From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: CHRONICLE Gun Editorial Date: 03 Oct 1997 08:15:00 -0700 Anyone care to respond to this editorial which appeared in The Daily Utah CHRONICLE on Thursday, 2.October 1997? Letters to the editor can be submitted to editor@chronicle.utah.edu or dropped off at 240 Union. Phone numbers are required for verification purposes. They claim that "letters of a scurrilous or libelous nature, or those which demean or threaten harm to any individual or group based on raced, gender, sexual orientation, or religion will not be considered", but see the letter on Monday, 29.September 1997 from Brandon Burt, a former editorial staff writer for The CHRONICLE, titled "Randy Weaver Definitely Not an American Hero" to put the lie to that. http://www.chronicle.utah.edu CHRONICLE EDITORIAL Obtaining a Permit for Guns Should Be Harder The University of Utah is being sued. That is, it will be if it doesn't drop its policy banning firearms. Joe Venus Jr., publisher of the Kearns-based American Gun Review magazine threatened to take the university to court if it doesn't comply with state law by next month. The law, passed in 1995, states that those with a concealed weapons permit may carry concealed firearms "without restriction." Venus' concern is that under current university policy, if a theoretical woman on campus were to be sexually assaulted and she defended herself with a theoretical gun that she would theoretically have in her theoretical handbag, she would theoretically be kicked off of campus. Theoretically, he's right. But before we draw any conclusions, let's look at the issue in a little more depth. The law doesn't say anything about the university not being able to make a weapons-ban policy, but as the law currently stands, there is little the university could do to legally enforce it. Before the law was passed, an individual had to show sufficient reason to have a concealed weapons permit before one was issued. The law was changed so anybody without a criminal record has an excellent chance of obtaining a permit. Before the revision, there were 1,789 persons in the state of Utah who possessed concealed weapons permits. Afterwards, there were about a thousand requests a week resulting in over 18,000 individuals now having permits. With it now being possible for just about anybody to obtain a permit, we feel this is a powder keg just waiting to explode. The law should be restored to what it was prior to 1995. Only people with sufficient reason should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, however, the scope of what constitutes a sufficient reason should include our theoretical student who legitimately fears she might be a victim of foul play. While the law states that anybody with a permit may carry a weapon "without restriction," churches, elementary schools, intermediate schools, colleges and universities should be able to make policies to protect their constituents. As soon as the requirements to obtain a permit are restricted, those who have demonstrated sufficient reason should be able to carry their concealed weapons "without restriction." The Daily Utah Chronicle is an independent student newspaper. Unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the Chronicle Editorial Board. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [ LPU: Libertarian Communication] Date: 03 Oct 1997 15:38:00 -0600 This was origianly posted to the Utah libertarian party list, but I think the point made can and should be universally applied by gun owners as well. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- From October 2nd Liberator On-line First Impressions Count! by Sharon Harris, Advocates President I sometimes listen to psychologist Laura Schlessinger's radio program. Recently, two controversies erupted on that show, and the results drove home to me a really important lesson for us as libertarians The two unrelated controversies were: (1) The Make-A-Wish Foundation (which grants wishes for terminally ill children) arranged for a young boy to fulfill his dream of hunting and killing a bear. Dr. Schlessinger is opposed to gratuitous killing, so she announced that she would no longer support the foundation. (2) On another day, she mentioned in passing that she doesn't like cats. Both of these declarations brought faxes and letters in response -- from hunters defending the killing of bears, and from cat lovers defending their favorite companion animal. According to Dr. Schlessinger, the responses she got from hunters were overwhelmingly polite and respectful, acknowledging her viewpoint, but giving sensible arguments for theirs. On the other hand, cat lovers and other animal advocates wrote hateful attacks, some even saying that she shouldn't be allowed on the radio. The responses from both groups had a profound effect. Dr. Schlessinger, while she didn't change her views on the bear killing, changed her opinion of hunters. She now thinks of them as nice people who treat other people kindly and respectfully. She clearly is more likely to listen to them with an open mind in the future. She already had a negative impression of those she characterizes as "animal rights people," but now she is convinced that they are not worthy of her respect and don't deserve a second thought. Even if she got several hundred letters from both groups (and I doubt if she got that many), those letters would represent only a tiny fraction of hunters and animal lovers. Yet those few people made a lasting impression on someone who will, in turn, make a lasting impression on literally millions of people. This is a story well worth sharing with all of our libertarian friends. Often, when we are presenting libertarian ideas, we are representing the entire libertarian movement. Many times the impression we make effects how another person views *all* libertarians. Wouldn't it be great if more people who met a libertarian -- even if they didn't initially agree with our views -- came away from the encounter saying, "You know, libertarians sure are nice folks." Once they feel that way, it's a small step to "I want to learn more about what they're talking about." _________________________________________________________________ LPUtah 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 LPUtah ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "No greater thing could come to our land today than a revival of the spirit of religion -- a revival that would sweep through the homes of the nation and stir the hearts of men and women of all faiths to a reassertion of their belief in God and their dedication to His will for themselves and for their world. I doubt if there is any problem -- social, political or economic -- that would not melt away before the fire of such a spiritual awakening." --President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a radio address to the nation on Feb. 23, 1936, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Waco the rules of engagement now on Video Date: 03 Oct 1997 22:11:00 -0700 I just got a phone call from Mike McNulty (cops555@aol.com) one of the co-producers of the movie "Waco the rules of engagement", about the BATF raid on the Branch Davidian. Please forward this all over internet: This Monday 10-6-97 details will be available on how to order your own VHS video copy of the movie. We will have to act fast because the producer has filed a law suit against them in an attempt to stop this. That's all I know at this point, you can e-mail Mike or wait for Monday. Regards, Paul Watson, Dallas I have no connections other than the same desire for justice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Utah Chronicle Date: 06 Oct 1997 15:37:38 -0600 Howdy, Tomorrow the Chrony will be doing an article on the UofU's firearms policy. Thought you might like to know. Will ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [L&J: National Conference Demands Cut Off of United Nations Funds] Date: 07 Oct 1997 11:14:13 -0600 Perhaps of some interest... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- National Conference Demands Cut Off of United Nations Funds WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- A national firearms rights conference last weekend demanded that Congress cut off United Nations funding "unless and until" the UN discontinues support for policies or activities contrary to the traditional, individual right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms. The 12th annual national Gun Rights Policy Conference enacted the resolution in Denver, Colorado. John Michael Snyder of Arlington, Virginia authored the resolution, which passed unanimously. Snyder noted in the resolution that the U.N. Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms recommends that member nations "impose on their citizens laws, regulations and administrative procedures inimical to the right to keep and bear arms, such as licensing requirements on all civilian possession of small arms and the specification of arms permitted for civilian possession." Snyder said he intends to inform U.S. Senators and Representatives regarding passage of the resolution. "U.S. taxpayers' dollars should not be used to underwrite the activities of an international organization working to undermine the civil right to self- defense, to the protection of life, to the very right to life itself," Snyder commented. "After all," he added, "scores of millions of American citizens own firearms. Surveys indicate that guns are used millions of times a year for legitimate defensive purposes. "It's time for Congress to zero-in on the U.N." Snyder is Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), Treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Vice President for Public Affairs of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP), and President of the international, interdenominational St. Gabriel Possenti Society, Inc. SAF and CCRKBA cosponsored the September 26-28 Conference, which attracted several hundred participants from across the United States. Among those who addressed the Conference independently were Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who received the CCRKBA Gun Rights Legislator of the Year Award as well as the St. Gabriel Possenti Medallion, Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho, who received the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award, Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom, Colorado State Rep. Mike Salaz, Georgia Nichols, President of the American Shooting Sports Council, and Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President. SOURCE Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire a dangerous servant and a terrible master." -- George Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: more feel good crap-o-la Date: 09 Oct 1997 11:55:47 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------563F32B631B6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A fer cryin' out loud.... http://www.desnews.com/newwir/op0nqrpx.htm -- Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element. But my theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is more plentiful than hydrogen. -Frank Zappa --------------563F32B631B6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="op0nqrpx.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="op0nqrpx.htm" [Image] [Image] [Image] Gunmakers to install childproof locks [Image] Clinton calls agreement a breakthrough for child safety. [Image] [Image] Last updated 10/09/1997, 11:04 a.m. MDT WASHINGTON (AP) — In what President Clinton called a breakthrough for child safety, executives from eight major gunmakers stood in the Rose Garden Thursday and promised to provide childproof locks with all of their handguns. Their commitment will equip by the end of next year about 80 percent of handguns sold in the United States, said Clinton, pointedly noting he and the gun industry are not often allies. "This administration and the gun industry from time to time have stood on different sides of various issues — the Brady law, assault-weapons ban — and there may be other disagreements in the future," the president said. "But today we stand together and stand with the law-enforcement community to do what we all know is right for our children." He invited executives from Glock, Beretta, Taurus, H&R, Heckler & Koch, Smith & Wesson Corp., Mossberg & Sons, and SigArms to stand and be applauded by the assembly of top law en- forcement officials, including Attorney General Janet Reno. "I hope soon our other handgunmakers will follow your lead," Clinton said. Richard Feldman, executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council, said that childproof locks must be accompanied by safe storage and safe firearms training. "Please do not be fooled into believing that any single safety device by itself is the answer," Feldman said in introducing Clinton. According to Justice Department estimates, more than one-third of all privately owned handguns — some 22 million — are kept loaded and unlocked. Easy access to these weapons sends 1,500 children to hospital emergency rooms each year. Protecting these kids, Clinton said, "is now my highest law enforcement priority." In a ceremony also meant to honor heroic police officers selected by the National Association of Police Organizations, Clinton also asked Congress to expand to state and local officers a government scholarship program for the surviving dependents of federal police officers killed in the line of duty. The program, which he signed into law last year, provides college scholarships of up to $4,848 per year for the children of slain public safety officers. The gunmakers' agreement with Clinton largely pre-empts what would have likely been a battle with Congress. Clinton has pushed legislation requiring such locks with all gun purchases, but House and Senate committees rejected the provision when they put together their anti-crime legislation earlier this year. [Image] [Image] Return to front page [Image] --------------563F32B631B6-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Teach us to bear witness.... Date: 09 Oct 1997 15:28:10 -0600 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TEACH US TO BEAR WITNESS, TEACH US TO KEEP THE FLAME... I know this all over the Internet, but just in case.... The video of the film, Waco: The Rules of Engagement is now (finally!) available on video. Verfied: The video is available through the American Freedom Network, (800) 205-6245. The price is $24.95 + $4 shipping and handling. (I ordered one and was told it would arrive in about 2 weeks. While I don't expect any problems with AFN, I ordered this before I heard from Mike. McNulty (one of the producers) who is at least theoretically a more reliable source.) The video is also available from Mike McNulty. The following information was provided by him. Hello Folks, Thanks for inquiring about the "Waco- the Rules of engagement" Home Video release. We've been anticipating this day for almost five years now, and we are very excited about the opportunity to send it to you. You can order the two hour, thirty-six minute home video version of the theatrical release by sending $29.95 plus $5.00 shipping and handling in either cash , check, ,money order or credit card ( please give us the card number, expiration date , your name and phone number, in case of any problem, along with your mailing address.) Please provide your name and address and phone number with any order and within two to three weeks you will have your own copy of ' Waco '. Our mailing address is : 1001-A East Harmony Rd. #353 , Ft. Collins, Colorado 80525. If you would like to rush the shipping process you can fax or E-mail your credit card information to us . E-mail address is COPS555@AOL.com. Fax is (970) 472 -9049. Please provide all the required information so there will be no delay in processing your order. Thanks for your interest. We look forward to receiving your order soon ! Distributor inquiries are welcomed. Best Regards, Michael McNulty Producer - "Waco - the Rules of Engagement" Opinion: I'm not going to review the film here. Many reviews, including mine, are available on the "Waco" home page. (See end of article for details.) I don't think the theatrical version is as good as the original Sundance version. (I've seen both.) There was absolutely no need to edit this film, apart from the idiocies of film distributors who discourage long films. However, the theatrical version is still excellent, and I have only minor complaints about the editing. What matters is that as many people as possible _see_ this film. If you haven't seen it, or even if you have, this is one you should _own_ if at all possible. At this time it is unclear for exactly how long "Waco" will be available due to pending litigation between Producers William Gazecki and Mike McNulty (Gazecki is also the film's director), and Executive Producers Dan Gifford and Amy Sommer Gifford. It pains me greatly that the relationships among the people who made this wonderful film have deteriorated to this point. I've corresponded and spoken with both McNulty and the Giffords over the past year, and I believe they are all sincere, well-meaning people. They all deserve our gratitude for bringing the truth to people who had been fed nothing but government propaganda about a "bunch of crazy gun nuts who set themselves on fire". I understand that to make such a film took tremendous vision, creativity, and courage, and these same qualities can make compromise difficult or even impossible. But I believe that this particular message is so important that it _must_ transcend all personal issues, and I pray that the people involved can find solutions to their differences. While I'm sure that some may accuse me of "taking sides" since I'm advising people to buy a copy of the film that apparently has the blessing of McNulty and not the Giffords, that is not the case. Ordinarily I would advise people to wait until things settled. As a writer I'm quite sensitive to creative and intellectual property rights. But litigation can take a _very_ long time, and it's possible that the film will never be released again. I hope the litigation doesn't permanently remove the film from the public domain, but I'm worried that it could happen. It's also not inconceivable that the government would attempt to permanently suppress the film. (No, I am _not_ implying or suggesting that the government has anything to do with the lawsuit!) What is _most_ important is that the film be seen and be preserved. There are many reasons for my saying this. First, of course, is that the majority of Americans still have no idea of what happened at Waco, and a lot of them don't want to know. But unless we're willing to confront what the government, through two of its law enforcement agencies, did _in our names_, there is absolutely no hope that government abuses will ever end. Ultimately, _we_ are responsible for what the government does. Second, quite a few of those who bear responsibility for the Waco genocide (and that's not a word I use lightly), still occupy powerful and prominent places in our government. The majority of the members of the Congressional committees charged with investigating Waco, who in fact participated in a shameful coverup and betrayed their duty to both the victims and the public, are still climbing their political career ladders. These people not only must be stopped, they should be indicted, tried, and/or impeached. I'm not particularly hopeful that this will happen, but I know that it won't if large numbers of people don't _see_ what really happened. So, if we wait for what might be lengthy litigation, there simply won't be the time or opportunity for true justice. Third, apart from this film, and a few books, there is no way anyone ever will know what happened to the Branch Davidians. There are very few survivors to bear witness to what occurred and most of them are in prison. The site itself has been razed and the evidence "lost" or destroyed. Unlike victims of previous genocides there simply aren't enough survivors to tell the story to us and to future generations and to keep the memory alive. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I don't believe for a moment that the government and/or the people who control our educational system are going to "see the light" and teach our children or grandchildren what happened at Waco. If the episode is mentioned at all, which I doubt, it will be rewritten to detail the heroic exploits of the BATF and FBI. So it's up to us, each of us, as individuals. We need to bear witness. We need not only to tell our relatives and neighbors and friends what happened, we need to _show_ them. We need to teach our children what can happen when the government is given, or allowed to take, too much power. We need to teach them to be ever vigilant for government abuses and to resist them with all their might. We need to remind them how the media and the government can conspire to mislead them. Above all, we must instill in them respect for the rights of all people, no matter how strange their language, or clothes, or politics or religion might seem. Yes, _you_ need to see "Waco: The Rules of Engagement". You should, if at all possible, own a copy. But a copy of "Waco" should not be misconstrued as some kind of status symbol or collector's item. Ownership of a copy will not automatically make you a "patriot". It's not something that you should keep in the safe with your autographed photo of Elvis, your first edition of _Gone With the Wind_, or your heirloom Revolutionary War musket. What I'm suggesting is that you show the film to your friends and neighbors, that you offer to make it available to your church, synagogue, mosque, ashram, or "cult". I'm suggesting that you not only show it to your children when they're old enough (This is _not_ a film for young children. It's extremely graphic and some scenes made even this hardened old ER doc sick.), but that you make it available to your children's high school or college, or to the homeschools in your community. If you can afford it, donate copies to libraries and museums. Send copies to your so-called representatives. And if your Congressman is among the guilty, let him know you _know_ he's guilty, and that you won't forget it at election time. If you must have a pristine collector's copy, well then, buy two copies. It's up to us. Once again, it's time to vow "Never again" - and to act on our vows. More information about the film is available at http://www.waco93.com. My review is located under the "Sundance Film Festival (Premiere) Reviews and also on my (sadly out-of-date) home page at http://www.therighter.com/waco.htm Comments are welcome. Please address them to the_righter@therighter.com. Disclaimer: I have no personal relationship with McNulty or the Giffords and my communications with them have been limited to discussing the film and its distribution. I have no financial interest whatsoever in the film in either its theater or video formats. Reminder: This is the LAST issue of "The Righter" that will be going out to my entire mailing list. If you'd like to continue to receive the column and e-mail updates, you need to subscribe. Send a note to majordomo@aros.net and put the message "subscribe righter-list" in the BODY of the message. You can unsubscribe by following the same procedure and saying "unsubscribe righter-list" instead. If you'd prefer that I never darken your mailbox again, you can delete this and breathe a sigh of relief - you won't hear from me again. Special note to those people on my "Waco" mailing list: You are receiving this column as a courtesy because of the subject. The Waco list is NOT automated and you do NOT need to subscribe if you wish to receive only mail relating to Waco. If you're confused or have questions or problems, let me know at the_righter@therighter.com. Special thanks to all of you who have already subscribed! Sarah Thompson, M.D. Issue #2, 10/9/97 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBND1LN9faQ3zqMQjXAQHaUAf9HK1gurTCWKCFA1lFVAmLBVhNngo/RnOG odqYuvlp/HTT+UUQs7FquBkGYLmtCtlKDiua8UwFK1knUsuxibcZl/aLD0HexQnj td6nQaHvmbI01eC72xY4kl8Pbc6S+o9GYavRSrycgo+X+R/iFOcaHCsV0y91iXO2 2hgZP3jwlf/NVjXoD1mAhsoKwMj3AMy1mGiqJ+t8i0WGmrP4UB4x4mgbS00dhbm2 4RcEKHHc3lC+qsTHpOir4dRwgVugkD7umb2LAWGTWffXSYmfekq1zwTjJigDaytB G3F01hN3eYrdM8E2Wcq0vGwKgY4ituRbchbIjHH9Jbsh2KdCiusQHg== =O2Bl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Utah firearms deaths Date: 09 Oct 1997 19:41:39 -0600 Does anyone have reasonably current statistics on Utah firearms deaths, broken down by age, and type of death (i.e. accidental, suicide, murder, etc.)? I know I saw them recently but I can't find my copy anywhere! Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Betrayal! Date: 11 Oct 1997 09:53:00 -0700 You know folks this crap is getting real serious. We have a Socialist president taking bribes from Chinese Communist, both intent on taking away our rights our guns and our country. He sells the Whitehouse bedroom for $100,000 a night and shakes down our gun manufactures for gun locks. Never in the history of our Republic has our liberty been under a more dire threat and its coming from our own elected commander in chief. God save the Republic because our maggot elected officials are to busy feeding on the decomposing eviscerated bowels of the body politic. Paul Watson, Dallas Forwarded message The appearance of Richard Feldman (leader of a group called the American Shooting Sports Council) in the Rose Garden with Bill Clinton this morning is nothing short of betrayal to the entire community of American gun owners. The AP wire says that eight gun companies appeared with him (the list with phone numbers/e-mail follows below.) Apparently they volunteered to accept Bill Clinton's trigger lock mandate for all new handguns, forcing gun owners to accept their rickety "child safety devices" at whatever inflated price they charge, whether you want one or not. Let's be clear about Bill Clinton. He is the de facto leader of a national -- no, global -- campaign to demonize gun ownership as a "public health epidemic." Trigger locks are just a small symbol of a massive and well documented campaign to convince the America and the world that gun ownership is a menace to society. Use a trigger lock yourself? Good for you. That probably means that you've evaluated your situation and decided it was an appropriate precaution for you and your family. That's your business and your decision to make -- NOT Bill Clinton's or Richard Feldman's. The Congress did the right thing on trigger locks, saying simply that they should be available through licensed dealers for those who want them. That bill was set to pass. But now Clinton has the ammo he needs to force a mandate. And what about Washington state, where Initiative 676 will be decided on November 4th? The Washington folks on the lists have told us what a complicated nightmare handgun ownership will be in their state if that monstrous ruse passes. But the voting public thinks it's a "child safety lock" initiative, and how do you argue against that when a handful of companies have signed off on the Clinton agenda? No matter what their real agenda may have been, they apparently need to learn a simple military precept: You do not EVER give aid and comfort to your enemies. And anyone who wants to argue that Bill Clinton isn't the single most powerful enemy of gun ownership has their head in the sand. There are far more questions than answers here, and I welcome you to join me in asking these questions of the parties involved. American Shooting Sports Council assc@compuserve.com (770) 933-0200 Smith and Wesson 1-800-331-0852 www.smith-wesson.com Mossberg (203) 230-5300 Glock (770) 432-1202 Beretta (301) 283-2191 SigArms (603) 772-2302 Taurus (305) 624-1115 Heckler and Koch (703) 450-1900 H&R 1871 (508) 632-2300 -- [Please crosspost this to as many lists as possible. Also take a copy to all the sports clubs and anyone else you think should know about this.] I have been reading that the American Sports Shooting Council has struck a kind of deal with the Clinton Administration over trigger locks. This is the same ASSC that came to California in the final days of our recent fight (SB 500) to save over 1/3 of all handguns and persuaded some of the most anti-gun elected officials to push through an exemption for SA revolvers (a.k.a. "cowboy guns"). This is also the same organization that has claimed (through its representatives) that ASSC is not a firearms rights organization, but that it is a manufacturers and dealers organization. In reading the latest about ASSC in the Rose Garden with the most anti-gun President in U.S. history, the image that comes to my mind is one of Mr. Warren Cassidy. It seems to me that ASSC would just as soon sell out the firearms rights movement as say "hello." While I understand that they are going to say that the trigger lock thing is "just good business" or that "we would have to do it anyway," this is just the kind of thing that Mr. Cassidy would have said as he sold our freedom down the river. All of us know that trigger locks are not the answer to accidental shootings. Some of the trigger locks require that the firearms be unloaded or there is a danger of accidental discharge. This idea of "one size fits all" is stupid at best, and is extremely dangerous. No mechanical devise will ever replace a trained individual. Another aspect that really gripes me is that all the firearms rights groups are being made to look like they don't know what they are talking about, and, even worse, appear like all they want to do is stop any and all ideas to make firearms ownership safer. With friends like these, who needs enemies? I don't know why the national firearms groups are not saying anything about this, but I, for one, am mad as hell. Fighting among ourselves is one thing, but now having to fight those "outside" our ranks because an organization that should be in our ranks is doing its best to torpedo our efforts is intolerable. I don't know about the rest of you out there, but I believe this concerns every firearms owner regardless of whether or not they belong to a group. We all need to to stand shoulder to shoulder and let the firearms manufactures, distributors, retailers, and our elected officials know how unhappy we--the customers and voters--are with what ASSC has been doing lately (twice in 30 days!). It is time for hunters, collectors, sports shooters, and the self defense people to work separately and collectively to let everyone know that we are tired of cleaning up the manufacturers' mess, and then have them turn on us. We need to let our elected officials know that these people do not speak for us. Strong words? I don't think so. Just hard truths. This crap about "safety" is being used to beat us--and our rights--to death. We are giving away our right to choose who will be responsible for our own "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". I am going to write, not phone, all the manufacturers and distributors I can find. Anyone who has a complete list can help by posting it. Otherwise, this is a person-by-person effort, and for all of you who have been working your tails off to help protect your rights--and the business that these people have--should feel the same way. Joel Friedman mochi1@ix.netcom.com -- Topic No. 12 Sent to ASSC at http://www.assc.org/ I wish I understood why the firearms manufacturers decided to submit to Clinton on trigger locks. Is it because they would be embarrassed to be caught giving money to the Democratic National Committee through Chinese agents? Please provide a collective address for all of the firearms manufacturers who sold out so when I buy a pistol in the future I can send them the trigger lock. What they can do with the trigger lock I leave to your imagination. Bruce Stanton ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Gun Control (Car Control) parody Date: 13 Oct 1997 08:40:19 -0600 >>> THE DANGERS OF AUTOMOBILES >>> >>>- Did you know that automobiles are used in 100% of the drive-by >>>shootings in America, according to the FBI? >>> >>>- Did you know that automobile accidents and homicides claim over >>>28,000 lives per year? In two years this casualty total exceeds that >>>of the ENTIRE Vietnam War. >>> >>>- Did you know that there is NO state-mandated waiting period to >>>puchase an automobile? And that you may purchase AS MANY automobiles >>>as you wish in any month? >>> >>>- Did you know that importation of 'assault' sports-cars, IS STILL >>>LEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY? These assault-cars usually have engine capacity >>>in excess of 6 cylinders and are capable of speeds of 120 MPH (or >>>more) and serve no useful driving purpose. >>> >>>- Did you know that there are NO restrictions on owning FULLY >>>AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS...?! >>>These transmissions are the prefered gear-shifting method of criminals >>>and gangsters everywhere! >>> >>>- Did you know that there is NO criminal background check before >>>purchasing a car? That you can go into any sleazy car dealers and >>>purchase a snub-nose 'Saturday Night Special' Sub-Compact Economy car >>>on nothing more than a signature, if you have the money? >>> >>>THE BLOODSHED MUST STOP! WE MUST *TAKE* *BACK* OUR STREETS! >>>No more, will we sit idly by as our young people crash into one >>>another and kill one another with depraved indifference to human life. >>>Not one more innocent bystander shall be mowed-down by an >>>out-of-control driver who 'snaps'! >>> >>>Now, there is a group dedicated to controlling and eventually banning >>>the automobile: >>>AUTOMOBILE CONTROL INC >>>Our goals are straightforward: >>>1) A national 7-day waiting period before a car may be delivered, >>>after purchase >>>2) Total bans on all 'assault' sport cars. >>>3) Total bans on all snubnose 'Saturday Night Special' Sub-Compact >>>cars. >>>4) Eventually, a total ban on all automobiles >>> >>>Let me introduce our spokesperson, Sarah Brainless. >>>Sarah: "You may know my husband, Jim Brainless. During the attempted >>>assassination of The President, Jim >>>was hit in head by an out-of-control car...and..(sniff)...well, he's >>>(sniff) never been the same since... (sniff, sniff, >>>HONNNKK). So I dedicated the rest of my life to banning this evil >>>object, the automobile. I know that there are >>>a bunch of groups who will fight back against my efforts, such as the >>>AAA. These whackos would like to see a >>>car in every garage! ...and those Merchants of Death themselves, the >>>Big Three carmakers... "As you know, the >>>AAA claims that there is a constitutional right to travel. Well, I >>>dispute that - If you read the whole amendment >>>like WE do, it is clear that the founding fathers only intended that >>>ORGANIZED MILITIA may be allowed to >>>travel...it is NOT to be construed as an individual right to travel!" >>> >>>If you join Automobile Control Inc, we will send you the following: >>> - A really neat pin that shows a car with a red line >>>through it. >>> - A fact sheet that dispels the myths of those who >>>would argue for the owning cars. >>> - A subscription to One Cylinder Short , the magazine >>>that reflects the goals of ACI. >>> - A really boffo bumper sticker that says "This car should be >>>banned." >>> >>> Call: 1-800-BAN-CARS. Have a credit card ready. >>>-- >>>Politicians prefer unarmed peasants >>> >>>--------- End forwarded message ---------- > >= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > DO FREEDOM!!! > http://home.lrt.org > Check out our new essay contest for young people! >= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: FW: Violent Crimes Date: 13 Oct 1997 09:03:23 -0600 I haven't verified any of this for accuracy. - Sarah >> >Below are some highlights from a recent government report on guns and >> >crime. Comments included in "<...>" brackets are not part of the >> report. >> > >> > * * * * * >> > >> >U.S. Department of Justice >> >Office of Justice Programs >> >Bureau of Justice Statistics >> > >> >"FIREARM INJURY FROM CRIME FIREARMS, CRIME, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE" >> >April 1996, NCJ-160093 >> > >> >Firearm-related crime and resulting injury is a relatively rare >> event: >> > >> >* 29% of the victims of nonfatal violent crime, excluding simple >> > assault, faced an offender armed with a gun. >> > <71% of violent crimes are *not* committed with guns!> >> > >> >* Of the victims of nonfatal violent crime who faced an assailant >> armed >> > with a firearm, 3% suffered gunshot wounds. >> > > > chance of *not* being shot!> >> > >> >* About 0.3% of all injury visits to emergency departments (3 of >> every >> > 1,000 visits) were caused by firearms. This estimate includes all >> > causes of firearm injury and may also include visits for patients >> > seeking follow-up care and patients who died at the hospital. >> > <99.7% of emergency room visits are *not* for gun shot wounds!> >> > >> >* Few of those injured in nonfatal gun crimes received injuries that >> > resulted from the discharge of a firearm; about 19% of the victims >> > injured in gun crimes suffered from gunshot wounds. >> > <81% of injuries from crimes where guns are present are not the >> > result of the gun!> >> > >> >* Almost half of the victims shot as a result of an assault received >> > wounds to the extremities (arms, hands, legs, or feet). Over a >> third >> > of these victims were shot in the trunk, and the remainder were >> shot >> > in the head or neck. >> > > neck> >> > >> >* Over half of the victims of gunshot wounds were hospitalized and >> > of these victims over half were hospitalized less than 1 week. >> > > > hospitalized, there is a 50% chance it will be for less than 1 >> week.> >> > >> >* Percent of victims of nonfatal gunshot wounds from crime: >> > >> > Black male 52% White female* 4% >> > White male* 15% Other male 3% >> > Hispanic male 13% Hispanic female 1% >> > Black female 6% Other female 1% >> > Unknown 5% >> > >> > * Represents white, non-Hispanic. >> > >> >* For the victims of firearm homicide included in the Supplementary >> > Homicide Reports, 82% were killed with a handgun. Of these firearm >> > homicide victims-- >> > * 21% were killed during the commission of another crime >> > such as robbery or a drug law violation >> > * 6% died as a result of a juvenile gang killing. >> > <27% of gun homicides are criminals, not innocent citizens.> >> > >> >* The firearm injury rate for police officers declined in the early >> > 1980s and began climbing again after 1987. Rates in the 1990s have >> > not exceeded the peak reached in 1980-81. >> > > > and so-called "cop-killer assault weapons".> >> > >> >* Because fewer police officers are dying from gunshot wounds, the >> > ratio of those injured to killed from assaults with firearms has >> > been increasing. >> > >> >* Of the almost 328,000 State prison inmates serving time for a >> > violent crime in 1991, 30% were armed with a firearm when they >> > committed the crime. >> > <70% of violent criminals did *not* possess guns!> >> > >> >* Preliminary findings from a National Institute of Justice study >> > of over 4,000 arrestees in 11 cities during the first 3 months of >> > 1995 showed that 21% of the adult male arrestees and 11% of the >> > juvenile male arrestees had been injured by a gunshot at some >> > time. >> > >> > >> >* According to a BJS study of murder in the 75 largest counties in >> > 1988, 13% of the victims killed with a firearm had a prior criminal >> > arrest and 7% a prior conviction. >> > <20% of murders are criminals shooting other criminals!> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Pro hunting article in today's Trib Date: 14 Oct 1997 10:57:59 -0600 Probably not directly related, but someone here may be inclined to sent the Tribune a thank-you letter after they recover from the shock of reading this. [Image] [Image] [Image] Tuesday, October 14, 1997 [Image] [Image] They Aren't PC, But Hunters Have No Need to Apologize By Tom Wharton THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Few people spent time on the Manti Mountain on the Wednesday before elk season opened, offering those who did time to contemplate the brilliant yellow quaking-aspen leaves. No one fished at Electric Lake; only a few could be seen on the shores of Boulger and Cleveland reservoirs. In the afternoon quiet, in a remote spot, the only thing lacking was the sound of bugling elk. Surely, later in the afternoon as the sun set, a bull would renew the fall ritual by creating that wonderfully wild mating call. For the decreasing number of Utah hunters, fall is a time for rituals. Archers practice the summer so they can be ready to let an arrow fly should they get a once-in-a-lifetime shot at a trophy deer or elk. When October rolls around, rifle fire can be heard throughout the mountains as hunters seek deer and elk. Camps can be seen scattered in forests as hunters enjoy the fall scenery and family gatherings when day is done. Duck hunters plan an entire year for the three-month season, reading up on new techniques and gear and training their loyal retrievers to be disciplined when the steel begins to fly. And, in early November when a layer of morning frost often covers the fields, families head to what remains of Utah's farmlands, hoping to be surprised by the sound of a pheasant exploding from under their dog's nose. Under Attack: To an increasing degree, the hunters who maintain these rituals find themselves under attack from people far removed from a time when humans needed game to survive. To folks who get their meat from the grocer's shelves or vegetarians who ignore the fact that wild lands cleared to plant crops contribute much more to the decline of wildlife than hunters, the fall hunting ritual seems like a barbaric anachronism. Increasingly, hunting is becoming politically incorrect. Many who participate in the blood sports feel the need to apologize for killing deer, elk and ducks. Yet there are many reasons hunters should instead be viewed as the saviors of wild places and an important cog in helping America stay close to its rural roots and values. Since the early 1900s, hunters have paid more than $4.8 billion for state hunting licenses. They have spent $300 million on federal duck stamps and have paid more than $1.7 billion in excise taxes on the equipment they use to pursue their sport. Without this money, it is doubtful the national wildlife refuge system would exist in its present form. Thousands of acres of state wildlife lands might be under threat of development. Millions of acres of rangelands would not have been reseeded after devastating fires. Fund Management: In Utah, close to 90 percent of the state wildlife management comes out of the pockets of hunters and anglers. It is no accident that the species coveted by those who hunt and fish thrive in the wild. Hunters who pay for licenses also join groups such as Ducks Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the National Wild Turkey Federation that work to preserve habitat. But the act of hunting isn't all about economics. It is about staying close to the land and nature. It is about realizing that life sometimes requires death. It is about knowing that food doesn't come from the grocery store. So those who go afield with rifle, shotgun and bow should not have to apologize for doing something they love. They have earned that right and should be proud to exercise it. [Image] [Tuesday Navigation Bar] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 1997, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. -------------------------------------------------- Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to so great lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence, was a measure as it was legal natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, (the post-Cromwellian English bill of rights) to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." -- "A Journal of the Times" (1768-1769) colonial Boston newspaper article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Equipment Date: 14 Oct 1997 11:23:01 -0600 >The University of Utah Collegiate Pistol Team just picked up it's >first left-handed shooter and has no left-handed equipment. We >should be able to get by with a Smith 41 for .22, since they are >ambidexterous, but the only thing we have for airgun is a Daisy 717. >Has any of you a lead on some left handed grips for a FWB Model 2, >Walther CPM-1, Pardini K-58 or K-60 airgun? > >The first choice would be a tax-deductible donation at fair market >value. Grips we could afford to pay for. (An alternative would be >a complete gun with left-handed grips, if affordable.) > >Can any of you help with this problem, or do you know someone who >can? > >Thank you very much. > >Matt DeLong >University of Utah Pistol Coach I'm posting this as a courtesy to Matt DeLong. Please respond to HIM at delong@mail.physics.utah.edu, and NOT to me! Thanks! - Sarah ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Equipment Date: 15 Oct 1997 09:17:56 -0600 S. Thompson wrote: > > >The University of Utah Collegiate Pistol Team just picked up it's > >first left-handed shooter and has no left-handed equipment. We > >should be able to get by with a Smith 41 for .22, since they are > >ambidexterous, but the only thing we have for airgun is a Daisy 717. > >Has any of you a lead on some left handed grips for a FWB Model 2, > >Walther CPM-1, Pardini K-58 or K-60 airgun? > > > >The first choice would be a tax-deductible donation at fair market > >value. Grips we could afford to pay for. (An alternative would be > >a complete gun with left-handed grips, if affordable.) > > > >Can any of you help with this problem, or do you know someone who > >can? > > > >Thank you very much. > > > >Matt DeLong > >University of Utah Pistol Coach > > I'm posting this as a courtesy to Matt DeLong. Please respond to HIM > at delong@mail.physics.utah.edu, and NOT to me! Thanks! - Sarah Is this the same Matt DeLong who said the University's gun ban was just fine and dandy? (as long as it didn't effect the "legitimate shooting sports"...) If so, I'll be happy to donate some uric acid, but nothing else. Will the wing-nut ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Column, Oct. 24] Date: 15 Oct 1997 12:39:06 -0600 Of some interest to some here I think. Maybe some info for a letter to your favorite federal official demanding that the ban on defensive weapons in National Parks come to an end. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 24, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz When in doubt, wave and shout Last week's "National Geographic Special" featured the comeback of the mountain lion in the West. With hunting now banned in most locales, and the biological pressure on young males to seek out new territories, the cats' population resurgence is naturally pushing them into more and more direct contact with humans. A California woman described how helpless she felt when she raced to her porch one night, only to see her pet dog held by the spine, completely off the ground, by a huge cat who proceeded to saunter off with its prey. One park ranger described the final moments of terror of a middle-aged bird watcher eaten by a large cat last year in a California state park. Another ranger showed school children the correct response when confronted by a lion: stand tall, wave your arms, do not -- DO NOT -- run away. The final asthmatic moral? Since we no longer aim to exterminate the lion, we must learn to share our space with him. Not exactly. I love cats, and have no desire to see the mountain lion exterminated. But the correct response on the part of a child who sees he or she is being stalked by a cat three times the child's weight is not to wave and shout, any more than a homeowner should look on helplessly as the family dog is carried away. The correct response is to aim carefully, and fire. The bird-watcher was not "taken" by that cat in an ineluctable act of nature. She was murdered in absentia by state officials who threatened her with arrest if she was caught carrying a gun on their precious nature trail, even for defensive use. In a related matter, talk radio guy Neal Boortz in Atlanta reported Oct. 7 on the threat the BATF may decide to enforce the congressional 1000-foot "gun free school zone" around (start ital)home schools(end ital), as well. (Media Bypass magazine promises an investigative report on this nonsense in its November edition, based on a letter from ATF Reichsfuhrer John Magaw to Sen. Dan Coats. Check out the magazine's web site at http://www.4bypass.com.) Boortz then pointed out that most news media did not report the full story of how the young man who recently used a rifle on his estranged girlfriend and several others in the high school in Pearl, Miss. was actually captured. "When the school principal heard the gunfire he ran to his car and got his personal pistol." He ordered the shooter to drop the gun, and then held him until the police arrived. "Do you realize that this principal was in violation of federal law for even having that gun in his car?" What if the massacres in Dunblane and Tasmania -- pretexts for the civilian disarmament of entire nations -- had been as quickly cut short by a principal with a gun? Finally, Boortz moved on to the national parks, where "It is also illegal to carry firearms. ... At the Ozark Scenic Riverway in Carter County, Missouri, the National Park Service is really making some serious cash on this one. There happens to be 200 feet of Park Service land on County Road Z and the gravel road that connects the Z and F highways. According to published reports, NPS rangers are stopping motorists on this 200 feet of highway and searching their cars for guns. If they find one it is confiscated. The owner has to pay $100 to get it back. The take so far? About $10,000." # # # Until time and space allow a more thorough discussion, I'll just report two worthy books have crossed my desk. James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg, authors of "The Great Reckoning," now bring us "The Sovereign Individual," in which the authors points out how the underlying myths of human culture tend to go out of date every 500 years. A family that invested on the assumption the Roman Empire would make a comeback after 450 A.D. would have been out of luck, just as clinging faithfully to the underlying doctrines of chivalry and the teachings of the medieval church would not have gotten you far during the Renaissance. Likewise, the authors predict the information age -- and the resultant ability of cyber-producers to relocate themselves and their assets out from under regimes with confiscatory taxes -- will spell the end of the voracious, top-heavy nation-state as we've known it; $25 from Simon & Schuster. On a very different plane is "Sperm Wars: The Evolutionary Logic of Love and Lust," by Dr. Robin Baker, lecturer at the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Manchester. One of the London Sunday Times' "picks of the year," Dr. Baker's highly readable volume explains the genetic and reproductive logic behind human mating behaviors which have previously been shrouded in a fog of rationalization and denial. It contains more revelations per page than anything of the sort that's come my way since "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind;" "Sperm Wars" runs $14 in trade paper from Basic Books. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "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. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Equipment Date: 15 Oct 1997 14:16:03 -0600 At 09:17 AM 10/15/97 -0600, you wrote: >S. Thompson wrote: >> >> >The University of Utah Collegiate Pistol Team just picked up it's >> >first left-handed shooter and has no left-handed equipment. We >> >should be able to get by with a Smith 41 for .22, since they are >> >ambidexterous, but the only thing we have for airgun is a Daisy 717. >> >Has any of you a lead on some left handed grips for a FWB Model 2, >> >Walther CPM-1, Pardini K-58 or K-60 airgun? >> > >> >The first choice would be a tax-deductible donation at fair market >> >value. Grips we could afford to pay for. (An alternative would be >> >a complete gun with left-handed grips, if affordable.) >> > >> >Can any of you help with this problem, or do you know someone who >> >can? >> > >> >Thank you very much. >> > >> >Matt DeLong >> >University of Utah Pistol Coach >> >> I'm posting this as a courtesy to Matt DeLong. Please respond to HIM >> at delong@mail.physics.utah.edu, and NOT to me! Thanks! - Sarah > >Is this the same Matt DeLong who said the University's gun ban was >just fine and dandy? (as long as it didn't effect the "legitimate >shooting sports"...) If so, I'll be happy to donate some uric acid, >but nothing else. > >Will the wing-nut > Eek! Did Mattt say THAT??!! If so, my apologies, and I retract the request for assistance. (I'll try to find out!) Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sawyer Subject: Places to shoot & carry Date: 16 Oct 1997 11:38:12 -0600 Utah Shooters: To promote shooting sports and to help exercise our "dollar vote," Two lists are being compiled that will be available on the Internet: (1) A list of places to shoot here in Utah (formal and informal) (2) A list of stores and their policies regarding licensed, concealed weapons. (1) Places to Shoot Ever had a fellow gun enthusiast ask you where they could go shooting, and you just drew a blank? Some of us locals know many remote places we can go plinking, but newcomers to the sport and to Utah may be at a loss. We can help them, and, in doing so, help promote our hobby. A few years ago, I began compiling a list of formal and informal places to go shooting, including anywhere from true target ranges to remote "berms in the boonies." The project fizzled when I wrote to the NRA to see if they could give me any pointers, or if they had any contributions to the list. Their response was along the lines of "We're already compiling such lists, so yours would just be a waste of time." That really took the wind out of my sails. That supposed NRA list never materialized, and I still get asked "So, anyplace to go shooting around here?" The current list is several years old and includes only Utah County locations. Should we make this a state-wide effort? Please contribute any information you can about any place you use or know of. If a formal range, please relay the following information: Range Name, address (including city & county), allowed firearms/calibers, ranges to targets, number of stations, cost of admission, whether the range provides rentals or ammunition or targets, phone number. If an informal range, please provide directions or address and general information about the site. The published list will include disclaimer stating the responsibility lies with the shooter to obtain permission to shoot on private land, that the responsibility lies with the shooter to ensure he is shooting in a legal area. The list will also include encouragements to "pack it in, pack it out" (clean up after yourselves) at informal ranges, and to act responsibly at all times. (2) Places to Carry We all know that practicing CCW holders help ensure the safety of the establishments they visit, but CCW holders often feel unwelcome by those "No Guns Allowed!" signs. Concealed carry permit holders can exercise their "dollar vote" by, as much as possible, patronizing only those stores that welcome CCW. But that information is not always easy to come across, as not all establishments have signs posted declaring their policy. Now, some businesses may be downright hostile toward CCW holders, and those are the ones we maybe need most to have listed, just so we don't waste gas by having to go to the store to find out. For this list, a lot of help is still needed. Please contribute any information you're aware of concerning local stores/chains and their CCW policies, and, like the "Places to Shoot" list, the list will be made available soon to everybody. The plan is to update it monthly. Please include the store's name, location, policy, and whether you obtained this info first hand from a store employee or whether you heard it from a friend. This list will also contain a disclaimer stating the compiled list may contain inaccuracies, and store policies are subject to change at any time without notice. My hope is that merely being on a negative list will encourage some stores to change their policies to be more CCW-friendly. The Lists I'll be posting the lists at: http://www.itsnet.com/~stylus/carry.html and http://www.itsnet.com/~stylus/shoot.html The lists can be cross-posted, copied, distributed, whatever, free of charge, even though I'll own the copyright. I will exercise my copyright ownership only to enforce the _free_ distribution of the information. Please respond to any of the following e-mail addresses: msawyer@callware.com stylus@itsnet.com kc7urn@ucares.org with "places to shoot" or "places to carry" as the subject. We can all benefit from this. Let's give it a shot, har har. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Request for equipment Date: 16 Oct 1997 12:07:22 -0600 Posted exactly as received. - Sarah >Comments: Authenticated sender is >From: "Matt DeLong" >Organization: University of Utah Physics >To: "S. Thompson" >Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:06:18 -700 >Subject: Re: Request for equipment >Reply-To: delong@mail.physics.utah.edu >Priority: normal >X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) > >> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:18:54 -0600 >> To: delong@mail.physics.utah.edu >> From: "S. Thompson" >> Subject: Request for equipment > >> Dear Matt, >> >> I cross-posted your request for equipment for the shooting team. >> Now people are asking me what your position and/or the team's >> position is regarding the University's no-guns policy. >> >> If you would be kind enough to send me a response, I will post >> it or forward it to those with questions. I HAVE NO POSITION ON >THE UNIVERSITY'S POLICY. THE POLICY RELATES ONLY TO CONCEALED CARRY >AND DOES NOT AFFECT OUR ACTIVITIES, WHICH ALREADY CONSUME MORE THAN >100% OF MY TIME.. > >ADEQUATE? > >MATT >Matthew C. DeLong >UNIVERSITY OF UTAH >OPTOELECTRONIC MATERIALS LABORATORY >115 S 1400 E RM 201 >SALT LAKE CITY UT 84112-0830 >Phone: 801-581-7462 >FAX: 801-581-4801 >email: delong@mail.physics.utah.edu > Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Request for equipment Date: 16 Oct 1997 12:48:40 -0600 S. Thompson wrote: > > Posted exactly as received. - Sarah > > > >> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:18:54 -0600 > >> To: delong@mail.physics.utah.edu > >> From: "S. Thompson" > >> Subject: Request for equipment > > > >> Dear Matt, > >> > >> I cross-posted your request for equipment for the shooting team. > >> Now people are asking me what your position and/or the team's > >> position is regarding the University's no-guns policy. > >> > >> If you would be kind enough to send me a response, I will post > >> it or forward it to those with questions. I HAVE NO POSITION ON > >THE UNIVERSITY'S POLICY. THE POLICY RELATES ONLY TO CONCEALED CARRY > >AND DOES NOT AFFECT OUR ACTIVITIES, WHICH ALREADY CONSUME MORE THAN > >100% OF MY TIME.. > > > >ADEQUATE? > > > >MATT >Matthew C. DeLong >UNIVERSITY OF UTAH >OPTOELECTRONIC MATERIALS LABORATORY >115 S 1400 E RM 201 >SALT LAKE CITY UT 84112-0830 >Phone: 801-581-7462 >FAX: 801-581-4801 >email: delong@mail.physics.utah.edu > Thanks Sarah, Mr. DeLong needs to read his code of standards and behavior policy manual again. The ban applies to every one of his team members who are students. It forbids possession and use, not merely concealed carry. Oh, and it also provides for suspension for any student who knows of another who is breaking the policy who doesn't subsequently rat them out. I guess I better call the hall monitor about the team... Maybe that will give Mr. DeLong something to do while he's waiting for me to donate anything more than gas to his team.... Well....back to my "non-legitimate" purposes... III. STUDENT STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR A. THE STANDARDS In order to promote personal development, to protect the University community, and to maintain order and stability on campus, students who engage in any of the following acts of misconduct may be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with Section B below: 6. Possession or use on University premises or at University activities of any firearm or other dangerous weapon, incendiary device, explosive or chemical unless such possession or use has been authorized by the University. http://www.admin.utah.edu/ppmanual/8/8-10.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Request for equipment Date: 16 Oct 1997 12:45:55 -0600 Quoting Matt DeLong On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, "S. Thompson" posted: >>I HAVE NO POSITION ON >>THE UNIVERSITY'S POLICY. THE POLICY RELATES ONLY TO CONCEALED CARRY >>AND DOES NOT AFFECT OUR ACTIVITIES, WHICH ALREADY CONSUME MORE THAN >>100% OF MY TIME.. >> >>ADEQUATE? >> >>MATT >>Matthew C. DeLong >>UNIVERSITY OF UTAH >>OPTOELECTRONIC MATERIALS LABORATORY >>115 S 1400 E RM 201 >>SALT LAKE CITY UT 84112-0830 >>Phone: 801-581-7462 >>FAX: 801-581-4801 >>email: delong@mail.physics.utah.edu >> More than adequate to convince me that any limited resources I may have to assist shooting and gun programs are much better spent somewhere else. While it is perfectly legitimate to assert that priorities, schedules, or even organizational charter prevent the outlaying of resources to actively fight such a policy, there is no justification for any shooting organization to not at least take a position and make it known via a couple of letters to the appropriate venues. Giving the anti-gun, defenseless-victim, advocates the ability to point to an established shooting organization on campus and say, "See the ban is reasonable and doesn't affect 'legitimate sporting uses'," hurts us more than almost anything else they may say. It also tacitly admits their assertion that self-defense is not a legitimate use of a firearm. The so-called sport shooters had better wake up and realize the harm they do to the cause of freedom and, in the long run, the shooting sports by not defending the ownership, possession, and use of weapons of self defense. If they don't, it won't be more than a generation or two after those weapons are banned that they will find themselves in the same boat as their English cousins where only the wealthy and elite can afford to participate in hunting and target shooting and even they must fight a constant and losing battle (alone it should be noted) to ban virtually all civilian owned guns. The "it doesn't affect my hobbies directly so I needn't concern myself" mentality is exactly the outcome of the divide and conquer technique used by anti-gunners that they hope for. They have made it very clear they want all guns banned and only take the incremental approach because it is all that will work. It is what cost us defensive, short-barrelled shot-guns and fully automatic weapons in the 30s, what cost us some reasonably priced imports in the 80s, what cost us semi-automatic defensive rifles in the 90s, what may very well cost us reasonably priced concealable handguns before the end of the decade, and what will ultimately cost us (that is the average income citizen) every other weapon cabable of propelling a projectile down range--including target and game weapons. I humbly suggest Mr. Delong and his organization rethink their "no-opinion" policy and make appropriate statments and press releases. As a recognized group on campus, they could do a tremendous amount of good and insure their own future by introducing as many people as possible to gun ownership and usage. But they should realize that many people who are not interested in formal competition may be very interested in self-defense and would, having made the decision that a gun is appropriate to their circumstances, be ardent supporters of the sport shooters when the inevitable attacks come. Unfortunatly, their current lack of position does all gun owners a diservice. Especially if rumors about public statements by Mr. DeLong essentially saying he has no problem with the gun ban so long as it doesn't affect him or his organization's activities are true. I have CCed Mr. DeLong and welcome his response. I suggest others who may be in a position to assist the club let their feelings, one way or the other, also be known to the list and the club in the polite manner to which we are accustomed on the list. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire a dangerous servant and a terrible master." -- George Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Request for equipment Date: 16 Oct 1997 12:55:04 -0600 On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Will Thompson posted: > 6. Possession or use on University premises or at > University activities of any firearm or other dangerous > weapon, incendiary device, explosive or chemical >unless such possession or use has been authorized by the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > University. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I would guess that the team's possession and use of their target guns has been "authorized by the University." As has possession and use by any private security the U may ever hire. So too will the possession and use of even a CCW be authorized for the president of the U or any of his family, friends, governor, legislatior or other high ranking "important" people who may ever feel the need to CCW--even if such "authorization" is only granted retroactively after some such person is discovered to be packing. Such rules are always and only meant to keep the "undesirables" from being able to carry. Historically such "undesirables" were blacks, Jews, Catholics, immigrants, and the poor. I refer you to Cramer's "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" which may be located quickly by an altavista search of the web. Today, it seems that everyone but the ruling elite fall into the catagory. The U will allow the sport shooting to continue to prove that it isn't anti-gun or opposed to "legitimate" uses of firearms--at least until the rest of us have been disarmed so long we've quit fighting and some nut case manages to steal some of those target guns and wreak havok with them. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire a dangerous servant and a terrible master." -- George Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Request for equipment Date: 16 Oct 1997 14:10:16 -0600 Charles Hardy wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Will Thompson posted: > > > 6. Possession or use on University premises or at > > University activities of any firearm or other > > dangerous weapon, incendiary device, explosive or > > chemical unless such possession or use has been > > authorized by the University. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I would guess that the team's possession and use of their target guns > has been "authorized by the University." As has possession and use by > any private security the U may ever hire. So too will the possession > and use of even a CCW be authorized for the president of the U or any > of his family, friends, governor, legislatior or other high ranking > "important" people who may ever feel the need to CCW--even if such > "authorization" is only granted retroactively after some such person > is discovered to be packing. > But of course. In fact, the Board of Regents are specifically exempted from the "state employees firearms ban" policy the honorable guv. spineless and his administration have enacted. The University code _only_ applies to students, not employees such as private security, campus police or just plain old visitors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Request for equipment Date: 16 Oct 1997 14:14:00 -0600 >> On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Will Thompson posted: >But of course. In fact, the Board of Regents are specifically >exempted from the "state employees firearms ban" policy the >honorable guv. spineless and his administration have enacted. > >The University code _only_ applies to students, not employees >such as private security, campus police or just plain old visitors. > And perhaps most important is that it doesn't apply to non-student muggers, rapists, murderers and other assorted criminals who might decide that unarmed students make good targets. After all, _criminals_ have rights! (Just ask the ACLU!) Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 righter@therighter.com The proclamation and repetition of first principles is a constant feature of life in our democracy. Active adherence to these principles, however, has always been considered un-American. We recipients of the boon of liberty have always been ready, when faced with discomfort, to discard any and all first principles of liberty, and, further, to indict those who do not freely join with us in happily arrogating those principles. David Mamet (b. 1947) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: R2A! Immediate Action: Oppose Margaret Morrow] Date: 17 Oct 1997 14:22:26 -0600 >>IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED! >> >>[PLEASE CROSS-POST AND RE-POST] >> >> Immediate action is needed to prevent Margaret Morrow from being >>appointed to the federal bench! >> >> A vote in the Senate on one of Clinton's most liberal and >>controversial federal court nominations is scheduled to take place in the >>next few weeks. Fortunately, Sen. John Ashcroft announced he will fight the >>nomination. *He needs our help!* >> >> Margaret Morrow on Firearms: She was President of the California State >>Bar during the 1993-1994 session. The National Law Journal (10/25/93) >>reported that the October 1993 State Bar convention "had only one big issue, >>gun control." Even though a 1990 Supreme Court decision prohibited the >>California bar from using dues for political activity, Morrow "vowed" to >>push the gun control resolution anyway. >> >> Morrow on other issues: In a 1988 article in the Los Angeles Lawyer >>magazine, she opposed the initiative process in California. Her basis? >>Allowing the 20 million voters to decide important political issues "renders >>ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting of the majority." >>Translation: Politicians are better able to decide what is good for America >>than American voters are. During the Judiciary Committee hearings, Sen. >>Grassley questioned whether, in light of the derailings of Propositions 197 >>and 209 by activist federal judges, we really want another activist judge on >>the federal bench. (And don't forget the 9th Circuit's recent invalidation >>of the voter-approved term limits in California). >> >> Morrow is a member of California Women Lawyers, which has taken >>positions in favor of affirmative action and parental leave. She wrote an >>article in the February, 1989, issue of the California Lawyer which favored >>the approach of race issues to justify quotas. >> >> Morrow also wants bar associations to take a "strong active voice" on >>political issues. She has also gone on record in favor of unrestricted >>Legal Services Corp. funding, and she received an award from the Legal Aid >>Foundation in Los Angeles in 1990. >> >> If Margaret Morrow is not the type of person you want to sit as a >>federal judge *for life* please do the following: >> >> 1) Write to Sen. Ashcroft and state your support for his efforts to >>stop Morrow's confirmation as a federal judge. His address is: >> >>Hon. John Ashcroft >>United States Senate >>Washington, D.C. 20510 >> >> 2) Write both senators from your state and advise them you oppose >>Morrow's nomination to the federal bench. Ask them to vote *not* to confirm > >>Margaret Morrow when/if her nomination comes up for a vote. >> >>Thank you, >> >>Steve Silver >>Vice President >>The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. >>18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329 >>Encino, CA 91316 >>(818) 734-3066 >>(The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) Non-Profit Corporation) >>Visit the LSAS's Web page at: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law_menu.html >>Send an e-mail request, including your snail mail address, to: LSAS3@aol.com >> for a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, The Liberty Pole. >> >>Remember: >>Firearms are worth it if they save just one life. >> *** >>Self-defense is not a crime. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: HCI Sees WA initiative as first step 1/2 Date: 19 Oct 1997 00:15:00 -0700 Forwarded message [At bottom is the pro-gun campaign contribution address] HCI sees Washington State's Initiative 676 as a model for draconian national "gun licensing" legislation! ========================================================= Begin Handgun Control Inc. letter, received Oct 7-8, 1997 ========================================================= Sarah Brady Chair Dear HCI Member, We have a tremendous opportunity to take a giant leap forward in our fight to require gun licensing in this country. _And because it is imperative that we act with urgency, I am rushing this notice to you and asking you to renew your annual membership today._ Here's our situation: On November 4, an _initiative_ will appear on Washington State's election ballot which would require "persons possessing or acquiring a handgun" to obtain a _handgun safety license_ that shows they've been educated in the safe handling and storage of such guns. Although technically, this initiative will only affect residents of Washington State, the truth is that its _impact will be felt all the way to Washington, D.C.!_ Because if Initiative 676 succeeds, there's no question but that _we will have created enormous momentum for a national gun licensing law_ ... a _prospect that has the NRA and its allied gun groups absolutely terrified._ So terrified, in fact, that at this very moment they are pouring money into a mammoth propaganda effort to defeat Initiative 676. Now you and I have seen NRA-backed propaganda campaigns in action before. And we know how damaging they can be if they aren't countered with boldness and tenacity. Therefore, we know that in order to pass this precedent-setting ballot measure, our friends in Washington State must be able to counter the barrage of propaganda we know the NRA and its allies will unleash between now and November 4. And to do this, they've turned for help to the one organization that knows firsthand how to combat the NRA's distortions, half-truths, and downright lies -- Handgun Control, Inc. There's only one way to win this election. _And that's to reach gun control voters -- the majority -- with the truth about how gun licensing saves lives, and then to turn these voters out in force on election day. And we have less than a month to do this._ That's why I'm urging you to renew your annual HCI membership _and to be as generous as possible._ You see, with Initiative 676's election day looming, we simply couldn't wait until we received all of our HCI members' membership renewal instructions before making a commitment to act. We had to decided immediately if Initiative 676 was aligned with HCI's long-range gun licensing goals to get involved in this campaign. And because we are certain key members like you would absolutely want us to seize this opportunity to move forward on gun licensing, we already are hard at work in the two most critical areas of this historic election campaign: FIRST, we are preparing a _saturation ad campaign to run on television and radio during the closing weeks of the campaign_ that will explain plainly and clearly how gun licensing will help reduce gun violence and thereby save lives; SECOND, we are helping to _identify and activate every gun control voter in the State of Washington._ If we can complete these two critical campaign tasks on time, I know we can win this fight. And here's why I'm so confident: Early, private polling clearly showed that 67 percent of potential voters in Washington State are ready to support an initiative to require a handgun safety license. This number will change to some degree over the next five weeks, of course. In fact, once the NRA and Alan Gottlieb's ultra-extremist "Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" -- which, unfortunately, is headquartered in Washington State -- finish bombarding voters with their dangerous lies about guns equalling self-protection, this percentage figure is bound to drop somewhat. But the question is, by how much? And the answer depends in large measure on the level of support HCI members like you are willing to make by renewing your membership right away. Because the fact remains that, as of right now, a majority of Washington State voters are willing to support sensible gun control. _Which means we can turn out a winning vote on November 4 ... if we only have the resources to do so_. Will you help make sure we have these vital resources by renewing your membership today? I hope your answer is a resounding "yes." A victory for Initiative 676 will take us a giant leap down the road toward eventual passage of a national gun licensing law -- just as California's passage of an assault weapons ban in 1989 led to the _national_ assault weapons ban we have today. And there's simply no denying the revolutionary effect a law like the one we're proposing in our SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN would have on reducing gun violence throughout the country. Let me take a few moments to explain why this is so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: HCI Sees WA initiative as first step 2/2 Date: 19 Oct 1997 00:15:00 -0700 We now know that waiting periods and background checks are very effective gun violence control measures. And we know this because we've accumulated the hard evidence which shows that the Brady Law has stopped more than a quarter-of-a-million criminals and other ineligible buyers from purchasing handguns over the counter. Well, a _national_ gun licensing law would make it _even tougher_ for felons and other high-risk persons to obtain handguns. That's because our proposed law would allow for a more thorough background check, including fingerprint identification -- a process that, by itself, would stop felons from acquiring guns by using false identification. But that's not all it would do. Our national licensing law would also require verification of a person's residency -- a provision that would stop gun buyers and gun runners from being able to travel from a state with strong gun laws to one with weaker laws in order to buy over-the-counter guns. And we know for a fact that this provision _would save lives_. Because if a national residency verification requirement had been in place on February 23 of this year, Christoffer Burmeister would likely still be alive. You might not recall this young man's name, but I'm certain you'll recall the incident in which he lost his life. He was one of a group of friends who were visiting the Empire State Building on that fateful February day when a man named Ali Abu Kamal stepped onto the observation deck and began spraying gunfire, killing Christoffer and wounding six other people. Kamal's act of random, senseless violence is a textbook example of what can -- and does -- happen in the absense of a nationwide requirement to verify a gun buyer's residency before selling that person a gun. Because Kamal, a foreign national who was simply _visiting_ this country, was able to walk into a Florida gun shop and buy a Beretta semiautomatic pistol with virtually no questions asked. And then he traveled to New York City where he carried out his deranged mission of "strik(ing) at ... the Empire State Building." But why did Kamal go to Florida to buy his gun rather than buy it in New York, the target of his criminal rampage? Because to buy a gun legally in New York State, a person must be finger-printed and undergo an extensive background check for both past criminal behavior and for mental illness. And in New York City itself, _a non-resident must obtain a license from the police department to buy a gun_, which can take several months. So Kamal left a state with strict gun laws to buy his murder weapon in a state with weak gun laws. And because he could do this with ease. Christoffer Burmeister is dead. I don't think any rational person needs a better reason than this to join the fight for a national gun licensing law. Which is why your renewed membership today will set the groundwork for a national law tomorrow. You'll be pleased to know that my husband, Jim, and I are going to Washington State to personally campaign for Initiative 676. HCI also has put our Communications and Research Departments at the disposal of gun control advocates in Washington State to help craft media messages, develop public education materials and to do media training. And we are committed to sending a full-time organizer into Washington State for the month of October to help set up the "Get Out The Vote" campaign, as well as to using our extensive contacts in the law enforcement community to get these critical supporters on board the campaign. And it almost goes without saying that we are reaching out to Washington State HCI members and urging them not only to vote, but to _help get out the vote on election day_. But, in all candor I must tell you that these activities alone won't be enough to win the day for Initiative 676 on November 4. Because like it or not, in this day and age election campaigns ultimately turn on the media. Which means we must compete with the NRA's propaganda machine on television and radio if we don't want to see our 67 percent support figure dwindle to less than 50 percent by election day. _A defeat for Initiative 676 could well spell political disaster for the cause of gun licensing in America_. That's why I'm urging you as strongly as I know how to make sure HCI has the resources to win Initiative 676 -- and to keep fighting for national gun licensing -- by renewing your HCI membership today. Thank you. For a Safer America, [signed] Sarah Brady Chair P.S. Because our friends in Washington State are feeling besieged at this point, just knowing that you stand with them will be a great boost to their morale. Please take a moment today to return your renewal contribution so that when I go to Washington State, I can tell our colleagues there that everyone at HCI is behind them. And thank you again for all that you do to help make America safer. ============== end HCI letter Here is the address for contributions to WeCARE, who is running the campaign against I-676. WeCARE P.O. Box 50270 Bellevue, WA 98015 They request your name, phone number and full address (they don't specify mailing or home) and say Washington State requires you write down your employer for contributions over $25. The contribution website address is http://www.wecare-wa.org/page4.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: 1998 Clinton Gun Ban Date: 23 Oct 1997 09:16:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NRA-ILA FAX ALERT 11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: 1-800-392-8683 * Fax: 703-267-3918 * GROOTS@NRA.org SPECIAL 10/22/97 SPECIAL ALERT: CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN! "WE ARE TAKING THE LAW AND BENDING IT AS FAR AS WE CAN TO CAPTURE A WHOLE NEW CLASS OF GUNS" According to Jose Cerda a "White House official who specializes in gun control policy." Mr. Cerda was quoted in a Los Angeles Times story today, in response to a proposed presidential memorandum that would prohibit the import of a host of semi-automatic firearms. The story noted an imminent presidential directive that would halt the issuance of new import licenses while it reviews the "sporting purposes" criteria for certain guns. Simply put, this latest Clinton- Gore Administration initiative bans guns that conform in every way to the legal requirements of the Administration's own 1994 gun ban. Clearly, this represents the next link in the Clinton-Gore Administration's gun ban chain -- a preview if you will of the 1998 Clinton Gun Ban. You've heard the verbiage before. The terminology used to justify assaults on our rights. For example, recall not too long ago, the gun ban lobby in California was working to ban so-called "junk guns," using the "logic" that if these guns don't meet the requirements for importation, why should they be legally manufactured in the U.S.? Well, that mantra, and the Clinton propaganda machine, is again in full swing using that same logic. This latest development is unfortunate, but not surprising. For years, the National Rifle Association of America has argued that bans on firearms are worthless measures that impact only law-abiding citizens. Moreover, we have said that cosmetic features -- or lack thereof -- do not impact the way firearms function. Accordingly, we have predicted that the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994 would merely lead to more bans encompassing more guns than ever before. With unmistakable clarity, the Clinton-Gore Administration has confirmed both our appraisals and our forecast. A press release issued today by the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center says it all, "A White House plan to stop allowing the import of slightly modified assault weapons is only a first step toward closing gaping loopholes in the federal ban on these weapons." NRA-ILA is current working with our allies on Capitol Hill to get more details on this latest crusade by the Clinton-Gore Administration, and this issue will be covered in greater detail in your regular Friday FAX Alert. In the meantime, please contact your U.S. Representative at 202/224-3121, and urge him to oppose the President's attempt to use his executive power to ban your semi-automatic firearms. Remind him that the "sporting purposes" test is not mentioned in the Second Amendment! Call today, and stay tuned! =+=+=+=+ This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA. This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: 1998 Clinton Gun Ban Date: 23 Oct 1997 12:41:42 -0600 On Thu, 23 Oct 97 09:16:00 -0700, scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) posted from the NRA: >1998 Clinton Gun Ban. You've heard the verbiage before. The >terminology used to justify assaults on our rights. For example, >recall not too long ago, the gun ban lobby in California was >working to ban so-called "junk guns," using the "logic" that if >these guns don't meet the requirements for importation, why >should they be legally manufactured in the U.S.? Actually, the logic makes perfect sense to me. If there is some legitimate, moral, legal reason to keep some item out of the hands of U.S. citizens, whether that something is manufactured here or abroad is irrelevant. I, of course, contend that there is no legitimate, moral, or legal reason to keep any gun out of the hands of U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, the NRA going-along-to-get-along and many domestic gun manufacturers looking to limit foreign competition disagree with me. Now we will reap further consequences of their stupidity, greed, and lack of foresight and principle. > >This latest development is unfortunate, but not surprising. >For years, the National Rifle Association of America has argued >that bans on firearms are worthless measures that impact only >law-abiding citizens. Moreover, we have said that cosmetic >features -- or lack thereof -- do not impact the way firearms >function. But since they don't support your right to own fully automatic weapons it is pretty tough to make a persuavive argument for why you should be able to own a gun that looks like, and is meant to emulate in every other way the function of a fully auto gun. After all, all it takes is 2 minutes to install a hell fire and get full auto from your semi-auto. >Accordingly, we have predicted that the Clinton Gun >Remind him that the "sporting purposes" test is not mentioned in >the Second Amendment! They should have reminded themselves of that before originally backing the test. The info about possible expansion of the ban is worthwhile. Thank you for passing it along. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "They tell us, Sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power." -- Patrick Henry (1736- 1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: 1998 Clinton Gun Ban Date: 23 Oct 1997 15:45:57 -0600 At 12:41 PM 10/23/97 -0600, you wrote: > >On Thu, 23 Oct 97 09:16:00 -0700, scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) >posted from the NRA: > >>1998 Clinton Gun Ban. You've heard the verbiage before. The >>terminology used to justify assaults on our rights. For example, >>recall not too long ago, the gun ban lobby in California was >>working to ban so-called "junk guns," using the "logic" that if >>these guns don't meet the requirements for importation, why >>should they be legally manufactured in the U.S.? > >Actually, the logic makes perfect sense to me. If there is some >legitimate, moral, legal reason to keep some item out of the hands of >U.S. citizens, whether that something is manufactured here or abroad >is irrelevant. I, of course, contend that there is no legitimate, >moral, or legal reason to keep any gun out of the hands of >U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, the NRA going-along-to-get-along and >many domestic gun manufacturers looking to limit foreign competition >disagree with me. Now we will reap further consequences of their >stupidity, greed, and lack of foresight and principle. > And is there any legitimate, moral reason to keep ANYTHING out of the hands of US citizens? I suppose I wouldn't want my neighbors playing with biological weapons, but other than that, I can't think of much else that should be "kept out of our hands" by our Big Brothers in Washington. Sarah "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." ...Goethe Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: 1998 Clinton Gun Ban Date: 23 Oct 1997 15:58:48 -0600 On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, "S. Thompson" posted: >And is there any legitimate, moral reason to keep ANYTHING out of >the hands of US citizens? I suppose that would be a topic for a list with a broader charter than this one. :) In the context of weapons, I can find no grounds to restrict anything which any regular infantryman in the U.S. armed forces is likely to use. After all, if I'm ever called up to serve in the militia, I'd like to know how to use all those various guns and explosives without killing myself or my friends. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "They tell us, Sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power." -- Patrick Henry (1736- 1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: I-676 Pop Quiz Date: 24 Oct 1997 05:52:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- roc@xmission.com, fratrum@netside.com Test Your Knowledge of I-676! Here's a short quiz that will help you become familiar with the provisions of I-676 and how they could be applied. Please answer YES or NO to each of the following questions. 1). Could a small but well-funded special interest group trick the citizens of Washington into enacting a law that robs them of their constitutional right to self-defense? 2). Section 12 requires the Department of Licensing to establish rules and procedures to implement this act. If the DOL bureaucrats feel that handguns are unsafe, could they refuse to approve any training courses or issue any handgun safety licenses? 3). Your local gun dealer offers a low-cost handgun safety class, which you attend. One week later, you enter his store to purchase a handgun. After checking your I.D. and filling out the required federal forms, he sells you the pistol, a holster, and two boxes of ammunition. Is he a criminal? Is he going to jail? 4). You bring the pistol home and show it to your wife. After removing the magazine, locking the slide back, and attaching the approved trigger locking device, you give her the gun. She removes the triggerlock and holds the gun at arm's length. "It's kind of heavy," she says, and acidentally drops the triggerlock. Handing the gun to you, she bends over to pick up the device. Is she a criminal? Is she going to jail? 5). The triggerlock is broken, so you take it back to the dealer for a replacement. You walk into the store and place the broken triggerlock on the counter. You hand the empty pistol to the dealer without checking his I.D., verifying his safety license, or filling out and mailing a DOL transfer form. Are you a criminal? Are you going to jail? The answer to each of these questions is NO, under existing law. However, if I-676 becomes law, the answers will be YES! It's obvious that I-676 will make criminals out of ordinary people - perhaps your friends, neighbors, and relatives - while accomplishing nothing of significance in terms of child safety. Please vote NO on November 4th. I flatter myself that some of you may like this quiz enough to distribute it elsewhere. Blaze away. - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: CCW laws in today's DesNews Date: 24 Oct 1997 14:12:59 -0600 From today's DesNews. Notice that our gov seems to have gotten scared from realizing someone was actaully carrying a gun. Guess he supports our rights only so long as we don't exercise them around him. Even our supporters look like they are in favor of nullifying the CCW on school grounds. If that is done, and you are on or around school grounds for any reason with your CCW, you are in the same boat as someone with a gun without a CCW--federal violations. I think Beattie needs some more letters spelling out the danger of changing the in such a way that federal laws take effect. [Image] [Image] [Image] Leavitt aims to give gun law another shot [Image] Governor tells legislative leaders not to opt out of the battle again this year. [Image] [Image] Last updated 10/24/1997, 10:29 a.m. MDT By Lucinda Dillon Deseret News staff writer and Bob Bernick Jr. Deseret News political editor Lawmakers last year chickened out of the fight over where concealed weapons should be allowed. On Thursday, Gov. Mike Leavitt asked legislative leadership not to opt out of this battle again. When lawmakers met last winter, Leavitt asked legislative leadership several times to take action on the issue — to give the state direction about whether Utahns should be allowed to take concealed guns into schools, churches, public buildings or their neighbors' homes. But lawmakers did not take action. In fact, they did the opposite. Calling the debate "too emotional," legislative leadership put the kabosh on three gun bills that aimed to control concealed weapons. "I asked repeatedly for them to move it forward, but that didn't happen," Leavitt told reporters at his monthly televised news conference Thursday. "I would welcome it this year." Contacted after Leavitt's comments, Senate President Lane Beattie said legislation is being prepared, but details aren't yet worked out. "(Discussion about how to handle concealed weapons) is a highly emotional issue. So I'm not prepared to talk much about it now. The second you (talk), there's the inclination for the situation to become volatile," he said. It would seem that something must be done. Several conflicting laws have created questions, confusion and some threats of lawsuits from Utahns who have concealed weapons permits and want to pack heat for protection. One law says a person can't take guns on school property. Another law says a person can carry a concealed weapon anywhere except certain places like airports and jails. In contrast to this law, Leavitt and cabinet officers decided state employees would not be allowed to carry concealed weapons into their state offices. The governor's staff knew the law would be challenged. Leavitt defended the position Thursday. "The goal is to protect the safety of people who work in state government. There have been incidents where state employees have used guns "inappropriately" in a work setting, he said Thursday. A personal incident also shook Leavitt on this subject. Leavitt was wrapping up a meeting recently with a constituent who wanted to bend his ear on a couple of things. The governor knew the visitor — not particularly well — but enough to be surprised to feel the hard metal of a weapon when he reached around to clap his guest on the back. "It became clear to me that he was packing a handgun," Leavitt said. That encounter solidified the governor's position on guns: that there is no place for weapons — even those carried legally with a concealed weapon permit — in Utah's schools and churches. Beyond that, a homeowner should be able to control whether someone enters his home with a concealed weapon. In this case, private-property rights must trump the right to bear arms, Leavitt said. The discussion — always hotly debated in Utah's pro right-to-bear-arms environment — pits two conflicting principles against each other. The right to bear arms and the right to have control over private property are both philosophies in which Leavitt believes. "I ought to be able to control — in my home — whether someone has a gun," he said. Beattie said the public doesn't understand the current debate is only over where law-abiding citizens with concealed weapons permits may take their weapons. "We're not talking about laws already restricting guns carried by people without concealed weapons permits. You can ban those weapons anywhere. We're talking about people who have gone through the state's permitting process to carry weapons," said Beattie, who is preparing a comprehensive bill on concealed weapons for the 1998 Legislature. Beattie hopes the bill will be ready for public debate before the session begins. Personally, he believes churches do have the right (under current law) to control all weapons on their property. He also believes public schools and private property should be included. He and Leavitt aren't far apart on that. "I think it's an issue of you being able to control your own personal property. No one has the right to enter my property with a concealed weapon unless I give them permission," said the president. But he struggles with how to inform a concealed weapon permittee not to bring a weapon in. He also thinks a permit holder should be able to bring a weapon onto public property — which includes the Utah State Capitol. A year's wait has been productive. Beattie said he's been meeting with "all sides of the issue. I'm still getting letters and telephone calls informing me of different aspects of the problem — so waiting has been good." [Image] [Image] Return to front page [Image] -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. ... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; ... the weak will become a prey to the strong." -- Thomas Paine ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLORIDA GUN LAW FINDS DOZENS OF STATES FOLLOWING SUIT (fwd) Date: 25 Oct 1997 08:38:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com FOLLOWING SUIT Cato Online Update Vol. 2 No. 14 October 22, 1997 http://www.cato.org 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLORIDA GUN LAW FINDS DOZENS OF STATES FOLLOWING SUIT Only disagreement now is how much those laws reduce crime, analyst says Ten years to the month after Florida's groundbreaking enactment of a concealed-carry gun law, fully half the states in the union have adopted such statutes, and more are actively considering such a change. Those developments have dramatically changed the landscape of public policy debate in this area, according to a new Cato Institute Policy Analysis. The study's author, attorney Jeffrey R. Snyder, notes that, "although advocates of gun control predicted that blood would be running through the streets, no such thing happened. Today "the debate over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate." Crime rate drops of 7 percent and more have been reported following enactment of those laws. Concealed-carry laws put into place over the past decade are often referred to as "shall-issue" laws, because they require the local issuing authority-- usually a sheriff or police chief-- to issue a permit as soon as a citizen can satisfy specific and objective licensing criteria. Typically, those include age and residency requirements, fingerprints and criminal and mental health background checks. Prior to 1987, states commonly gave the sheriff or other issuing authority discretion to grant concealed-carry permits to persons who had "good moral character" and satisfied some needs-based requirement such as having "good cause" or demonstrating a "need." Those vague standards were applied very differently from one community to the next. In Denver, the police department granted only 45 permits in a city of a half million people, and one official was quoted as saying, "Just because you fear for your life is not a compelling reason to have a permit." Snyder notes, "Among those denied a permit was Denver talk-show host Alan Berg, who had received death threats from, and was later killed by, white supremacists." In New York, Snyder says that permits to carry firearms have been issued on the basis of wealth, celebrity status, political influence and favoritism. Permit holders have included such luminaries as Eleanor Roosevelt, Nelson Rockefeller, New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Bill Cosby, Joan Rivers and Howard Stern. But taxi drivers, who face a high risk of robbery, "are denied gun permits because they carry less than $2,000 in cash." Snyder says that the growing popularity of shall-issue laws is due in part to a recognition that "discretionary licensing systems invite and produce discrimination on grounds of class, race, religion, country of origin, fame, wealth, or political influence in a manner that has no rational correlation with risk of criminal victimization or with trustworthiness or competence with a firearm. Such systems invite, and in fact produce, wholly inconsistent, arbitrary, and irrational results." As a result of the successful implementation of shall-issue concealed-carry laws over the past decade, Snyder says that critics have been reduced to arguing that the concealed-carry laws have "no measurable or provable effects on crime." That marks a major turning point in the debate over the appropriateness of private firearms possession and places the burden of proof on gun control advocates. In his conclusion to "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," Snyder says, "We now have at least 10 years of actual evidence from 25 different states with diverse rural and metropolitan populations, including the cities of Miami, Houston, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Richmond, Atlanta, New Orleans, Seattle, and Portland, regarding perhaps as many as 1 million permit holders carrying their weapons for hundreds of millions of man-hours." The results, he says, show clearly that "shall-issue licensing systems work. They accomplish the twin goals of providing a mechanism by which law-abiding citizens can carry the means with which to defend themselves from a violent criminal assault that imminently threatens life or grievous bodily harm and provide the public reasonable assurance that those who receive permits are persons who will act responsibly." Snyder argues that concealed-carry laws reaffirm the bedrock right of American citizens to defend themselves against criminal attack. Gun control advocates, he says, must be reminded that "in a free society, the burden of proof is borne by those who would restrict the liberty of others." Jeffrey Snyder, who practices law in New York, is currently writing a book entitled Ethical Blindness and Moral Vanity: What the Gun Control Debate Tells Us about the American Ethos. Policy Analysis no. 284 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284es.html) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [USA Today - Louisiana Car Jacking Law] Date: 27 Oct 1997 11:01:41 -0700 Currently the count is up to 2061 respondants with 80% in favor of the law and 19% opposed. Let's do what we can to keep the numbers in favor of defense of self and property. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- USA Today is conducting as poll asking if you think it's OK to kill a car jacker. Two ways to vote. 1) www.usaweekend.com or, 2) call 1 800 446-8405 to yes. The poll is open to only the first 100,000 votes, as of Monday morning only some 1,700 votes had been taken From the Net version of USA Today: The new law extends to the protection of vehicles the same relaxed self-defense standard Louisiana has applied for years to the defense of homes and places of business. In an amendment to the existing law of self-defense, if you are in a vehicle and "reasonably believe" the only way to keep a would-be carjacker from getting into the car (or to get him out) is to use deadly force so be it; the law will not hold you accountable. So far there had been no reported carjacker shootings since the law went into effect last December ... but the debate still rages, from those who applaud the law to those who worry it encourages lawlessness. How do you feel? Check out USA WEEKEND's exploration of both sides of the argument in Anne S. Lewis' provocative story, "Is it OK to kill for a car?" then check out the comments below to see what others taking this poll had to say and add your own comments. Add your comments about this poll! What's your opinion about the law allowing people to shoot carjackers? Let us know what you think ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Many academics think that corporate funding will be more shortsighted than government grants and that companies will want their hands on the wheel all the time. Both concerns could not be farther from the truth. As soon as corporations realize that what they are doing is outsourcing very basic research, the formula clicks into place. Media Lab people are constantly challenged and egged on by companies and by each other, but never told what to do by anyone. Love is indeed a better master than duty." -- Nicholas Negroponte, founder and director of MIT's Media Lab, _IBM Systems Journal_ Vol 35, Nos 3&4, 1996. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Human Rights Abuses OK to push Gun-Control? Date: 27 Oct 1997 10:24:00 -0700 Conservative Consensus(tm) **************************************************************** Events * Analysis * Commentary * Forecasts * Readers' Opinions **************************************************************** http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html Serving the 'Net 4 Years Security * V3X39 * 25/Oct/97 * ISSN 1074-245X Will The Seattle Times, Washington State's largest newspaper, endorse Human Rights Abuses to push gun control? They had no problem endorsing Initiative 676 in Washington State. Some of its worst abuses are described below. The "license" I-676 refers to is not a concealed carry license --- it's a license to keep a handgun in your bedroom at night. Here's what else the Times didn't tell you. Editor's note: I find this kind of drive-by journalism so irresponsible and offensive to the profession that I've created a way for you to respond. Join the Campaign To Stop Drive-By Journalism. Details appear at the end of this article. WHATEVER IT TAKES? by Craige A. McMillan Whatever it takes --- even lies? The backers of Initiative 676 claim that "hundreds" of children in Washington state have been killed by handguns in recent years. They promise us that I-676 would "save lives." But is portraying teenage gangsters who gun down other teenage gangsters in cold blood really a fair characterization of children? It's strictly illegal for teenagers in Washington State to have firearms of any kind. Do the backers of I-676 expect gangsters to abide by their law? Whatever it takes --- even trampling on human rights? Washington State's Constitution promises all citizens, "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..." (Article I, Section 24). Yet I-676 would impair the centuries-old, fundamental human right of self-defense by requiring a state license! Apparently, I-676's backers see nothing wrong with allowing a state bureaucrat to deny a license based on any criteria the state bureaucracy might choose. Worse yet, Section 18 of I-676 specifically grants immunity to bureaucrats denying a license for self-defense. Whatever it takes --- even secret evidence? Backers of I-676 repeatedly refer to handgun violence as a health problem. Yet unlike other science, which makes its evidence openly available to other researchers, Dr. Arthur Kellermann's evidence is secret --- even though it was paid for with public money. Other researchers can't check what they can't gain access to. But the biggest firearms study ever (John Lott and David Mustard) found that murder rates are lowest where citizens have the most unrestricted access to firearms for self-defense. Whatever it takes --- even your name in another state database? I-676 makes private medical records available to browsing bureaucrats. Your "handgun safety license" application automatically "shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the department of social and health services, mental health institutions, and other healthcare facilities [this is your private family doctor] release... information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol or to obtain a handgun safety license" (I-676 Sec. 19). Have you ever had counseling after losing a job? Marriage or family counseling? Talk to your doctor about why you can't sleep? Do you have cancer, or some other illness that might cause depression? AIDS? Have you ever had an abortion? Apply for a handgun license and see all of your private information become public knowledge. Doctors don't want to release it, but they're bound by state law to do so. I-676 destroys privacy --- and makes state bureaucrats immune from abusing it! Whatever it takes --- even guilty until proven innocent? I-676 makes a mockery of due process. It puts the state Department of Health and Human Services in charge of making the regulations necessary to restore a revoked license (Sec. 17b). And it mandates that you are guilty until proven innocent (Sec. 17c). Whatever it takes --- especially exempting authority. Police, military, and federal bureaucrats are exempted from the provisions of I-676. Why? If anyone should have to demonstrate that they can safely handle firearms, it should be those who use them in their jobs! Yet at every turn, the backers of I-676 have exempted those with state and federal authority from meeting the requirements they mandate for the rest of us. Exempt from training. Exempt from testing. Exempt from penalty for breaking the law --- violating basic human rights --- and immune from accountability when they do. Why do the backers of I-676 exempt from the law those very persons who should be above suspicion and held most accountable? Whatever it takes --- even a public emergency? The backers of I-676 themselves refuse to be bound by the law. I-676 declares a phony public emergency (Sec. 23) and rams its provisions down our throats immediately --- again without due process! Whatever it takes. The backers of I-676 don't seem to much care about truth. About human rights. About privacy. Or about accountability by those in authority. It kind of makes you wonder who are the real gangsters? Don't give in to the gun-control gangsters and their phony public emergency. Their foundation is built on lies. Their law tramples on basic human rights and dignity. And their phony "public emergency" --- concocted to ram their law down our throats --- is just what you would expect from those who refuse to be bound by the law themselves. No gun-control gangsters. No phony emergencies. No phony solutions. No on I-676. _________________________________________________________________ COPYRIGHT 1997 by Conservative Consensus, unless otherwise noted. Please redistribute widely with headers and trailers intact. Click here to join the Campaign To Stop Drive-By Journalism! Or visit our website and select "Campaign To Stop Drive-by Journalism" from the menu. I believe it's the most unusual offer a publication has ever made! You don't know the half of it: and that's the whole problem! Find out how propaganda is being used by major television networks to manage your views and suppress dissent in America! Visit our Website and check out information on The McMillan Letter. Go ahead --- satisfy your curiosity! To find out what the complete monthly issue of Conservative Consensus looks like, click here, or visit our Website at the address below. Join this list! Email SUBSCRIBE to consensus-L-request@eskimo.com or visit our WEBSITE at http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html for details. YOU ARE THE TARGET --- ONLY YOU CAN STOP IT --- JOIN THE CAMPAIGN TO STOP DRIVE-BY JOURNALISM! http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html ********************************************************************** Conservative Consensus & The McMillan Letter Bridge Over Troubled Waters TV Show, Seattle 6:30pm Fri. Ch.29 Email: ccnrs@eskimo.com * Infoline: (206)230-5227 * Fax: (206)783-3243 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Illinois Standoff Follow-Up] Date: 27 Oct 1997 17:33:23 -0700 Not directly related to Utah or firearms, but I suspect at least some here will be interested... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- The Illinois "Roby Ridge" Standoff: What You Can Do Since we issued our press release about the "Illinois Standoff" with Shirley Allen last week, we've received numerous e-mail messages from Libertarians about this situation. So, we're issuing this follow-up LP Advisory to respond to some common questions. In our October 22, 1997 press release, we discussed the case of Shirley Allen, a 51-year-old widow in Roby, Illinois, who had held police at bay for an entire month. In an effort to make Allen submit to a psychiatric exam, police had shot canisters of tear gas through her windows, shot her with so-called "bean bag" bullets, cut off her electricity, arrested a neighbor who tried to bring her supplies, deprived her of sleep by shining spotlights into her windows, and blasted Barry Manilow songs throughout the night. After about 10 days of such tactics, the police pulled back, and simply surrounded her house with a 12-man tactical squad of state police, hoping to wait her out. The standoff has reportedly cost taxpayers $500,000 so far. * What triggered this incident in the first place? On September 22, police arrived at Allen's house to take her to a court-ordered psychiatric exam. Christian County Judge David Slater had signed the order for the 24-hour psychiatric exam, but the court documents are not open to the public, so it is unclear exactly what evidence prompted him to order the examination. However, relatives of Allen reportedly were concerned about her well-being. They said she been depressed since her husband died eight years ago, and, more recently, had begun to behave "strangely," and let her garden go to seed. In addition, she reportedly no longer recognized her mother and brother when they came to visit. There seems little doubt that Allen is suffering from some kind of mental disability. However, there was no evidence that she posed a danger to either herself or to others -- and, given that fact, it seemed unconscionable that police treated her like an armed and dangerous criminal. In radio interviews we've done about this issue, we have stressed that the case of Shirley Allen should be a medical issue -- not a "military" issue, and that police should treat her with compassion, not confrontation. By the way, on this issue, the Libertarian Party Platform states: "We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution." * What is the latest news? On Sunday, October 26th, police re-escalated their activities. They shot nine canisters of pepper spray into her home, broke several windows and a door, and sent a police dog into her home. In response, Allen wounded the dog with her shotgun. * What can you do to help? Phone calls to the Illinois governor's office and the Illinois state police might help. If you call them, here are some points you can make: * Urge them to de-escalate this tragic situation. Tell them that if Shirley Allen is genuinely disturbed, then she needs medical attention and compassion -- not SWAT teams and tear gas. * Ask them how they would feel if this was their mother in that house. Would they use the same brutal tactics? * Encourage them to redirect their energy and personnel to pursuing real criminals -- murders, rapists, or robbers -- not grieving widows. You can call Illinois Governor Jim Edgar's office at (217) 782-6830 You can call Terrance Gainer, Director of the Illinois State Police, at (217) 782-7263 # # # ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." -- John Locke ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: MS acquires U.S. Date: 28 Oct 1997 00:59:55 -0700 >MICROSOFT MOVES TO AQUIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Oct. 21, 1997 > > Roiters Wire Service > >REDMOND, Wash. - In direct response to accusations made by the >Department of Justice, the Microsoft Corp. announced >today that it will be acquiring the federal Government of the United >States of America for an undisclosed sum. > >"It's actually a logical extension of our planned growth", said >Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, "It really is going to be a positive >arrangement for everyone". Microsoft representatives held a briefing in >the oval office of the White House with U.S. President >Bill Clinton, and assured members of the press that changes will be >"minimal". > >The United States will be managed as a wholly owned subsidiary of >Microsoft. Company insiders expect the federal >government to be profitable by "Q4 1999 at the latest",according to >Microsoft's Executive Vice President Steve Ballmer. > >In a related announcement, Bill Clinton stated that he had "willingly >and enthusiastically" accepted a position as a vice president >with Microsoft, and will continue to manage the United States >government, reporting directly to Bill Gates. When asked how it >felt to give up the mantle of executive authority to Gates, Clinton >smiled and referred to it as "a relief". He went on to say that >Gates has a "proven track record", and that U.S. citizens should offer >Gates their "full support and confidence". > >Clinton will reportedly be earning several times the $200,000 annually >he has earned as U.S. president, in his new role at >Microsoft. Gates dismissed a suggestion that the U.S. Capitol be moved >to Redmond as "silly", though did say that he would >make executive decisions for the U.S. government from his existing >office at Microsoft headquarters. Gates went on to say that >the House and Senate would "of course" be abolished. "Microsoft isn't a >democracy", he observed, "and look how well we're doing". > >When asked if the rumored attendant acquisition of Canada was >proceeding, Gates said, "We don't deny that discussions are >taking place". > >Microsoft representatives closed the conference by stating that United >States citizens will be able to expect lower taxes, increases in >government services, and discounts on all Microsoft products. > >Founded in 1975, Microsoft (NASDAQ "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in >software for personal computers, and democratic government. The company >offers a wide range of products and services for public, business and >personal use, each designed with the mission of making it easier and >more enjoyable for people to take advantage of the full power of >personal computing and free society every day. > >Founded in 1789, the United States of America is the most successful >nation in the history of the world, and has been a beacon of democracy >and opportunity for over 200 years. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., >the United States is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Microsoft >Corporation. > >-- > >author unknown >rec'd from: >iRESIST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [ Police assault Allen home LONG] Date: 28 Oct 1997 10:54:17 -0700 Thought this might be of some interest... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Police assault Allen home Woman shoots police dog after pepper spray and animal sent into her house By JOE MAHR STAFF WRITER ROBY - In the boldest move yet in a 35-day standoff, Illinois State Police lobbed pepper-spray canisters and sent a police dog into Shirley Allen's home to flush her out Sunday, but Allen shot the dog and didn't emerge. Meanwhile, one of the best-known leaders of the militia movement spoke at a Mount Auburn rally in support of Allen - and took part in the biggest protest yet Sunday night at the police checkpoint outside Allen's rural Christian County home. State police took action because troopers hadn't seen or heard Allen since 1 a.m. Saturday, said State Police Director Terry Gainer. Beginning at about 6:30 a.m. Sunday, police tried to make noise with car horns, doors and all-terrain vehicles, but their electronic sensors detected no response, Gainer said. Also, by Sunday, state police lab analysts had deciphered a Friday tape recording in which Allen sounded suicidal, Gainer said. He declined to release Allen's exact statement, saying it would violate the court order police received to record Allen. "She sounded not in her normal tone of voice," Gainer said at a Sunday night press conference. "She sounded angry. She sounded very frustrated . . . and at the end of her rope." Based on those two factors, police decided to break out some more of her windows and peek inside with mirrors. She responded by shooting at police with a small-caliber handgun - the first indication that she had a weapon other than the shotgun with which she's twice shot at troopers, police said. Troopers retreated. Then, after telling Allen they would do it, troopers lobbed nine canisters of pepper spray into her home. The spray swells mucous membranes to the point that recipients have trouble breathing. But Allen apparently retreated into the bathroom. Troopers had hoped Allen would run out of the house, where she would be met by a team of three troopers. One was armed with weapon that shoots rubber bullets - the nonlethal weapon of choice after beanbag bullets didn't work earlier in the standoff. "It (a rubber bullet) doesn't penetrate, but it could break a limb," Gainer acknowleged. About 4 p.m. - again after warning Allen - they sent a German Shepherd named "J.D." into the rear sliding door, which police had broken out. "They (troopers) said the dog's tail had barely gotten in the dining room before the shot rang out," Gainer said. Police had hoped that the dog, equipped with a microphone, would locate Allen and subdue her to the point where troopers could discern whether it was safe to enter the house. Instead, the dog limped out of the house and was rushed to a Springfield veterinary clinic. Agency spokesman Mark McDonald said it appears J.D. will survive but may have to retire from his eight-year career as a police dog. The bullet, apparently from the same gun fired at troopers that day, went in the right side of the dog's muzzle and out the left. Powder burns indicate it was shot at close range. While police were busy trying to flush Allen out, area residents mingled with out-of-towners to complain about the situation of Allen and others facing court-ordered psychiatric evaluations. "We all have this problem. It's not just Christian County. It's not just Illinois. It's the nation," said John Trochmann, co-founder of the Militia of Montana. Trochmann, considered one of the statesmen of the militia movement, urged the crowd at the Mount Auburn Community Center to lobby legislators to change Illinois law. The statute allows a judge to order police to take someone for a psychiatric evaluation if the person meets two legal guidelines: is a danger to oneself or others, or is unable to care for one's basic needs. A police officer can also pick up someone for an evaluation under the same guidelines. But the law requires a court hearing - with a defense lawyer present - to actually order that someone be committed against their will. Critics, such as Trochmann, say there's not enough safeguards to guarantee someone's right to due process. And something needs to be done now to try to help Allen and others who may face forced psychiatric evaluations. And they say that electroshock therapy - a debated form of psychiatric treatment - could further injure Allen. "This is a priority. Your neighbor's life is at stake. And if not her, yours - sooner or later," Trochmann told the crowd to a chorus of cheers. Another speaker with militia ties, Tom Wayne, suggested filing a brief in federal court asking U.S. District Judge Richard Mills to issue a temporary restraining order against state police. Many pledged to sign onto such a brief, to be submitted as "relators" to Allen. Sunday's meeting that drew about 150 was nothing like the last one, earlier this month in Taylorville, in which Arizona activist Jack McLamb stunned a crowd by saying he sided with police. Event coordinator Scott Slinkard, of the Southern Illinois Patriots League, said protesters didn't support McLamb's views. For Sunday, they got an even bigger name - Trochmann - a former Minnesota snowmobile parts dealer who helped start one of the biggest militia groups in 1994. Trochmann, 54, had been in the Midwest speaking at various town rallies when he heard about the Roby standoff. He said he wanted to go back to Montana, considering his 1986 Chevy Suburban had hobbled to the Midwest without a second or fourth gear. But his wife Carolyn wanted to go to Roby. A sign from God, namely a fixed transmission that still wouldn't work, prompted Trochmann to stay at Slinkard's house in Marion. He said he was glad he stayed. After the rally, he shook hands with admirers and spoke with a reporter about his rough journey to the Midwest. One person strode up and stuck a $100 bill in his hand, prompting a grateful "thank you" from Trochman. After the Mount Auburn meeting, about 40 protesters gathered in the rain outside the main police checkpoint to chant prayers for Allen and catcalls at state police and the media, whom many critics think are biased toward state police. In the meantime, with winter looming, Gainer wouldn't offer a timetable for getting Allen out of her house. He said police would continue to explore all their tactical options. "It is no one's intention to try to get in there and get into a shootout with the woman," Gainer said. - Copyright 1997, The State Journal-Register -- "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of every American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe Pennsylvania Gazette Feb. 20, 1788 ********************************************************* To post a message to AEN NEWS, address it to news@aen.org. ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." -- Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924).