From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: 2nd Amendment Mythology Date: 01 Feb 1997 23:43:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Reply to: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com HANDGUN.CONTROL,INC.ATTEMPTS.TO.MYTHOLOGIZE.SECOND.AMENDMENT.HISTORY @ix.netcom.COM MYTH 1: The Second Amendment was not crafted with the same breadth of language as the other Amendments. Instead, this Amendment begins by stating clearly its limited purpose: the preservation of "well regulated" state militia forces. FACT: Unlike certain indefinite rights recognized by the courts (e.g., abortion), the Second Amendment uses broad and explicit language. The introductory clause of the Second Amendment contains precatory language. The subordinate clause's precatory language in no way limits the amendment's sweeping command that "the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed." Akil Amar, Professor of Law at Yale University and author of The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 Yale, (1990) has written: "The states' rights reading puts great weight on the word `militia', but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to `the people' not `the states.' As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical when the constitution means `states' it says so. Thus as noted above, `the people' at the core of the Second Amendment are the same `people' at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely citizens." MYTH 2: The original colonial militia did not include everyone. Rather it included able-bodied adult males between the ages of 18 and 45. The militia was always an organized state-sponsored military force, not simply an ad hoc collection of armed citizens. FACT: Founding Father George Mason supplied the response to this fantasy: "I ask, Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." A decade ago in his book That Every Man Be Armed, attorney and former law professor Stephen P. Halbrook offered gun prohibitionists a challenge they have yet to accept. Halbook wrote: "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. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the 18th century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." MYTH 3: Federal Law distinguishes between the organized militia (the National Guard) and the unorganized militia. The Second Amendment right to bear arms belongs to the organized or, to use its own words, "well regulated" militia. FACT: The framers provide a response to this myth. A proposed Bill of Rights, in Roger Sherman's handwriting, would have provided for a militia for the states, but it had no guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It was rejected. Instead, the broad language of what became the Second Amendment, with its command that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was adopted. MYTH 4: Possession of a weapon is not constitutionally protected by the fact that it could in some scenario be used by the state militia. Rather the possession and use of the weapon must be connected with active service in the state militia. FACT: The real myth is that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a private right to keep and bear arms. The framers knew how to use the King's English. People on active service in the military do not need a constitutional guarantee to carry guns while on duty. The most repressive regimes on earth allow members of the military to carry guns while on duty. The Second Amendment commands that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and for communal defense. MYTH 5: U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez was not a Second Amendment case at all. It was a Fourth Amendment case. It does not address the meaning of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. FACT: The myth is that the decision is irrelevant to the Second Amendment. Verdugo-Urquidez focused on what the word "people" means in the Fourth Amendment. The court was compelled to canvas the Bill of Rights. The court held that the word "people" has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, i.e., it is an individual right. MYTH 6: In Perpich v. Department of Defense the court held that members of the National Guard, when not in federal service, "continue to satisfy [the] description of a militia." FACT: The myth is that "militia" means exclusively the National Guard. Under Perpich the term militia is not restricted to the National Guard: "all portions of the 'militia' - organized or not- [are subject] to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses." "The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation," writes historian Joyce Lee Malcolm in To Keep and Bear Arms (Harvard University Press 1994). MYTH 7: The NRA consistently quotes colonial leaders out of context. There is sufficient historical evidence to show that the basic concern of these leaders, in the drafting and passage of the Second Amendment, was the preservation and the efficiency of state militia forces. FACT: This is a myth. NRA's view is supported by publications from the most prestigious universities in the nation: e.g., Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Rutgers and Yale. -- This information is presented as a service to the Internet community by the NRA/ILA. Many files are available via anonymous ftp from ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org, and via WAIS at wais.nra.org Be sure to subscribe to rkba-alert by sending: subscribe rkba-alert Your Full Name as the body of a message to rkba-alert-request@NRA.org Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK BBS at (703) 934-2121. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: US Domestic Violence Gun Ban: FOP Wants it Both Ways Date: 02 Feb 1997 01:44:00 -0700 >FWD by: barbara beier >Subject: Domestic Violence Gun Ban: FOP wants it both ways > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >This is from the national Grand FOP lodge rep to the National Police >Discussion list (restricted). Perhaps you might find this inside view, >posted to the Nat'l POLICE list, quite interesting. If you use it, please >leave my ID and headers off. Thank you. > > > >-----------------------------Forwarded Message---------------------------------- >It has been sometime since my last post, so permit me to wish everyone a >much belated Happy New Year. > >The 105th Congress took their seats on 7 January 1997. As many of you >probably recall, there was a lot of discussion this list about the Domestic >Violence Offender Gun Ban, which went into effect 30 September 1996. > >The new Federal law imposes a firearms disability on any person convicted at >any time of a misdemeanor crime involving domestic violence. The law also >disabled police officers and members of the armed forces, who have been >statutorily exempt from the Gun Control Act of 1968, and all its amendments, >when on-duty or deployed. Obviously, there was quite a reaction from the >law enforcement community regarding the new law, particulalrly after the >release of the ATF guidelines shortly before Thanksgiving. > >The FOP Executive Board met with Attorney General Janet Reno in mid-December >to discuss the issue. The Board also spoke with Congressman Bob Barr >(R-GA), who was the principal figure in including the ban and specifically >the nonexemption for police officers and military personnel. We pledged to >work with both the Admninstration and Congress to resolve this situation for >the relief of law enforcement officers. > >On 7 January, the 105th Congress was sworn in and Representative Barr >intorduced HR 26, which amends the Lautenberg Gun Ban. It would apply the >firearms disability to persons convicted on or after the date of >enactment--not previous convictions. The disability would become >prospective for all citizens, with no special treatment for police officers. > >The FOP held a press conference with Congressman Barr to announce the >introduction of the bill. Hearings are expected in February, and Gil >Gallegos, FOP National President, will testify in favor of HR 26. A >legislative remedy for this issue is at the very top of the FOP's >legislative agenda. > >In addition, Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) offered another bill addressing >the issue, HR 445. This amendment to the Lautenberg Gun Ban would fully >restore the exemption for government entities--police officers and the >military, who would be exempt from the ban. The law would still apply a >firearms disability on all other persons regardless of the date of >conviction. The Executive Board and Board of Trustees after getting >feedback from the membership (as well as input I received from this list) >did not feel that we could argue for a "special" or "elite" class of >domestic abusers--for that is how we may be characterized judging from the >extremely political nature of the issues involved. The FOP has chosen to >support the Barr bill, and have notified Congressman Stupak that we >sincerely appreciate his efforts to work on behalf of law enforcement by >addressing this issue. However, it is the position of the FOP to support >the Barr bill and make the new Federal law apply prospectively. > >In addition, since the opposition of the FOP to the original legislation was >due in large part to doubts regarding its constitutionality, we have filed a >lawsuit to block the enforcement of the gun ban. Yesterday, 21 January, the >FOP filed for an injunction in a Federal court in Washington, DC. > >We are pressing ahead with both judicial and legislative relief for our >officers. > >I don't want to open up the same can of worms regarding the amendment and >its constitutionality, but wanted to let the list know of developments with >regard to the Gun Ban. For further information about HR 26 or HR 445, you >can contact me off-list. > >Timothy M. Richardson National Legislative Office >Legislative Assistant Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police >PH: (202) 547-8189 309 Massachusettes Avenue, NE > F: (202) 547-8190 Washington, DC 20002 > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: FCO Special Date: 02 Feb 1997 03:25:53 -0700 > Online Report > to the > F I R E A R M S C O A L I T I O N > Box 6537, Silver Spring, MD 20916 >======================================================================== >January 30, 1997 Special Report >======================================================================== > >A friend sent me a note this afternoon saying that Pop had made the >front page of the New York Times Fax edition. You'll likely be seeing >more of this story in the general press in the coming days. CNN, Fox >and CBS will carry the story in the morning. Wayne has apparently gone >very public. > >You've seen the rumors and reports, much of it played out on the Net. >Make up your own mind, but remember this through it all. Neal Knox has >been at the front of the gun rights movement for over thirty years. >For over twenty years he has badgered, pestered, led, and badgered >again NRA into the gun rights battle when much of its leadership, >including some who have been fairly vocal of late, wanted to make nice >and appease the beast by accepting partial bans and limited >restrictions which would be guaranteed to grow, exactly as they have in >England and Australia. > >Here is the current message on the legislative update line. > >======================================================================== >Chris Knox wrote and is solely responsible for everthing above this line. >======================================================================== > >January 29 Update > >HCI will be rejoicing when they read tomorrow's New York Times judging >by what the reporter told me, NRA Executive Vice President Wayn is >saying or implying that I want his job and that I'm an extremist. > >I might not believe one reporter, but two others have told me >essentially the same thing. And that's not good for Wayne, me or the >organization. Truth is, there are a large number of board members who >are pushing to remove Wayne fom office at the Board's meeting next >week. NRA's financial affairs are a mess. We've lost about $70 Mil in >assets during his tenure, almost all of it before the present board >became a majority. > >We've been able to maintain a balanced budget for the last couple of >years only because of fundraising miracles. But the membership is >getting tired of being inundated by begging letters. I know too much >about the difficulty of being EVP to want the job. But I'll admit that >a lot of directors have been after me to take it. And I might have to. > >But want it? Not a chance. > >No matter how this shakes out, there's not really anything for HCI to be >pleased about. This board is not going to allow any EVP or any ILA >director to let up on the gas. > >======================================================================== > > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Re: Legislative update Date: 02 Feb 1997 04:49:49 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote: >>Results of today's committee hearings on firearms issues: >> >>HB 41 - Restrictions on Weapons in Airports >> (supported by USSC, opposed by WAGC) >> Passed out of committee favorably. There is still some >> confusion over whether this bill is in accord with FAA >> regulations which will have to be settled by the full >> House. > >Does this restrict carry in the entire airport or only in the >secure area? This is a large part of the confusion. To my reading, the bill allows concealed carry in the ticketing and baggage check areas, but not in the baggage claim areas. The airport LEO's claim it says the ENTIRE airport is a secure area. And no one seems to know what the FAA requires. I need to research this one more...... Other problems with the bill include permission to use ANY means to detect firearms (presumably including the new device that shows essentially a naked body on the monitor!), and a provision to confiscate weapons but no provision for RETURNING them. >> >>HB 30 - Concealed Firearms Amendments >> Bill withdrawn and substitute bill introduced. >> Substitute bill had no major objections thanks to >> some BRILLIANT work by USSC's lobbyist, Rob Bishop. >> Passed out of committee favorably. > >Details on this on? How does it handle businesses, churches, schools, >universities, govt. buildings, etc? HB 30 only dealt with the composition and function of the CCW board. It allows the Commissioner of Public Safety to appoint the Board members. I personally object to this since it gives the Commissioner total power and there are no checks and balances. However, all the truly heinous parts of the bill were removed, so I guess some compromise was in order. (This is why I'd never survive as a politician!) The bill that deals with schools, churches, etc. is the Steiner bill (SB 27) and to a lesser extent the Waddoups bill. Both are scheduled for committee hearing Thursday, though all schedules at the Capitol are always tentative. >>Please urge your representative to support HB 207! > >27 and 207. Boy wonder if that was just coincidence? Probably Black Magic! :) Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Re: Legislative Update Date: 02 Feb 1997 04:54:34 -0700 At 06:56 PM 1/31/97 -0800, you wrote: > > >On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Sarah Thompson wrote: >>Results of today's committee hearings on firearms issues: >>HB 207 - Out of State Firearm Permit >> Bill withdrawn and substitute bill >> introduced. Substitute is less favorable than > original since it >>limits reciprocity to those >> states whose certification standards meet or >> exceed Utah's. However it is an acceptable >> compromise. >> Passed out of committee favorably. >> > Sarah > > FYI, Washington is currently considering Idaho-style >(unlimited) recognition of out-of-state CCWs. Oregon is also >considering soemthing, but I won't knoiw what until Tuesday. > >Joe Waldron >GOAL of WA lobbyist Hi Joe! Thanks for the update! Please keep me posted, since I travel to Washington and Oregon fairly frequently, and it would be nice to know that my CCW will be honored. Also, I'm sure our members would appreciate the information. TIA, Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jwaldron@halcyon.com Subject: Re: Legislative Update Date: 02 Feb 1997 07:16:19 -0800 On Sun, 02 Feb 1997, Sarah Thompson wrote: > >Thanks for the update! Please keep me posted, since I travel >to Washington and Oregon fairly frequently, and it would be >nice to know that my CCW will be honored. Also, I'm sure >our members would appreciate the information. Sarah Brian Judy (NRA-ILA lobbyist) covers WA as well as UT... and ID, AK & MT). He's up to speed on the issue as well. FYI, both WA & OR issue licenses to non-residents as well. WA is "shall issue" but you must be here and pay $60 for a 1st time 5 year license, no training required, just leave your fingerprints (Brian got his back from our gun-friendly county sheriff in 3 days). OR is discretionary for non-residents... if you apply in Multnomah County you'll be denied; apply in Astoria, they'l smile, accept your $70 and UT license as proof of training, and they'll mail it in a week or so. JRW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Legislation on the WEB Date: 03 Feb 1997 08:38:01 -0700 Just a reminder ... the text of all bills under consideration by the Utah Legislature can be seen at http://www.le.state.ut.us Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: REPLY: Re: NRA Politicians and Money Date: 03 Feb 1997 09:37:12 -0700 The opinions expressed in this letter are those of the authors and not necessarily my own. I present it as food for thought/discussion. Sarah >At 11:38 AM 2/1/97 -0800, Ron Moore wrote: >>>Like "Please stop wasting money on these mailings and get the >>thrice-damned 'Ugly Gun Ban' repealed!!!!!" >> >>This seems to be the thought processes of some of the folks of this list. >> >You betcha, sport! > >>Jess Unruh, a former Speaker of the Calif. St. Assembly (I'm sure Horn >>remembers Big Daddy), once said "Money is the mother's milk of politics". >>He was right. So, my question then how does the NRA or any other >>organization get the "Ugly Gun Ban" repealed without money. > >You have mentioned Unruh many times, Ron. Is that liberal democratic thief, >liar and adam henry a hero of yours? Or is his willingness to sell out for >compromise a more admirable quality? Australian, Canadian and Brits have >compromised themselves to the point of being disarmed. That's what is coming >here with the leadership of the NRA. >> >>Another example of how the NRA spends your money: >> >>The City of West Hollywood passed an ordinance that banned the sale of >>"Saturday Night Specials" last year. As defined in the ordinance, SNSs >>included most any single-action revolver, all the Sigs, Glocks, most HKs, >>many of the S&Ws, etc. To date the law is not being enforced and many CA >>cities are tabling motions for similar laws because of a law suit filed by >>the Calif. R&P Assoc. and the NRA. > >> >>To date the City of W. Hollywood has spent nearly $90,000 on this suit. The >>NRA has spent $78,000. More will be spent as the case winds its way up to >>the State Supreme Court where a win for our side is expected based on >precedent. >> >>I suppose the NRA could have avoided spending that money by avoiding asking >>for donations, but then it would have been very difficult to buy pistols in >>California. But, what the hell...at least we would be spared getting those >>awful requests in the mail. > >California is not the center of the country or the universe, Ron, just for you. > >As I recall, there are NO gun stores in the unincorporated county area of >West Hollywood, with the exception of the Brass Rail which was on the L.A. >city side of La Brea 1/2 block North of Santa Monica Blvd. I've not been >able to loacte a BATF count on bedroom dealers but since they are all >eliminated, per BATF, I may assume there are none in W. Holly. The >legislation was purely symbolic. Martin B. Retting's on Washington was a >veddy short drive away, and the Brass Rail was close by and sold plenty of >evil guns so no harm was imminent to the 2nd. > >In Arizona in 1987, we had an NRA member rifle club that rented a ranch with >a range in the Pantano Wash in Pima County 30 Miles East of Tucson. The >anti-gun Vail Independent School District, upon learning there was a range >five miles down the road, filed suit against the owners and, lacking the >funds to fight back, we were forced off the range and the ranch. The NRA >representative, Mary Peterson, said it was not within the NRA's purview to >initiate this "type of suit" as they did not wish to be perceived as "anti- >school". How PC. > >Which suit should the NRA have fought? Why did they pick West Hollywood? >Simple, it's abour money, and Calif. members are more equal than AZ members >are. Which suit was more productive for the greater (that means OUTSIDE of >Calif, Ron) good? Who the F___ cares? I sure don't anymore. > >The NRA is so screwed up, they can't even handle their strife and dispute >internally. Neal Knox has been waiting for 17 years for payback on all those >who fired him back then. Harlon Carter is dead so he's only got a few small >fry to get even with now. > >Wayne LaPierre is embarrassingly running around like a frightened and bratty >little kid repeating a Clintonesque tactical mantra that to challenge him >(Wayne) is disloyal to the 2nd and that without the NRA our rights are >toast. That's as big a lie as anything Clinton ever says is. I got news, for >the past 10 years and arguably longer, our rights have been toast WITH the >appeasement and softline compromise of the NRA. Wayne still looks like a >deer caught in the headlights. Is Wayne there for the 2nd., the NRA and the >members, or is her there for $190,000 an year plus bennies. Let the members >have a referendum and see what they do. > >Hammer and Metaksa have feminized the NRA and are unable to deal with the >likes of Schumer et al. This ain't rumor, I've seen it with my own eyes. >Everybody knows they aren't up to it. Plus, Tanya destroyed a perfectly good >police lobby and pro firearms group by giving it hundreds of thousands of >dollars to make the NRA'a own trot-out police group to stand behind Wayne >and Tanya like Bill Clinton uses the Fairfax county, VA., PD. Now the LEAA >is barely able to get out 2 magazines a year and is virtually out of the >lobby and progun business in conparison to its past levels of activity. Your >rights are almost gone and 99% of you will give up your guns when they tell >you to. > >Let's talk about gun fun instead of politics, because we lost the politics >by letting the NRA lead us around by the nose while the gradualist left >congress, (One Party, two wings, demo and repub) buggered us. THe NRA is a >Judas Goat and I'm really sick of hearing about it from loyalists (or is it >Royalists) that keep telling me how great the NRA is. Just more smoke from >more good old boys... > >Money is the mother's milk of politics, eh? How many millions have NRA >members been shaken down for in the past 30 years and how much have we >gained/lost in the area of 2nd Amendment RIGHTS?? > >Mother's Milk is just another specious and fraudulant axiom, quoted from >another PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN that is exposed for the lie it is when >compared the NRA's failure over thirty years having spent hundreds of >millions, much of it wasted on non-direct political defense of the 2nd. It's >like you're saying that the 5.5 trillion spent on welfare for thirty years >was a success and the money was well managed. This flies in the face of the >truth and reality of the situation, but it doesn't stop Moore or Clinton >from being Pied Pipers for their causes. All you gunnies are the rats >following the tune being piped. That mother's milk of YOUR MONEY went into >the politicians and lobbyist's pockets while your rights go into the dumper >and your guns head for the shredder. Wake up. Write your own letters. At >least YOUR ideas will get across to your reps., not some weasel appeasement >agenda based on looting your pockets for their gain at the expense of YOUR >rights. > > > >Joe Horn > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: long essay Date: 03 Feb 1997 12:02:07 -0700 Hi This essay touches on firearms issues along with many others not _directly_ related to guns, however I believe the writer has hit the core problem driving most of our firearms regulations. Plus, for those of us who grew up listening to, or even spouting this hippy twaddle, it's one of the best jobs of writing the typical rap I've seen. (by the way, it does have the odd character grouping which is considered improper by some, so be warned, "here there be naughties") >================================================================ >SacredBull Newsservice mail list: Because Ridicule is a Weapon. >Permission to copy and distribute this material is freely given. >================================================================ >WELCOME TO THE PARTY >Copyright (c) 1997 by Claire Wolfe > > >So I'm, like, at this party, you know. And things get really weird. > >Last I remembered, it was 1968 and they said there was going to be this >really cool thing happening. Like, we were all going to get together at >this party and there'd be all this brotherhood and love and shit, and we'd >all groove on it. > >But somehow the time flow's screwed up. (Good acid. Bad acid. You just >gotta go with it.) So yeah, the time flow's screwed up, like maybe I had a >flashforward instead of a flashback, and I'm suddenly standing here in the >middle of this party, all ready to groove on everybody. > >Only it isn't cool at all. I'm standin' there and man, the word freak >doesn't begin to describe what I'm seein'. > >First off, I'm, like, nailed up against the wall by this bull dyke who's >lecturing me about cigarettes, man. Like how we gotta get rid of >cigarettes. Like, it's for the good of the children or something. And >they're gonna put tobacco pushers in jail and all. I'd think that's pretty >freakin' funny, man, except she's, like, blowing booze in my face, >practically gale-force, while she's going on about how only Washington can >put a stop to this killer menace cigarette thing that's endangering all the >children. And she _means_ it, you know. Except from what I remember it was >a lot harder for kiddies to get cigarettes than to get, like, dope. > >So I finally think I get it, man, and I ask, "Hey, you mean they legalized >dope and made cigarettes illegal, instead?" > >And the only good thing I can say about that is that she shut up for a >second. She just shut up and stared at me, man, like really weird. And >before she can start off about the evils of...I manage to pop out from >between her and the wall like a spit watermelon seed. She goes on talking >at the wallpaper, I think. > >Now, finally, I get a look around. Man, we're talking scary! What happened >to us, anyway? This is our big party? The whole room's full of these >people who look more like our parents than our parents did. > >And I can catch some of their rap, and it's all about control man. Control, >control, control. Like, over here there's this big bloaty guy with a Boston >accent-cahs and bahs and all that-talking about how we gotta control guns. >There's these two other people nodding at him. Like, one is this very Marin >County chick, like who you know never saw a gun in her life. And another >one's this creepy little lizard man, like you wouldn't buy a used car from. >And they're nodding away. > >Control, control, control. Nod, nod, nod. > >Well, yeah, it wasn't cool for the cops and army dudes to be shooting at >people, and all. Hey, remember the flowers in the gun barrels? That was >cool. But at the same time, there was the Black Panthers, and they had guns >and that was kind of cool, too, because, like, they had to protect their >brothers, you know. So maybe guns weren't really, like, our favorite thing, >but it was the violence part we were against, and you gotta protect yourself >sometime, man. Even we knew that. > >So I drift over at first, thinkin' they might be talkin' about takin' guns >away from the cops and soldiers. > >But this is different. These guys are talkin' about it bein' illegal for my >straight little Boy Scout brother to shoot his .22. Shit, my little brother >wouldn't shoot anything more serious than a tin can. I don't get this. > >And the Marin chick says, "...Junk guns. Junk guns are killing our children." > >I eventually get that junk guns are guns real people can afford to buy. So >as far's I can figure, this chick is saying there's okay guns for Marin >County kinda people and government kinda people, then there's bad guns that >they gotta take away from poor people. > >But weren't we _for_ the poor people, man? Didn't we believe, like, power >to the people, and that they should be able to defend themselves against the >really hardass pigs and all? > >So I think I get it again and I ask, "You mean, like, the poor are now safe >and respected and have power, man, and they don't need to protect themselves >any more, like, against oppression? That's groovy." > >I get the same look I got from the cigarette lady. Then all three of them >start yelling at once, and while I can't make much sense out of the ruckus, >I hear all kind of stuff about the guns killing children, and guns _making_ >people pop their wives and all, and how just having guns around the house >makes people, like, go massacre whole schoolyards full of little kids. And, >like, bad _looking_ guns especially make people do stuff. > >And I think maybe people must have got hold of a lot of bad drugs, man, if >they're that wigged out that guns can, like, _make_ them do stuff. Must >have been something come along after acid that was, like, really heavy and >turned all the regular people into some kinda bad, brainless zombies >controlled by guns. > >And yeah, sure enough, I hear everybody sayin' about how we gotta build more >prisons and stuff for all the bad people. And somebody says there's, like, >way more than a million people in prison-million point two or somethin'--and >I say, like, "_What?_ Like, man, that's unflippingbelievable! You got >that many people, like, murdering and raping and stuff?" > >But no, it turns out it's mostly, like, dope and all. Weird. And now >they're even gonna put in people for cigarettes and owning .22's. And >there's some other lady wants to put people in jail for, like, saying food >is "natural" when it isn't, like, really organic and all. And, like, filling >in a ditch on your commune could get you a couple years in the federal slam. >And stuff like that. Really weird. > >And guess what? They say they can already, like, take away people's cars >and houses and all their money and stuff without even charging you with a >crime or anything. Like, even if somebody else broke a law using your car >and you didn't even know about it, they can take your car away. Weird! > >What's even weirder is I don't hear _anybody_ talking about, like, rights. > >I hear people in this room saying stuff like "liberal" and "conservative.' >(That hasn't changed any.) But it doesn't seem to make any difference >whether they're callin' themselves conservative or callin' somebody else >liberal. They're _all_ just talkin' about jail and control and control and >jail. And makin' this illegal and makin' that illegal. And makin' >everything illegal, it sounds like. > >I don't hear one person around here talkin' about, oh, free speech and how >cops shouldn't kick down people's doors, and why the FBI shouldn't spy on >political types, and why we shouldn't, like, have to use numbers instead of >names, and how people ought to be able to, like, do their own thing. >Nobody's sayin' that stuff. Nobody's shouting, "Hey! You can't do that!" >Like, I'm the only person in the whole room freakin' out over this weird shit! > >When did I fall off the bus, man? Isn't all that rights stuff what liberal >usta mean? But around here all I hear is lawn order, lawn order, lawn >order. I feel like I fell down a rabbit hole into a Republican party >convention. > >Except that all these folks are talkin' about lots more programs, too. And >how we gotta bail out all these programs they already got. Somma these >programs I've heard of, like Social Security, you know. And I can >understand how that one might need some bailing, because we clearly got a >boatload full of old farts around here. Some of the programs I never heard >of. But they all gotta be beefed up or bailed out or supported or saved and >stuff. And it's all for the sake of the children and the poor people. And >so it's not like a Republican convention, exactly. But kind of like a >Republican convention that's full of Democrats. > >Then I hear this old dude off on a sofa talkin' about closing military >bases. He's talkin' this Texas drawl, real quiet and soft, but he's gettin' >a lot of attention. And I think, "Yeah. Closing military bases. We useta >get behind that sorta shit, man." > >So I ease on over to this guy. Turns out he's a senator or ex-senator or >something, this Texas dude, and he's real into legislation to, like, turn >these closed military bases into camps. > >Well, cool. Neat camps for the kiddies. Little kiddies playin' where the >soldiers used to be. I like that. > >But that's not it, either. See, he wants to turn these bases into some kind >of work camp things. It's where they'd put the dopers they can't fit in the >regular prisons. But also some other people, too. People who disagree with >him, you know. But I don't see anybody like that. Anywhere. So I don't >know who he's talkin' about. > >And, shit, it isn't only camps he wants to build. He wants some amendment >or another suspended so people can be left in the camps like years without >any trial and weird shit like that. And some other amendment suspended so >the fuzz can get evidence on dopers and, like, people who don't like the >government, without having to obey the Bill of Rights, man. > >And everybody's nodding and nodding and nodding. With these glassy looks in >their eyes. I figure everybody can't _really_ agree with this old fascist >fart. Maybe they're just nodding because he's this important guy and >they're kissing his butt. > >But then another guy standing in the middle of a big crowd behind the sofa >speaks up. And he doesn't look like anybody important. I mean, he's just >another big, bloaty guy. (There sure are a lot of those around here.) He's >got a fat, Rudolph nose, and he chuckles, in some kind of hillbilly snort, >and says, "Well, if that's what you wanted, why'd you give me such shit >before voting on my counterterrorism bill, then?" > >Tex and the bloaty guy laugh a while at that, like it's some funny secret. >And all the nodders nod and laugh, glassy-like. > >And then Rudolph-nose turns to some foreign-looking guys standing around him >and explains that he invented this bill that lets him or the Secretary of >State or somebody call anybody they want a bunch of terrorists and >confiscate all their stuff, just boom like that, on this guy's say so. And >if they're foreigners, they can even have secret trials and secret evidence, >without telling anybody, even the newspapers. > >At least, I think that's what he said. I gotta admit, he guy's voice was so >lazy-sounding it just, like, made me sleepy every time he opened his mouth. >If he really said all that stuff about foreign guys and secret trials, I'd >think the foreign guys he was talking to woulda been pretty mad. But these >Koreans or Malaysians or whatever just laugh and nod, laugh and nod. > >I staggered off, really feeling wasted. Bad trip, man. This has got to be >a bad trip! I mean, we were gonna make things better, weren't we? The >government was, like, going to _help_ everybody. They were gonna get us all >together, for the good of the people. Weren't they? > >But all over the room, everybody's saying _control, control, control_ like a >mantra. > >Except that this mantra creates some very bad vibes, If you know what I >mean. And this party isn't anywhere I want to be. > >So I ease on over to the door, thinkin' I'll get out of here and maybe find >the _real_ party down the hall. > >Except that I get to the door and it's freakin' locked, man. It's freakin' >locked! I'm at the insanest party in the universe, and every door in the >place is freakin' locked, so I can't get out. > >So I found this tape recorder in the bedroom. I'm hiding in the closet >right now, makin' this tape. When I'm done, I'm gonna put it into a box >that useta hold non-fat pizza, thinking maybe it'll get carted out of here >with the trash and some janitor might find it, lookin' for leftovers. If >you get this tape, and if anybody knows a way out of here, please help me, >okay? This party's too weird. > > # # # > >(c) 1997 by Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted for >non-commercial uses, as long as the reprint is accompanied by this copyright >statement. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [info@safewithin.com: Reply from Safe Within] Date: 03 Feb 1997 16:38:23 -0700 A while back I visited a web site concerned with safety that had some stuff on guns. They had links to the NRA Eddie Eagle page and were really decent in how they handled gun safety. I dropped them a short note thanking them for their fair coverage of the issue and just received the following reply. I encourage you to take a moment to visit the site, check out the stuff on guns, and comment. If you know of any links that might be relevent for them, let them know. The URL is . ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Dear Charles, You may have had a response from us earlier (http://www.safewithin.com) but we had a few challenges with responding to some early e-mails so I would like to make sure that you heard back from us. We really encourage our readers to give us feedback and are pleased that you liked our comments on gun safety. Do you know of any other good safety sites that we should include on our resource pages? Any other specific tips that should be added to the content? Please revisit the site and use the "Add A Tip" button to send your ideas. Thanks again for taking the time to write us with your comments. Cathy Strizzi V. P. Development, Safe Within safewith@dreamscape.com ----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. "25 states allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" - Andrew Ford ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Control...Control...Control Date: 03 Feb 1997 16:59:29 -0700 Howdy I just placed 4 of the bills up for consideration on my webpage for your perusal. http://www.aros.net/~andelain/bills/index.html Will -- Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God - I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799): March, 1775 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Legislative Alert!! - TUES. FEB. 4 Date: 04 Feb 1997 02:01:45 -0700 AWK! IT'S BACK FROM THE DEAD! HB 47, which would ban concealed carry in private clubs, taverns, beer pubs, etc. was "tabled" in committee hearings on Friday. Usually tabled bills die and are never heard from again. However, HB 47 is scheduled to be reheard TODAY, TUES. FEB. 4 at 3 PM in the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee meeting, Room 225, State Capitol. I do not know if Rep. Arrington (the sponsor) is planning to introduce a substitute bill or try to get the original through committee. If it is at all possible, please ATTEND the meeting. If it's not possible (I realize most people work during the day!), please call or fax the committee members. The House phone for leaving messages is 538-1029. The fax number is 538-1908. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Rep. Robert HM Killpack, Chair Rep. Jack A. Seitz, Vice Chair Rep. Perry L. Buckner Rep. David L. Hogue Rep. Blake D. Chard Rep. Susan Koehn Rep. Gary Cox Rep. Carl R. Saunders Rep. David L. Gladwell Rep. John E. Swallow Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson No further word yet on the Steiner bill and the Waddoups bill which are rumored to be scheduled for 8 AM Thursday. Please plan on being available to attend if possible. Thanks! Sarah PS: WAGC members, please let me know your plans/availability! Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" Subject: Fwd: NRA in-fighting Date: 04 Feb 1997 11:49:35 -0700 >Envelope-to: chad@pengar.com >From: pwatson@utdallas.edu >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:31:36 -0600 (CST) >To: Texas Gun Owners >cc: restore our constitution >Subject: NRA in-fighting >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Sender: owner-roc@xmission.com >Reply-To: roc@xmission.com > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 01:49:35 -0600 >From: "Howlin' Blue" >To: noban@fs1.mainstream.com >Subject: Your Basic Rant >Message-ID: <32F6EA0F.1D4@icsi.net> > >So far the count is 18. That's the number of folks who have called, >tonight, and asked if I heard Neil and Wayne play 'Silly Buggers' on the >Liddy show, today. > >No, I didn't, thank you very much. > >I did talk to two board members, tonight, trying to find out what's >going on. I now know for certain that Wayne either is or is not going >to be replaced by Neil, that Marion definitely will or definitely will >not be dispossessed and that no matter what happens Tanya either will or >won't be fired. Or maybe not. > >I'm getting a little tired of this NRA intramurial bloodletting. >Frankly, if all these folks have all this energy to fight each other, >they're not spending enough time fighting our external battles. I don't >remember the AWB being repealed, the executive orders re various and >sundry weapons being revoked, Brady, GCA 1968 and the MGA of 1934 being >repealed and a blood oath being taken by the president that he and all >future presidents will uphold and honor the second amendment. > >Until such time as that happens, folks in Fairfax and those who wannabe >in Fairfax don't have time for this silliness. And those who think they >do are not the Defenders of the Faith they consider themselves to be. > >I'm going to abridge the conversations of the evening, re Wayne and >Neil. > >One says that Wayne is an articulate and reasoned spokesman for the NRA >and that if he goes the NRA's mainstream constituency goes with him. >That any chance of expanding the NRA's membership outside of the >traditional demographics of the org lie with the current admin. > >The other says that we've put up with pussyfooting too long, he don't >give a damn about the media or Joe Sixpack, they're not with us anyway, >that Wayne is a lousey administrator and Neil can rally the troops to >the battle. Neil has been doing this for x number of years, he's earned >the position. > >I don't know about all that on both sides. Few, if any, have more >respect for Neil Knox than I do. He has been doing this for x number of >years and been there when others weren't. BUT...that's what they said >about Bob Dole. It's not language that works for me. It gives me a >great feeling of Deja Moo: the feeling I've heard that bullshit >somewhere before. > >While I agree with the individual in not giving a damn about the media, >I do care about Joe Sixpack. He's the guy, his daughter, son and wife >along with him, who we have to bring into our fold. Without him, we >don't do so good. And I'm not sure a hard core activist is the way to >get him. If there is any more active activist than Larry Pratt I don't >know who it is. Yet, compare the membership of NRA to GOA. > >Far as I'm concerned, if we want a hard core activist to be ExVP, lets >get Larry. That'll get you a couple hundred thousand new members >overnight. Don't know how many it'll cost. > >To me, Neil is a grass roots leader. Whether he has the social and >communicative skills to do what needs to be done is moot. Larry, on the >other hand, defitintely has the communication skills. You may or may >not like what he says but he can damn sure get it said. > >So, if Wayne gets dumped, lets bring in Larry. If you want an activist >to run the show, take it to the wall. Pink Floyd will do the >soundtrack. > >As far as Wayne's admin. skills, I have no clue, therefore no opinion. >I've heard both sides and still don't know what they're talking about. > >I've met Marion exactly twice for a total of less than two minutes. I >don't pay any attention to the politics of the NRA so I have no idea if >she's effective or not. > >This brings us to TM. > >Before '94, when she took over ILA, we got Brady, AWB and had a "D" >congress. > >In "94" we got the first "R" congress in several decades and Clinton >gave credit for the happening to the NRA. > >In "96" we kept that congress, improved the senate, lost a few in the >house, basically a push in a year in which the president is reelected. > >I worked the Foster campaign in La. Fact is, I called Foster to NRA's >attention after Al Alcock called him to mine. He was 17th out of 17 >candidates, at the time. Today, he's governor and don't kid yourself >about one thing. Deduct the NRA's effort from that election and Mike >would be sitting on the front porch in Franklin holding prayer meetings, >today. Probably be happier doing it, but that's beside the point. > >Two weeks before the congressional elections she called me and asked >what was happening with Ron Paul. I told her he was in trouble because >all the cops were supporting Lefty because of Paul's earlier stand on >drugs. I made the race a dead heat. She said, "Hummmm, better do a >mailer." > >Five days before the election I and every other NRA member, or voter, >for all I know, got a letter emphasizing the NRA endorsement of Ron >Paul. Paul won by two points. > >Anyone don't think an NRA mailer is worth two points? Ask Congressman >Paul. Lefty who? > >I understand others in other states have a different experience. That's >fine, I'm not arguing with you. I'm just telling you mine. > >I don't really give a damn about the thing with Wayne and Marion, as I >said, I don't know much about NRA internal politics, and at that know >more than I care to. HOW-SOME-EVAH,according to me, whoever finds >him/herself in charge of the NRA needs to leave ILA the hell alone. > >I'll stipulate that Tanya can be cantankerous as hell and that when she >goes on a tear she can peel varnish off an antique statue of Jesus. >But, the same set of balls that gives her the fortitude to stand up to a >board of directors and an administration is what gives her the fortitude >to contest and win marginal races and get in the faces of various and >sundry congressmen what need their faces got into. > >Whatever happens, whoever comes in, you better leave ILA alone. > >Jim > >PS: I'll be offline for a few days on personal biz. If the above >pisses you off, you tell me so and don't get an immediate answer, it's >not because I've become shy and retiring now that I'm in my dotage. > > >------------------------------ > Chad Leigh Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net chad@pengar.com info@pengar.com info@shire.net Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites. WWW Wholesale including virtual domains. Tango. PHP/FI Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ACLA ALERT & ACTION DISPATCH Date: 04 Feb 1997 13:03:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- 1stcmdr@mailmasher.com, Hunter45@cris.com, peters@gate.net, cmdr77th@gte.net, decard@thnet.com, nolso@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us, jholloway@ccsmtp.memc.com, nhmilitia@hotmail.com, m24a1@aol.com, DGW@cyberhighway.net, geronimo@webtv.net, HPB111@aol.com, glockist@aol.com Dear Patriots, The "American Citizens & Lawman Association" has, beginning Feb.1st, an Alert & Action Dispatch. This will NOT be a mailing list but instead will alert you to important legislation, police-state tactics coming your way, gun-grabs, fellow patriots in need of support etc. The ACLA is working with Jack McLambs "Police Against The New World Order." To become part of our alert system e-mail me at livefree@mobbs.com with subscribe in the subject field. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ALL WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED. Thank you & God bless, Mike Goza ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FCC Internet Charges FWD Date: 04 Feb 1997 13:03:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Local telephone companies have filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments, responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our voices may be heard. Thanks for your time, Elan Amram DTC SuperNet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: gun legislation from DC & other assorted items. Date: 05 Feb 1997 13:51:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- cc: rlbusaall@aol.com (robert-springfield-mo) FROM WHAT I COULD FIND ON BOTH HOUSE & SENATE THEY DID POST ON THEIR BOARD IN WASHINGTON, D.C. MOST OF IT NOT GOOD. FREEDOM NOW DAYS IS A STATE OF MIND. ======================================================== 12. Twelve is Enough Anti-Gunrunning Act (Introduced in the House) [H.R.12] 26. To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply if the conviction occurred... (Introduced in the House) [H.R.26] 27. Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House) [H.R.27] 95. Private Property Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House) [H.R.95] 102. To require the national instant criminal background check system to be established and used in connection with firearms transfers by November 28, 1997. (Introduced in the House) [H.R.102] 115. To prohibit the transfer of a firearm to, and the possession of a firearm by, a person who is intoxicated. (Introduced in the House) [H.R.115] 116. Gun Safety Act (Introduced in the House) [H.R.116] 138. To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit contributions by nonparty multicandidate political committees. (Introduced in the House) [H.R.138] 147. Ethnic and Minority Bias Clearinghouse Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House) [H.R.147] 169. No Frills Prison Act (Introduced in the House) [H.R.169] 186. Handgun Registration Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House) [H.R.186] 187. Congress 2000 Commission Act (Introduced in the House) [H.R.187] 207. Hate Group Public Funding Exclusion Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.207] 327. Anti-Retroactive Taxation Act (Introduced in the House) [H.R.327] 345. To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. (Introduced in the House) [H.R.345] 428. Innocent Owners' Forfeiture Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House) [H.R.428] 445. To provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply to government entities. (Introduced in the House) [H.R.445] 476. To prohibit the possession or transfer of non-sporting handguns. (Introduced in the House) [H.R.476] 492. American Handgun Standards Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House) [H.R.492] 43. To throttle criminal use of guns. (Placed in the Senate) [S.43] 59. Extremely Low Frequency Communication System Termination and Deficit Reduction Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.59] 70. American Handgun Standards Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.70] 92. Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.92] 101. Domestic Violence Identification and Referral Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.101] 112. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Amendment Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.112] 132. Destructive Ammunition Prohibition Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.132] 133. Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.133] 134. Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.134] 135. Violent Crime Control Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.135] 136. Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.136] 137. Real Cost of Handgun Ammunition Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.137] 171. To amend title 18, United States Code, to insert a general provision for criminal attempt. (Introduced in the Senate) [S.171] 191. To throttle criminal use of guns. (Introduced in the Senate) [S.191] 206. To prohibit the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, or any amendment made by such Act, to an individual who is incarcerated in a Federal, State, or local correctional,...(Introduced in the Senate)[S.206] 213. To amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to repeal amendments on obscene and harassing use of telecommunications facilities made by the Communications Decency Act of 1996... (Introduced in the Senate) [S.213] 230. Freedom From Union Violence Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.230] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Lovell Subject: OREGON CCW FOR NON-RESIDENTS Date: 05 Feb 1997 15:23:20 -0700 (MST) In a recent post to Utah-firearms information was given which appeared to indicate that an Oregon CCW could be obtained by non-residents by applying to the Sheriff in Astoria. The post even said that a Utah CCW could be used to satisfy the Oregon training requirement. I spoke today with a lady in the Clatsop County Sheriff's office in Astoria, Oregon. She told me that only residents of contiguous states were eligible to apply. Unfortunately, neither Utah nor Colorado residents are eligible because of this. If the original poster or anyone else is aware of any information to the contrary or knows of some alternate way for non-residents to obtain an Oregon CCW, please post. Bruce A. Lovell PGP Public Key available on request Boulder, Colorado USA E-Mail: lovell@netcom.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: SAFAN NO. 272: Stop Lies in the Media Everyone (S.L.I.M.E.) Date: 06 Feb 1997 01:56:19 -0700 > >From: INTERNET:SafanNews@aol.com, INTERNET:SafanNews@aol.com >TO: INTERNET:SafanNews@aol.c, INTERNET:SAFANNEWS@AOL.COM >DATE: 2/1/97 3:22 PM > >RE: SAFAN NO. 272: Stop Lies in the Media Everyone (S.L.I.M.E.) > STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!! > S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, NO. 272, February 1, 1997 > >STOP LIES IN THE MEDIA EVERYONE!!! (S.L.I.M.E.) >by Bill Vance (ocs@xpresso.seaslug.org) > >Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ >Sender: owner-fratrum@netside.com >Reply-To: fratrum@netside.com > >This "FAQ" is auto-posted once a month via cron triggered script, >and may be triggered off by hand from time to time in between if >the info is requested by someone, such as when the House recently >voted down the AW Ban and the Media threw a hissy fit. > >The purpose of this FAQ is to inform people what they >can do about Media generated lies and misinformation. > >While the FCC only handles Broadcast Media, (TV and Radio), some >of these techniques will work for magazines and newspapers, too. >If I've missed something, or you find errors, let me know and I'll add >or fix it. > > 1. Send letters of complaint to the Station Manager every time > it happens with all the time, details, other info, and your > complaint(s). > > 2. Send an additional copy for their FCC (Federal > Communications Commission) Public file. > > 3. Send an additional copy to the FCC itself, in case they don't > put it in their Public file. > > 4. Send a letter of complaint to their Station Owner as per > above, with copies as per above. > > 5. Send copies of their replies to you along with yours to them > to their FCC Public file, so that it gets nice and fat, again, with > copies to the FCC itself. > > 6. If you can afford it, send all corespondence by Certified Mail > with Return Receipt Requested. Send a copy of the Return > Receipt with everything that goes to the FCC itself, so that they > will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their > Public File. > > 7. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and > Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is > found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), > and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both > the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate > telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If > your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you > can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all > their advertisers. There are other references that have the > addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. Look them > all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., > around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough > people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the > Station continues their nastiness you'll "consider" changing to > brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). > > 8. The above, can be a lot easier and less time consuming if > you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they > are right in front of you for the listing. > > 9. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, > call and compliment them on it, but do NOT send any kudos to > their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to > keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in > writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's > license. > >Write to: > Federal Communications Commission, > Complaints and Compliance Division > Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW > Washington, D.C. 20554 > > FCC FAX: 202-653-9659 > Attn: Edythe Wise >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >----------------------------------- > "An Effective Weapon in Every Hand = Freedom. The only important > difference between Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Communitarianism, > Socialism and Neo-Liberalism, is the spelling, and that last group >hasn't > got the collective brains to figure it out." Bill Vance > >[ED. NOTE: Thanks Bill Vance for this posting. NOW everytime anyone in >the media says, "Timothy McVeigh was a member of the militia or "connected >with" the militia, I am going to do just what you suggest!!! Also, everytime >the media calls someone a White Supremacist (like Randy Weaver or....), I >most certainly will call their hand. There are much more serious lies, such >as, "The government can find NO evidence that Chemical Warfare was used >in the Gulf War". That one really inflames me.... Dot Bibee] > >SUGGESTION: This one would make an EXCELLENT internet newsletter - it >spells SLIME!!! I have my hands full with SAFAN!!!....DB > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the > system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --- Claire Wolfe > "If you're happy and you know it, clank your chains"........Ed Wolfe >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > SAFAN %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 > SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on David Feustel's Page > http://feustel.mixi.net 219-483-1857 E-Mailto: feustel@mixi.net >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Legislative Update Date: 06 Feb 1997 04:05:11 -0700 The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on SB 27 (the Steiner Bill) has been postponed. It will NOT be heard today (Thursday). Best guess is that it will come up next Thursday. However, you can continue to contact committee members. The House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee will be debating HB 85, the Domestic Violence bill on Friday, at 8 AM in Room 225 of the Capitol. This has NOT been formally posted, so should be considered tentative. This bill is essentially identical to the Lautenberg Bill, is unconstitutional because it is an ex post facto law (i.e. it provides penalties for acts committed at a time when the penalty had not been enacted, and it creates two classes of citizens: law enforcement officers who are exempt from the laws they are sworn to uphold, and "commoners" (us) who are victimized by the law. Please call or fax committee members and urge them to oppose HB 85. If you can attend the committee meeting, please do. Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Fwd: From J. Neil Schulman Date: 06 Feb 1997 16:50:19 -0700 >Sarah, > >I think the following exchange, a follow up from a reader of my >letter to Mayor Susan Hammer, might also be of interest to your >list. > >Neil >perrault@atcweb.com wrote: >> >> Mr. Schulman: >> >> Your lletter yo a mayor Hammer seemed to lean to the optimistic hope that >> politicos will be swayed by reason and statistical facts. It did, at least, >> vaguely threaten the potential of democratic rejection if these factors and >> thereby political peril. However, I believe a substantial segment, if not a >> majority of the society coudn't give a rat's hind-quarters enough to look at >> the information beyond what is foisted upon them in the evening news. We >> know what sort of information that will be. >> >> Perhaps they are more approachable at the mayoral level, but at the national >> level, I believe with most advocates of gun-control, the true issue is not >> safety, crime reduction, or any sych thing. It is about power. We have >> access to the guns (the law). You don't. All the better for me to tell you >> what to do, how to do it, and where to send the money to pay for it. Perhaps >> your articles have addressed this concern? I certainly think it has more >> compulsion to the average Joe on the street. >> >> Larry Perrault > >Dear Larry, > >I have addressed that concern in two books: STOPPING POWER: WHY 70 >MILLION AMERICANS OWN GUNS ( http://www.pulpless.com/stopower.html ) and >SELF CONTROL NOT GUN CONTROL ( http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/self.html >). > >You can also find other of my writings on the subject on my website >at http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/recent.html -- which is my most >recent stories and articles. I particularly address it in my new >short story, "When Freemen Shall Stand," at >http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/whenfree.html . > >Having written hundreds of thousands of words on that subject, >debated it before large forums, on TV, and on radio, I think I >am qualified to tell you that anybody who understands what you >wrote to me is on our side already; and, aside from young people >who have never heard the issue in school, most adults who weigh >the dangers of power against their perceptions about the potential >of an armed people to wage revolution against a government gone >bad decide that they'd rather have the government have too much >power than have the instability of having their government overthrown >and the resulting chaos. > >That being the case, one needs to address people on _their_ concerns, >not ours -- which is why I focus on how widespread private ownership >and carrying of firearms makes society more peaceful, law-abiding, >and stable -- not less. > >Best regards, > >Neil > > >-- > J. Neil Schulman / Pulpless.Com > Voice & Fax: (310) 839-7653 > Internet: jneil@pulpless.com > Personal Web Page: http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/ > >Browse sample chapters of new books by bestselling authors, pay >online with a credit card or ecash, then download books in HTML >or Adobe Acrobat format from the web at http://www.pulpless.com/ > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: *Jus Dare* (Guns 'n Penicillin) Date: 06 Feb 1997 17:29:00 -0700 >*jus Dare* >Rapid Stuffing Dispersal > >The law is so perverse that trying to write about it takes con- >siderable nerve. You may not realize this, but trading your >neighbor an old rifle stock for penicillin for your sick kids >because you can't get to a drug store is susceptible to "use of >a firearm in commission of a drug related crime." You can be >sent to prison for "use of a firearm." > >Never mind that the "use" was not its intended use; that the >"firearm" was not able to be used as a firearm; that the crime >had nothing whatever to do with harm, threat, or intimidation >from a gun. You "used" a firearm in connection with a drug >related crime -- namely, trading a gun part for a controlled >substance through a non-controlled outlet. > >This is not some far-flung possibility, twisted from the most >absurd and unlikely group of perverted laws. It is an estab- >lished posture of the Spider Court. > >Read all about it in SMITH v. UNITED STATES No. 91-8674. >Decided June 1, 1993. > >The perverse Spider Court ruled that "The fact that >the most familiar example of 'us[ing] . . . a firearm' >is 'use' as a weapon does not mean that the phrase >excludes all other ways in which a firearm might be >used. . . > >"Smith's use of his firearm was 'during and in relation >to' a drug trafficking crime. Smith does not, and can- >not, deny that the alleged use occurred 'during' such a >crime. And there can be little doubt that his use was >'in relation to' the offense." He bought drugs, and >"paid for them" with a gun. > >Last weekend, my son had a stuffed toy on the floor beside >him while he read. My daughter picked up the toy, and my >son said, "Put it back. I'm using that." > >My daughter said, "You aren't using it." > >He said, "Yes, I am. I have it, don't I?" > >She came to me with her dilemma. > >"He wasn't even *holding* it," she said. > >"Well, Honey," I said, "The Spider Court finds for your >brother. They say: > >'The court's accessibility and proximity standard renders >-use- virtually synonymous with -possession- and makes >any role for the statutory word -carries- superfluous.' >They said that in BAILEY v. UNITED STATES Case >No. 94-7448. Decided December 6, 1995.' > >"What that means is that if it is near him, and he can get to >it, he is 'using' it, just like I am 'using' my gun because it is >safely and effectively locked and stored in the bedroom." > >In light of the Supremely Spidery Court opinion, I told my >son he was acting perverse, and instructed him to immediate- >ly surrender the toy to his sister. Because it was in defiance >of the Spider Court, he understood my logic and gave her the >toy. The only problem was that since the court was involved, >my daughter no longer wanted to touch it. > >So I got out my gun and shot it. After all, if I am guilty, I >may as well *do* something, you know? > >You know, the only colorful stretch of the truth in this whole >article was that last paragraph. What you *do* know can >knock the stuffin' right out of you. > >David C. Delany >*Jus Dare* > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > *JUS DARE* > ======== > Perversion of the U.S. Supreme Court > *Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law." > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from *Jus Dare*, send a message to > jus_dare@hotmail.com > Feel free to include your comments, but indicate that you wish to > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe." > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Legislative Update - HB 85 Domestic Violence Date: 06 Feb 1997 20:05:03 -0700 The House Committee on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice will NOT be debating HB 85 (Domestic Violence) tomorrow, Friday, Feb. 7 as was previously posted. It is currently rumored that the bill has been withdrawn, but that's unconfirmed. The hearing on Sen. Steiner's bill (SB 27 - limiting Concealed Carry) is tentatively scheduled for next Thursday. Details to follow. This update brought to you by Women Against Gun Control http://www.wagc.com Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Militia Satire by Nick -- age 12 Date: 06 Feb 1997 17:33:00 -0700 Can't recall if I already posted this; my apologies if this is the 2nd time. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS Dear M R, In a recent edition of Reader's Digest, there appeared a satire on the militias. As you might imagine, the militias were held up to ridicule. My friend Nick, age 12, thought they had missed some wonderful opportunities for humor. Here are some of his rejoinders -- uncut, unedited. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did. -- Harvey P.s., He's homeschooled. Always has been. ========================================== HOW TO TELL IF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE MILITIA MEMBERS There's a delivery truck across the street that hasn't moved in 3 days, and it has strange looking antennas sticking out of the top. There hasn't been a burglary or mugging in your neighborhood in the past year. You are occasionally awakened by nice people in black ski masks doing a "dynamic entry" on the house next door. The church parking lot is always full on Sundays. One of your next door neighbors is always following the other one around at a short distance. A kid picked randomly out of a crowd on Saturday can recite Shakespeare or the Bible. You keep seeing that same white car driving past your house about every 30 minutes. In the (small) public school maintained in your neighborhood, the kids raise their hand to correct the teacher more than 5 times a day. Your kid's treehouse has a bookshelf in it. **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS **************************************************** "A great flame follows a little spark." -- Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy, Paradiso, Canto I, line 34 **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Military being prepared for assaults on citizens Date: 06 Feb 1997 17:33:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- In a message dated 97-02-05 13:07:34 EST, John.Harrell@Corp.Sun.COM (John Harrell) writes: Subj: Military being prepared for assaults on citizens [Excerpted from Media Bypass, Feb., 1997, 1-812-477-8670] Across the nation, reports are coming in from young Americans in U.S. military service telling how they are being indoctrinated. In Ft. Jackson, South Carolina, soldiers in basic training are being told that they may be used to fight domestic violence and terrorism perpetrated by the militias. Citizens who defend the Second Amendment (the right to be armed) are referred to as "crazy Good Ol' Boys." Those citizens who own multiple guns are referred to as "people stockpiling weapons" and are said to be a "threat to the government". In Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, trainees have been told by their commander, "We are actually part of a one world military. We will police the world. World wars were fought to establish the U.N. Do everything you are ordered. If you refuse, you will be courtmartialed and you will never be able to work again in this country." Soldiers are asked, "Could you fire on civilians who are up in arms against the government, like in another civil war?" Part of the training program includes "How to go door-to-door, rounding up guns from suspected citizens." Soldiers who object or complain are called Nazis or Rednecks, and harrassed into going along. Any American with average intelligence and common sense should, by now, see what those who control our governemtn are preparing for us: The sell-out of U.S. sovereignty! The eradication of our individual rights and property! The suppression of all resistance to the New World Order! -APRA ALERT -- now merged with: Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: [SacredBull] Potential Massacre Averted Date: 06 Feb 1997 19:40:00 -0700 ================================================================ SacredBull Newsservice mail list: Because Ridicule is a Weapon. ================================================================ Sacred Bull News Service- Spokane, WA Potential Massacre Averted by Ed Wolfe It was a recipe for disaster, for wholesale slaughter. Hundreds, if not thousands of angry white men converged on the Spokane Convention Center. Thousands of weapons were visible, ranging from the low calibered .22 Ruger pistols, to full blown machine guns on tripods. In addition to guns and ammo of every size and caliber, there were knives. The knives came in just as large a variety as the guns. From small switch-blades to 3 foot machetes. They also brought literature. Subversive, anti-government literature. Some of them called themselves militia members. Others just "survivalists." Many of them had bumper stickers expressing anti-government rhetoric and witticisms. Most of them belonged to the NRA or other lesser known gun rights groups. These men, women and children were spotted coming and going from their point of convergence for three days. Prior to this assembly, there was a similar one that took place in north Portland, Oregon. The same thousands of weapons, knives, ammo, crossbows, and rubber band guns. In both cases there were no casualties. Not even any wounded. There were no confrontations even to speak of. A few complained about the cost of parking or waiting in line to use a urinal. But not a single hint of violence. In Portland this potential disaster was called a Gun Show. And in Spokane, The Self-Sufficiency and Preparedness Expo. Seemingly innocous names for what could've been deadly gatherings. All it would've taken was a single drunk participant to pull out a loaded gun, and use it. (Many of the attendees wear guns in plain view.) Incredibly, bars are open during these events. Alcohol and weapons do not mix well. But so far, all that has taken place at these gatherings is the exchange of products for money. There have been no exchanges of gunfire at a gun show to this writer's knowledge. In Spokane, church members stood outside the expo and sang hymns and prayed for the members inside to change from their evil ways. When told that the militia members and others were not members of any "hate groups," a minister said there must've been a change of heart. None of the militia men or woman complained about the prejudicial ignorance of the religious group praying for them outside. They were no doubt, offended by the viewpoint of the group that was praying for them. But in response to being called Nazi's, KKK and hate-mongers, their only repsonse was to pray for the bigoted but apparently well-meaning group outside to free themselves from media lies and learn the truth that they might be set free from their hatred and fear. John Trochmann, of the Militia of Montana said, "There's fear because there's ignorance. Come find out for yourself what these people are all about." Ironically, when whites display bigotry toward blacks, it is said they are hateful because they are ignorant. In this case, the church members who accused the militia members of being racists were black. Although many whites are also bigoted and hateful toward patriotic Americans. Anybody who automatically has a negative opinion toward another person or group of people based on their associations or group membership should think about whether or not they are being bigoted, prejudicial or hateful. And they should think about the origin of their fear/hatred. And they should ask themselves, "Am I really knowledgable about these people, or have I just heard stuff about them that may or may not be true?" Who is disseminating information to make them fearful of patriotic Americans? Does what they hear on TV fit with what they've seen and heard first hand? No one I have ever known has ever suspected me of being a racist or neo-nazi. Yet I've got plenty of friends whose first impression about the militia is that they are racist or nazi groups. When I tell them that I am a patriotic, American militiaman, they can only conclude that I must be different. I am the exception. I tell them, I have yet to meet the rule. Neo-nazis and other racists exist. I'm not denying that. But I don't see the connection between them and those Americans willing to take on a little more responsibility for their country and communities than the average person. It is the responsibility of every American to defend his country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. When you pass off that responsibility to others, you are indebted to them and at their mercy. You also leave them in control of your destiny as a nation. When the people you hand your responsibilities over to are domestic enemies of our Constitution and Country, you're also an enemy for failure to do your job and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Ignorance is no excuse. When it comes to your personal safety, you need to be capable of defending yourself and your family from harm. If you are not armed and educated regarding self-defense, who are you relying on to protect you and your loved ones? In case you haven't thought about it - The police are there to take a report and investigate AFTER a crime has already taken place. When an intruder comes into your house to rob or rape, dialing 911 is too little too late. But they'll be happy to send an officer over to take a report from the victim(s). If anyone is alive to give a report. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A free state is not one in which the people live locked behind bars on their windows in fear of criminals. Is a woman "free" to walk in a dark parking lot at night? She might be - if she were armed. We all might enjoy a higher level of freedom if it was common knowledge that most Americans are armed and trained in the use of firearms. This country would be a scary place for criminals to live and practice. Think about it the next time you talk about the need to get rid of "dangerous" guns. Guns are supposed to be dangerous. That is how they serve as a deterrent. But if you make them illegal for citizens to own, don't expect the people who we fear because of their disregard for the law to suddenly become law-abiding regarding guns and turn them in to the police. It's not just a bumper sticker. When Guns Are Outlawed - Only Cops & Criminals Will Have Guns. And when that becomes the case, who's going to defend you in an emergency? Ed Wolfe ================================================================ This article orginally appeared in the SacredBull mailing list. TO SUBSCRIBE: send mail to: majordomo@nighthawk.reichel.net with 'subscribe sacredbull' in the message body, and you are OURS. Hahahahahaha. We don't have unsubscribe instructions. ================================================================ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: COURT RULES NO GUNS IN PARKS ORDINANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL Date: 06 Feb 1997 23:40:35 -0700 >> FOR RELEASE UPON RECEIPT >>> February 5, 1997 >>> For further information, contact: >>> Phil Murphy (520) 327-8129 or >>> Ken Rineer (520) 740-9387 >>> >>> COURT RULES NO GUNS IN PARKS ORDINANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL >>> ______________________________________ >>> >>> Tucson, AZ: In a succinct decision involving a violation of a City >>> Ordinance which prohibits firearms in Tucson parks, a Tucson Judge has >>> ruled the ordinance unconstitutional and dismissed the case against >>> defendant Kenneth R. Rineer. >>> >>> The case was initiated by a planned arrest of Mr. Rineer while he carried >>> a sidearm openly in a city park last year. Rineer and his attorney, Ed >>> Kahn, of The Arizona Constitutional Rights Union, orchestrated the arrest >>> with the Tucson Police Department in order to challenge the >>> constitutionality of the prohibitive City statute. >>> >>> The ruling attacks the City's claimed rule-making abilities, stating, >>> "Court finds that CC 21-3 (5) (2) as it applies to firearms is >>> unconstitutional in that the State has preempted the control of firearms >>> within the State." >>> >>> The salient language of Article II, Section 26, of the Arizona State >>> Constitution reads, "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in >>> defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired," while Arizona >>> Revised Statutes further prohibit political subdivisions to regulate the >>> possession and carrying of firearms. >>> >>> In his motion for his client's case dismissal, Kahn stated, "The >>> legislative body of the State, let alone the City of Tucson, does not >>> have >>> the Constitutional authority to legislate the bearing of arms by the >>> citizens of Arizona." >>> >>> "Either the law means what it says and applies to everyone equally, or >>> it's a farce," said Phil Murphy, President of Brassroots, a pro-gun >>> organization in which Rineer is an active member. "We're blessed with >>> members like Ken who are committed to uphold and defend this State's >>> Constitution, even if our elected officials gleefully ignore it," beamed >>> Murphy. >>> >>> Rineer's next step will be to encourage the City to remove the signs which >>> currently bar citizens from exercising their right of self defense in >>> Tucson parks. >>> >>> Said Rineer, "I'm very pleased that an ordinary individual, armed with our >>> Constitution and the rule of law, can fight City Hall... and win!" >>> >>> -- END -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: BATF Sting Operations -Forwarded Date: 07 Feb 1997 15:59:39 -0700 Received: from europe.std.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA28660; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:26:23 -0700 Received: by europe.std.com (8.7.5/BZS-8-1.0) id RAA10862; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:16:10 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: europe.std.com: daemon set sender to ohio-rkba-approval using -f Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.5/BZS-8-1.0) id RAA10852; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:16:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from whqvax.picker.com by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA05234; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:16:07 -0500 Received: from ct.picker.com by whqvax.picker.com with SMTP; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from burton.ct.picker.com ([144.54.57.68]) by ct.picker.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20507; Fri, 7 Feb 97 17:15:45 EST Received: by burton.ct.picker.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA08231; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:15:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199702072215.RAA08231@burton.ct.picker.com> Cc: ohio-rkba@world.std.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: ohio-rkba-approval@world.std.com Precedence: list Reply-To: ohio-rkba@world.std.com Howdy all. I friend of mine & frequent attendant of gun shows told me about a BATF sting operation he heard about at gun shows lately. Anybody else hear about this ? SS Agent 1 offers to sell you a well-known brand of gun for hundreds of dollars -less- than it would be worth. The stingee realizes this & bites. SS Agent 2 later tracks you down at the same show & offers you hundreds of dollars -more- than the gun would be worth. If the stingee bites, s/he is immediately arrested for trading in firearms for profit without an FFL. Or something like that. I'm not sure what the actual charges are. I suppose if you were approached by them & realized that you were the object of their intended sting, it would be prudent to ask if they were the GDMF'ing women & children burning Gestapo. See if they lose their cool :-) Don Koehn - "If this be Treason, make the most of it!" - Patrick Henry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Thought Crime Date: 07 Feb 1997 17:53:23 -0700 >From: Brian Wilson >Subject: State of mind otherwise required... > >Facinating! >BW > > > >> Senator Mike DeWine >> U.S. Senate (OH) >> 140 Russell Senate Office Building >> Washington, DC 20510 >> Washington Voice: (202) 224-2315 >> Washington Fax: (202) 224-6519 >> OH Voice: (614) 469-6774 >> Email: senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov >> > Here is an interesting excerpt from his "THOUGHT CRIME" legislation... >> >> (a) OFFENSE- A person is guilty of an offense if, acting with the >> state of mind otherwise required for the commission of a crime, >> that person intentionally engages in conduct that, if successful, >> would constitute or result in the offense. >> > As I read it, it means you can be convicted of crimes you have not >committed! > > The whole bill follows... > > >>======= THOUGHT CRIMES AMENDMENT to TITLE 18 ====== >>TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE >> >>02/06/1997 >> >> To amend title 18, United States Code, to insert a general >> provision for criminal attempt. (Introduced in the Senate) >> >> S 171 IS >> >> 105th CONGRESS >> >> 1st Session >> >> S. 171 >> >> To amend title 18, United States Code, to insert a general provision for >> criminal attempt. >> >> IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES >> >> January 21, 1997 >> >> Mr. DEWINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and >> referred to the Committee on the Judiciary >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> A BILL >> >> To amend title 18, United States Code, to insert a general provision for >> criminal attempt. >> >> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the >> United States of America in Congress assembled, >> >> SECTION 1. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT. >> >> (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 18, United States Code, is >> amended by inserting before section 2 the following: >> >> `Sec. 1. Criminal attempt >> >> `(a) OFFENSE- A person is guilty of an offense if, acting with the >> state of mind otherwise required for the commission of a crime, >> that person intentionally engages in conduct that, if successful, >> would constitute or result in the offense. >> >> `(b) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE- It is an affirmative defense to a >> prosecution under this section that, under circumstances >> manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of criminal >> intent, the defendant avoided the commission of the crime attempted >> by abandoning any criminal effort and, if mere abandonment was >> insufficient to accomplish such avoidance, by taking affirmative >> steps that prevented the commission of the crime. >> >> `(c) DEFENSE PRECLUDED- It is not a defense to a prosecution under >> this section-- >> >> `(1) that it was factually or legally impossible for the actor >> to commit the crime, if the crime could have been committed had >> the circumstances been as the actor believed them to be; or >> >> `(2) that the crime attempted was completed. >> >> `(d) PROOF- In a prosecution under this section, any special proof >> provision that is specified in this title as applicable to the >> crime attempted is applicable also to an offense described in this >> section, unless a different application is plainly required. >> >> `(e) GRADING- An offense described in this section is an offense of >> the next lesser degree than the offense attempted. >> >> `(f) JURISDICTION- There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense >> described in this section if the crime attempted is a Federal crime >> with regard to which Federal jurisdiction-- >> >> `(1) is not limited to certain specified circumstances; or >> >> `(2) is limited to certain specified circumstances and any >> >> such circumstance exists or has occurred, or would exist or occur >> >> if the course of conduct involving the crime were completed.'. >> >> (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- The analysis for chapter 1 of title 18, >> United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to >> section 1 and inserting the following: >> >> `1. Criminal attempt.'. >> >> >> >>=========================================================================== >========= >> >> ralph@TeamInfinity.com >> >> http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/code/t26.html >> >> If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of >> servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home >> from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch >> down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget >> that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams >> >>>>>>> http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html >> >> This correspondence in NO WAY represents SAPF, but feel free to >> contact them thru Andrew C. Earp >> >> 1-800-677-1207 ext. 1800 RALPH and ANDREW C. EARP >> Andrew C. Earp is NATIONAL DIRECTOR of SEMINAR SERVICES >> >> CALL 703-904-7770 ask for document 777 >>######################################################################### >> >>TO RECEIVE email from ralph: send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com and in >>the Subject make sure your email address and the word GO-RALPH (no spaces) >>is in the subject. >> >>TO STOP RECEIVING email from ralph: send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com >>and in the Subject make sure your email address and the word WHOA-RALPH >>(no spaces) is in the subject. >> > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun control panelist needs sponsor Date: 08 Feb 1997 06:21:00 -0700 Forwarded from the Libertarian Party of Utah list Message-ID: <970207164240_949498112@emout02.mail.aol.com> A panelist for an upcoming debate on gun control at the BYU law school in 6 weeks has contacted me because of my affiliation with the LPUtah. He is looking for a sponsor to pay him between $1500-$2000 to conduct original research into the 2nd Amendment, which will result in a law review article in the BYU Law Review. The other panelists consist of law professors and lawyers, including Nadine Strossen of the ACLU, and are all pro-gun control and have funding from their organizations or law schools. Stifling laughter as his suggestion that the LPUtah had such money, I suggested he contact the USSC lobbyist and then we both laughed at how most freedom-based organizations are notoriously (here's my attempt at softening language again) "underfunded." ;-) Anyway, if anyone on this list has any suggestions on where this panelist might obtain such funding, please contact me at your earliest convenience. E-mail: JRLinSLC@aol.com Phone: 801-364-0090 LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "lputah@qsicorp.com" LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender. LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: elwell@inconnect.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andelain Subject: Re: Thought Crime Date: 09 Feb 1997 11:26:12 -0700 (MST) delain Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns -- forwarded message -- Path: news.aros.net!xmission!news.uoregon.edu!pixie.mcom.com!news.sgi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.uio.no!in1.nntp.cais.net!news.abs.net!cs.umd.edu!gun-control Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Organization: Network Intensive Lines: 37 Sender: magnum@cs.umd.edu Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu Message-ID: <5cu0q6$53e@xring.cs.umd.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: xring.cs.umd.edu NNTP-Posting-User: magnum Xref: news.aros.net talk.politics.guns:415391 Junkgun_Con@boxer.senate.gov Thank you for recently contacting me to express your opposition to my bill to extend the "junk gun" import ban to the domestic market. I appreciate hearing your views. My bill calls for using the same test for domestic firearms currently used to determine whether a weapon can be imported. It would apply to guns produced after the legislation is enacted, and it would not apply to firearms already in circulation. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, eight of the ten firearms most frequently traced at crime scenes are junk guns. These guns are not sporting weapons because they have low accuracy and high failure rates. And because they are inaccurate, poorly constructed, and lacking in safety features, junk guns are ill-suited for home and self protection. Keeping a junk gun in the house is an invitation to disaster. This legislation has been endorsed by the California Police Chiefs Association and 27 individual California police chiefs and sheriffs. Among them are the chiefs of some of California's largest cities, including Willie Williams of Los Angeles, Fred Lau of San Francisco, Art Venegas of Sacramento, and Louis Cobarruviaz of San Jose. Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Sincerely, Barbara Boxer United States Senator -- end of forwarded message -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net) Subject: Re: BATF Sting Operations -Forwarded Date: 10 Feb 1997 08:20:23 -0700 > Howdy all. I friend of mine & frequent attendant of gun shows >told me about a BATF sting operation he heard about at gun shows >lately. Anybody else hear about this ? > > SS Agent 1 offers to sell you a well-known brand of gun for >hundreds of dollars -less- than it would be worth. The stingee >realizes this & bites. > > SS Agent 2 later tracks you down at the same show & offers >you hundreds of dollars -more- than the gun would be worth. If >the stingee bites, s/he is immediately arrested for trading in >firearms for profit without an FFL. > > Or something like that. I'm not sure what the actual >charges are. I suppose if you were approached by them & realized >that you were the object of their intended sting, Seems like the way to handle this is to buy it from the first and take it home. That way their sting costs them lots of money and you get a good deal. It also seems to me that a good lawyer could get you off this as it should be pretty easy to show that you had no intent to trade in arms without an FFL and that you privately bought a firearm for your own use but when an appropriate offer was made you decided to part with it. Both are legal acts and probably, with the appropriate lawyers, could not be made to constitute an illegal activity as there is not enough evidence of intent or a pattern to show that what you are trying to do is circumvent the law. Chad Chad Leigh Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net chad@pengar.com info@pengar.com info@shire.net Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites. Low cost virtual servers. DB integration. Tango. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: GOA Alert-- Bills Before Congress Date: 11 Feb 1997 13:39:41 -0700 This is the best analysis of pending FEDERAL gun legislation that I've seen. One other objection to the Stearns bill is that it is yet another one that gives law enforcement officers "rights" that the rest of us "peons" don't have. Personally, I will NEVER support a law that creates two classes of citizens. Equal protection under the law!! Call, fax or write your CongressCritters! Sarah >>Subject: GOA Alert-- Bills Before Congress >> >> The Good, the Bad and the Ugly >> -- Bills to support, and bills to watch out for >> >> by Gun Owners of America >> 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 >> (703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org >> >> (Tuesday, February 11, 1997) >> >> * Citizen's Self-Defense Act (H.R. 27). Rep. Roscoe >>Bartlett (R-MD) has reintroduced this bill to protect citizens, >>who use a gun in self-defense, from anti-gun prosecutors. GOA >>supports this bill and encourages activists to make sure their >>Congressman is a cosponsor. >> >> * "Half-baked" repeals of Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban (H.R. >>26 and H.R. 445). Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) has introduced H.R. >>445 which would only exempt the police from the domestic violence >>misdemeanor gun ban. Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) has introduced H.R. 26 >>which only repeals the part about past offenses, albeit for all >>citizens. Both bills stop short of a full repeal. It is >>imperative that Congress repeal this entire law from the books, >>otherwise it will serve as a precedent to expand the gun ban to >>other misdemeanors, traffic offenses, etc. GOA is currently >>working with several Congressmen who have expressed interest in >>introducing a full repeal. Please stay tuned for more details. >> >> * Gun owner registration (H.R. 102 and H.R. 186). H.R. 186 >>(a bill to register handguns) has received quite a bit of >>attention in the grassroots. But an even greater threat is a >>bill, introduced by Rep. Barr, that will continue the >>registration of gun owners that began with the passage of the >>Brady bill. >> >> H.R. 102, a bill to move up the implementation of the >>Instant "Registration" Check, will continue the registration of >>all gun buyers. GOA members should look for the current GOA >>newsletter which begins arriving this week. The newsletter >>explains how the feds are using the FIST software to register >>names compiled by the instant registration check. If you're not >>a GOA member, you can order the Feb. 28 issue by calling >>703-321-8585. Webusers: http://www.gunowners.org/anahr102.htm is >>an analysis of the bill. >> >> * Concealed Carry Reciprocity (H.R. 339). Introduced by >>Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), H.R. 339 would require every state to >>recognize a concealed carry permit issued by another state. This >>is a laudable goal, as a law-abiding citizen from one state >>should not lose his or her Second Amendment rights when traveling >>to another state. >> >> There is one glaring flaw in the Stearns bill, however, >>that, unless fixed, will make an otherwise good bill >>unacceptable. Whereas the Second Amendment guarantees a >>preexisting "right" to carry a firearm, H.R. 339 only applies to >>citizens from states which issue permits. It fails to account >>for any state, such as Vermont, that does not require government >>officials to first give a permission slip to its citizens before >>they are "allowed" to exercise their rights. >> >> Under Vermont law, if you are a law-abiding citizen of any >>state, you can carry a concealed firearm in the state of Vermont. >>You do not need to beg the government for permission to carry. >>You do not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered. >>You do not need a government issued permission slip; you can >>carry as a matter of right. However, because H.R. 339 only >>applies to citizens from permit states, the Stearns bill can >>actually punish a state for being too pro-gun. H.R. 339 can hurt >>pro-gun efforts in several ways: >> >> 1) H.R. 339 puts tremendous pressure on permit-free >> states to adopt a permit system. Therefore, a pro-gun >> state like Vermont will be "encouraged" to pass a permit >> system similar to anti-gun New York State. If the state >> does not adopt a permit system, it is, in effect, punished >> for being too pro-gun, as its citizens cannot carry >> concealed firearms out of state. >> >> 2) Perhaps most importantly, this bill will undermine >> the efforts of pro-gun organizations who are pushing for >> Vermont-style legislation in other states. A state >> legislature will be less likely to consider a proposal that >> does not allow them the benefits allowed to other states. >> >> For more information on H.R. 339, load your browser. We have >> placed at http://www.gunowners.org/stearns.htm an analysis of >> the bill. >> >>Are you receiving this as a cross-post? You can subscribe to our E-mail >>Alert Network directly. Address your request to crfields@gunowners.org and >>include in the body of the message either "XX" or "all" where XX is your >>state abbreviation. If you subscribe by state, you will receive federal >>alerts plus those which are specific to your state of residence. Requesting >>"all" gets you all GOA alerts-- imagine that. >> >> >> >> > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: S133: 1000% Ammo Tax FWD Date: 04 Feb 1997 11:27:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Organization: The Malicious Militia 105th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 133 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the tax on handgun ammunition, to impose the special occupational tax and registration requirements on importers and manufacturers of handgun ammunition, and for other purposes. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 21, 1997 Mr. Moynihan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance _______________________________________________________________________ A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the tax on handgun ammunition, to impose the special occupational tax and registration requirements on importers and manufacturers of handgun ammunition, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act''. SEC. 2. INCREASE IN TAX ON HANDGUN AMMUNITION. (a) Increase in Manufacturers Tax.-- (1) In general.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax on firearms) is amended-- (A) by striking ``Shells, and cartridges'' and inserting ``Shells and cartridges not taxable or taxable at 10,000 percent''. ``Articles taxable at 10,000 percent.-- ``Any jacketed, hollow point projectile which may be used in a handgun and the jacket of which is designed to produce, upon impact, evenly-spaced sharp or barb-like projections that extend beyond the diameter of the unfired projectile.'' (2) Additional taxes added to the general fund.--Section 3(a) of the Act of September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)), commonly referred to as the ``Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act'', is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``There shall not be covered into the fund the portion of the tax imposed by such section 4181 that is attributable to any increase in amounts received in the Treasury under such section by reason of the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act, as estimated by the Secretary.'' SEC. 3. SPECIAL TAX FOR IMPORTERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DEALERS OF HANDGUN AMMUNITION. (a) In General.-- (1) Imposition of tax.--Section 5801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special occupational tax on importers, manufacturers, and dealers of machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(c) Special Rule for Handgun Ammunition.-- ``(1) In general.--On first engaging in business and thereafter on or before July 1 of each year, every importer and manufacturer of handgun ammunition shall pay a special (occupational) tax for each place of business at the rate of $10,000 a year or fraction thereof. ``(2) Handgun ammunition defined.--For purposes of this part, the term `handgun ammunition' shall mean any centerfire cartridge which has a cartridge case of less than 1.3 inches in length and any cartridge case which is less than 1.3 inches in length.'' (2) Registration of importers and manufacturers of handgun ammunition.--Section 5802 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to registration of importers, manufacturers, and dealers) is amended-- (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, and each importer and manufacturer of handgun ammunition,'' after ``dealer in firearms'', and (B) in the third sentence, by inserting ``, and handgun ammunition operations of an importer or manufacturer,'' after ``dealer''. (b) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Chapter heading.--Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms) is amended in the chapter heading by inserting ``HANDGUN AMMUNITION,'' after ``CHAPTER 53--''. (2) Table of chapters.--The heading for chapter 53 in the table of chapters for subtitle E of such Code is amended to read as follows: ``Chapter 53--Handgun ammunition, machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms.'' (c) Effective Date.-- (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect on July 1, 1997. (2) All taxpayers treated as commencing in business on july 1, 1997.--Any person engaged on July 1, 1997, in any trade or business which is subject to an occupational tax by reason of the amendment made by subsection (a)(1) shall be treated for purposes of such tax as having 1st engaged in a trade of business on such date. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Mexican Law? Date: 12 Feb 1997 15:48:00 -0700 Somewhat off-topic but turn your browsers to for an AP story in the Deseret News about a Mexican woman convicted of using excessive force for shooting her would be rapist once with a .22 and killing him. She could have served 7 years for the conviction but was instead sentenced to a $256 fine and ordered to $1538 in damages to her "victim's" family after women's rights groups pressured the Mexican court. (The word victim is used in the story only to describe the dead attempted rapist, but never his intended target.) Wonder if we are headed the same way on this side of the border with all the anti-gun hooplaw? -- 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. "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth fighting for is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- Seen on a poster at a gun show. No author was cited for this truly excellent statement. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Federal Toy Gun Ban Date: 07 Feb 1997 10:33:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- 105th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 361 To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 7, 1997 Mr. Towns introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce _______________________________________________________________________ A BILL To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TOY HANDGUNS The Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate a rule in accordance with section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058) to declare as a banned hazardous product under section 8 any toy which in size, shape, or overall appearance resembles a real handgun. If you copy or re-post this legislation, please retain: *********************************************** * * * Families of Michigan for Concealed Carry * * P.O. Box 2524 * * Grand Rapids, MI 49501-2524 * * * * * * Arlynn Afton * * Voice - (616) 243-4790 * * e-mail: gunlist@wings.net * * To Receive Legislation: bills@wings.net * * New! Subscribe to our FREE firearms legislation e-mail list. All federal firearms legislation will be transferred directly from the Government Printing Office files, used with permission. If bills are extremely large, you will receive an update to specifically request them, or we will only e-mail the sections related to firearms. We also hope to have all MICHIGAN firearms legislation as it becomes available. To subscribe, send your e-mail address to bills@wings.net with one of the following choices as the "Subject": Subscribe: Federal Subscribe: Michigan Subscribe: Both ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Another thought out plan by Baltimore City (smile) Date: 14 Feb 1997 10:00:57 -0700 >Here's a little bit of good news I woke up to that I thought you'd all get a >chuckle out of...I wish I had thought of this idea myself because I could >have made some money too....read on...... > > >Ladybug; >marylanders; and other interested folks: you may be interested to hear the >the city of Baltimore has >been forced to end its latest "gun buyback" scheme. Seems that this latest >buyback scheme was >launched with major fanfare about 3 weeks ago. No question asked; anyone >turning in a firearm >gets a hundred bucks of your taxpayer's money. Well; as usually happens with >a buyback program; >the inevitable happened. Everyone started turning in their garbage; broken; >and cheap guns for a >hundred bucks each so that they can go out and buy new firearms. The program >was suppose to go >on for a number of months; but about HALF of the buyback fund was exhausted >by the first >weekend; and the city was forced to cut the "bounty" to 50 bucks instead of >a hundred. After the >second weekend brought in another load of rusty; broken; half disassembled >firearm junk; Mayor >Schmoke and his lackeys realized that it was becoming a PR disaster and >finally stopped the >buyback after this past (3rd) weekend. Local TV stations were actually >filming interviews with legal >gunowners who said this buyback deal was the best deal they ever got for >getting rid of old >worthless firearms and getting city money to purchase modern guns! The whole >thing was a farce; at >taxpayers' expense! I saw TV footage of some of the "guns" being turned in >for cash; and this was >about the worst lot of rust-covered and moldy excuses-for-guns I have seen >in a long time. To >cover up this fiasco; Schmoke and his cronies are now saying that that the >buyback program was >really SUPPOSED to end now anyway (sourgrapes du jour) and that they've now >moved on to >another "gun-informer" cash program. The citizens of Maryland hopefully will >see it for what it really >is: another failed trendy and fashionable anti-gun program that bit the dust >because it was a >ridiculous idea to begin with! > >-------------END Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andelain Subject: Re: BATF Sting Operations -Forwarded Date: 11 Feb 1997 09:38:28 -0700 (MST) delain Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.law-enforcement,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.politics.org.batf,talk.politics.libertarian MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -- forwarded message -- Path: news.aros.net!shell.aros.net!andelain Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.law-enforcement,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.politics.org.batf,talk.politics.libertarian Organization: ArosNet Inc. Lines: 244 Message-ID: <5do11a$6r2$1@news.aros.net> References: <5arne9$stq@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <32D1C798.6E44@ares1.com> <01bbfcf4$c49f13c0$85aaf6ce@default> <32D31CFB.4B54@ionet.net> <32d3c3c0.74490383@news.i-link.net> <32d9d0f7.1156665@news.iconnect.net> <32da47cd.231751478@news.i-link.net> <32dbb025.1457599@news.iconnect.net> <32F0059D.EC5@law.net> <32f0cded.2928326@news.flash.net> <32F941F6.2556@law.net> <32f9f33c.75947104@news.flash.net> <5dg9gt$45h@newsserver.nj.nec.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.aros.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 961203] Xref: news.aros.net talk.politics.guns:418894 alt.law-enforcement:91883 alt.society.civil-liberty:56178 alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy:53436 alt.politics.org.batf:15250 talk.politics.libertarian:166289 In alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy Chris BeHanna wrote: >In article <32fa3c41.248763348@news.concentric.net> Kevin Murphy > wrote: >:>On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:28:15 GMT, csmkersh@flash.net (Sam A. Kersh) >:>wrote: >:>>Contengency planning would have been justified. But ATF did not have a >:>>contengency plan.... It was run-n-gun dynamic entry only... [..snip..] >:> Judging from what we've learned the ATF >:>had a good plan, > Really? Since when is a conventional warrant served dynamically? If > BATF had wanted a dynamic-entry warrant, then they should have obtained one. > They did not. Ergo, the only legal service of the warrant was to walk up > and knock on the door, which they did not do. > Indeed. 80-odd deaths could have been prevented if BATF had: [..snip..] (any of a number of good, intelligent things) >But that wouldn't have made as good a show for the cameras, [..snip..] >-- >Chris BeHanna PGP 2.6.1 public key available >NJ-RKBA List Maintainer >behanna@syl.nj.nec.com http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna >kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen. >Why is Lon Horiuchi still breathing? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Excellent question, Chris. Based on the above, and things snipped, I've decided to attach a review of the movie "Waco: The Rules of Engagement". Previously unreleased excerpts from the handheld tapes the ATF fellas were carrying to document their "heroics." There are FLIR excerpts showing that once all of the entrances were destroyed and the fire started, at least two gubment machine gunners stood outside the kitchen (at the only available exit) and sent hundreds of rounds into the building. (They knew where the women, children, etc were in the building.) Then, after about 30 seconds of auto fire, the two gunners start walking away, firing three round bursts into the fire as they leave. This follows Sen. Schumer's question to Jeff Jamar: Let me get this straight, NOT ONE ROUND WAS FIRED by the government after the FBI took control? Jamar: That's right. Also included: a. FLIR photography showing the tanks moving into the gym, with at least two persons laying suppression fire over the top of the tank. b. FLIR photography showing a concussive explosion in the window of the gym less than 30 seconds before the fire started there. This is explained by the government as the sun reflecting off the window. FLIR expert says it can't possibly be reflection....heat is off the scale. c. Jamar explaining why, after the firetrucks show up, he held them back until everyone was dead. d. An explanation of the "bunker", otherwise known as the kitchen, and how the tanks crushed their way in, knocking cement slabs onto, and crushing who knows how many, to deliver what the FBI spokesman called "massive amounts of gas" into the small room where the women and children were. e. Evidence that the tank which crushed the gymnasium and had to have it's tread replaced, may have lost it's tread due to the body of a Davidian which was caught between the tread and wheels. From this movie, the only conclusions that I think can be drawn are: 1. The ATF chose Koresh to use as an example, thinking (correctly I believe) that the media, government and citizens would swallow the dehumanisation and demonisation of the Davidians. 2. The ATF couldn't slap it's collective butt with both hands, much less design a "good plan". 3. The mindset of these tax collectors is one of total control and complete denial of humanity to any other living person. 4. After the ATF blew it, the FBI came in to "sanitise" the situation. 5. Our old friends, schumer, conyers, et al helped to put "clean" on the bill. My questions after seeing the film were many, but the most striking question was "What's the difference between our government's putting men, women and children in a cement room, filling it with deadly gas, and then throwing an explosive device in that room, and what Hitler did?" Review of movie follows: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WACO: The Rules of Engagement Executive Producer Dan Gifford introduces his new documentary, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement", which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, by saying words to the effect that "This movie is about looking under rocks and finding what we never wanted to know." The result is an extremely disturbing film that should be required viewing for all Americans. "Waco" is a damning indictment of the BATF, the FBI, and the Congressional hearings which allegedly investigated the disaster in which four ATF agents and 76 Branch Davidians were killed. Gifford and Co-Executive Producer Deborah Sommer Gifford were inspired to make the film when they were presented with aerial "Forward Looking Infra-Red" (FLIR) footage taken by FBI surveillance. The FLIR film provides answers to many of the previously unanswered questions about Waco. According to Gifford, this film footage had been offered to the major news networks and was rejected. The heart and mind of the film come from the never-before released FLIR footage and home videos made by the Branch Davidians with a camera given to them by the FBI. Accompanying them is extensive news footage of the events at Waco, C-SPAN tapes of the Congressional hearings, transcripts of conversations between the Davidians and negotiators and interviews with various experts and key participants in the disaster. The FLIR photography was taken by FBI planes flying over the Davidian compound to provide surveillance. The film, which looks like ordinary black and white film, actually measures heat, not light, and is thus able to provide a great deal of information about weapons fire as well as the inferno that destroyed the complex. Interpretation of the film is provided by an independent company. The FLIR footage shows conclusively that the FBI did fire on the Davidians despite their claims that "not a single bullet was ever fired" and that the catastrophic fire was started by the FBI firing grenades into the building after refilling it with the deadly and flammable CS powder-methylene chloride mixture. It also provides strong evidence that the FBI stationed personnel with machine guns outside the only exit from the building, which if true, indicates that the FBI's intent was to murder the Davidians, not to "rescue hostages". The FBI gave the Davidians a video camera and tapes to make videos of themselves, presumably to help the negotiators understand them better. These videos were never released because the FBI feared it would generate too much sympathy for the Davidians and David Koresh. And in fact, the video does refute the widely-publicized image of Koresh as a crazed, charismatic and controlling leader, not unlike Charles Manson, and of his followers as the "wackos from Waco". While Koresh was certainly not your "average American", he appears rational, intelligent, and committed to teaching his religious beliefs. His followers seem to be ordinary people on a spiritual quest, no different from many I've encountered in my own spiritual seeking. They did not appear to be brainwashed automatons, or homicidal maniacs. Many were foreigners and ironically felt they would be safer studying religion in the United States. While sexual practices outside the norm did occur, they were consensual. I saw no evidence of child abuse whatever. Clearly the FBI, aided by the media, demonized the Branch Davidians in an attempt to dehumanize them. And dehumanization of the enemy is one of the prerequisites for genocide. Given that the Congressional committee charged with investigating Waco had access to all the material presented in this film, the investigation can only be considered a farce and a travesty. With rare exceptions, the hearings are shown to be nothing more than a compilation of lies and perjury combined with a lot of self-serving political grandstanding. What does stand out, and what gives the film its name, is that neither the ATF nor the FBI ever had a detailed, organized plan of attack, that there were never any formal rules of engagement, and that no contingency plans for failure of the raids, injuries, fire, or other foreseeable problems were ever made. While some have commented that the film appears biased against the government, all the involved agencies were invited to participate, to be interviewed, and to present their side of the story. They all refused. And the producers are careful to state that they have no partisan agenda, that their goal is to reopen debate on Waco. They appear almost apologetic about the damaging evidence they have collected and state they wish someone could or would disprove their findings. And they emphatically do not wish to be associated with "right wing conspiracy nuts". It is of course impossible to do justice to a nearly three hour film in a review. Despite its length, I found it compelling and not at all boring or dragging. Technically, the visuals are mostly dependent on the quality of the archival film, although the sound levels could use some work. The musical score was dramatic and quite effective. The film includes views of the charred and mutilated bodies of some who died at Waco, which I found appropriate, but may be too graphic for some. YOU need to see "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." So does every American of every political persuasion. For the past four years, "Remember Waco" has been a rallying cry for the "political right" and gun owners. In response, they have been laughed at, dismissed, and even accused of being anti-government terrorists. What this film shows is human beings being methodically gassed and then burned. Anyone and everyone who has ever vowed "Never again" needs to view this film and renew that vow. This is absolutely not a film to celebrate. There is now evidence that people within our government are guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity and that they engaged in a huge cover-up. This should sadden and sicken each of us, and it should also motivate us to find ways to prevent such a tragedy from occurring ever again. If we do not, we become accessories to these crimes. "Waco" has not yet been accepted for commercial release, although negotiations are underway. If you want to see this film, if you feel others should see this film, then you will have to act. Write to Sundance and thank them for making this film available. (When you consider who holds the power at Sundance, it IS rather remarkable that "Waco" was shown.) Encourage them to support its general release. If you have contacts with any film distribution companies, ask them to distribute this film. Write letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. Tell everyone you know. If there is a demand, if it appears profitable to distribute this documentary, Hollywood will most likely cooperate. Remember that this is NOT about partisan politics, Right vs. Left, gun rights, or other divisive issues. It is about our unalienable Constitutional rights to religious freedom, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and above all the freedom not to be murdered by our own government. As the Talmud commands: "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy brother." For further information, or to contact the producers, http://www.waco93.com c 1997, Sarah Thompson, M.D. Permission to reprint granted as long as no changes are made and full attribution is given. Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com -- end of forwarded message -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Divide and conquer Date: 15 Feb 1997 08:57:34 -0700 >I think it should be very plain to see and understand, that for a long time, >the "powers that be" have been trying to divide the populace and set them >against each other in order to keep them (us!) disorganized and weaker than we >should be. They fan the flames while saying that they are making things >better. And the press is right along there with them, making sure that they >publicise events that can only anger the other side and make more friction >between the masses. > >So, how many ways do they have us divided? > >North against South >Eastern World against Western World >Black against White >Jews against Gentiles >Immigrants against native born >Men against Women >Children against adults >Pro-Lifers against Pro-Choicers >LEOs against civilians >Republicans against Democrats >Liberals against Conservatives >Gun owners against anti-gun citizens >Business people against nature lovers >Government against the governed >etc., etc., etc. > >Everywhere they can place a wedge, they are doing so. Are we all really that >hard to get along with, or is there an external source that fuels the fires? > >I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory of the highest order, but take a >long look at what's going on. Do affirmative action programs work? How do >laws that affect gun owners, yet exempt LEOs make you feel? Do you like the >idea that if you spank your child, you can incur the wrath of some government >agency? Talk about sealing the borders yet make the prize for crossing >illegally lucrative enough so that third world people would be silly not to >try. > >Think about it. > >Rich Zuchowski >Ex-CyberEagle Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Retroactive Abuse of Power Date: 17 Feb 1997 17:43:00 -0700 STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 297, February 15, 1997 RETROACTIVE ABUSE OF POWER by Kim Weissman (BEVDAV@worldnet.att.net) Imagine the following scene: In 1970, you were driving home late one night. The road was deserted, the posted speed limit said 35 MPH. You were in a hurry, and were driving about 40 MPH. Suddenly, you see police lights. You are pulled over and given a ticket. Well, the fine is only $10, nobody was injured, nobody was even around, so you paid the fine and forgot about it. Fast forward to today. Its 1997, more than a quarter century later, and you hear on the news that the legislature is debating a new law which says that anyone convicted of speeding will lose their license to drive a car. Forever. Good, you think, too many people are being hurt by reckless drivers speeding through residential neighborhoods at high speeds. Then you forget about it, until one day there is a knock on your door. There stands an officer from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. You are the same person who paid a $10 fine in 1970 for speeding? Yes, you respond, you had forgotten all about it, it was so long ago and so insignificant. Well, the officer is firm: surrender your driver's license, now. You are prohibited from driving a car, ever again. This is because amid all the self-righteous posturing during debate over the law, an almost unnoticed provision was added which made the effect of the law retroactive. Unfair, you say? Absolutely. Also unconstitutional, since the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, says that "No...ex post facto Law shall be passed." An ex post facto law is defined as "A law passed after the...commission of an act, which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of such...deed." The Supreme Court said "an ex post facto law is one which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed." If such a law as described above involving drivers licenses were in fact enacted, there would be general outrage, there would be court challenges, and the law would be stricken from the books. Yet when the license in question is not a driver's license, but is a firearms license instead, the law is applau- ded, the law is praised, and if it is ever challenged in court, who knows what the federal courts would decide in this era of political correctness triumphing over Contitutional law. Under a law enacted by Congress late last year known as the Lautenberg Act, this exact situation is faced today by many people who own a firearm and who, at some time in their past, were convicted of domestic abuse. Even if such conviction was a misdemeanor, even if nobody was hurt in the incident, and regardless of any supervening events. Because the Lautenberg Act restricts the ownership of a gun, no thought was given to the violation of the Constitution which such a retroactive enactment entails. Of course, anyone who pointed out the ex post facto prohibition during the debate, or wondered whether such a prohibition even made sense, was accused of being in favor of domestic abuse by the left wing extremists, a charge echoed by the sychophantic media. But rationality has never been prevalent during discussions of the Second Amendment, and because we are dealing with firearms the debasement of Article I, Section 9 has also been overlooked. It should be pointed out that driving a car is not a Constitutional right, but the possession of a firearm is most assuredly a right protected by the Constitution. Yet the Second Amendment has been relegated to distinct second -class status. Some rights contained in the Bill of Rights are viewed by the courts as flexible, expanding or contracting depending on the specifics of the case at hand and the personal desires of the Justices hearing the case. The Second Amendment, however, has been steadily contracted until many lawmakers act as though it has been repealed. Felons convicted by our criminal justice system, once they have served their time, are considered rehabilitated, or so we are told by the enlightened. Even a person convicted of the most heinous crimes, once he has fulfilled his obligation to society under the law, is once again restored to those rights enjoyed by all citizens. The former convict is not deprived of his right to speak freely, his right to practice his religion, his right to peaceably assemble or petition his government for a redress of grievances. Even while serving his time in jail, he is protected by the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. If he is arrested again, he is not deprived of his right to counsel or a jury trial, or his rights against double jeopardy or self incrimination. Yet his Second Amendment right is gone forever. For the convicted felon, the Bill of Rights contains only nine amendments, not the ten amendments theoretically enjoyed by the rest of us. To the group of people permanently deprived of their Second Amendment Constitutional rights we have now added those convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic abuse. And for this class of miscreants, the legalities are even more draconian than for those convicted of major felonies. No matter how heinous the crime, once a felon commits his crime, the govern- ment may not go back after the fact and increase the penalties to which he is subjected. Not so for those convicted of the misdemeanor of domestic abuse. What, exactly, do states define as domestic abuse, which justifies this special treatment? That varies from state to state, yet some examples may be illustrative: shouting at a spouse, with no physical violence at all will qualify; trespassing against a restraining order will do it; spanking a child will qualify, under new statutes which have convicted parents of child abuse for such corporal punishment; a harassing telephone call will do. These are the activities which now subject a person, retroactively, to treatment worse than that doled out to murderers, rapists, and other major felons. It should also be noted that if violence occurs during a domestic dispute, additional charges are usually brought, including assault and battery. The Lautenberg Act deals solely with domestic abuse convictions, regardless of the absence of any other charges. Then there is the penalty for violating the Lautenberg Act: any person with such a conviction for domestic abuse, caught in possession of a firearm, can be fined up to $250,000 and spend up to 10 years in prison. The average time actually served in jail for felons convicted of murder is 5 years and 8 months, for rape 3 years 8 months. Is a harassing phone call twice as evil as murder? Is spanking a child three times worse than rape? Apparently our lawmakers think so, because only for those convicted of domestic abuse, alone among all the activities which are defined as illegal by our society, have lawmakers gone back in time to impose an extra penalty. The purpose here is not to debate the merits of permanently depriving convicted felons of their right to legally possess firearms. The Founders themselves recognized that some people could properly be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms under certain circumstances. Nor has it ever been the position of this writer that Constitutional rights, under the Second Amendment or any other, are absolute and totally unassailable under all circumstances. The questions here are two: Under what circumstances can a citizen be properly deprived of his Second Amendment rights; and are there any circumstances which justify a vitiation of the ex post facto prohibition? Because if it becomes an accepted practice to void the Constitutional rights of citizens retroactively for conduct which most states define as a misdemea- nor, what will be next? Many citizens were convicted of various misdemeanors such as trespass while protesting the Viet Nam War. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: [Fwd: UN Small Arms Panel Makes Progress/ NRA NGO "Irrelevant".] Date: 19 Feb 1997 09:33:58 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4D891AE515B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- --------------4D891AE515B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA06550; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:57:33 -0700 Return-Path: Received: from [198.81.228.1] by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA2864561123; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:02:43 -0700 Received: from wanderer.ssiinc.com (wanderer.ssiinc.com [198.81.228.1]) by wanderer.ssiinc.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id JAA21901; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:47:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <11506CB7F0A@law1.law.ucla.edu> Errors-To: volokh@law.ucla.edu Reply-To: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Originator: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Sender: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas The following is taken from the 11 February 1997 issue of BASIC {British American Security Information Council] Reports, No. 56, pp. 4-5. UN Small Arms Panel Makes Progress by Dr. Natalie J. Goldring Diplomats reported significant progress as the United Nations Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms concluded its second formal session in New York on 31 January. Regional workshops and plenary sessions have helped clarify important issues related to the scope of the panel's work and definitions of weapons to be covered in its report. Panel members agree, however, that the toughest tests lie ahead, as the panel seeks consensus on policy recommendations. Members are also concerned that preliminary agreement over issues such as definitions could disappear during debates over other provisions of the panel's report. At the meeting, the panel agreed on the general structure for its report to the Secretary-General, with the first two chapters providing an introduction to the panel's work and an overview of light weapons issues. The three remaining chapters will each address one aspect of the panel's mandate: the types of small arms and light weapons actually being used in conflicts being dealt with by the United Nations; the nature and causes of excessive accumulation and destabilizing transfer of these weapons, including their illicit production and trade; and ways and means to prevent and reduce such accumulations and transfers. (See "UN Experts Panel on Small Arms Faces Obstacles," BASIC Reports #54 for additional information.) Definitions largely resolved The panel has created a draft typology of the small arms and light weapons to be covered in its report, including all weapons, ammunitions, and explosives that are built to military specifications and are being used in conflicts being dealt with by the United Nations. In special circumstances, some non-military weapons that have been used in violent conflict and have been deemed to be destabilizing may also be included. According to a Western representative on the panel, there are still significant questions about the upper limit of the definition of these weapons. The panel has reportedly decided to include all portable weapons, while excluding any weapons that are covered by the UN register of Conventional Arms. However, certain key issues, such as the definition of "portable," remain unresolved. Disagreement over "nature and causes" of excessive transfers Panel members still disagree over the causes of destabilizing transfers of small arms and light weapons. Some panel members interviewed for BASIC Reports emphasized the importance of "root causes," such as socio-economic factors, while others argued that military issues were more relevant. The Sri Lankan representative said that root causes were useful in understanding the factors that drive demand, but described this panel as a "disarmament effort," and said that illicit transfer "is the major issue that is contributing to destabilizing accumulation." While the Colombian representative agreed with his assessment of the importance of dealing with the illicit trade, she emphasized that, "Roots and causes are the starting point to talk about any recommendations and solutions." The Western representatives, concurred, saying "...we have to have the root causes, otherwise the report won't be complete." Recommendations remain contentious According to all of the panel members interviewed by BASIC Reports, it will be difficult to achieve consensus of recommendations. For example, the panel has not yet resolved a dispute over whether the UN Disarmament Commission's guidelines on illicit transfers should be the starting point for its recommendations. In addition, the Western representative said," We can't skew the report to any particular incident in any particular region." The Belgian representative agreed, saying, "The problem we will have to face is also to make general recommendations without specifying one cause in preference with others. We cannot say that the drug problem is the cause everywhere." In interviews, panel members suggested many policy approaches. While some of these recommendations have already been discussed by the panel, there is no consensus on any of these issues. -p. 4- __________________________________________________________________ Recommendations mentioned by panel members included national transparency with respect to the types of weapons in different countries and the weapons that have been captured, as well as stronger border controls and improved training for customs officials. Stressing the importance of strong national legislation, the Colombian representative told BASIC Reports, "We know that if legislation is not strong enough in regard to the arms of a particular country, it is likely that these arms will flow outside the country." Regional options under consideration include regional buy-back programs and using the destruction of weapons in Mali and the proposed regional moratorium on light weapons import, export, and manufacture as a model for other regions. Panel members are interested in regional registers dealing with small arms, but expressed doubts about the feasibility of expanding the global UN Register of Conventional Arms. At the international level, the panel is considering international codes of conduct and an international conference to draw attention to the light weapons issue. NGO controversy continues Controversy over the role of NGOs in the experts' panel's deliberations continued during the recent panel meeting in New York. A representative of the US-based National Rifle Association (NRA), which was granted UN NGO status last fall, demanded to be allowed to brief the panel. Although the request for a briefing was refused, he distributed a paper to several panel members which presented the organization's rationale for involvement in this effort. During the fall 1996 meeting, some panel members seemed intimidated by the NRA's presence; after the January meeting, several panelists dismissed the NRA's relevance to the panel's work. The Colombian representative told BASIC Reports, "It's a national lobby institute -- it's not international." When asked to comment on the NRA paper, the Sri Lankan representative said, "It's irrelevant to our work." The Belgian representative also said he did not think NRA lobbying was having any effect on the panel's deliberations. The Sri Lankan representatives said, "Out mandate is with regard to preventing and reducing excessive and destabilizing accumulations of small arms...The NRA is perhaps overreacting." Regional workshops and next steps As with the regional workshop in South Africa in September 1996, financial constraints prevented many panel members from attending the 16-17 January 1997 regional workshop in El Salvador. Nonetheless, those who attended said the meeting provided useful materials for the panel's report. The Colombian representative said, "They not only talked about the arms that have been there since the Cold War and exacerbated the tensions there. They also talked about the illicit transfer of arms which is taking place right now." Also because of financial constraints, only a few panel members were able to attend a related workshop on light weapons and peacekeeping which was held in Ottawa just after the El Salvador workshop. The expert's panel is scheduled to have a third regional meeting in late May, most likely in Malaysia. Following this workshop, the Japanese government has invited the entire panel to meet in Tokyo from 2628 May. The panel's last formal session is scheduled for July in New York. While the panel is scheduled to report to the Secretary-General shortly after that meeting, one panel member said that the panel might ask for an extension of its charter in order to do more work on policy issues. BASIC -p. 5- --------------4D891AE515B-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Hammer bans Date: 20 Feb 1997 16:03:22 -0700 >>From: fofp@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) >>Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,alt.peeves >>Subject: The Bluebell Petition: Campaign to Ban Some Hammers >>Date: 14 Feb 1997 16:37:10 GMT >>Organization: Edinburgh University >> >>Last year in an attack in a country lane, a hammer was used to kill a >>woman, her child, and her dog, leaving a young girl grievously injured >>and permanently scarred. More recently, in a murder conspiracy a 14 >>year old boy killed his mother with a hammer. Now, just this week in >>Scotland, a neighbour battered to death a four year old girl with a >>hammer. >> >>When will the government realise that hammers are dangerous weapons? >>Hammers kill children, adults, and dogs. The more hammers there are >>in society, the more deaths those hammers will cause. >> >>You might ask: "Don't people need hammers?" or "Aren't hammers useful >>for other things?". Certainly some people use hammers in pursuit of >>hobbies like DIY. However, society demands that the lives of children >>be put before the enjoyment an eccentric minority gain from making >>rickety bookshelves. With stores like B&Q available, these people >>obviously don't *need* hammers. >> >>Of course the Hammer Lobby argues that they're just minding their own >>business when they're building rickety bookshelves and that statistics >>show that their members are generally law-abiding and careful about >>where they store their hammers. They argue that Britons have long >>enjoyed the freedom to own hammers. Nevertheless, posession of a >>hammer may in itself constitute a temptation. Some in the Hammer >>Lobby are known to have large collections of hammers and other tools. >>Many wear uniforms decorated with various tools while using their >>hammers. Police tests have shown that hammers can be used to gain >>entry to otherwise locked premises. Criminals would be able to break >>into toolsheds for the purposes of obtaining hammers. Incidents like >>the above show that when the lives of children are at stake, some >>freedoms must be surrendered for the greater good. >> >>Of course certain professions necessitate the use of a hammer. In >>consultation with the Home Office and Police spokespersons, we have >>outlined a scheme whereby hammers would be licensed for use by various >>professions provided that at the end of each working day they were >>returned to local Police stations and stored in locked toolboxes. >> >>We are lobbying for an early Parliamentary Bill to require the >>licensing of hammers and an amnesty for the surrender of all >>unlicensed hammers. It would thereafter be illegal to posess a hammer >>without a lawful licence or to transport a hammer except between a >>Police station and a site licensed for the use of hammers. Businesses >>would be compensated for the surrender of hammers and private owners >>would be given a free tube of glue in exchange for their hammer. We >>are also campaigning for urgent research into developing nails which >>can be supplied pre-inserted so as to eventually eliminate hammers >>altogether from society. >> >>Will there be an illegal market in hammers? Perhaps so, although our >>plans to crack down on the market in industrial nails may help to >>fight this. Laboratory tests conducted by expert scientists have shown >>that under certain circumstances, nails themselves could be lethal and >>that many injuries would be avoided were the sale of nails restricted >>to accredited professionals. >> >>Remember, a vote for the Hammer Lobby is a vote for dead children. Our >>motto is "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a >>child's head." We must eliminate this scourge from our society. >> >>Sign the Bluebell Petition now! >> >>--- >>Harry Johnston, omega@ihug.co.nz >>IT WASN'T, he decided, that you couldn't take it with you, because you could. >>It was just that there wasn't exactly a superfluity of things you could spend >>it on once you got there. --- Tom Holt, "Djinn Rummy" >> >> >***************************************************************************** >* Mike Bartman * Puzzles Pondered Obfuscation Obliterated * >* Omniphiles International * Confusion Canceled Opinions Offered * >* mike@cais.com * Options Outlined Smiles Stimulated * >*---------------------------------------------------------------------------* >* "We do it all! No job too small! No price too high! * >***************************************************************************** > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com http://www.wagc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: TACTICS mailing list Date: 25 Feb 1997 14:40:40 -0700 FYI... I haven't checked out this list, so no endorsement is implied. Sarah >>There is a new mailing list out there, here is some info...... >> >> >> >>The Tactics Mailing List >> >>COMTAC, Ltd. is the sponsor of tactics, a free Majordomo mailing list >>for the Internet firearms >>community. >> >>Tactics is intended to be used for the discussion of a variety of >>topics, including: >> >> >> tips and techniques for self-defense >> >> choosing practical equipment >> >> tactical methods as they apply to competition (IPSC, IDPA, >> etc.) >> >> tactical training and schools >> >> the legal aspect of self-defense >> >>Here is the URL.......... >> >>http://www.comtac.com/tacticsl.htm >> >>-- >> >> =____________________________- >> *************************** / //// (____) R K B A _____ | >> Giovanni Lentini RRT (|_////__________________(_____| >> (/ /( )/o/)_/)_/)_/)_/) >> rkba@iquest.net (/ /_\__)) >> (/ /) >> http://www.iquest.net/~rkba (/ /) >> *************************** (/ /) >> (/_ = _/) >> E-MAIL FOR PGP 2.62 PUBLIC KEY ========= >> >> > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: AARP Anti-Gun? (fwd) Date: 25 Feb 1997 22:50:00 -0700 Anyone have the requested information about AARP? If so, please send it to Monte. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Hi folks - A friend of mine here in North Idaho has a friend who has an opportunity to give a speech to some of the AARP people; he's going to cover gun control. Here's the note I just got from my friend; can any of you help him out with this? Thanks! ------ Monte: It has been almost two years since the NRA put a list out on the noban list that told who the contributors to HCI were. Included in that list was the AARP. My friend, Xxxxxx Xxxxx, who is giving a presentation to the AARP is looking for any documentation that clearly states that AARP supports gun control. Unfortunately, I don't have that posting in my files any more. Do you? I prepared a ten minute speech for Xxxxxx that covered health care, goals 2000, and gun control. Xxxxxx now tells me that he will only have about 3 minutes, so he has pared all of the information down to the number one item that he tells me is keeping north Idaho residents from joining AARP. Oddly enough, that is gun control. Yet he has no direct reference that implicates AARP in the support of gun control. Other than that one list, I can't think of anything other than passing news flashes on NET TV and talk radio. Any other sources that you may have would be helpful. - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun Issues Before 105th Congress (fwd) Date: 25 Feb 1997 22:50:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- CC: abean@juno.com, eagleflt@flash.net Hi Tom: The battle between gun-grabbers striving to disarm law-abiding citizens and liberty lovers seeking to protect themselves against an increasingly tyrannical federal government and worsening domestic crime continues in the 105th Congress. It is unlawful in many parts of the United States for Americans to defend themselves with a gun, even if that leaves them defenseless against would-be murderers, rapists, robbers and intruders. The Citizen's Self-Defense Act (H.R. 27), sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), is designed to protect citizens who use a gun in defense of themselves, their families and their homes. The bill would override local gun control laws that target the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. "Law-abiding Americans do not have to demonstrate a sufficiently compelling need to exercise their guarantees under the Bill of Rights, including the right to own and use a gun," said Bartlett. "It's up to the government to prove a compelling need before the government can infringe upon or restrict those rights." The courts have--without exception--ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. Nationwide, the supposed protectors of the people are failing to come to the rescue. For example, police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities, according to former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith. There were 168,881 crimes of violence reported in America during 1989 that police did not respond to within one hour, according to the Justice Department. Bartlett says more than 2.4 million Americans use a gun to defend themselves against criminals every year. Of these, 192,000 are women defending themselves against sexual abuse. Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives, according to Bartlett. But law-abiding citizens are routinely prosecuted for using a firearm in self-defense. The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use guns to protect themselves, their families and their homes against violent felons should not be subjected to lawsuits by these criminals. The Domestic Gun Ban, whose passage into law September 30, 1996 was engineered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), prohibited persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing firearms. It has had the perhaps unintended effect of penalizing law enforcement officers who have been the only U.S. workers who have lost their jobs. It's yet another example of how, at the stroke of a pen, legislation is passed in Washington which threatens the livelihoods of the nationwide citizenry. Critics of the gun ban law say the gun ban should be repealed; two pending bills at least attempt to lessen its damaging impact. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has introduced a bill to reinstate the "official use" exception for law enforcement to the gun ban bill. The number of Stupak's bill, now H.R. 445, may change. It will more clearly define the words "official use" and "in the line of duty" as written in the gun ban bill and narrowly address the issue of police and military being able to work despite any prior conviction regardesss of how long ago. "We are committed to providing this kind of assistance to law enforcement people across the nation as the bill affects them and as necessary for military people so they can continue to work and possess firearms," said a staffer for Stupak. "We are not endorsing anyone with a domestic abuse record as someone who is fit for this kind of job," said the spokesman for the former Michigan state trooper, "but it should be a decision involving county and local law enforcement and not handled at the federal level." The Stupak bill has been endorsed by the National Association of Police organizations, which claims a membership of 185,000 sworn law enforcement officers, and 3,500 police unions and associations. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) is sponsoring a bill (H.R. 102) that abolishes the retroactive application of the domestic violence gun prohibition. "It says, 'Let's forget about the past for everybody and we will look at all convic- tions from the time of passage last fall forward,' so it still does not address the narrow issue of someone being able to maintain a livelihood. Failure to repeal the entire gun ban law could turn it into a precedent for expanding the tentacles of gun-grabbing to other misdemeanors, for instance, traffic offenses. Barr's bill will continue the process of gun registration that began with the Brady bill, and move up implementation of the instant registration check. The feds are now using computer software to register names compiled by the instant registration check. Both the Stupak and Barr bills have been referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) is sponsor of a bill (H.R. 339) which requires every state to recognize a concealed carry permit issued by another state. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, an uncompromising defender of the Second Amendment, says the measure is laudable but flawed. Stearns' bill will help law-abiding citizens from losing their Second Amendment rights when traveling to another state, but only applies to citizens from states which issue permits whereas the Second Amendment guarantees a preexisting "right" to carry a firearm. "It fails to account for any state, such as Vermont, that does not require govenment officials to first give a permission slip to its citizens before they are 'allowed' to exercise their rights," Pratt said. "Under Vermont law, if you are a law-abiding citizen of any state, you can carry a concealed firearm in the state of Vermont. You do not need to beg the government for permission to carry. You do not have to be photographed, fingerprinted or registered. You do not need a government- issued permission slip; you can carry as a matter of right." Because the bill only applies to citizens from permit states, it can actually punish a state for being too pro-gun. It puts pressure on permit- free states to adopt a permit system. A pro-gun state like Vermont will be "encouraged" to pass a permit system similar to anti-gun New York. If the state does not adopt a permit system, it is punished for being too pro-gun, as its citizens cannot carry concealed firearms out of state. Pratt says it will undermine efforts of pro-gun groups trying to get other states to pass Vermont-style legislation as a state legislature will be less likely to consider a proposal that does not give them the benefits allowed to other states. Gary.............. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Reply to Weekly Reader Date: 26 Feb 1997 00:16:35 -0700 >*************************************************** >The New Gun Week 3-1-97 > >Woman Responds To Weekly Reader Gun Commentary > > An anti-gun article in the Jan. 10 edition of the Weekly Reader, which >describes itself as the "largest newspaper for kids in the world," carried an >anti-gun article headlined "Silent Shoes Speak Out: Guns Can Kill." > The article prompted a letter to the Weekly Reader from gunowner Mary >Smith of Maple Grove, NY, who declared, "Your portrayal of firearms in America . >. . based on fraud and dishonesty, was nothing more than a transparent attempt >to propagandize about the alleged 'dangers' of firearms in America. > "It would appear that the Weekly Reader prefers to advance a political >agenda, rather than to honestly educate the children of America about the world >they live in. > "You state that, '. . . Almost 2,000 of those kids died in gun-related >accidents (in 1992).'Yet, the National Safety Council lists the aggregate total >of firearms-related accidental deaths for 1992 as 1,400- a number which includes >children! > "Why is there no mention of firearm safety education in your article? >Could it be, perhaps, that you are more interested in eliminating firearms than >in saving lives? > >63% Drop > > "The fact of the matter is that through the efforts of dedicated >Americans who are more interested in safeguarding the health and welfare of our >children than politics, accidental firearm fatalities among children age 14 and >younger dropped a whopping 63% between 1979 and 1993! > "To put that number in perspective, the National Center of Health >Statistics puts accidental firearm deaths at the bottom of its list, ranking >them below drownings, falls and choking." > Smith added, "Your propaganda piece asks the young reader, in a section >entitled 'Critical Thinking': 'How do you think you could be like Shelby and >take action to end gun violence?' > "By Shelby's very own account in this article, her brother was killed by >ignorance concerning accepted practices of safe firearm handling, not by >so-called gun violence!! How in the world does the presumed answer address >'critical thinking' ?? > "In the summer of 1996, two researchers from the University of Chicago- >Dr. John Lott and David Mustard- released the findings from their 3,054-county, >15-year study which USA Today described as 'a comprehensive study that may >reshape the gun control debate.' > >Safer With Guns > > "In 'Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,' Lott and >Mustard's findings showed that, beyond the shadow of doubt, Americans and their >communities are far safer when firearms are in the hands of law-abiding citizens >than when not. > "The Lott statistics show that, concurrent with the reduction in >violence, the study found when responsible law-abiding Americans have ready >access to firearms, there was no statistical increase in the rate of >firearms-related accidental deaths. > "It is pursuit of a political agenda by people like yourselves, at the >expense of the education of our children, which will ultimately cause far more >harm to Americans than any of the harm alleged to be 'caused' by 'guns' !" > Others desiring to comment on the article or seeking additional >information on it may write: Editor, Weekly Reader Corp., 245 Long Hill Road, PO >Box 2791, Middletown, CT 06457. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: OPENING FRIDAY IN S.F.: Waco, The Rules of Engagement Date: 26 Feb 1997 11:42:33 -0700 EdgarSuter@aol.com wrote: > > See the FBI's FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) footage from Waco, > incontrovertible evidence that the FBI _set_ the fire and _machine gunned_ > the Davidians attempting to escape, murdering 86 men, women, and children. > > Investigative Journalist Dan Gifford's > "Waco, The Rules of Engagement" > opens February 28 at the Roxie Theatre > 3125 - 16th. Street > San Francisco > with showings at 1 PM, 4:15 PM, and 7:30PM > more information from the web site > > or from the theatre 415-431-3611 > > Dan Gifford will be interviewed on KQED-FM (88.5 FM) by Michael Krasny 9-10 > AM, February 28, Friday. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Gun Issues Before 105th Congress (fwd) Date: 26 Feb 1997 13:04:50 -0700 I know scott forwarded the following, but would like to make a few comments anyway. I have not sent these comments back to the author, scott is more than welcome to if he'd like. On Tue, 25 Feb 97 22:50:00 -0700, scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) posted: > >---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:39:02 -0500 >From: Gary Carlson >To: tslape@msn.com >CC: abean@juno.com, eagleflt@flash.net > >It has had the perhaps unintended effect of penalizing law enforcement >officers who have been the only U.S. workers who have lost their jobs. Let us not forget the private sector jobs that require possesion of firearm. Private security guards, professional trappers, and outfitters spring to mind. Professional ranchers and cowboys probably have more occassions to need a firearm in the line of a day's work than cops. None of these groups have the powerful lobbies that LEOs have to help protect them. Are not their livlihoods as precious as a cop's? Also, why is a cop's livlihood more precious than a non-cop's ability to defend him or herself and family. Certainly money is not more important than life? >Critics of the gun ban law say the gun ban should be repealed; two >pending bills at least attempt to lessen its damaging impact. > >Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has introduced a bill to reinstate the >"official use" exception for law enforcement to the gun ban bill. The >number of Stupak's bill, now H.R. 445, may change. This bill does not lessen damage IMHO. It only serves to propagate a dual class system, those of us who are encumbered by the law and those who enforce those laws but are not forced to live under their weight. If the federal government can decide that Joe Citizen can no longer be trusted to own a gun for personnal usees such as self-defense, hunting, and target shooting because he is guilty of whatever, then he certainly should not be trusted to carry and potentially use a gun in a potentially very high stress official position. Also, remember that most departments consider their officers to be "on duty" 24 hours a day. Many departments require their officers to carry sidearms at all times. Any "professional" exeption will have the effect of allowing cops to carry their guns 24 hours a day. In many places in this part of the world, cops drive their patrol cars home at night and on weekends. That means that in addittion to their high capacity sidearms (which I as a perfectly law abiding citizen can no longer even buy), the 12 guage riot gun on the floorboard and the assault or sniper rifle in the trunk (likely loaded with ammunition that I as a perfectly law abiding citizen can not buy) is also at their continuos disposal. So even a "tightly worded" exemption is going to be a de facto blanket repeal as far as many or even most cops are concerned. >Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) is sponsoring a bill (H.R. 102) that abolishes the >retroactive application of the domestic violence gun prohibition. "It says, >'Let's forget about the past for everybody and we will look at all convic- >tions from the time of passage last fall forward,' so it still does not >address the narrow issue of someone being able to maintain a livelihood. This bill would at least remove the onus of ex post facto. It also keeps cops and non-cops on equal footing before the law which I think is a good thing. If cops have to live under the same laws they enforce, they may just use their political clout to help repeal some of them. Of course, nothing short of a complete repeal addresses the issue of removing civil rights over misdemeeners. It's bad enough that virtually everything is now a felony, but then they impose felony penalties over misdemeeners. I don't see how an informed jury could, in good conscense, convict anyone of misdemeener domestic violence knowing the kinds of lifetime penalties it carries. Even felons can, eventaully hope for a restoration of rights. But there seems no hope for anyone convicted of domestic violence. -- 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: Sarah Thompson Subject: Microsoft Mail Virus: NO HOAX Date: 26 Feb 1997 14:05:10 -0700 Unlike Good Times, this is NOT a HOAX! Sarah >Virus Attacks Microsoft Mail. PLease Crosspost. > >On February 24, McAfee, a leading producer of anti-virus software, >announced it had detected a new macro virus which specifically targets >Microsoft Mail. Called ShareFun, the virus searches through the victim's >e-mail directory and generates messages with infected attachments. Once >the virus is activated it sends three messages titled "You have GOT to >read this!" to persons on the victim's mailing list. ""The virus is >especially pernicious in that it tricks its recipients into believing >they were sent the file by a trusted friend," a McAfee spokesman said. > >PERSPECTIVE: > >Full details on ShareFun are available at the McAfee web site at: >http://www.mcafee.com/. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 http://www.therighter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Brady Article and reply Date: 26 Feb 1997 15:00:36 -0700 The following article appeared in today's edition of the Tribune. My letter to the editor follows. However, as usual I have several letters in the queue. I encourage you to take a moment and send the Tribune your thoughts on this story. Maybe if they get several letters that express similar sentiments, they will print at least one of them. ---tribune article-- THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- Police background checks since 1994 have blocked more than 186,000 illegal over-the-counter gun sales -- 72 percent by would-be buyers who were convicted or indicted for a felony, the Justice Department estimated Tuesday. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that 6,600 applications to buy handguns or long guns are rejected each month not only in the 32 states covered by the federal Brady Act but also in those states that have their own similar laws authorizing background checks of gun-buyers. The figures cover the 28 months from Feb. 28, 1994, when the Brady Act took effect, through last June. By far the largest reason for blocking gun sales was the discovery that the buyer had been convicted or indicted for a felony, which occurred in 72 percent of the cases. ---letter to editor-- Charles Hardy xxxx SLC, UT February 26, 1997 Dear Editor The AP story "Checks Stop 186,000 Illegal Gun Sales" in Feb. 26th's paper omits two critical pieces of information. The story reports "background checks since 1994 have blocked more than 186,000 illegal over-the-counter gun sales". First, the story fails to mention how many of those denied permission to purchase a gun were denied wrongly due to various errors. Those wrongly denied must incur time, expense, frustration, and delays in exercising their rights. As the Rev. King said, "A right delayed is a right denied." Hundreds of people have had their rights denied in this way. Second, the article does not note that out of those 186,000 denials, only a literal handful of people, less than one dozen, have been charged with or convicted of attempting to purchase a gun while ineligible to do so. With a clerk as eye witness and the purchaser's signature on the paperwork, one would think such convictions would be easy and common. The fact they are not means in reality most criminals are not prevented from buying a gun at all. They simply walk freely out of the store, around the corner and purchase their guns on the black market. Stories such as this one illustrate why the oath taken in court is to tell not just the truth, but the whole truth. One need not lie to skew perceptions; omitting facts will do. As reported, the Brady Law looks like a roaring success. In reality, millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours have been spent with the net effect of convicting 12 criminals (leaving the rest free to purchase what they want elsewhere) and infringing the rights of hundreds of law abiding citizens wrongly denied access to a firearm in a timely manner. Sincerely Charles Hardy -- 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. "I've got a firm policy on gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be the one controlling it." - Clint Eastwood