW >Brian Wilson >"Power corrupts; absolute power is kinda neat!" >Talk Show Host/Author >"the little black book on WHITEWATER" >http://www.myrmidon.w1.com > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax) http://www.therighter.com "The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted." Justice Louis Brandeis GO JAZZ!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: WARNING: No Whining... Date: 22 Nov 1996 09:34:42 -0700 > >Conservative Consensus >-------------------------------------------------------------- >Events * Analysis * Commentary * Forecasts * Readers' Opinions >-------------------------------------------------------------- >http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html > >R(H)UMOR * V2XC72 * 11.20.1996 * ISSN 1074-245X > >(c)1996 by Conservative Consensus. Copying information below. > > > W A R N I N G ! > > N O W H I N I N G > > RCW 86.36.500 > $500 penalty and 30 days in jail > ________________________________ > > --- A T T E N T I O N --- > > WHINING ABOUT PRESIDENT CLINTON > IS A FEDERAL HATE-CRIME > > Punishable by 1260 days imprisonment and a $10,000 fine > Title 26 Sec. 501(C)(5)(a)(iii)(201) > > ### > > This warning provided for your convenience by: > > http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html > >_________________________ > >RCW is the Revised Code of Washington State. Fines, statutes and >penalties in other states may vary. Not available in all states. >Federal and state prison sentences may be served concurrently. > >HUMOR: Please note, this is a spoof, a joke, and it is not real. >But in view of the President's recent remarks made in Arkansas about >his opponents, we wonder how much longer before it becomes real? >========================= >COPYING: (c)1996 by Conservative Consensus. All rights reserved. >Permission granted for PRIVATE, NON-COMMERCIAL USE, provided >nothing is changed and our headers and trailers remain intact. > >FREE SUBSCRIPTION: Short on time? Want the straight story, not >just the media spin? Send email with SUBSCRIBE as the subject to: > > CONSENSUS-L-REQUEST@eskimo.com > >YOU WILL receive 12-15 news releases monthly, extracted from >Conservative Consensus Journal; no mail from other subscribers. >We cover events affecting: > *** >The US Constitution * US & World Security * Political Corruption >Individual Liberty * World Financial Markets * Religious Freedom > *** >VISIT OUR WEBSITE: Get free, downloadable news releases that you >can copy and pass on to friends. Frequent updates, back issues, >and reader comments. All text! Visit us with any browser. > > http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html >__________________________________________________________________ > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe Consensus-L-Request@Eskimo.com > Advertising Rates, news tips, editorial and other questions >Conservative Consensus * ccnrs@eskimo.com * jinks@u.washington.edu >__________________________________________________________________ > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 http://www.therighter.com Four more years of CLINTON as President, and you're worried about a COMPUTER crash in 2000?! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: HP BOYCOTT (fwd) Date: 22 Nov 1996 10:28:14 -0700 (MST) This is the same computer company that gleefully funds the gun-grabbers. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Yikes. Have you seen this? --Todd--> Please distribute this note as widely as possible. Hewlett-Packard today introduced technology that allows them to ship strong cryptographic hardware outside of the US. (See http://www.dmo.hp.com/gsy/security/icf/ ) There's just one catch -- the hardware isn't usable without a license (called a "policy activation token") from the US government, and perhaps from a foreign government as well. The token, which is cryptographically signed and thus difficult to forge, is required before the encryption features of the chip are enabled. It can even selectively enable different cryptographic algorithms according to the current whims of the US and local governments. HP is thus supporting the Clinton administration's goal of denying citizens of cyberspace -- both in the US and oversees -- the right to communicate in private. Never mind the First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the rights of free speech and free association; never mind the Fourth Amendment guaranteeing the right to be secure in one's papers. You can say whatever you like, but the FBI and the NSA and local law enforcement must be able to listen in! The policies of the US and other governments are as offensive and intolerable as the British Tea taxes of 1773 -- and they needs to be addressed in a similar way. THROW THE TEA INTO THE HARBOR!!! I am therefore today requesting everyone I know, to refuse to purchase products made by Hewlett-Packard, and by any other vendor which includes their technology in their hardware. I especially request that people here and abroad refuse to purchase products (from any vendor) that incorporate HP's International Cryptography Framework (ICF) or Praesidium technology, or any other cryptographic technology which requires government approval before use. For those people who believe the government can be trusted -- perhaps this is true today, in the US. But it is certainly not true everywhere, it has not always been true even in this country, and it won't be generally true in the future. The battle being fought now isn't just for today. It will establish whether people of the future have the ability to communicate in private. Government officals are people, too; they're no more trustworthy than ordinary people, and they're subject to various pressures that tend to make them worse. If governments can eavesdrop on people at will, they can more efficiently silence their enemies -- including those "enemies" that are working for positive change. In the 1960's the US government directed CIA agents to infiltrate groups protesting the Vietnam War and to induce them to start riots. In this way they were able to severely diminish the effectiveness of the protesters. Fortunately, the protesters previaled despite the opposition, and the US government eventually bowed to pressure to end the war. But thanks to new technology and laws recently passed by Congress, the government will soon have tremendous capability to eavesdrop on large numbers of people -- including activist groups. We are far closer to Big Brother than most people realize. The battle isn't over yet, but the time to act is now. Keith Moore ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@es.com (Charles Hardy) Subject: Response to my letter RE guns in NPs Date: 22 Nov 1996 17:55:46 -0700 A while back I posted a copy of a letter I sent to the Utah and Wyoming Congressional delegations. I received my first response today from Utah Rep Enid Greene. It is not nearly as positive as I had hoped for, but her overall stance on RKBA was probably stronger than her succesor's will be. I'm sure you are all aware of Rep. Greene's difficulties. Regardless of what any may think of her or her positions, I will point out that over the last two years she has been the best member of the Utah Delgation as far as acknowledging and responding personnaly to my letters. Those responses, though not perfect, have consistently addressed directly more issues raised in my letter than any response I have received from any other politician. This is spite of the fact that until 6 months ago my legal residence was not in her district and my mailing address was out of State since I was attending school. Somebody asked to see any responses I got. Here is her response. My orginal letter follows for reference. I will send a reply to her thanking her for her response and attempting to educate her a little on a couple points in her letter. ---include letter--- Dear Charles: Thank you for contacting me regarding carrying firearms in our National Parks for personal protection. I appreciate the time you took to inform me of your views, and please be assured that I have carefully considered them. As you know, I have been a strong supporter of our Second Amendment right to bear arms. I also believe that additional gun control legislation will not reduce the epidemic of gun violence in our nation. Congress has already gone too far in restrictin those rights, that is why I have cosponsored H.R. 464, the Assault Wapon Ban Repeal Act introduced by Representatives Rosco Bartless (R-MD) and Steve Stockman (R-TX). It is already a federal crime for convicted felons to possess any gun. We should fully enforce that law, rather than harass law-abiding citizens with new legislation that will have no appreciable effect upon violence in America. The Assault Weapon Ban was an attempt to diver attention away from substantive anti-crime measures toward the panacea of gun control. It is presently not illegal to possess a firearm in a National Park, however, anyone in possession of a firearm must ensure that the firearm is not loaded, and is broken down. Further, the firearms must be securely stored, i.e., in the trunk of a vehicle, etc. These regulations were enacted to discourage poaching in National Parks. Sadly, there are hundreds of poaching cases a year in our National Parks, and allowing persons to carrying firearms in our National Parks may only exacerbate this problem. In the case of Yellowstone and Teton National Parks, you mentioned that you were most concerned about the possibilty of grizzly bear attacks. While this possibility is real, the use of only the largest calibre handgun or rifle would do litttle more than make a bear more angry. Please be assured that I will continue to support your Constitutional right to bear arms, and will fight any attempt to weaken or destroy those rights. It has been an honor servig you in the 104th Congress. With best regards, Enid Greene --include original letter to Rep Greene-- Charles Hardy Sept. 4, 1996 Dear Utah or Wyoming Congressional Delegate Over this last Labor Day weekend I had the pleasure of spending three nights camping in the the Grand Teton National Park and visiting Yellowstone for the first time in many years. While there, I read numerous signs warning of the danger of bear attacks. It was clear that some number of people are seriously injured or killed by bear in the area each season. Ironically (both because of the signs and because I was in Wyoming), I also saw numerous notices that firearms were not allowed within the park. Why are the tools which provide the highest chance of human survival in the event of a bear attack prohibited in bear country? Is the life of an aggressive bear worth more to my government than the life of a law-abiding citizen? Further, why are the tools which provide the greatest chance of survival in the event of human attack prohibited in the very areas where peace officers have the least chance of preventing or responding to such attacks? It is highly immoral to make the good citizens of this country choose between their own safety and obeying federal law just to enjoy the great outdoors. It doesn't seem to do any good for States such as Wyoming or Utah to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from predatory attacks--animal or human--if those rights are violated in the huge areas of the States controlled by Washington D.C. Certainly, the Second Article of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should bind the federal government on lands it controls. That Amendment guarantees, in the words of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, "an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." This citizen's right is being blatantly infringed by the National Park Service. I fully agree that National Parks are no place for hunting or target shooting. However, a law against discharging a weapon except in an emergency would accomplish the same thing without stripping law-abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves. Will you please sponsor and vigorously support legislation requiring the Federal Government to honor on all public lands it controls my right to self defense by peaceably carrying firearms? Please explain to me why or why not. Your personal response is most appreciated. Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter. Sincerely Charles Hardy CC:Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Robert Bennett, Sen. Alan Simpson, Sen. Craig Thomas, Rep. Barbara Cubin, Rep. Enid Greene, Rep. James Hansen, Rep. Bill Orton, -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "They have rights who dare maintain them." -- James Russell Lowell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: UTA backs down! Date: 23 Nov 1996 00:12:19 -0700 In a rare bit of good news on the gun rights front these days, Women Against Gun Control successfully shot down (pun intended!) the UTA's plan to ban guns from all UTA vehicles along with their proposed legislation to ban guns from just about all public places. Special thanks to Janalee Tobias who brought the petitions and testified at the UTA meeting Wednesday, and to all those who helped collect signatures. And of course, thanks to all of you who signed! Let's keep the petition going - the real fight doesn't start until January! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax) http://www.therighter.com "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Something to Consider (fwd) Date: 23 Nov 1996 06:24:57 -0700 (MST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Frank Brady wrote: It's not hard to see what will happen next. Sometime within the next few months, a mad man with a firearm will kill many innocent people for no apparent reason. Because the socialists "reformed" the mental health care system a few years back by releasing thousands of people who would previously have been institutionalized, there is a large inventory of potential lunatics ready to launch on a moment's notice. In all likelihood, the victims will include substantial numbers of women and children. Before the shots' echoes subside, the media Hive will unleash an outraged call to ban private ownership of firearms, citing the "civilized" examples of Great Britain and Australia where identical campaigns are underway even as this is written. Congress will rally sufficient support from a coalition of "Liberals" and "Moderates," to enact such a ban, its numbers increased by timid former friends of the Second Amendment who are fearful of risking the "extremist" label. At that moment, millions of Americans will face a stark choice: Will they surrender their arms, knowing that to do so means giving over to government an absolute monopoly on armed force? Or will they choose deliberately to become outlaws, risking families, incarceration, and loss o= f all that they have worked so hard to earn? How do you suppose this choice will be made? How will you choose? We have been playing the enemy's game for far too long. It is time to redefine the terms we use to describe the battle in which we find ourselves locked. This issue is not, in the end, about the right to own a firearm. It is not about our loss of national sovereignty. It is not about illegal searches and seizures. It is not about insane deficits, nor is it about outrageous taxes. All of these things are symptoms of the problem, but they are not the problem. The problem is that the hideous apparatus that calls itself the United States government has forfeited any claim to constitutional legitimacy. We have, literally, an illegal government engaged in acts specifically prohibited to it by the Constitution. Look around us. More than one-half of Americans have such little investment in our political system that they no longer bother to vote. The current president was elected by less than twenty-five percent of the eligible electorate. The government has no real popular support for its activities. It has only the strength that we give it by our acquiescence. If we couch our defense in terms of the narrow right to own firearms, we will lose. This is a matter of Civil Rights in the ultimate sense, of individual liberty. If we withdraw our support from this illegitimate government, demand the restoration of the Constitution, and make our stand on the issue of our human liberty, we may yet prevail. In any case, we will have taken the first step by following Mark Twain's sage advice, "First, we must call things by their right names." Frank Brady --- OLX 2.1 =FE First Lady Splashed with Water, Melts, Film at 11:00! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Firearms & Freedom (fwd) Date: 23 Nov 1996 06:46:24 -0700 (MST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- North American Patriots Free Network Firearms and Freedom Daniel Webster: "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." No law that was ever written was ever worth the paper it was written on, or the ink to write it with, or the time to set it down except that there was force to back it up. And the Constitution of the United States is no exception. Read carefully the definition of a Republic, sidebar, North American Patriots Free Network, Newsletter dated 14th November 1996 (See http:www.successfx.com/diskspace/walbert/homepage.htm ) Read also the original language in our Declaration of Independence : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." In this short block of simple language Mr. Jefferson has explained for us the concept behind our Constitution, and the government which is thus defined: The Government is subordinate to the people, and has been created to secure to the people their natural ("Unalienable") rights. If the power of government is to remain in the hands of the people then the First and Second amendments follow and are necessary. First, in order that We the People may know of our circumstances; Second that we shall have at hand the means to enforce the Constitution as the law to control the government ...should that be necessary. George Washington, General, Continental Army (Ret.): "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth." " If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects what never was and never will be ... The people cannot be safe without information. Where the press is free, and every man is able (and willing) to read, all is safe." -- Thomas Jefferson Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Richard Henry Lee, writing in letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788): "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." George Mason: "...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them..." I should not need to draw your attention to the current, ongoing efforts of certain groups, working through Congress, designed to disarm America GRADUALLY. They literally mean to talk us out of our means of defense. This by influencing public opinion through television, and thus by influencing Congress to change our laws. "Those who would give up a little essential Liberty in exchange for some temporary security deserve neither Liberty nor Security". --Ben Franklin. There are numerous quotes supporting the Second Amendment and the Right of The People to be Armed from our Founding Fathers. It is important to note that there are also no documented objections. At least there are none from the Founding Fathers or from our beloved Patriots. There is one very well known statement, from the British. This occurred 18-19 April 1775, when General Gage ordered Major Pitcairn to march on Lexington and Concord and to seize arms which the Colonials had stored there. "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification) "The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance" -- Thosmas Jefferson Indeed the Price of Liberty truly is Eternal Vigilance -- and more. Today it is OUR WATCH. WE are ON DUTY. Seek the Truth, and the Truth will make you free. c.Pastor Mike Acker, November 12, 1996. All Rights Reserved. Premission granted to any Patriot who Loves Liberty to copy and repost AS IS. NO COMMERCIAL USE. end -- North American Patriots Free Network "Righteousness through Communications" -Will. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Fwd: GOA-PVF Alert: Help Stockman! Date: 24 Nov 1996 15:17:41 -0700 >Forwarded message: >From: crfields@gunowners.org (craig fields) >Reply-to: crfields@gunowners.org (craig fields) >To: PrattLarry@aol.com >Date: 96-11-21 20:06:09 EST > > Rep. Stockman Again Needs Your Help > > by Larry Pratt > Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 > Springfield, VA 22151 > > > (Thursday, November 21) -- On November 5, the Second >Amendment community took a slight hit as a total of 5 seats (net) >went in Sarah Brady's favor. It is now more important than ever >to keep solid, pro-gun Congressmen in Washington, D.C. -- >especially those who will stand on the front line to battle >anti-gunners like Chuck Schumer. > > Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) won his race earlier this month >with a plurality (46%-44%). That's the good news. The bad news >is that because of a particular set of circumstances that has >arisen resulting from the redistricting in Texas, any candidate >who did not receive a 50+ majority now faces a run-off on >December 10. Furthermore, the two Democrats running against >Stockman on November 5 received more than 50% of the vote between >them. Stockman represents a very Democratic district, and >clearly, has his work cut out for him. > > Because anti-gun union bosses dumped millions of dollars >worth of negative T.V. advertising against Rep. Stockman during >the first election, he was forced to deplete his campaign funds >to combat the misinformation. > > Thus, Rep. Stockman needs your help once again. And perhaps >more than any other man or woman in Washington, this Congressman >has stood up for your Second Amendment rights. > > Stockman vigorously pushed legislation to repeal the >semi-auto ban. When the House Judiciary Committee dragged its >feet and refused to hold a vote, Stockman introduced a discharge >petition which helped push the leadership into bringing a repeal >bill to the floor of the House. > > When no one else came forward to introduce legislation >repealing the Brady law, Stockman introduced a bill to do that >too. He also introduced legislation to stop the BATF from >getting any more records of individual gun buyers, to prohibit >the use of environmental laws to ban firearms, and much more. > > I hope you will strongly consider helping this strong >defender of the Constitution! > > Please make your personal check payable to "Stockman for >Congress" ($1,000 max for the December 10 special election; >spouse and children can also give the same), and send it to >GOAPVF, 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151. > > Federal law requires political committees to request the >name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer for each >individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a >calendar year. > > If your total contributions to Rep. Stockman are not more >than $200, we only need your full name and mailing address. >Contributions are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. >We will bundle the checks and send them to the Stockman campaign >office. Please act quickly! > > Paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund and > Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate's Committee. > > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 http://www.therighter.com The Tree of Liberty needs fertilizing..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Massachusetts to ban ``Saturday Night specials'' (fwd) Date: 25 Nov 1996 22:15:04 -0700 (MST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- from: http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=607464-ebe [Mercury Mail] 05:13 PM ET 11/25/96 Massachusetts to ban ``Saturday Night specials'' By Michael Ellis BOSTON (Reuter) - The Massachusetts attorney general Monday unveiled safety and quality standards for handguns he said would effectively ban the sale of the cheap pistols known as ''Saturday Night specials'' in the state. The regulations target inexpensive, often defective handguns that fail minimum quality standards and are most often used in violent crimes, Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger told a news conference. Most are .22- and .25-caliber guns made in the Los Angeles area, he said. The regulations would curb the accidental discharge of weapons by children and reduce the number of impulsive suicides and the proliferation of stolen handguns, he said. ``Using our consumer protection powers, we regulate the safety of caps for toy guns, fireworks and everything from bicycles to baby rattles. It's time we do everything we can to make sure the handguns offered for legal sale in Massachusetts are as safe as they can be for law-abiding citizens, their families and their children,'' he said. The regulations, which would go into effect next year, include childproof features, such as increased trigger pressure or grip safeties, that would prevent the average 6-year-old from discharging a handgun; use-limitation devices, such as a lock or smart-gun technology, to prevent unauthorized use; a load indicator to show if the gun is loaded; and tamper-resistent serial numbers to assist in criminal investigations. Proposed legislation to ban certain types of automatic weapons failed to pass the Massachusetts legislature this year. With these regulations, Harshbarger bypassed the legislature. He said he was the first attorney general in the United States to use his consumer protection powers to regulate handgun sales. Stephen Teret, director of the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy Research, said he suspected other states would follow Massachusetts' lead and extend handgun regulations. ``It's my guess that the ripple effect will also change the incidence of gun deaths in the United States overall,'' he told reporters. Firearms are the second cause of injury-related deaths of children and adolescents in Massachusetts, Susan Gallagher, director of the Children's Safety Network, said. In the three years from 1992 to 1994, 129 children died in the state from guns, around 30 of them suicides, she said. In 1994, over 160 children were hospitalized for firearms injuries. James Brady, the former press secretary to President Ronald Reagan who was seriously wounded in a March 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan, will testify at a public hearing in support of the regulations Tuesday. Smith & Wesson of Springfield, Mass., the world's largest manufacturer of handguns, said it would study the regulations and consider all options, including moving out of the state. ``We are talking to (Harshbarger) about his regulations. We have asked for clarifications,'' company spokesman Ken Jorgensen said. Harshbarger said no Smith & Wesson handguns were targeted for the ban but they would be subject to the regulations. -- Brian Litzenberger litz@pta6000.pld.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Fwd: Anti-gun American Heart Ass. Date: 26 Nov 1996 23:25:49 -0700 >Forwarded message: >From: jerry@avana.net (Jerry Herrington) >To: assets@been-there.com >"Fighting Heart Disease and Stroke... and guns" > >My wife just took a child safety course and got the textbook "Pediatric Basic >Life Support" from the American Heart Association (and the American Academy >of Pediatrics -- I knew _they_ were anti-gun). > >Right from the first sentence: "Children are most commonly injured with >firearms and in motor vehicle crashes or from burns, falls, poisoning, >choking >or submersion (drowning)." Note they list the lowest risk _first_. > >"Injuries from firearms are a leading cause of death and permanent injury >in children and adolescents, and these injuries have been increasing at an >alarming rate. Most firearm injuries result from handguns, which can often >be found in the home loaded and readily accessible to children... An >increasing number of injuries and deaths occur when children and adolescents >take guns to school." > >"To prevent firearm injuries in children, guns must be removed from the homes >and environments of children." > >And to think I actually used to contribute to these people... > >"Your contributions to the American Heart Association will support research >that helps make publications like this possible." > >I wrote them a letter (available upon request), and enclosed a canceled check >to GOA. I said that _had been_ my AHA donation -- until I saw that book. >I don't expect to change their minds, but it would be some victory if they >would at least stop spreading disinformation and outright lies. > >American Heart Association >National Center >7272 Greenville Ave. >Dallas, TX 75231-4596 Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 http://www.therighter.com Four more years of CLINTON as President, and you're worried about a COMPUTER crash in 2000?! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Well, it would be funny, if it weren't true! Date: 26 Nov 1996 23:25:57 -0700 > > The New Bill of Rights > > A Humorous Look at our Changed Times > > > >Nearly everything has changed in the United States since the Bill of >Rights was written and adopted. We still see the original >words when we read those first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, yet >the meaning is vastly different now. > >And no wonder. We've gone from a country of a few million to a few >hundred million. The nation's desire to band together was >replaced by revulsion of togetherness. We exchanged a birthright of >justice for a magic bullet, and replaced the Pioneer Spirit >with the Pioneer Stereo. > >We're not the people who founded this country and our Bill of Rights >should reflect this. > >As we approach the 21st Century, it's time to bring the wording up to >date showing what we are and who we are. > >AMENDMENT I > > Congress shall make no law establishing religion, but shall act >as if it did; and shall make no laws abridging the freedom > of speech, unless such speech can be construed as "commercial >speech" or "irresponsible speech" or "offensive speech;" > or shall abridge the right of the people to peaceably assemble >where and when permitted; or shall abridge the right to > petition the government for a redress of grievances, under >proper procedures. > > It shall be unlawful to cry "Fire!" in a theatre occupied by >three or more persons, unless such persons shall belong to a > class declared Protected by one or more divisions of Federal, >State or Local government, in which case the number of > persons shall be one or more. > >AMENDMENT II > > A well-regulated military force shall be maintained under >control of the President, and no political entity within the United > States shall maintain a military force beyond Presidential >control. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be > determined by the Congress and the States and the Cities and the >Counties and the Towns (and someone named Fred.) > >AMENDMENT III > > No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house >without the consent of the owner, unless such house is > believed to have been used, or believed may be used, for some >purpose contrary to law or public policy. > >AMENDMENT IV > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and > seizures may not be suspended except to protect public welfare. >Any place or conveyance shall be subject to search by > law enforcement forces of any political entity, and any such >places or conveyances, or any property within them, may be > confiscated without judicial proceeding if believed to be used >in a manner contrary to law. > >AMENDMENT V > > Any person may be held to answer for a crime of any kind upon >any suspicion whatever; and may be put in jeopardy of > life or liberty by the state courts, by the federal judiciary, >and while incarcerated; and may be compelled to be a witness > against himself by the forced submission of his body or any >portion thereof, and by testimony in proceedings excluding > actual trial. Private property forfeited under judicial process >shall become the exclusive property of the judicial authority > and shall be immune from seizure by injured parties. > >AMENDMENT VI > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right >to avoid prosecution by exhausting the legal process and its > practitioners. Failure to succeed shall result in speedy >plea-bargaining resulting in lesser charges. Convicted persons shall > be entitled to appeal until sentence is completed. It shall be >unlawful to bar or deter an incompetent person from service > on a jury. > >AMENDMENT VII > > In civil suits, where a contesting party is a person whose >private life may interest the public, the right of trial in the Press > shall not be abridged. > >AMENDMENT VIII > > Sufficient bail may be required to ensure that dangerous persons >remain in custody pending trial. There shall be no right > of the public to be afforded protection from dangerous persons, >and such protection shall be dependent upon > incarceration facilities available. > >AMENDMENT IX > > The enumeration in The Constitution of certain rights shall be >construed to deny or discourage others which may from > time to time be extended by the branches of Federal, State or >Local government, unless such rights shall themselves > become enacted by Amendment. > >AMENDMENT X > > The powers not delegated to the United States by the >Constitution shall be deemed to be powers residing in persons > holding appointment therein through the Civil Service, and may >be delegated to the States and local Governments as > determined by the public interest. The public interest shall be >determined by the Civil Service. > >http://www.winn.com/abcdefg/ Copyright c 1994-1996 Phillip Winn > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 http://www.therighter.com The Tree of Liberty needs fertilizing.....