From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Feb. 8 coilumn -- GOA] Date: 02 Feb 1998 10:55:31 -0700 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 8, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Second Amendment: changing of the guard Last time, we were discussing the "take-the-best-available-compromise," defeatist attitude of the nation's largest gun control organization, the National Rifle Association. Their lighter, leaner competition for gun owner support, Gun Owners of America, prefers a more high-pressure approach, putting the fire to the feet of lawmakers to make sure they know that a vote against gun rights will cost them their next election ... just as Bill Clinton acknowledged that the gun rights vote cost the Democratic Party its control of Congress in 1994. In a 1968 edition of the NRA's magazine, "The American Rifleman," Associate Editor Alan C. Webber responded to then-timely criticism by U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., who said "I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to ban and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." To this, Mr. Webber reports NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth responded with a ringing endorsement of the 1968 Gun Control Act. "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871," Mr. Orth proclaimed. "The duty of Congress is clear. It should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles, from obtaining firearms through the mails." One will remember that the way the 1968 law accomplished that, was by banning EVERYONE but an ever-shrinking pool of federally licensed gun dealers from "obtaining firearms through the mails"! Sort of like "getting drunks off the road," by banning cars and trucks! "The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns, without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors," concludes editor Webber. What an interesting list. Do you see "militiamen" in there? I don't. Does the Second Amendment say anything about duck-hunting? The Brits, who have just finished banning all private ownership of handguns, insist THEY still protect the "rights of law-abiding hunters, target shooters, and collectors," too. If you have an English country estate, you can still own a richly-engraved, $5,000 bird gun. If you like to target shoot, you may fire pellet guns or even .22s at your registered club ... so long as you leave the weapon locked up there when you go home. And "collectors" are still presumably welcome to own as many guns as they want ... from the flintlock era or earlier. Gee, that'll put them in great shape the next time the Germans or French come storming the beaches. Which is precisely why OUR Second Amendment talks exclusively about the needs of "the militia." Meantime, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agents holding a panel discussion for an audience of mostly gun store owners at this week's SHOT Outdoor Trades show, here in Las Vegas, declared that the way they interpret the "permanent replacement Brady Bill" due to go into effect in November of 1998 -- the one the NRA favors due to its promised "insta-Check" capability -- will call for a "Brady check" and permanent record of every LONG GUN purchase, as well. The NRA operates, in effect, as nothing but a public relations outreach arm for the Republican Party, tasked to convince gun rights advocates that the GOP is their only hope. But Newt Gingrich promised us that if only we would elect a GOP majority to Congress there would be "no more gun control passed" on his watch, didn't he? Mind you, that's a pretty modest promise, compared to the Libertarian Party platform plank on guns, which calls for ALL existing gun control laws to be immediately REPEALED. But not only have Mr. Gingrich's Republicans failed to repeal the major federal gun control acts of 1933 and 1968, not only have they failed to repeal the Brady Bill and the Feinstein-Schumer "assault weapons ban" (as they promised), but they actually ENACTED the so-called Anti-Terrorism Bill with the Lautenberg Amendment, which retroactively strips police and many other citizens of their gun rights based on any prior domestic misdemeanor convictions (shouting at your kids). And then, not satisfied, they went on to pass the "Gun Free School Zone Act" ... TWICE! Putting him to the test of fire, I asked Larry Pratt of GOA last week whether he would favor allowing a 17-year-old girl to walk into a hardware store, buy and take home a belt-fed .30-caliber machine gun, without signing her name, showing any ID, or applying for any kind of government "permit." "Well, that's the way it would have been in 1933, before the National Firearms Act, wouldn't it?" he asked. "Is that a yes?" I asked back. Mr. Pratt, in front of a sizeable public gathering at the San Remo Hotel and Casino, said "Yes." And that's why I think we're about to see a changing of the guard when it comes to gun-rights lobbying, from the arthritic and the defeated, to the aggressive, the fearless, and the principled. Congressman Ron Paul, R-Tex., has called Gun Owners of America "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." With a fraction of the NRA's manpower, membership or budget, GOA has defeated powerful state legislative committee chairmen (in Ohio) who were foolish enough to support more gun control, and has helped elect congressmen like Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, currently sponsor of HR27, the Citizens Self-Defense Act, which would "protect the right to obtain ... and to use firearms in defense of self, family or home." Unless they change their stripes with fearsome speed, I fear the NRA and their hog-trough affiliate, the Republican Party as we've known it, are headed for the elephant's graveyard, and soon. On the other hand, if Gun Owners of America sold stock, I'd be buying. 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. *** 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. "25 states allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" - Andrew Ford - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Knife control in Japan Date: 02 Feb 1998 13:24:32 -0700 Wonder how long before we import this... [Image] [Image] [Image] Japanese seek knife ban for minors [Image] [Image] [Image] Last updated 02/02/1998, 09:13 a.m. MT TOKYO (Reuters) — Japanese police said Monday they want to ban the sales of knives to minors in the wake of two violent stabbings by junior high school boys. The move comes after a series of crimes involving teenagers with knives came under intense media scrutiny due to Japan's skyrocketing youth crime statistics. Police have asked all knife stores and outdoor goods shops to stop selling knives to minors. No Japanese laws set age limits for knife sales, so compliance is voluntary. Earlier on Monday, police arrested a 15-year-old Japanese boy for attacking a policeman with a knife in downtown Tokyo in an attempt to steal his gun, police said. The boy, whose name was withheld because he is a minor, attacked officer Yoshinari Yasuda, 54, who was patrolling on a bicycle, a spokesman for the Tokyo metropolitan police said. The boy was arrested on charges of attempted murder and robbery. He told police he wanted to try shooting a gun. Yasuda and the youth suffered minor injuries in the scuffle, police said. Japan has an enviably low crime rate but in the past two years has seen the number of crimes committed by those under 18 increase by 158 percent. Violent crimes committed by minors have also risen, alarming parents and educators. Last week, a 13-year-old Japanese boy stabbed a woman teacher to death after she asked him why he was late for her English class. A few days after that incident, a 16-year-old senior high school boy allegedly used a knife to assault a 16-year-old girl in class at the same school, slightly injuring the classmate, police said. Linking all of these crimes is the weapon used — a butterfly knife — and the claims by the boys that they carried the knives for self-protection. The handle of a butterfly knife divides in two and can be pivoted to cover the blade. The weapon gained national prominence when a popular actor Takuya Kimura, playing a tough in a top-rated drama series, brandished the blade in fights. Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto told reporters he did not know why the boys used the knives in attacks. [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. "Poor people have access to the courts in the same sense that the Christians had access to the lions. . ." -- Judge Earl Johnson Jr. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Drs. and guns Date: 02 Feb 1998 16:28:19 -0700 From the Tribune [Image] [Image] [Image] Monday, February 2, 1998 [Image] [Image] Surgeons See Gun Wounds As Epidemic THE ASSOCIATED PRESS PHILADELPHIA -- William Schwab hasn't ever gone to war, but the 51-year-old surgeon says he sometimes thinks he is in one. ``We average about 500 gunshot wounds a year,'' said Schwab, chief of critical care and trauma for the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. ``I trained in the U.S. Navy during Vietnam, and it's similar,'' he said. ``Think of the phrase `incoming wounded.' That's what it's like.'' A survey published in Sunday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine finds that 87 percent of surgeons and 94 percent of internists across the country believe it's time to consider gunshot wounds a public-health epidemic -- akin to AIDS, alcoholism and tobacco use. Doctors should play a more active role in trying to prevent the injuries, an accompanying position paper says, whether it's supporting more stringent gun-control legislation or simply taking time to counsel patients. The position paper predicted that bullets will kill more people than automobile accidents by 2003. The authors also noted that more teens today die from gunshot wounds than from all natural causes combined, and that firearms in the home make homicide three times more likely. ``Do you have a gun in the house? Is it loaded? And did you know suicide can go up five-fold when you have one around that is loaded? Those are the kinds of questions doctors should start asking and telling their patients,'' said Frank Davidoff, an internist and editor of the journal, published by the Philadelphia-based American College of Physicians. The survey involved 915 doctors who answered 55 questions, including the extent of their personal and medical experience with firearms and their opinions on public policy. Less than 20 percent of the surgeons and internists reported discussing firearm ownership or storage with their patients. The survey showed that 64 percent of the surgeons and 84 percent of the internists said they thought stronger measures were needed to reduce gun-related deaths, which reached 39,720 in 1994. That includes 13,593 slayings and 20,540 suicides, the journal said. ``If this was any other disease, if this was a virus, the public would be demanding a cure,'' said Schwab, who co-wrote the journal's article about the survey. ``They'd want something done about it. The problem is nobody is willing to come out and say `This is a public-health emergency' '' as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop did with AIDS, he said. The doctors who said they didn't believe gunshot wounds were a health epidemic tended to be older men who work in smaller cities. [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 1998, 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. "If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms -- never -- never - - NEVER! You cannot conquer America." -- William Pitt, Earl of Chatham Speech in the House of Lords November 18, 1777 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Important Senate Votes -Forwarded Date: 03 Feb 1998 18:42:20 -0700 Received: from gunowners.org (207-172-57-222.s222.tnt2.ann.erols.com [207.172.57.222]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07158; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:34:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802032234.RAA07158@smtp1.erols.com> Reply-To: Gun Owners of America X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Two Important Senate Votes Coming Soon by Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org (February 3, 1998) Clinton's Anti-gun Choice for Surgeon General The Senate will soon be resuming its consideration of Dr. David Satcher for Surgeon General. Dr. Satcher, who heads up the virulently anti-gun Centers for Disease Control (CDC), was nominated by President Clinton last year to take on the "Top Doc" position. Under Satcher's watch, the CDC, along with its subordinate agencies and grantees, has regularly used its position to tarnish gun rights. Satcher's hired guns have called firearms a "virus that must be eradicated" and stated that such weapons should be viewed as cigarettes: "dirty, deadly and banned." Gun owners should register their opposition to Dr. Satcher for Surgeon General by calling their Senators at 1-800-522-6721 or 202-224-3121. Restrictions on Gun Owners' Speech The Senate is also soon expected to begin debating so-called "campaign finance" legislation. The legislation your Senators will be voting on would seriously hamper (if not prevent) the ability of gun groups and other political organizations to publish the anti-gun records of incumbents. In reality, this legislation is "Incumbent Protection" masquerading as campaign finance "reform." Consider how these bills (S. 25 and H.R. 493) will seriously prevent gun owners from removing anti-gun politicians from Congress: Analysis of Free Speech Restrictions in "Incumbent Protection" Bills 1. Regulate GOA's Communications. As introduced, both the House and Senate bills would seriously hinder the ability of groups to help pro-gun candidates and to educate pro-gun voters. If a group like GOA had ever communicated with a candidate or his campaign at any time, it could possibly be barred from making independent expenditures (mailings, advertisements, etc.) on behalf of that candidate (section 251, H.R. 493). Both bills would also regulate GOA's educating of voters: GOA mailings which ask recipients to contact their congressman, and which cost in excess of $10,000, would have to be registered (sec. 241, S. 25; sec. 254 H.R. 493) -- and could even be outlawed. 2. Slash the Political Power of the Pro-Gun Movement. S. 25 would ban political action committee (PAC) contributions to federal candidates (section 201). For Second Amendment groups, this ban on PACs -- coupled with the elimination of independent expenditures -- would outlaw virtually any involvement in the national political process. Incumbents are handed over $5 million of taxpayer funds to conduct their operations (including their pro rata share of the general operations of Congress). Used effectively, these resources can be channeled into a formidable reelection effort. Without seed money from PACs, challengers will find it considerably more difficult to take on this type of taxpayer-financed publicity machine. 3. Insulate Anti-gun Incumbents. Because incumbents already have strong name recognition -- and because pro-gun groups would be prohibited from being active in the political process -- it would be virtually impossible to attempt to remove congressmen for their anti-gun votes. The media would, of course, be free to continue its anti-gun drum beat. The result is that a pro-gun vote would politically jeopardize an incumbent's political career, while an anti-gun vote would enhance it. How long would the manufacture, importation, sale and ownership of firearms in America continue under this system? HERE'S WHAT TO DO: * Contact your Senators (1-800-522-6721 or 202-224-3121) and urge them to oppose S. 25. When the Senate voted on these restrictions in October, the anti-gunners only mustered 53 votes -- which was seven votes short of killing the filibuster. * Gun owners should also focus on the eight Republicans who voted for the anti-gun bill: Chafee (R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Hutchinson (R-AR) [Note: he later asked GOA to "call off the dogs" and then switched his vote], Jeffords (R-VT), McCain (R-AZ), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA) and Thompson (R-TN). * Keep on the look out: There may very well be a "compromise" bill that, while scaled back in some respects, will still ban or limit a lot of political activity in which citizens currently engage. Ask your Senators not to settle for any compromises that would limit your 1st Amendment rights, or the rights of those groups (like GOA) that represent you. *********************************************************** Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your state of residence in either the subject line or the body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: RNC AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT Date: 03 Feb 1998 18:57:18 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Got an invitation in the mail to join the Republican Senatorial Inner Circle ($1000 a pop). I called and let them know that I can not support them until they repeal Brady, semi-auto ban, lautenberg, kohl, 68 GCA etc. I also reminded them that lautenberg and kohl passed on their watch. They also brought us Dole for President. The person I spoke to said "You have to remember that when the Second Amendment was written the Militia was the means of defense". I corrected him that the Second Amendment pertains to the individual citizen and not the national guard. I suggested he read the "Federalist Papers". The Second Amendment means the same as when James Madison wrote it, it has never been changed. Call and let them know what you think. 800-877-6773 it is their dime. Maybe we can get the god owful party to see the light, but don't hold your breath. Please circulate. Howard Last - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Digest ca-firearms.v001.n556 -Forwarded Date: 03 Feb 1998 19:03:13 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id XAA02571 for ca-firearms-errors@lists.best.com; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 23:02:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199802030702.XAA02571@lists1.best.com> BestServHost: lists.best.com Sender: ca-firearms-errors@lists.best.com Errors-To: ca-firearms-errors@lists.best.com -------------- BEGIN ca-firearms.v001.n556 -------------- 001 - Mike Van Pelt - Re: Another shot fron the Times 008 - Bruce Erickson From: Bill Maggiora > To: tsmith@bfaz.org; chappy@phonewave.net; mcgeneral@mikeh.starnine.com; Marc707@aol.com; manowar@slip.net; wb6ctq@bigfoot.com; fitzkris@pacbell.net; JSolbakken@aol.com; gcallahan@rixindustries.com; fankhous@pacbell.net; zisa@ix.netcom.com; dalundquist@ucdavis.edu; avatar48@yahoo.com; bmaxfield@value.net; Barry Jacobson-home ; AWB41@aol.com > Subject: Re: : Time to Write (fwd) > Date: Friday, January 09, 1998 9:11 PM > > Hi: > > I have seen at least one newspaper mention of this. I think that all > of us that use e-mail should be interested. I agree with the author, > it should not matter whether you use your flat rate local calls for > voice or computer connections. This is a very unfortunate scheme to > shake the public down. > > Bill Maggiora > ----------------- > > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:43:01 -0600 (CST) > > From: Richard Ippolito > > To: nursing@csd.uwm.edu > > Subject: Time to Write > > > > This was forwarded to me but for some reason since it has attachments, I > > am not able to just forward: > > Text: > > "Apparently the $12-$21 base charges you get each month from the > > telephone > > company aren't enough to keep those nice dividends flowing out to the > > stockholders. They are now attempting to charge you extra if you are > > connected to the Internet. Personnally, I fail to see the difference be- > > tween unlimited use of my phone for local calls and unlimited use for any > > other reason, but the Bells smell bid bucks. Read the following and act > > on > > it. You may save yourself a pile of cash if the FCC votes NO.. > > Suject: FCC TO IMPOSE PER MIN CHARGES... > > Richard Causey wrote: > > I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter currently > > under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has filed a > > proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet > > service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation > > of > > the telephone network. It is my belief that internet usage will diminish > > if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has > > created an e-mail box for your comments, responses must be received by > > February 13, 1998. Send your comments to isp@fcc.gov and tell them what > > you think. Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to > > sneak it in just under the wire for litigation. Let everyone you know > > hear this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of." > > > > Richard Ippolito Colonel USA (Ret) > > Asst Dean, School of Nursing, Cunningham 717 > > (414) 229-6718 fax 229-6474 > > > > --------- End forwarded message ---------- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.3 --------------- MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I got this response back from the FCC site, apparently the per minute charges are not going to happen, so never mind. ---------- > From: ISP > To: bay2a@webnexus.com > Subject: Per minute local access calls charges -Reply > Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 2:21 AM > > This is an automated response to the message you sent to isp@fcc.gov. We established this mailbox for informal comments about usage of the public switched telephone network by Internet access and information service providers for a proceeding on this matter in 1997. > > If you are responding to a message stating that local phone companies have asked the FCC for permission to impose per-minute charges for Internet access, please be aware that this information is out of date. The FCC decided in May 1997 NOT to allow imposition of interstate access charges on Internet service providers. There is no comment period currently open in this proceeding. > > More information on Access Charges and the ISP proceeding is available at > > Look for more features and announcements on our Web site, , in the future! > > updated 1/6/98 --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.4 --------------- MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here's Dale's latest schedule...you'll probably see me at the minimag class the 15th. Jim March -----Original Message----- > SAFE & SECURE LIFESTYLES > Self-Defense Workshops with Dale & Teri Seago > at Jackson Arms, 710 Dubuque Avenue, So. San Francisco > FEBRUARY, 1998 SCHEDULE > >We're offering 3 workshops this month, but please note that one of them >is NOT being held at Jackson Arms. Selection of specific workshops for >each month is largely request-driven: If a lot of people ask us for a >particular kind of training, it gets moved to the "front burner". > >"ENLIGHTENED SELF-DEFENSE": > > This workshop applies traditional feudal-era Japanese short- >stick techniques to the "Mini-Mag" and similar metal-bodied small flash- >lights. The methods are significantly different from those used for the >more familiar "kubotan", and they feature striking, nerve-pressure, and >grappling/joint-lock applications. No martial-art experience is necessary, >and the small flashlight can be legally carried anywhere. (Cost: $55) > > SUNDAY, February 15, 10:00 AM - 4:30 PM > >"KEYS TO SELF-DEFENSE": > > A feudal-era chain weapon, often called a *manrikigusari* or >"ten thousand power chain", was (according to legend) developed for the >purpose of subduing swordsmen without breaking edicts against shedding >blood on palace grounds. There is nothing mythical or legendary about >the techniques, which are real and powerfully effective. We show you >how to apply them with a long "key-chain" - legal to carry anywhere - >for striking, trapping, joint-locking, choking, and throwing attackers. >This workshop will be held at a South Bay corporate location, NOT Jackson >Arms. (Cost: $55) > > SUNDAY, February 22, 10:00 AM - 4:30 PM > >HANDGUN DISARMING & RETENTION, LEVEL I (CIVILIAN): > > Many handgun owners seem to think, "If a 'bad guy' tried to >snatch MY gun, I'd just shoot him". . .and some who thought so have >been murdered with their own weapons. Hard-core felons spend a lot of >prison training time perfecting such career-enhancing skills as disarm- >ing arresting police officers. We begin this class by showing you how >easy it is to take away a handgun; then we teach you how to counter dis- >arming attempts. This is a truly sensible form of gun control - and as >the anti-self-defense lobby says, "If it saves just one life, it's worth it!" >(Cost: $75) > > SUNDAY, February 28, 10:00 AM - 4:30 PM > >To register, call (415) 333-6078, or e-mail . . .and >visit our website at http://www.asiapac.com/freedom/ssl! > > --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.5 --------------- MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mondays Los Angeles Times has an editorial calling for "Greater Gun = Safety, Now". It starts by bitching that guns aren't even regulated by = the Consumer Product Safety Commission and ends calling for Congress to = "do the right thing this time" when Senators Boxer & Feinstein = reintroduce safety equipment legislation. In the middle it claims that = "sensitive trigger mechanisms are one problem" in accidental shootings. = "Make triggers harder to squeeze so small children can't fire the = weapon. Required built in trigger locks and an indicator that shows = whether a bullet is chambered." I guess the Times anti gun barrage will = never end. Nor will they ever understand. The above suggestion would = surely disarm my mother with severe arthritis in her hands. But then = that's the point I guess.=20 Stuart =20 --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.6 --------------- MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a blurb on the just published anti-gun article in the "Annals of Internal Medicine". Note: no mention of the number of lives saved or property protected with guns. None of the benefits, just the cost. Gunshot wounds should be considered an epidemic like AIDS, surgeons say Copyright 1998 The Associated Press PHILADELPHIA (February 1, 1998 6:49 p.m. EST) -- A survey published in Sunday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine finds that 87 percent of surgeons and 94 percent of internists across the country believe it's time to consider gunshot wounds a public health epidemic -- akin to AIDS, alcoholism and tobacco use. For example, William Schwab hasn't ever gone to war, but the 51-year-old surgeon says he sometimes thinks he's in one. "We average about 500 gunshot wounds a year," said Schwab, chief of critical care and trauma for the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. "I trained in the U.S. Navy during Vietnam, and it's similar," he said. "Think of the phrase 'incoming wounded.' That's what it's like." Doctors should play a more active role in trying to prevent the injuries, an accompanying position paper says, whether it's supporting more stringent gun-control legislation or simply taking time to counsel patients. The position paper predicted that bullets will kill more people than automobile accidents by 2003. The authors also noted that more teens today die from gunshot wounds than from all natural causes combined, and that firearms in the home make homicide three times more likely. "Do you have a gun in the house? Is it loaded? And did you know suicide can go up five-fold when you have one around that is loaded? Those are the kinds of questions doctors should start asking and telling their patients," said Frank Davidoff, an internist and editor of the journal, published by the Philadelphia-based American College of Physicians. The survey involved 915 doctors who answered 55 questions, including the extent of their personal and medical experience with firearms and their opinions on public policy. Less than 20 percent of the surgeons and internists reported discussing firearm ownership or storage with their patients. The survey showed that 64 percent of the surgeons and 84 percent of the internists said they thought stronger measures were needed to reduce gun-related deaths, which reached 39,720 in 1994. That includes 13,593 slayings and 20,540 suicides, the journal said. The accompanying position paper noted that annual firearm-related deaths increased by more than 60 percent from 1968 to 1994. "If this was any other disease, if this was a virus, the public would be demanding a cure," said Schwab, who co-wrote the journal's article about the survey. "They'd want something done about it. The problem is nobody is willing to come out and say 'This is a public health emergency"' as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop did with AIDS, he said. The doctors who said they didn't believe gunshot wounds were a health epidemic tended to be older men who work in smaller cities. -- By By TOM RAGAN, Associated Press Writer --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.7 --------------- MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <199802021753.JAA21873@lists1.best.com> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Stuart Mac Tavish wrote: > ...In the middle it claims that > "sensitive trigger mechanisms are one problem" in accidental shootings. > "Make triggers harder to squeeze so small children can't fire the > weapon. Required built in trigger locks and an indicator that shows > whether a bullet is chambered." I guess the Times anti gun barrage will > never end. Nor will they ever understand. The above suggestion would > surely disarm my mother with severe arthritis in her hands. But then > that's the point I guess. Not to mention the fact that a heavy trigger pull makes guns significantly less accurate! And that a bullet-in-the-chamber indicator will result in people forgetting one of the most basic rules of gun safety (which, of course, is treat all guns as if they're loaded). I am convinced that no one on the editorial staff of the Times understands guns to even the slightest degree. They certainly don't understand gun safety or that the way to reduce accidental shootings is to educate gun owners. John __________________________________________________________________ jmach@netcom.com Gun Law Press John F Machtinger, Esq. __________________________________________________________________ --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.8 --------------- FWD without further comment. ----- Begin Included Message ----- From owner-firearms@LISTSERV.UTA.EDU Mon Feb 2 15:01:58 1998 X-Sender: barbb@Delta Cc: Joe Horn , Keeva Segal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-firearms@LISTSERV.UTA.EDU Content-Length: 1414 X-Lines: 34 Howard sent this along -- I haven't verified it, so I'm including his address in case anyone wants to check in with him. Posted FYI. Interesting comment about the relevance of the Second Amendment today from the person who answered the phone - certainly fits in with the backpedalling the Republicans have been doing since we gave them Congress in '94. Barb ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Got an invitation in the mail to join the Republican Senatorial Inner Circle ($1000 a pop). I called and let them know that I can not support them until they repeal Brady, semi-auto ban, lautenberg, kohl, 68 GCA etc. I also reminded them that lautenberg and kohl passed on their watch. They also brought us Dole for President. The person I spoke to said "You have to remember that when the Second Amendment was written the Militia was the means of defense". I corrected him that the Second Amendment pertains to the individual citizen and not the national guard. I suggested he read the "Federalist Papers". The Second Amendment means the same as when James Madison wrote it, it has never been changed. Call and let them know what you think. 800-877-6773 it is their dime. Maybe we can get the god owful party to see the light, but don't hold your breath. Please circulate. Howard Last ----- End Included Message ----- --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.9 --------------- > > > Concerning the various threads all revolving around the topic > of "doing" something to stop Lungren -- it's pointless. Dan Lungren > is going to be the next governor of California and you can take that > to the bank. Accordingly, each person can act as their conscience directs. > > Vote Libertarian if you want, knowing in this election Lungren will > win anyway, thus making a pro-RKBA, pro-liberty statement. > [snip] I've heard rumors that Lungren expects gun owners to vote in his favor. This means there is nothing to be gained by "liberalizing" (making more free) his agenda for guns. If we actually do vote for him as-is, there is no reason for him, or any other politicritter, to pay attention to us. We will makes ourselves irrelevent to the political process. Vote for Lungren and place your stamp of approval on gun bans. > > So vote for Lungren or not as you like, but don't kid yourself about > being able to keep him out of the governor's mansion. Then we are no worse off voting for the Lib but we can be measured. We will be a known quantity that can be courted by political hopefulls. > > -Dorr H. Clark > Bruce Erickson --------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.10 --------------- MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm not posting this because of the Colorado AW bill, though it's argument is useful, but for the piece on the moral imperative of self defense that follows. Mike S ---------- > From: Patricia Fosness > To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com > Subject: HB 1181 > Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 8:15 PM > > Posted to rkba-co by Patricia Fosness > ----------------------- > The following is the item I sent to members of the judiciary committee. Due > to work conflicts (I *just* started a new job) I am unable to attend the > hearings in person: > > Dear Representative xxxx: > > I understand that HB 1181, Concerning the Prohibition of Assault Weapons in > the State of Colorado, is being brought before the committee for review this > week. Please take time to consider the following brief essay regarding > gun confiscation in respect to the moral obligation to obey the law. If > the proposed Act becomes law, and there is non-violent civil disobedience to > the law (i.e. failure to comply by revoking one's firearms), what is the > next step? Will agents of the court be sent to people's homes to confiscate > weapons, and if so, will they do so in open daylight, or, thinking that > there is a danger, use surreptitious means which would expose them and the > people they plan to serve to a risk of armed violence? In short, who is > going to bell the cat? In the case of this proposed legislation, it appears > that the cure is clearly worse than the disease. > > Obviously, you are concerned about violence in our society. I venture to > guess that any sane person is. But when addressing solutions, please > consider the ramifications of what may, on the surface, look like a good > idea. At this point, I wish to register my strong disagreement with any gun > ban, and in the current case, HB 1181. > > GUN CONFISCATION LAWS AND MORAL OBLIGATION > By Patricia Fosness > > With gun confiscation becoming a more likely reality, we are faced with the > difficult question: What should an individual do if their legally owned > firearm(s) become the object of a new ban. The choices are either to > ignore the law and hope not to get caught, to comply with the law and turn > one's property over to the authorities, or to conscientiously disobey the > law as an act of civil disobedience. Clearly, each individual must follow > his or her own moral compass when making such a decision. Unfortunately, > the problems that arise when wrestling with such a decision are substantial, > particularly when there is a very real potential for violent consequences to > be realized as a result of making a choice not in keeping with the > institutions chartered with enforcing the law. > > As a philosophy major in the '60s, I had the opportunity to explore at > length the problems involved with legal and moral obligation, particularly > when those obligations conflicted with each other. Some would say that in > all cases, there is a moral obligation to obey the law, but, to quote from a > paper in my archives: "Disobeying the law is often - even usually - wrong; > but this is so largely because the illegal is usually restricted to the > immoral and because morally right conduct is still less often illegal. But > we must always be sensitive to the fact that this has not always been the > case, it is not now always the case and need not always be the case in the > future. And undo concentration upon what is wrong with disobeying the law > rather than upon the wrong which the law seeks to prevent can seriously > weaken and misdirect that awareness." From "The Obligation to Obey the Law" > by Richard A. Wasserstrom, printed in the UCLA Law Review Vol 10, May 1963. > > Recent firearms seizures purport to provide for the greater good by removing > deadly weapons from members of society. The fallacy here lies with the fact > that firearms will still remain in the hands of those who are chartered to > use same by the government, hence not all firearms will be removed from > society. Those who are predisposed to obtain them through the black market, > theft or other means will continue to be able to do so. The very serious > question then becomes: Is society better off by disarming those who have > owned firearms for defensive purposes, while being unable protect those > people from others who could obtain and use such arms for aggression against > the disarmed population? The obvious answer is "no". Indeed, it is natural > to suspect the motives of those who, retaining their arms either personally > or through their agents, would take action to disarm a population of people > who own arms for the sole purpose of defense. > > The argument goes further: > > "The principal thrust of [the above] argument is to deny government the > moral authority to require someone to give up his ability to defend himself > when government does not agree to provide protection in return. That is, it > suggests that laws prohibiting citizens from using arms to defend themselves > are immoral because there is in fact no social contract. The argument is, > however, faulty to the extent that it suggests that, if government did > assume an obligation to protect each individual, it could rightfully require > its citizens to abandon their right to self-protection. Social contract > theorists like Hobbes and Locke held the right to life to be irreducible and > inalienable; government could not require men to trade or abandon the right > to defend themselves. As Hobbes said, "A covenant not to defend myselfe from > force, by force, is alwayes voyd." See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Cambridge: > Cambridge University Press, 1991),p. 98. The absurdity of such a "trade" is > apparent if one merely follows it through. Suppose government did assume an > obligation to protect me and then asked me for my arms, so that I could not > adequately defend myself. If government then failed in its duty so that I > was killed by a criminal, the result would be that my estate would have a > lawsuit for monetary damages against the government. I would hardly believe > that in trading my life (i.e., my right to continue my life by defending it) > for money damages for my heirs I had made an equal exchange. The more > radical argument, based on the right to life, is that government has no > right to deprive its citizens of the means with which to defend themselves > regardless of whether or not it assumes an obligation to protect each > separate individual." From: Cato Policy Analysis No. 284 October 22, 1997 > FIGHTING BACK Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun by > Jeffrey R. Snyder footnote 42. > > Clearly, firearms confiscation laws (and, by extension, gun registration > laws which could provide information to those who would divest others of > their arms) bring moral and legal obligation into conflict. By obeying the > law and divesting oneself of defensive arms, one reinforces actions that, in > the long run, are likely to lead to a great injustice by creating an > environment where only the predators will have strength of arms. In this > case, is civil disobedience not merely justified, but indeed a moral imperative? > > > > Regards, > Pat Fosness > NRA certified instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection > -------------------------------------------------------------- > "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history > will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the > blackest" - Mahatma Ghandi - 1927 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in > compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, > "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" > > > For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: > Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com > with the word Help in the body of the message --------------- END ca-firearms.v001.n556 --------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Possibly of interest.... Date: 04 Feb 1998 16:11:11 -0700 Hi! I thought you might be interested in the following..... Would you like another take on the guns and bigotry issue? Are you interested in the subject of Jews and firearms? Would you like to see a truly awful photo of me? If so, check out this week's Salt Lake City Weekly, http://www.slweekly.com You'll need to click on "Politics" and then "City Beat". The article itself is entitled "More Shots on Gun Bigotry" and was written by Ben Fulton. Considering the City Weekly's consistently liberal, anti-gun stance, I think they did a reasonably fair job of addressing the issue, even if they did invoke the "experts" at HCI. Thanks, Ben! If you have comments , they may be sent to comments@slweekly.com This article was inspired by an Op Ed I wrote for the Independence Institute, http://i2i.org. Special thanks to David Kopel and the folks at the Independence Intitute for their support and for distributing the Op Ed throughout Utah. Sarah Thompson Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com (under construction!) New! The Righter's weekly column with supplemental mail list. To subscribe send a message to: majordomo@aros.net with the message subscribe righter-list in the BODY of the message. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: SB23 negligent storage of a firearm Date: 04 Feb 1998 18:03:58 -0700 SB23 Negligent Storage of a Firearm is scheduled to be heard Tomorrow at 3:00pm room 403 State Capital by the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee. Please connact as many of the following as possible and voice opposition to this bill. Members are: Sen. L. Alma Mansell, Chair 6995 Union Park Ctr. #100 Midvale, Utah 84047 H-942-6019 O-567-4200 FAX-567-4201 Sen. George Mantes 185 North Main Suite 201 Tooele, Utah 84074 H-882-4856 SLC-531-8157 Sen. Ed P. Mayne 5044 West Bannock Circle West Valley City, Utah 84120 H-968-7756 O-972-2771 FAX-972-9344 Sen. David H. Steele 3376 West 400 North West Point, Utah 84015 H-825-3033 O-546-7347 email:dsteele@le.state.ut.us Sen. Nathan C. Tanner 6225 Woodland Drive Ogden, Utah 84403 H-479-6442 O-442-3678 FAX-442-5061 Sen. Michael Waddoups 2005 W 5620 S Salt Lake City UT 84118 H 967-0225 O 355-1136 -- 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 man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government. -- Thomas Jefferson, June 1776 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Guns and Bigots Date: 05 Feb 1998 14:30:43 -0700 Quite a few people who saw the article in the Salt Lake City Weekly have written asking to see the original Op Ed that "inspired" the article. (If you couldn't find the article it's because the SLCW changed the website back to the Jan. 29 issue. The issue with the article is dated Feb. 5, so it should be back up sometime Thursday.) Hard copies will of course be available for those in the SLC area. This Op Ed was distributed to all daily and weekly papers in Utah. If you're in Utah, please keep an eye out, and let me know if it appears in your local paper. Thanks! Apologies to those of you who may be receiving duplicates. And thanks again to David Kopel at the Independence Institute and Ben Fulton at the City Weekly. The Op Ed follows..... Sarah Guns and Bigots By Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that Rob Bishop, Chairman of the Utah Republican Party and lobbyist for the Utah Shooting Sports Council, stated that school officials and business owners who wish to exclude residents carrying licensed weapons are "bigots in the mold of former southern governors who denied blacks entry into state schools." The editors of the Salt Lake City Tribune responded that Bishop's analogy is a "silly comparison". They further alleged that "the presence of guns in inappropriate public places can reduce safety of the surroundings" and that Bishop was battling statistics, not prejudice. The Tribune is wrong on all points. Rob Bishop is exactly on target when he states that gun owners are contending with prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance. The Tribune shows its ignorance by claiming that Bishop is battling statistics when those statistics actually support his position. Scholarly research shows that concealed carry decreases violent crime, and the presence of guns increases the safety of the surroundings. Since Utah's concealed carry law was passed in 1995, violent crime in Utah has decreased. This finding is entirely predictable, according to the most comprehensive study of concealed carry, conducted by the University of Chicago's John Lott. Professor Lott found that in the years following enactment of concealed carry, violent crime falls six to eight percent. Everyone, including gun carriers, benefits from concealed carry. Because criminals are unable to tell which persons are carrying firearms, they are less willing to attack any given person. The presence of people carrying firearms thus protects the general public, the children, and even the anti-gun bigots. Persons who accept the responsibility for the defense of themselves, their families, and even total strangers, should be honored, not shunned. Only criminals have anything to fear from an armed populace. Utah's handgun carry permit holders are extremely law-abiding. The record since the 1995 handgun carry law went into effect shows that handgun permit holders are good citizens, who pose no threat to anyone other than violent predators. Unfounded claims that law-abiding gunowners threaten the safety of society are similar to Hitler's unfounded claims that Jews carried diseases and threatened the public health. These malicious claims form a damning indictment of Gov. Leavitt and other government officials who seek to prohibit the exercise of constitutional rights in public places. Although the Tribune would have us believe that prejudice applies only to skin color, prejudice is defined as "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." The Tribune, Gov. Leavitt and officials at the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City School Board have all declared their anti-gun position "without knowledge or examination of the facts." Those facts prove that Utah's licensed gun carriers are law-abiding; and Mr. Bishop is precisely correct in calling anti-gun bigots by their proper name. The real issue is trust. If the editors of the Tribune do not trust their readers with firearms, why should their readers trust them to provide accurate and unbiased news? If Gov. Leavitt does not trust his constituents with firearms, why should they trust him to spend their money, uphold the Constitution, or direct the national guard? If the officials at the University of Utah do not trust their adult students and faculty with firearms, why should anyone trust them to provide sound education? If certain law enforcement officers do not trust citizens with firearms, why should citizens trust them to uphold the law? If my clergyman cannot trust me with a mere pistol, why should I entrust him with my soul? The governor, state and local officials, academicians, and attorneys all claim they have the right to openly flout both state law and the state constitution because it is "the right thing to do." How hypocritical of them to break the law because of their own bigotry towards a group of law-abiding citizens! The lawbreakers in government should realize that their obvious contempt for the law serves as an odious example for the rest of us. Their illegal behavior cannot decrease crime; it can only encourage lawlessness. Dr. Sarah Thompson, of Sandy, UT wrote this op-ed for the Independence Institute, a think tank in Golden, Colorado. http://i2i.org. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [righter@therighter.com: Guns and Bigots] Date: 05 Feb 1998 14:37:09 -0700 Of interest to some... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Quite a few people who saw the article in the Salt Lake City Weekly have written asking to see the original Op Ed that "inspired" the article. (If you couldn't find the article it's because the SLCW changed the website back to the Jan. 29 issue. The issue with the article is dated Feb. 5, so it should be back up sometime Thursday.) Hard copies will of course be available for those in the SLC area. This Op Ed was distributed to all daily and weekly papers in Utah. If you're in Utah, please keep an eye out, and let me know if it appears in your local paper. Thanks! Apologies to those of you who may be receiving duplicates. And thanks again to David Kopel at the Independence Institute and Ben Fulton at the City Weekly. The Op Ed follows..... Sarah Guns and Bigots By Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that Rob Bishop, Chairman of the Utah Republican Party and lobbyist for the Utah Shooting Sports Council, stated that school officials and business owners who wish to exclude residents carrying licensed weapons are "bigots in the mold of former southern governors who denied blacks entry into state schools." The editors of the Salt Lake City Tribune responded that Bishop's analogy is a "silly comparison". They further alleged that "the presence of guns in inappropriate public places can reduce safety of the surroundings" and that Bishop was battling statistics, not prejudice. The Tribune is wrong on all points. Rob Bishop is exactly on target when he states that gun owners are contending with prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance. The Tribune shows its ignorance by claiming that Bishop is battling statistics when those statistics actually support his position. Scholarly research shows that concealed carry decreases violent crime, and the presence of guns increases the safety of the surroundings. Since Utah's concealed carry law was passed in 1995, violent crime in Utah has decreased. This finding is entirely predictable, according to the most comprehensive study of concealed carry, conducted by the University of Chicago's John Lott. Professor Lott found that in the years following enactment of concealed carry, violent crime falls six to eight percent. Everyone, including gun carriers, benefits from concealed carry. Because criminals are unable to tell which persons are carrying firearms, they are less willing to attack any given person. The presence of people carrying firearms thus protects the general public, the children, and even the anti-gun bigots. Persons who accept the responsibility for the defense of themselves, their families, and even total strangers, should be honored, not shunned. Only criminals have anything to fear from an armed populace. Utah's handgun carry permit holders are extremely law-abiding. The record since the 1995 handgun carry law went into effect shows that handgun permit holders are good citizens, who pose no threat to anyone other than violent predators. Unfounded claims that law-abiding gunowners threaten the safety of society are similar to Hitler's unfounded claims that Jews carried diseases and threatened the public health. These malicious claims form a damning indictment of Gov. Leavitt and other government officials who seek to prohibit the exercise of constitutional rights in public places. Although the Tribune would have us believe that prejudice applies only to skin color, prejudice is defined as "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." The Tribune, Gov. Leavitt and officials at the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City School Board have all declared their anti-gun position "without knowledge or examination of the facts." Those facts prove that Utah's licensed gun carriers are law-abiding; and Mr. Bishop is precisely correct in calling anti-gun bigots by their proper name. The real issue is trust. If the editors of the Tribune do not trust their readers with firearms, why should their readers trust them to provide accurate and unbiased news? If Gov. Leavitt does not trust his constituents with firearms, why should they trust him to spend their money, uphold the Constitution, or direct the national guard? If the officials at the University of Utah do not trust their adult students and faculty with firearms, why should anyone trust them to provide sound education? If certain law enforcement officers do not trust citizens with firearms, why should citizens trust them to uphold the law? If my clergyman cannot trust me with a mere pistol, why should I entrust him with my soul? The governor, state and local officials, academicians, and attorneys all claim they have the right to openly flout both state law and the state constitution because it is "the right thing to do." How hypocritical of them to break the law because of their own bigotry towards a group of law-abiding citizens! The lawbreakers in government should realize that their obvious contempt for the law serves as an odious example for the rest of us. Their illegal behavior cannot decrease crime; it can only encourage lawlessness. Dr. Sarah Thompson, of Sandy, UT wrote this op-ed for the Independence Institute, a think tank in Golden, Colorado. http://i2i.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. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: SB23 is DEAD Date: 05 Feb 1998 22:44:28 -0700 At 06:03 PM 2/4/98 -0700, you wrote: > >SB23 Negligent Storage of a Firearm is scheduled to be heard Tomorrow >at 3:00pm room 403 State Capital by the Senate Transportation and >Public Safety Standing Committee. > >Please connact as many of the following as possible and voice >opposition to this bill. Since I haven't seen it posted yet: SB 23 was defeated in committee today, and is dead for this session. Way to go, troops! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. 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: NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them" Date: 06 Feb 1998 07:20:00 -0700 NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles) by ORAL DECKARD The Vigo Examiner I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.) I was told repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles). Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the Second Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by surprise, and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say something along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word." And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is your job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second Amendment, and you don't even know what it says?" Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they continue trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even embarrassed. This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I decided to have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my NRA membership had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I replied "No, I support the Second Amendment." There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second Amendment and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America (goaslad@aol.com) and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (Against- Genocide@JPFO.org) He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the NRA?" Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV and announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47." I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he took that as a good thing. So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right to keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word." So I simply told him what it says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second Amendment was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now we could buy instant food. A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my wife signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no one needed high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to identify him. Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not this time. So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even spelled it for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February 4th, where are you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas." As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I asked "Is there any need to protect assault high capacity semi-automatic rifles?" He answered "We would like to keep them for matches and things, but they don't have to have those big magazines, and only if they were used just for that purpose. We want to be reasonable." I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor. His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, I introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo Examiner, explained Richard Kuhlman and myself were just discussing the need to protect high capacity semi-automatic rifles, and asked "What's your take on it?" He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered "Both." So he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic rifles were imported from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get rid of them." Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying the NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles ?" He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them." So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow (Feb. 5th, 1998) So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor on the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment, and now, that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of firearms, the class of firearms the Second Amendment was specifically enacted to protect. Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected to their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it, or were determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They both seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This time I didn't get it just from the solicitor, but also from his supervisor. And not just his opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion of the NRA. So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you can support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH the NRA. Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an NRA VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead. One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members over a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the years of refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When you give up a right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable will you ultimately have to become? In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged that they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't hold over two shots. They were reasonable. And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground will you now brace your feet? Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is now no solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That defense must now rest with those who have not compromised the Constitution. After Norville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our time", it then fell to Winston Churchill to defend England. Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting the Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies) to get off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are loyal to the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem too proud of our Constitution. Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner All are free to republish at will this intact document. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: SB23 is DEAD Date: 06 Feb 1998 10:49:11 -0700 Who voted which way? It is a good idea to thank those who voted our way. On Thu, 05 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: >At 06:03 PM 2/4/98 -0700, you wrote: >> >>SB23 Negligent Storage of a Firearm is scheduled to be heard Tomorrow >>at 3:00pm room 403 State Capital by the Senate Transportation and >>Public Safety Standing Committee. >> >>Please connact as many of the following as possible and voice >>opposition to this bill. > > >Since I haven't seen it posted yet: > >SB 23 was defeated in committee today, and is dead for this session. > >Way to go, troops! > >Sarah > > >Sarah Thompson, M.D. >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. > >- > > -- 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. "Courage is resistance of fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear." - - Mark Twain - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Hatch's Hyprocrisy Date: 06 Feb 1998 18:14:41 -0700 Thought y'all might like this bit of cognitive dissonance from our own senior senator. Contrast this with S. 10........... Sarah REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS Second Session, February 1982 Senate Document 2807 PREFACE by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, from the State of Utah "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.) "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.) "The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.) "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.) In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and commentators. James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has since been construed in but a single, and most ambiguous Supreme Court decision, whereas his proposals for freedom of religion, which he made reluctantly out of fear that they would be rejected or narrowed beyond use, and those for freedom of assembly, which passed only after a lengthy and bitter debate, are the subject of scores of detailed and favorable decisions. Thomas Jefferson, who kept a veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at Monticello, and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear supposed civil libertarians claim firearm ownership should be restricted. Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying a firearm without a police permit. This is not to imply that courts have totally ignored the impact of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state"--apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia. When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service. The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.:" In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense". The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. Their views are those of contemporaries of Jefferson, Madison and others, and are entitled to special weight. A few years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass. [45] Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms. If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the right to keep and bear arms. Utilizing the research capabilities of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the resources of the Library of Congress, and the assistance of constitutional scholars such as Mary Kaaren Jolly, Steven Halbrook, and David T. Hardy, the subcommittee has managed to uncover information on the right to keep and bear arms which documents quite clearly its status as a major individual right of American citizens. We did not guess at the purpose of the British 1689 Declaration of Rights; we located the Journals of the House of Commons and private notes of the Declaration's sponsors, now dead for two centuries. We did not make suppositions as to colonial interpretations of that Declaration's right to keep arms; we examined colonial newspapers which discussed it. We did not speculate as to the intent of the framers of the second amendment; we examined James Madison's drafts for it, his handwritten outlines of speeches upon the Bill of Rights, and discussions of the second amendment by early scholars who were personal friends of Madison, Jefferson, and Washington while these still lived. What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear--and long lost--proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The summary of our research and findings form the first portion of this report. In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of freedoms to submit their views. The statements of two associations who replied are reproduced here following the report of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee also invited statements by Messrs. Halbrook and Hardy, and by the National Rifle Association, whose statements likewise follow our report. When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I hoped that I would be able to assist in the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, rights which have too often been eroded in the belief that government could be relied upon for quick solutions to difficult problems. Both as an American citizen and as a United States Senator I repudiate this view. I likewise repudiate the approach of those who believe to solve American problems you simply become something other than American. To my mind, the uniqueness of our free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men. Orrin G. Hatch Chairman Subcommittee on the Constitution January 20, 1982 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Response to Morris Dees' remarks at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church 1/2 Date: 06 Feb 1998 18:27:00 -0700 eagleflt@eagleflt.com, WKay@aol.com, JerryFolk@aol.com, independence@southtech.net, myfirst@tricor.net Cc: msgdesk@vrmaui.com As many of you have probably already heard, Morris Dees (everybody's favorite alleged homosexual pedophile) appeared at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church (outside Philadelphia) on the evening of February 2, 1998. This guy can draw a crowd, er, should I say flock? Many of you may not be aware of this, but there was an article in "Modern Maturity" magazine about Morris Dees a few months back, written by none other than Col. David Hackworth. Hmmmm....so I read it. With that in mind, I went in with a somewhat open (but skeptical) mind. Well, he was already blabbing when I arrived, and I had to sit way up in the choir loft with some individuals who I knew were affiliated with the Unorganized Militia of Pennsylvania, since they had parked right next to me, and we walked in together. Among Mr. Dees remarks were the usual, nebulous "right-wing" paranoia, and his not-very-well-defined opinions about the "danger from the right", blah, blah, blah. Well, as he was wrapping up his remarks, a few people started gathering up scraps of paper from the audience. These scraps of paper contained questions from members of the audience, and several individuals, at least one of whom was with the Philadelphia Inquirer, busily sorted through the questions, deciding on which questions would be asked of Mr. Dees. I must mention here that many public-forum appearances such as these sometimes are reduced to shouting matches when taking questions directly from the audience, and I suppose this might have been done to help maintain some sense of order, but the first time I saw this technique used was among a Russian audience, I am somewhat suspicious whenever I see this technique used. Some of the questions were asked of Mr. Dees, and he replied to them. Among his remarks were the following (I took some notes): In reference to Ruby Ridge: Dees stated that nobody really knew about Ruby Ridge until after the Oklahoma Federal Building explosion. (Oh, really?) Didn't CBS make a made-for-TV movie about it, starring Randy Quaid and Laura Dern? (Yeah, I guess nobody knew about it). Let me say that I knew about Ruby Ridge as it was happening, and read MANY news stories off the AP wire that were never published. It was immediately obvious that the media was trying to keep the lid on it. Gee, maybe THAT'S WHY so few people were aware of what was initially going on during that dark chapter in law enforcement history. Dees went on to say how Weaver's baby was killed by federal agents while being held by her mother standing in the cabin doorway. THE BABY WAS NOT KILLED. Vicky Weaver was killed while HOLDING the baby (Elishiba). Dees then mentioned about Samuel Weaver, neglecting to mention that he was only 13 years old, and was shot five times in the back! In reference to Neo-Nazi "skinhead" types: The next topic was some K.K.K. guy (former Texas "Grand Dragon") he had been spying on, named Louis Bean (Beam?). I'm not familiar with this man's name. Dees admitted that they (I guess that means the Southern Poverty Law Center, or their affiliate "KlanWatch") had planted a hidden microphone in the building that was to house a meeting of several K.K.K.-type dudes. One might wonder if the microphone eavesdropping was accompanied by a warrant? Probably not, unless there were law enforcement people involved, and this technicality was noticeably absent from Mr. Dees' comments. In reference to the "patriot-militia movement": Mr. Dees stated (correctly) that the vast majority of people calling themselves "militia groups" are not really anything more than disgruntled citizens who have an axe to grind with corrupt government, and they get together to discuss political issues, influence elections, etc., and he certainly agrees that they have a right to do that under our DEMOCRACY (...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...). Mr. Dees also stated that in the first years of our country's history, there was no standing national army (he is correct), and that each state had its own militia (right again). He then went on to say that after the Constitution was written ("right here in Philadelphia"), the militias were replaced by a national army. Wrong. Many of the combatants in the Civil War were state militia volunteers. In fact, the National Rifle Assiciation was formed after the Civil War (1878) by former Civil War officers, to provide civilian marksmanship training to the state militia volunteers, in the event that they were ever again called into federal service (indeed, they were during World War I, World War II, and the Korean War, mostly to guard factories producing military items). Dees then went on to discuss the danger of militias as "private armies", and cited two examples in history "right here in Pennsylvania". He then mentioned the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion. (Shay's Rebellion took place in Massachusetts). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Response to Morris Dees' remarks at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church 2/2 Date: 06 Feb 1998 18:27:00 -0700 Next, Mr. Dees went on to illustrate exactly how ignorant he is of the 2nd Amendment. Any of you who have read the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), knows that the 2nd Amendment is the simplest of all amendments, consisting of only one single sentence. Mr. Dees couldn't even remember the whole sentence, but instead concentrated on the "well-regulated militia" clause at the beginning. He claims that the National Guard is the "militia", and that the "right to bear arms" is a "collective right", not an individual right. He then said that the Supreme Court had decided that it wasn't an individual right. Well, the National Guard didn't come into existance until 1903, so I am reasonably confident that the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn't have that in mind. And the Supreme Court ruled in July, 1996 (I believe) that "the people" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment were the same "people" mentioned in the preamble, and anywhere else the phrase "the people" was used in the Constitution. In reference to Carol Howe and Andy Strassmeir: I don't know how this happened, but a question got through about Carol Howe and Andreas Strassmeir. Mr. Dees' reply was that anybody concerned about that should "get a life". Thoughout his remarks, Mr. Dees constantly championed the ATF and the FBI, and thought they were doing such a wonderful job with the OKC bombing, etc., but was then noticeably silent about why the Oklahoma Grand Jury has been able to come up with so much additional evidence after the "largest investigation in FBI history". In reference to the biggest threat in America today: He also mentioned that the biggest danger to this country today was the "Christian Coalition". Now, I have to say that I have met many people who call themselves "Christians", and some of them have a pretty screwy agenda. But, regardless of what you think about that remark, keep in mind that Morris Dees made this remark in a PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, and received a STANDING OVATION. One may wonder (and rightly so) why the fiduciaries of this institution allow their facility to be used for this purpose. After the whole thing was over, and the crowd was milling toward the exits, several small discussion groups formed. As I was passing one of these groups, I heard a man trying to explain to an elderly couple why 4,800 pounds of Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil was incapable of destroying 24"-diameter steel-reinforced concrete columns from 16 feet away. I happen to agree with that assessment (and so do a dozen or so explosive experts, including retired Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, and several independent studies conducted by the Air Force), so I stopped to listen to this. It soon drew others, and the whole thing degraded into a shouting match about abortion (as usually happens). At that, everybody was asked to leave. While walking back to my vehicle, I saw crowds of elderly people (some probably Alzheimer's patients) piling onto busses to take them back to the rest home. With that, I couldn't help but wonder if there was anything that they would not have applauded to, if they saw the person next to them doing it. Then I started to think about the demographics of the crowd, and how few of them ever use the Internet, etc. Probably none of them are reading this. In summary, let me just say that Mr. Dees comes across as a well-meaning, soft-spoken bleeding-heart attorney, championing the rights of the under- privileged. That is, if you're either incredibly ignorant or simply incapable of thinking for yourself. The impression I got was that Mr. Dees is somewhat cleverly manipulating these people by telling half-truths and outright falsehoods, for who-knows-what-agenda. Among his remarks earlier in the speech, he discussed how Hitler had manipulated the emotions of his audiences, and then proceeded to do the same thing. He stated very clearly that the "white anglo-types" would be a minority in the United States by the year 2050, and that they would have to share their economic and political power. I think most of us realize that, and I don't really have a problem with it. What I do object to, however, and I think most people do, is that I don't want to be held responsible for supporting couch-potatoes (regardless of their color or national origin), whose only redeeming quality is producing another generation of couch- potatoes, who will live off my taxpayer dollars until they are old enough to rob me. Now I have a problem with that. Does that make me a racist or a neo-Nazi? I don't think so, but then again, Mr. Dees probably has different criteria for defining what I am. I can recognize blatant propaganda when I see it, and I think Mr. Dees does well in front of an ignorant crowd, especially when he has liberal newspaper editors sifting through the written questions ahead of time. What I would really like to see would be Mr. Dees debating someone like, oh, let's see................. Ralph Epperson? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: CONFIRMATION OF DR. DAVID SATCHER Date: 09 Feb 1998 08:51:55 -0700 Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis ----------------------- Satcher is one of the chief proponents of "guns as health problem / disease / epidemic." He currently runs the CDC. Enough said. Time for gun owners on this list to call the senators below and tell them why Satcher should NOT be confirmed. Forwarded message: Do not Continue unless you have a strong stomach! Children's Defense Fund Update February 6,1998 --- URGE CONFIRMATION OF DR. DAVID SATCHER --- The United States Senate will vote on Tuesday, February 10th, on whether to end debate on the confirmation of David Satcher, M.D., to be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 60 votes are necessary to end Senate debate and thus allow a confirmation vote. Please contact Senators Shelby (AL), Specter (PA), Hutchison (TX), Hatch (UT), D'Amato (NY), Bond (MO), G. Smith (WA), McCain (AZ), and Stevens (AK) and urge them to vote to end the Senate debate on the nomination and to support confirmation of Dr. Satcher (U.S. Capitol Switchboard #: 202/224-3121). As Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Satcher has been a champion of efforts to immunize America's children, resulting in the best immunization levels in the history of the United States. --------- End forwarded message ---------- ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs. ******************** For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA14125; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:13:25 -0700 Received: (qmail 30863 invoked by uid 516); 9 Feb 1998 04:19:42 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 30104 invoked from network); 9 Feb 1998 04:18:48 -0000 Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 1998 04:18:47 -0000 Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2]) by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA19481; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:18:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from 166-93-76-227.rmi.net (166-93-76-227.rmi.net [166.93.76.227]) by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA12562; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:03:41 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199802090403.VAA12562@mail2.rockymtn.net> X-Sender: davisda@rmi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis ----------------------- >Satcher is one of the chief proponents of "guns as health problem / >disease / epidemic." He currently runs the CDC. Enough said. > >Time for gun owners on this list to call the senators below and tell >them why Satcher should NOT be confirmed. > >Forwarded message: >> From: "CDFupdate" >> >> Children's Defense Fund Update >> February 6,1998 > >> --- URGE CONFIRMATION OF DR. DAVID SATCHER --- >> >> The United States Senate will vote on Tuesday, February 10th, on >> whether to end debate on the confirmation of David Satcher, M.D., to >> be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. >> Department of Health and Human Services. 60 votes are necessary to >> end Senate debate and thus allow a confirmation vote. Please contact >> Senators Shelby (AL), Specter (PA), Hutchison (TX), Hatch (UT), >> D'Amato (NY), Bond (MO), G. Smith (WA), McCain (AZ), and Stevens (AK) >> and urge them to vote to end the Senate debate on the nomination and >> to support confirmation of Dr. Satcher (U.S. Capitol Switchboard #: >> 202/224-3121). As Director of the Centers for Disease Control and >> Prevention, Dr. Satcher has been a champion of efforts to immunize >> America's children, resulting in the best immunization levels in the >> history of the United States. >-- > >--------- End forwarded message ---------- ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs. ******************** For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Jackson; Wy -Forwarded Date: 09 Feb 1998 08:53:05 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA14141; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:46:26 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA26175; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:51:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma025936; Sun Feb 8 23:51:21 1998 Message-Id: <199802090403.VAA12551@mail2.rockymtn.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: davisda@rmi.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list >From: klw58@juno.com (K. L. Wandell) > >Maybe there'sa ray of hope out there .... > >whw > >========================================================================== >The following is an indication that hunting is not dying, as the anti's >would like us to believe; > >Seventy youngsters were given the chance to hunt elk, or receive a free >$1000 mountain bike offered by the Fund for Animals. All seventy kids >chose >the elk hunt. The anti-hunting group tried to entice the 12 to 17 year >olds >with bikes if they would turn in their National Elk Refuge special youth >hunting permits, and promise to not hunt any more in 1997.Several kids >cited the role of the hunter in wildlife management as reason to hunt >over >receiving a new bike. The goal of the hunt was to reduce the Elk herd to >7,500 animals. More than 12,000 elk wintered on the range in 1996. > >Source: Hunter Education Journal, winter 1998. > > >Bob Hancock >Eldorado MC > >--------- End forwarded message ---------- ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs. ******************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Des News editorial Date: 09 Feb 1998 13:38:14 -0700 From Sunday's Deseret News. My letter to the ediotr follows. I encourage others to respond. Feel free to use any ideas in my letter but please change wording enough to make it look original. [Image] [Image] [Image] Pass concealed weapons bill [Image] [Image] [Image] Last updated 02/08/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT Deseret News editorial Utahns have long valued the right to bear arms. They also ought to value the right private property owners and educators have to keep arms away. Utah Senate President Lane Beattie is expected to introduce a measure soon that would allow church leaders, private property owners and public school officials to ban concealed weapon permit holders from bringing firearms into their buildings. Lawmakers, who have waited far too long to act on this issue, ought to move quickly to pass the bill. Not only would it be the right thing to do, it would be the logical thing to do. A Deseret News poll shows that 88 percent of Utahns agree that churches should be able to keep concealed weapons out, while 89 percent believe public schools should do the same. Current laws have generated a lot of confusion. According to one, a citizen's concealed-weapon license is valid without restriction in Utah, except for airports, courts and correction facilities. According to another, weapons can't be carried on or near school property. The LDS Church issued a statement last year saying churches should be free from the cares of the world and that weapons don't belong. Some institutions, such as the University of Utah, already have instituted a ban on concealed weapons. Gun advocates have strongly opposed these bans, claiming they are illegal. Lawmakers need to put an end to the confusion. While gun lobbyists don't have a problem keeping weapons out of churches and private homes, they balk at extending the ban. They promise to fight any attempt to allow public school officials to ban permitted weapons from school buildings. Beattie says his bill would allow properly permitted gun owners to carry weapons into school driveways and parking lots, so they could drop off or pick up their children without having to leave the guns behind. But if permitees go out of their cars and into the schools, the guns would have to be locked in the vehicles. Despite pressure from gun lobbyists, who represent a vocal minority of Utahns, legislators need to listen to the majority of their constituents and pass a new and improved concealed weapons bill. [Image] [Image] [ImageReturn to front page Charles Hardy xxxxx xxx SLC, UT xxxx 588-7200 day Feb. 9, 1998 Dear Editor I'm appalled at your editorial of Sunday, Feb. 8 (Pass concealed weapons bill.) I do commend you for correctly recognizing the rights of citizens to both carry guns (bear arms) and to restrict access to their private (which includes church owned) property. However, nowhere in either the U.S. or the Utah Constitutions can I find any enumerated rights of "educators" to "keep [legally carried firearms] away" from publicly owned and operated schools. Whether law abiding adults should be stripped of their means of self-defense simply because they have legitimate business at one of those schools is a topic for reasoned debate. Most distressing is your call to blindly support a bill that has not even been drafted yet. I'm sure Senate President Lane Beattie has good intentions. And Utah's concealed weapons law propably could stand some clarification to make clear the rights of private property owners. But as with all legislation, "the devil is in the detail." It is one thing to support certain changes to the law and to encourage those changes be made. It is quite another to suggest a specific piece of legislation should be supported without even reading it--indeed when it is not even in existance to be read. I sincerely hope you would not be so lax in your calls to support or oppose specific legislation in other emotional areas such as environmental preservation, tax reform, or affirmitive action. Your editorial was sloppy and shows you are as caught up in the emotions of this issue as any un-informed individual might be. I pray our legislation will subject any and every specific piece of legislation, regardless of the topic it addresses, to much more thorough reading, research, and thought than you have this particular, yet unwritten bill. Sincerely Charles Hardy -- 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. "Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds. I have nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom I have come in contact over the past years. They are, for the most part, sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized person must share. I have, however, come to be convinced that they are barking up the wrong tree." -- James Wright (scholarly research who collaborates with Peter Rossi) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Judges Opinion re NRA Date: 09 Feb 1998 15:01:09 -0700 If you're anything like me, your mailbox has been deluged in recent weeks with allegations and couter-allegations about the NRA and its Board of Directors elections. I don't follow these discussions, nor do I get involved. I'm not a member of the NRA, I can't vote, and so it's really not my business. I will not publicly endorse or oppose any candidates. What follows however, is a decision from the Supreme Court of New York which, as far as I can interpret, means that the elections will be conducted in a fair manner, according to the NRA's own bylaws. I consider such a decision important and newsworthy. Whatever one thinks of the NRA and/or its board members and officers, I would hope we can agree that fair elections are essential. Because the court opinion is a bit difficult to read, I asked a few of the plaintiffs to provide me with a short summary of what the court opinion means. Howard Fezell was kind enough to provide the summary which follows the opinion. Because Mr. Fezell is one of the plaintiffs, his analysis of the bill should be considered in that light. He also included a request for funds to support the lawsuit, which I have deleted because it is not appropriate to the purpose of this column. If you're interested in making a donation, please contact Mr. Fezell directly. Sarah Thompson SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY : IAS PART 10 x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x HOWARD J. FEZELL, JOHN C. KRULL, JERRY Index No. 600211/98-001 L. ALLEN, FRANK M. SAWBERGER, LARRY R. RANKIN, JOHN GUEST, WILLIAM DOMINGUEZ, cal. #5 - 1/26/98 EFF KNOX, KIM STOLFER, JOHN H. TRENTES, Plaintiffs, -against- NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Defendant. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x BEATRICE SHAINSWIT, J.: Plaintiffs move, pursuant to CPLR 6301 and 6311, for an order preliminarily enjoining defendant National Rifle Association of America (NRA) from printing any type of designation in the 1998 Ballot Issue of the NRA'S three official journals, and on the official ballot of the NRA, as to whether a candidate for election to the Board of Directors of the NRA (the Board) was nominated by petition of NRA members or by the present Boards Nominating Committee in any form, including paid advertisements. Plaintiffs contend that such designation would be in violation of Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the NRA'S bylaws, and that the NRA'S actions in printing said designations will deny plaintiffs a fair corporate election. Defendant NRA cross-moves to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Pursuant to Article VIII of the NRA bylaws, a candidate for election to the Board can be nominated either by the Nominating Committee or by members petition. The incumbent Board elects the members of the Nominating Committee. The NRA conducts the Board election by paper ballot, sent by U.S. mail to the eligible voting members of the NRA at least 15 days prior to the Annual Meeting of Members. It has been the practice of the NRA to send the ballot for the Board election to the eligible voting members as part of the Ballot Issue of the three official journals of the NRA (American Rifleman, American Guardian, and American Hunter). This year, the 1998 Ballot Issue will be the March issue of the official journals. Plaintiffs rely on Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the NRA bylaws, which states in bold italic typeface: In both the official journal and on the official ballot, no persons nominated by petition nor by the Nominating Committee shall be so designated. (Id. at p. 33). According to plaintiffs, Article VIII, Section 3(e) was actually adopted in 1979, following the amendment of the bylaws in 1977 to allow, for the first time, candidates to be nominated by members petition, if said petition is signed by 250 members eligible to vote. This 1977 amendment had also provided as follows: In addition to the persons selected by the Nominating Committee in accordance with Section 3(c) of this Article, the Nominating Committee shall cause the names and biographical sketches of persons nominated by petition to be published in the official journal; however, in both the official journal and on the official ballot, persons nominated by petition shall be so designated. (Land 1/23/98 Aff., Ex. A; emphasis added). In the 1978 and 1979 Board elections, candidates for election were designated, in the biographical sketches in the official journals and on the official ballot, as having been nominated by the Nominating Committee, with a "1" next to their names, and as having been nominated by petition, with a "2" next to their names. Plaintiffs contend that it was the experience in the 1978 and 1979 NRA Board elections that the Nominating Committee candidates had an advantage over the petition candidates because the members tended to vote for the candidates designated as Committee candidates. Allegedly in direct response to the experience of these two elections, the bylaws were amended to prohibit any designations in the official journals and on the official ballot. On December 19, 1997, NRA Director Ronin Colman sent a letter to NRA Secretary Edward J. Land, Jr., requesting that the report of the NRA Nominating Committee not be printed in the 1998 Ballot Issue of the official journals. Secretary Land denied the request on the ground that the Nominating Committee Report has been published continuously in the Official Journal since 1985, pursuant to a Board resolution adopted in September of 1984. Plaintiffs argue that since, pursuant to Article XV, Section 5, the provisions of Article VIII, Section 3(e) cannot be repealed or amended by Board action, the Board policy of printing the Nominating Committees report constitutes a violation of the NRA bylaws. Plaintiff Howard J. Fezell was nominated to be a candidate for election to the Board of Directors of the NRA by members petition. On December 17, 1997, he wrote a letter to Secretary Land requesting that any designation as to the manner in which plaintiff Fezell was nominated as a candidate be removed from his biography to be published in the Ballot Issue of the official journals. He further requested that the NRA notify all candidates whose biographical sketches contain any reference to the method of their nomination that such designations are not permitted by Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the bylaws. Lastly, he sought an assurance that the report of the Nominating Committee listing that committees nominees would not be printed in the 1998 Ballot Issue of the official journals. When plaintiff Fezell received no response to his letter, this action was commenced. The remaining plaintiffs were nominated to be candidates for election to the Board by members petition in the Fall of 1997, and are all presently candidates for the 1998 election. The complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) a request for judicial oversight of enforcement of corporate bylaws pursuant to Not-for-Profit corporation Law (N-PCL) 618; and (2) breach of fiduciary duty by the officers and Board of the NRA. Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctive relief, attorneys fees and costs. The NRA opposes the motion and cross-moves for dismissal of the complaint. It contends that publication of the report of the Nominating Committee in the official journals does not violate Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the bylaws. This is because it would not constitute a designation within the meaning of the bylaws; rather the word designated in Article VIII, Section 3(e) was adopted only to end the numerical designation (1, 2, or both) of the method of designation in both the official ballot and the biographical sketches. This numerical designation was allegedly disfavored by the NRA membership because they felt that voters were casting their vote based simply upon a number "1" or "2" next to the candidates name, and that the voters should take the time to read the candidates biographical sketch for a more informed vote. Defendant NRA further contends that the biographical sketches in the 1980 election, the first to follow the adoption of Article VIII, Section 3(e), contained words stating the method of nomination of individual nominees. Individual nominees were able to state, nominated by Nominating Committee, without running afoul of Article VIII, Section 3(e), because the prohibition against being designated was well understood to apply only to the numerical designations that first implemented the amendment allowing nomination by members petition. Finally, defendant points out that the report of the Nominating Committee has been published in every succeeding official journal since 1985 without protest. The NRA relies, inter alia, on the following documentary evidence: (a) a copy of plaintiff Fezell's biographical sketch for the 1994 Board election in which he described himself as a Committee nominee; (b) a copy of the biographical sketch of Francis Winters for the 1993 Board election, in which he described himself as both a petition and Committee candidate; and (c) the 1980 biographical sketches for the election of directors, showing that many of the candidates chose to reveal how they were nominated. DISCUSSION Defendants Cross Motion to Dismiss Defendant NRA cross-moves to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), for failure to state a cause of action. The first cause of action states a cause of action pursuant to N-PCL 618, which empowers the Supreme Court to intervene in and oversee elections for the Board of Directors of a not-for-profit corporation as justice may require. (see, Sun Wei Assn. v. Wong, 222 AD2d 203 [1st Dept 1995]; see also, Ohrbach v. Kirkeby, 3 AD2d 269, 272 [1st Dept 1957] [court issued a preliminary injunction to postpone election of directors]). The second cause of action properly states a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty by the present NRA Board as a result of its alleged purposeful and willful violation of Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the NRA bylaws and by impeding plaintiffs right to a fair corporate election (see, N-PCL 102[a][2], 602, 717; see also, Fitzgerald v. The National Rifle Association of America, 383 F.Supp 162, 165 [SDNY 1974]). Defendant argues that the intent behind the adoption of Article VIII, Section 3(e) was only to eliminate the 1, 2 numerical designation system, and that this intent is unequivocally established based on the documentary evidence it has submitted, and thus that the complaint should be dismissed, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). The rules of contract interpretation are generally applicable to the interpretation of corporate bylaws (14 NY Jur 2d, Business Relationships, contract is to be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the unequivocal language employed (Bread v. Insurance Co. of North America, 46 NY2d 351, 355 [1978]; American Express Bank Ltd. v. Uniroyal, 164 AD2d 275, 277 [1st Dept 1990]). It is well settled law of this State that courts may not fashion a new contract under the guise of contract construction (Slatt v. Slatt, 64 NY2d 966, 967 [1985]; see also, 85th Street Rest. Corp. v. Sanders, 194 AD2d 324, 326 [1st Dept 1993]). As the Court of Appeals explained in W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 (1990), when parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms. Evidence outside the four corners of the document as to what was really intended but unstated or misstated is generally inadmissible to add to or vary the writing. (Citations omitted.) Likewise, the conduct of the parties over the intervening years to ascertain their intent with respect to a contract provision is only relevant if the contract provision is ambiguous, of doubtful meaning, or where there is claimed waiver (Slatt v. Slatt, supra, 67 NY2d, at 967 [citation omitted]). Based upon the foregoing principles of law, the court can reach only one conclusion with respect to the bylaw at issue. It says what it says in very unambiguous terms, i.e., that no person nominated by petition or by Nominating Committee shall be so designated in both the official journals of the NRA or on the official ballot. Defendants interpretation of the bylaw as only prohibiting the 1, 2 numerical designation system utilized for the 1978 and 1979 Board elections might be reasonable if the bylaw had prohibited designation of candidates on the official ballot only, thereby forcing voting members of the NRA to read the biographical sketches published in the official journals to learn how a candidate had been nominated. But it is not so limited; rather, it clearly and unequivocally says that candidates cannot be so designated in both the official journal and on the official ballot. Therefore, defendant's evidence of a different intent behind adoption of the bylaw in 1979 and its subsequent interpretation by NRA Boards, members, and candidates for the past 20 years is inadmissible. Preliminary Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction must be granted. Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the grant of an injunction, and a balancing of equities in their favor (W. T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517 [1981]). As to the merits of the case, the language of Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the NRA bylaws is unambiguous and supports plaintiffs claim that the present Board is presently about to disseminate election materials, the content of which clearly violates Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the associations bylaws. The second prong of the test is also easily met since plaintiffs, as petition candidates for election to the NRA Board, will suffer immediate and irreparable injury if this Court does not grant them temporary injunctive relief. Lastly, the balance of equities favors the plaintiffs because, regardless of past construction by NRA Boards, members and candidates, plaintiffs, as duly-nominated candidates for election to the NRA Board, are entitled to participate in an election conducted in the manner chosen by the members of the NRA as expressed in the unambiguous language of its bylaws. The fact that plaintiff Fezell and others described themselves as Nominating Committee candidates in earlier elections should not defeat plaintiffs request for preliminary injunctive relief. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is granted and the parties are directed to settle an order on one days notice directly to Chambers, accompanied by affidavits addressed to the amount of the undertaking to be set by the court. Defendants cross motion for dismissal of the complaint is denied. Dated: February 5, 1998 ENTER: ___________________________________________ J.S.C. Dear Sarah: Having had a decent night's sleep, I can elaborate a bit more on what happened in court New York. As you know, candidates for N.R.A. board are either nominated by the Nominating Committee or by petition. An N.R.A. Bylaw (enacted by the members themselves) expressly prohibits any designation in the Rifleman/Hunter/Guardian of how a candidate was nominated. The Nominating Committee was STACKED in favor of Hammer/LaPierre & Co. N.R.A. management was INTENT ON VIOLATING the Bylaw prohibition against making any mention in the official journal of how candidates were nominated. Among other things, they would have published in or near the ballot a full page containing nothing but the Nominating Committee Report. This would have given candiates mentioned in that report an unfair advantage over people, like myself and the other plaintiffs, who were nominated by petition. We sued ONLY BECAUSE: "plaintiffs, as duly-nominated candidates for election to the NRA Board, are entitled to participate in an election conducted in the manner chosen by the membes of the NRA as expressed in the unambiguous language of its bylaws." (This is what the judge said we have a right to.) THE ONLY WAY TO INSURE A FAIR ELECTION WAS TO GO TO COURT. Yours for the 2nd Amendment... Howard Fezell 2nd Amendment Home Page http://www.2ndAmendment.net e-mail: fezell@fred.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Legislative Email Addresses Date: 09 Feb 1998 16:27:49 -0700 For those who would like to contact their State legislators via email, the house lists representative's email addresses at . The senate roster is at . It lists only a few email addresses. However, I'm told that with a few exceptions, almost all legislators have email--at least during the session. Every email I've seen so far is of the form with preferredinitallastname truncated to a maximum of 8 characters. Preferred initial is the initial of their preferred name. This is usually their first name, but sometimes a middle name. For example, Senator L. Alma Mansell's email is (preferred name Al) while Sen Craig A. Peterson's email is (username limited to 8 characters). I don't know how often they read their email, but the server will bounce bad addresses back to you, so with a little trial and error, you should at least be able to send a message to a valid address. I've made a point to individually address the salution to each recipient so that things don't look like some kind of spam. I also include my home address and phone with each email. My last email to the 11 members of one house committee brought responses from 3 members--all of whom agreed to one degree or another with my position. -- 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. "If the text and purpose of the Constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia `for defense of the State,' then the terms `arms' most likely would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by the Colonial Militia Men." -- STATE v. KESSLER, 289 Or. 359, 369, 614 p. 2d 94,99 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1980.) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Gun Control Poll -Forwarded Date: 10 Feb 1998 12:09:23 -0700 Received: (qmail 12985 invoked by uid 516); 10 Feb 1998 03:51:22 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 12542 invoked from network); 10 Feb 1998 03:50:40 -0000 Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 1998 03:50:40 -0000 Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2]) by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA00064; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:50:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from 166-93-76-194.rmi.net (166-93-76-194.rmi.net [166.93.76.194]) by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA08125; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:34:48 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199802100334.UAA08125@mail2.rockymtn.net> X-Sender: davisda@rmi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis ----------------------- >Return-Path: >From: brian.beck@usa.net >Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:57:14 >To: davisda@rmi.net >Subject: Gun Control Poll > > > >Found this website (E-Poll) which is conducting a poll on gun control - notably >the Washington I-676 style proposals. I voted today - and joined a 70+% >majority which favors "our" viewpoint. > >The website is: > >http://www.epoll.com/left.html > >Select the topic from that page (they will request some basic demographic >info) > >Go and vote! > > > >____________________________________________________________________ >Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com > > ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs. ******************** For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Satcher Nomination -Forwarded Date: 10 Feb 1998 13:26:55 -0700 Feb 10, 1998 The noon news is reporting that David Satcher has been confirmed as Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As head of the CDC, Dr. Satcher has been overseer of studies of little scientific merit which were passed off as legitimate in order to convince the public that private possession of firearms should be prohibited. Dr. Satcher prostituted his office to put out government sponsored propaganda for the Clinton administration. Such a willingness to produce pseudo-scientific propaganda does not demonstrate the type of integrity Americans need and expect from physicians and especially not from the highest public health official in the nation. Nineteen Republican Senators voted for Dr. Satcher, including Utah's very own "Friend of Ted" Sen. Hatch. (I confirmed Hatch's vote with his office.) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id JAA05224 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:55:28 -0700 Received: from gw1.thiokol.com by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com via smap (3.2) id xma005196; Mon, 9 Feb 98 09:55:01 -0700 Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:55:30 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Senator Orrin Hatch February 9, 1998 Dear Senator Hatch: This letter is to ask that you please vote no on the confirmation of David Satcher, M.D., to be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As head of the CDC, Dr. Satcher has been overseer of studies of little scientific merit which were passed off as legitimate in order to convince the public that private possession of firearms should be prohibited. In short, Dr. Satcher has prostituted his office to put out government sponsored propaganda for the Clinton administration. Such a willingness to produce pseudo-scientific propaganda does not demonstrate the type of integrity Americans need and expect from physicians and especially not from the highest public health official in the nation. Please do what you can to stop the nomination of Dr. Satcher. Neil Sagers 1205 North Quincy Ave., #2 Ogden, UT 84404 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [LP RELEASE: Deadbeat Dad Database] Date: 10 Feb 1998 15:06:37 -0700 Likely of some interest.... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Why the "Deadbeat Dad" database should scare you -- even if you're not a deadbeat WASHINGTON, DC -- Bad news about the new "deadbeat dads" law: Your name will soon be entered into a massive government database, even if you're not a deadbeat -- and even if you're not a dad. That's because a new law compels every employer in the USA to help the federal government build a massive new database to enforce child-support payment laws: The New Hires Directory. "The first words you may hear the next time you apply for a job are: Your papers, please," said Libertarian Party Chairman Steve Dasbach. "Politicians who claimed they only want to track deadbeat dads are compiling a database to allow them to track every American worker. "Just like in totalitarian societies, government bureaucrats will soon have the power to deny you a job, and the ability to monitor your income, assets, and debts." The New Hires Directory was mandated by the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and compels employers to report the name, address, Social Security number, and wages of every new worker to the state within 20 days. States then send the data to the federal government, which matches names against its "deadbeat dads database" -- a list of every parent nationwide who owes child support. "Federal bureaucrats will have the ability to track every American from job to job, deny jobs to people who fall behind in child support payments, and even share information with other government agencies," Dasbach said. But those aren't the only reasons why this law should make you nervous -- even if you're not a deadbeat dad, said Dasbach. In addition: * Such mammoth government databases are reprehensible in a free society. "Americans who have never committed a crime shouldn't have to supply personal data to politicians for any reason whatsoever, and they certainly shouldn't have to receive government clearance to get a job," he said. Noting that the law authorizes child support agencies to share the database with the Social Security Administration, the Justice Department, and even the IRS, Dasbach asked, "Why would politicians who steal each other's FBI files even hesitate to trample the privacy rights of ordinary Americans?" * It's another "just-in-case-you-commit-a-crime" law. "Like the new federally mandated fingerprint law, politicians are demanding to enter your personal data into their computer, just in case you commit a crime," Dasbach said. Every time a New Yorker changes jobs, for example, the State Department of Family Assistance informs the new employer about the worker's child support obligations -- even if the parent has never missed a payment. One bureaucrat bragged that "we don't give them an opportunity to become deadbeats." "This law turns the presumption of innocence on its head and forces every American to prove their innocence to politicians, bureaucrats, and computers -- every time they get a new job," Dasbach said. * The government will inevitably expand the scope of the legislation. "Does anyone really believe that federal bureaucrats will use this database only to track down deadbeat dads?" Dasbach asked. "If history is any guide, this system will soon include information on gun ownership, education records, medical histories, and anything else that prying politicians want to know about you." * Your personal financial data may soon be available to credit bureaus and other non-governmental agencies. Privacy expert Robert Gellman points out that private detectives already pay police and child welfare workers to illegally supply criminal, medical, and credit records, and warns that information in the New Hires Directory will become just as accessible. But the primary reason to oppose this new database, said Dasbach, is because "the government has become so large and intrusive that soon our only protection against it may be the information that it doesn't have. If politicians really cared at all about protecting privacy, they would abolish existing databases -- rather than creating new ones." # # # ----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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: USSC and Legislative update Date: 10 Feb 1998 19:38:10 -0700 The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at the Salt Palace. Elections were held for the new (effective immediately) Board of Trustees. The members of the new Board are (alphabetically): Jerry Dickson (Secretary-Treasurer) Doug Henrichsen Elwood Powell (Chairman) Shirley Spain (Vice Chair) Bob Templeton Sarah Thompson Joe Venus Advisory board members are: Bryan Lindsey John Spangler (and maybe others of whom I'm not aware) The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info made public. Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse their open-door policy. All of us are VERY busy right now. Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), cathounds@aol.com Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (w), 364-0412 (h), 73214,3115@compuserve.com Shirley Spain, 963-0784, agr@aros.net Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w) Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, righter@therighter.com (I prefer e-mail to phone calls when possible). Also, please remember that there is an excellent daily legislative update available by phone, 24 hrs a day, at (801) 299-7230. PLEASE check that number before calling Board members with questions about legislation. If you'd like to receive e-mail alerts, please write to agr@aros.net If you'd like to be on the fax alert list, please fax your info to 801-963-1913. I will do my best to post updates to this list as well. SB 57, introduced by Senate President Lane Beattie was released today, and can be found at: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1998/bills/sbillint/SB0057.htm My understanding, (although I haven't thoroughly read the bill yet), is that it will gut our concealed carry system. Once I have a chance to read it thoroughly, an update/analysis will follow. This bill has a good chance of being passed unless WE let legislators know that we'll remember their votes come November. More to come..... Sarah Thompson Sarah Thompson, M.D. 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: "S. Thompson" Subject: Religious freedom Date: 10 Feb 1998 22:11:53 -0700 letters@desnews.com Dear Editor: Your editorial (2/8) urging support for Senate President Lane Beattie's SB 57 is both irresponsible and reprehensible. Beattie's bill would not, as you falsely inform your readers, "allow church leaders, private property owners and public school officials to ban concealed weapon permit holders from bringing firearms into their buildings." It would absolutely _prohibit_ the possession of firearms on these premises, and the churches and private property owners would have no discretion whatsoever. Prohibition is not the same thing as choice. This mistake is quite understandable since you both wrote and published your editorial days before the actual text of the legislation was available. While you are entitled to your opinions, I wish you would have the journalistic integrity to base your opinions on facts and not rumors. Both Utah and the LDS Church have long been known for their religious tolerance and adherence to the principle of separation of Church and State. This is a worthy tradition, which should be held sacred. Beattie's bill would set a heinous precedent for intrusion of the state into church matters. If the state may prohibit firearms from the premises of a house of worship regardless of the wishes of the religion or clergy involved, all religious freedom is endangered. If the state may force a church to ban guns, what is to stop it from banning sacramental wine, or requiring that Muslims wear shoes during prayer? What is to stop it from mandating birth control or equal religious standing for homosexuals? If a house of worship wishes to ban guns, or even require guns, let it do so on its own authority. Religious practices are not the domain of the state. All Utahns who support religious freedom should vigorously oppose SB 57. Sarah Thompson, M.D. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update Date: 11 Feb 1998 11:17:24 -0700 On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: >The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at >the Salt Palace. Elections were held for the new (effective immediately) >Board of Trustees. > I wish the USSC well. However, given their prior comments supporting the UofUs ban on guns and their close affiliation with the NRA, I had to let my membership lapse. If the new board members can provide some proof that they are at least as concerned about my right to own and carry guns for personal and family defense as they are about my ability to hunt, I may reconsider my position. Re the NRA, I repost an earlier message from Scott. NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles) by ORAL DECKARD The Vigo Examiner I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.) I was told repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles). Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the Second Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by surprise, and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say something along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word." And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is your job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second Amendment, and you don't even know what it says?" Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they continue trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even embarrassed. This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I decided to have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my NRA membership had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I replied "No, I support the Second Amendment." There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second Amendment and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America (goaslad@aol.com) and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (Against- Genocide@JPFO.org) He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the NRA?" Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV and announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47." I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he took that as a good thing. So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right to keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word." So I simply told him what it says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second Amendment was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now we could buy instant food. A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my wife signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no one needed high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to identify him. Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not this time. So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even spelled it for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February 4th, where are you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas." As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I asked "Is there any need to protect assault high capacity semi-automatic rifles?" He answered "We would like to keep them for matches and things, but they don't have to have those big magazines, and only if they were used just for that purpose. We want to be reasonable." I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor. His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, I introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo Examiner, explained Richard Kuhlman and myself were just discussing the need to protect high capacity semi-automatic rifles, and asked "What's your take on it?" He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered "Both." So he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic rifles were imported from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get rid of them." Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying the NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles ?" He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them." So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow (Feb. 5th, 1998) So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor on the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment, and now, that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of firearms, the class of firearms the Second Amendment was specifically enacted to protect. Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected to their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it, or were determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They both seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This time I didn't get it just from the solicitor, but also from his supervisor. And not just his opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion of the NRA. So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you can support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH the NRA. Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an NRA VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead. One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members over a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the years of refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When you give up a right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable will you ultimately have to become? In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged that they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't hold over two shots. They were reasonable. And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground will you now brace your feet? Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is now no solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That defense must now rest with those who have not compromised the Constitution. After Norville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our time", it then fell to Winston Churchill to defend England. Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting the Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies) to get off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are loyal to the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem too proud of our Constitution. Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner All are free to republish at will this intact document. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com -- 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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [jimdex@inconnect.com: KWUN Wednesday] Date: 11 Feb 1998 11:19:13 -0700 Likely of interest to some here... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- At 10:00 AM, [Jim Dexter, State Chair of the Utah Libertarian Party's] guest will be Arnold J. Gaunt of FEAR who will talk about the horrors of Utah civil asset forfeiture laws. Arnold is also a NRA Director nominee and if elected wants to help force all the weak-kneed compromisers off the NRA board. Tell all your business-owning friends and associates to tune in at 11:00, because we're going to take a break from politics to disucss effective marketing techniques for businesses with Kathy Weaver Mickelsen of AdVise. Kathy is also a Seventh-Day Adventist whose church, thanks to Waco, is all too keenly aware of the gov'ts ability to attack religion. Hey I gotta get a commercial in somewhere. The state chair compensation is all negative financially. ;-) ----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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Quotas at UHP? Date: 11 Feb 1998 12:49:15 -0700 Not directly related, but maybe of some interest... From today's Rolly & Wells in the Tribune. QUOTAS OR NO QUOTAS? Recently, we told you about a letter of reprimand Utah Highway Patrol Trooper John Davis received from his sergeant, Roger Cutler, in the UHP Kane County Division. Part of the reprimand was for failing to get enough DUI arrests, noting: ``As of today you have arrested four DUIs. This, as you know, is sub-standard as by the end of the month you should be at seven.'' Highway Patrol spokesman Verdi White told us Cutler merely had used a poor choice of words to convey his concerns about Davis' performance. White said the patrol does not have DUI quotas. Au contraire. We have heard from several troopers who say, yes, in some areas the patrol does have DUI quotas and they sent us documentation to prove it. The formal evaluation criteria for Salt Lake County lists several objectives, including DUI arrests, which troopers need to be in line for favorable transfers, promotions and merit pay increases. It requires a minimum of 12 DUI arrests per year for a ``fair'' evaluation and 14 per year for a ``good'' evaluation. A 15-year trooper in Moab was suspended in December for falsifying DUI reports. The troopers said there is no excuse for falsifying a report. But he was pressured to meet his quota. Three years ago, House Speaker Mel Brown, R-Midvale, supported a bill to remove quotas. But UHP officials persuaded him to drop the legislation if they agreed to voluntarily remove quotas. White says in Salt Lake County the written standards are not strictly enforced. He conceded the requirements may vary in other counties. -- 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. "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update Date: 11 Feb 1998 12:57:47 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: > > >The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at > >the Salt Palace. Elections were held for the new (effective immediately) > >Board of Trustees. > > > > I wish the USSC well. However, given their prior comments supporting > the UofUs ban on guns and their close affiliation with the NRA, I had > to let my membership lapse. If the new board members can provide some > proof that they are at least as concerned about my right to own > and carry guns for personal and family defense as they are about > my ability to hunt, I may reconsider my position. > I believe this might address your concerns regarding how one member of the board views concept of gun bans, the NRA, family/personal defense etc. (all in one letter! Good job Sarah!) July 8, 1997 Ms. Marion Hammer Mr. Wayne LaPierre, Jr. National Rifle Organization 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Dear Ms. Hammer and Mr. LaPierre, I have received several requests from each of you to renew my membership in the National Rifle Association. I am unwilling to do so now, or in the foreseeable future. You see, I’m one of those “extremists” whom you feel you need to purge from the ranks of the organization. I know better than to go where I’m not wanted. I certainly know better than to pay for such treatment. I believe that many, though still a minority, of our law enforcement agents do behave like “jack-booted thugs” and that calling them what they are is appropriate and necessary. I believe that federal law enforcement should be severely curtailed and should always work under the supervision of local law enforcement. I believe the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to own any weapon I choose, specifically including fully automatic “machine guns”. In fact, if the Second Amendment is to have any meaning, then we are obligated to own fully automatic weapons and weapons of mass destruction in order to resist the depredations of a corrupt, unconstitutional government that would sell us and our children into slavery. I believe I do not need anyone’s permission to own or carry the weapon of my choice. I most assuredly do not need anyone’s permission to defend myself, my family, or my property. I will not beg, and I will not subject myself to degradation by a government that presumes I am “guilty” until it determines my innocence. I do not, and will never, concede that the police, the military, the legislature, the ATF, our despicable president, or anyone else is my intellectual or moral superior and has the right to judge me. Only a fully informed jury of my peers may do that, and then only where it has lawful jurisdiction. I believe that all gun control laws are inherently evil. It is not enough to say that Brady will “sunset”. If you’re willing to tolerate evil for one day, will you tolerate it for two? If you are willing to tolerate it for two days, will you tolerate it for a year? And if you tolerate it for a year, why should anyone believe you will not tolerate it forever? Honor and integrity dictate that we demand a repeal now! Domestic abuse is a heinous crime and must be treated as such. But I will never condone the removal of rights as punishment for a misdemeanor. Likewise I will never condone the removal of a person’s right to self-defense in response to a non-violent crime, nor will I condone the denial of basic rights to those persons who, through no fault of their own, suffer from a mental illness, but pose no threat to others. I find your support for the overturning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which denies First Amendment rights as “necessary to get tough on crime”, abhorrent; it is an indication of your true nature and goals. NRA-ILA has done many wonderful things. Your educational programs are excellent, have taught the joys of gun use and ownership to many, and have no doubt prevented many deaths and injuries due to your emphasis on safety training. There is no better firearms safety program for children than Eddie Eagle. Your research and legislative resources have been invaluable to me. However, the time for compromise is past. This is no longer about hunting, or target shooting. It’s not about safety. It’s not about begging for permission to exercise rights that existed long before either government or man. It’s about survival: individual survival and family survival. It’s about survival of the form of government envisioned by the founders of this nation. It’s about the survival of the gun culture in the face of a government that would willingly commit genocide against it. If you think I’m a wild-eyed radical, just look to Clinton’s soul mate, Tony Blair, who has publicly announced that gun bans have nothing whatever to do with public safety; that the issue is the elimination of the gun culture. Far too many others have attempted genocide against my people. I will not close my eyes. I will not lie down. I will not go willingly. I will resist until there is nothing left of me to resist. I will not register my guns, my ammunition, myself, or my family. I will not consent to background checks, especially when performed by a fascist government. I will not ask permission from anyone to do what is right. When you decide to stop selling our birthright, When you decide to stop supporting permits, When you proclaim that each and every one of us is innocent until proven guilty; that we need not subject ourselves to “background checks”, registration or bureaucracy, When you refuse to tolerate evil, When you are willing to call evil by its rightful name, When you are willing to call genocide by its rightful name, When you stop distracting yourselves and others with peripheral issues, When you learn that a compromise with the devil is no compromise at all, Then, and only then, will you have my support. Until that time, may your chains rest lightly. Sincerely, Sarah B. Thompson, M.D. Permission to distribute and/or copy granted provided this letter is reproduced in its entirety, without changes, and full attribution is given. Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update Date: 11 Feb 1998 13:39:54 -0700 On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Will Thompson posted: >I believe this might address your concerns regarding how one member of >the board views concept of gun bans, the NRA, family/personal defense >etc. (all in one letter! Good job Sarah!) > July 8, I think I've seen this letter before. I've never had any concerns of Sarah's position on the ROCG. (I prefer to use "own and carry guns" rather than "keep and bear arms" since it removes any ambiguity over what I mean.) As soon as you can show me similar letters from the rest (or even a super-majority) of the newly elected board members, my real concerns with the USSC will begin to diminish. A chang in name away from shooting sports and towards the real purpose of the 2nd amd would be a huge step in the right direction as well. GOA and JPFO both name it like it is--guns. Not sports, or duck hunting, or even just rifles, but all guns. -- 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. "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update Date: 11 Feb 1998 14:27:46 -0700 At 11:17 AM 2/11/98 -0700, you wrote: > >On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: > >>The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at >>the Salt Palace. Elections were held for the new (effective immediately) >>Board of Trustees. >> > >I wish the USSC well. However, given their prior comments supporting >the UofUs ban on guns and their close affiliation with the NRA, I had >to let my membership lapse. If the new board members can provide some >proof that they are at least as concerned about my right to own >and carry guns for personal and family defense as they are about >my ability to hunt, I may reconsider my position. Dear Charles, Your concerns are certainly justified. That's exactly WHY I posted contact info. The Board can't possibly represent gun owners' interests if they have no idea of what you want. Tell them - not the mail list! And for the record, USSC is independent, and NOT a branch of the NRA, although they've historically had strong ties. As far as the NRA goes, I'm not a member, and my opposition to their policies of appeasement is generally well known. However, fair is fair. Many, if not most, of the people who bothered to show up at the USSC meeting identified themselves as NRA members. Where were all the people who would like to be totally independent and/or affiliate with other pro-gun groups? On a more practical level, the NRA has contributed money to USSC. The gun owners of this state have, for the most part, contributed nothing financially to local efforts. Three of the Board members (Shirley Spain, Joe Venus, and myself) openly advertised ourselves as "Absolutely No Compromise" candidates. We were elected, so I assume that point of view has a good bit of support. (That doesn't mean the other board members are pro-compromise, only that they didn't mention their positions in their platforms.) Personally, I don't really care whether you or anyone else joins USSC. This isn't about USSC. It goes beyond gun rights. The First Amendment is under direct assault; the state now is claiming that it has an absolute right to dictate to a church what it may or may not allow. The Second Amendment is under direct assault as well, since the state also claims it has a right to restrict firearms from both pubic and private places. And the Fourth Amendment is under attack because the state believes it may dictate what you must do in the sanctity of your own home. THAT's what matters to me. That _should_ matter to every Utahn whether or not they even own a gun. And for that matter, since the last I heard, you are an officer of the Libertarian Party of Utah, just where does that "Party of Principle" stand on these flagrant desecrations of the Constitution and individual liberty? I'm pulling out all the stops to defeat this bill. I will vote against any compromise. I don't honestly expect to succeed, but I'll go down trying. That's all I can do. If Utahns as a people don't care, then they deserve whatever they get. As my friend Brenda says: "All those in favor of gun control, please do nothing." Sarah Thompson (speaking for myself only) "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: USSC and Legislative update Date: 11 Feb 1998 15:29:40 -0700 On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: >Your concerns are certainly justified. That's exactly WHY I posted contact >info. The Board can't possibly represent gun owners' interests if they >have no idea of what you want. Tell them - not the mail list! >And for the record, USSC is independent, and NOT a branch of the NRA, >although they've historically had strong ties. I will contact them as time permits, though I don't expect them to pay too much credence to a non-member. The previous board didn't pay me any credence when I was a member. As a newly elected board member, feel free to pass along my comments as a past and potential future member. Maybe the fact that I was once a dues paying member, but felt morally required to quit support over NRA-like compromises will help convince the current board to take a no compromise approach. And lest there be any confusion, I did not mean to imply the USSC was a branch of the NRA, only that they had close ties. > >As far as the NRA goes, I'm not a member, and my opposition to their >policies of appeasement is generally well known. However, fair is fair. >Many, if not most, of the people who bothered to show up at the USSC >meeting identified themselves as NRA members. Where were all the people >who would like to be totally independent and/or affiliate with other >pro-gun groups? Not being a member, I was not elligble to attend. Given past history I'm currently unwilling to lend financial support by joining. That could change depending on how the USSC handles this issue. As a current board member you would seem to be in a fine position to distance the USSC from the NRA and their tactics and forming closer alliances with GOA and JPFO. > >On a more practical level, the NRA has contributed money to USSC. The gun >owners of this state have, for the most part, contributed nothing >financially to local efforts. I certainely hope you are not suggesting that the USSC's policy's are for sale to the highest bidder. It seems that if the NRA wants to offer money for items the USSC supports, USSC is free to accept it, but should not allow the NRA to dictate policy. Maybe the fact that the NRA offers money and local gun owners such as myself have not should be viewed of an indication of whose policies were represented by past board members. I'll lend financial support when an organization reflects my views. Not before because I can't afford to offer enough to get any organization to change their views based on my money. Can the NRA? I think you are opposed to CCW permits--prefering Vermont style carry. Do you intend to lobby in that direction, or will the NRA's grand plan for nationwide reciprocity (with its national data base) be USSC policy? > >Three of the Board members (Shirley Spain, Joe Venus, and myself) openly >advertised ourselves as "Absolutely No Compromise" candidates. We were >elected, so I assume that point of view has a good bit of support. (That >doesn't mean the other board members are pro-compromise, only that they >didn't mention their positions in their platforms.) > Three is a good start. As a board member, perhaps you could let us potential members know where the others purport to stand and, most importantly, how board votes stack up to what has been said. >Personally, I don't really care whether you or anyone else joins USSC. >This isn't about USSC. It goes beyond gun rights. The First Amendment is >under direct assault; the state now is claiming that it has an absolute >right to dictate to a church what it may or may not allow. The Second >Amendment is under direct assault as well, since the state also claims it >has a right to restrict firearms from both pubic and private places. And >the Fourth Amendment is under attack because the state believes it may >dictate what you must do in the sanctity of your own home. THAT's what >matters to me. That _should_ matter to every Utahn whether or not they >even own a gun. > I agree the bill, if passed would be a huge blow to current CCW permits. I've already written a letter that will be sent to the members of the Senate committee who end up hearing the bill asking them to oppose the bill. However, honesty and credibility require us to not report the bill to be more than it is. I read the text of the bill this morning. A church or private property owner may, contrary to what you post and sent to the DesNews, grant permission for the carry of concealed weapons on their property if they so choose. I'll forward a copy of the relveant section, if you'd like. However, unless they do grant permission, the CCW permit is void and it is an infraction to CCW--unless specific notice of prohibition has been given in which case it is a misdemeanor. So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private property owners is not correct. >And for that matter, since the last I heard, you are an officer of the >Libertarian Party of Utah, just where does that "Party of Principle" stand >on these flagrant desecrations of the Constitution and individual liberty? I am not empowered to offer official party position on any topic. And since even you have apparantly not had time to fully read and digest this bill yet, you certainely don't expect the State chair and State Executive Committee of the LPUtah to have had time to read it and issue official position. I will make enquiry and relay the answer back to you and the list. I can state the LPUtah firmly supports the right to own and carry guns without asking govt permission. The sticky thing about an issue like this is that to officially oppose a bill affecting CCW is to at least tacitly support the CCW system. As an individual, I am willing to do that at times. This is one of them since gutting the CCW will make itthat much harder to ever move from an "unrestricted" CCW towards a Vermont style carry. How an organization reacts, may be different than how individuals within that organization react, however. -- 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. "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon Baines Johnson, former Senator and President. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update Date: 11 Feb 1998 16:21:48 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: > > >Personally, I don't really care whether you or anyone else joins USSC. > >This isn't about USSC. It goes beyond gun rights. The First Amendment is > >under direct assault; the state now is claiming that it has an absolute > >right to dictate to a church what it may or may not allow. The Second > >Amendment is under direct assault as well, since the state also claims it > >has a right to restrict firearms from both pubic and private places. And > >the Fourth Amendment is under attack because the state believes it may > >dictate what you must do in the sanctity of your own home. THAT's what > >matters to me. That _should_ matter to every Utahn whether or not they > >even own a gun. > > > > I agree the bill, if passed would be a huge blow to current CCW > permits. I've already written a letter that will be sent to the > members of the Senate committee who end up hearing the bill asking > them to oppose the bill. However, honesty and credibility require us > to not report the bill to be more than it is. > > I read the text of the bill this morning. A church or private > property owner may, contrary to what you post and sent to the DesNews, > grant permission for the carry of concealed weapons on their property > if they so choose. I'll forward a copy of the relveant section, if > you'd like. However, unless they do grant permission, the CCW permit > is void and it is an infraction to CCW--unless specific notice of > prohibition has been given in which case it is a misdemeanor. > Actually, the bill states that "prior permission is a defense to prosecution". Not "defense to police surrounding the premises, kicking the doors in, killing the dogs, shooting the hell out of the place, possibly killing your neighbors children, you, your family,etc., arresting your butt, confiscating your house, property, guns, etc." For it to be a defense against prosecution merely means that they _may_ decide to release you _after_ all of the above has happened. If that pig Beattie wanted to "fix" the ccw law and affirm that the church had "property" rights, (even tho they steal my tax subsidy), all he had to put in the bill was "the church _may_ prohibit". And it's not just about CCW, as she said. The prohibition is by default. It is a dictation by the State that in order to _not_ suppress the free exercise of civil liberties, the church or property owner _must_ take time and money consuming action. This is in fact a mandate on the church. If that isn't plain.... > So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private > property owners is not correct. > see above. Also, as it's written, I have to carry a note signed by me granting me permission to carry on my own property...not a dictation? So, to my reading....dictating what a church _must_ do <- 1st Amend. banning guns anywhere <- 2nd amend being "unsecure" in my house <- 4th amend > I am not empowered to offer official party position on any topic. And > since even you have apparantly not had time to fully read and digest > this bill yet, you certainely don't expect the State chair and State > Executive Committee of the LPUtah to have had time to read it and > issue official position. I will make enquiry and relay the answer > back to you and the list. Having read and digested the bill, I find it packaged evil. Legally, morally, ethically and strategically. The "chips" he's withheld, the exceptions he's not mentioned, the sneaky little things he's done are abominable. [derant] Will - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update Date: 11 Feb 1998 16:37:41 -0700 On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Will Thompson posted: >Actually, the bill states that "prior permission is a defense to >prosecution". >Not "defense to police surrounding the premises, kicking the doors in, >killing the dogs, shooting the hell out of the place, possibly killing >your neighbors children, you, your family,etc., arresting your butt, >confiscating your house, property, guns, etc." For it to be a defense >against prosecution merely means that they _may_ decide to release >you _after_ all of the above has happened. I am not well enough versed in legal phrases to contend with your assertion. It may well be accurate. But I don't know. > >If that pig Beattie wanted to "fix" the ccw law and affirm that the >church had "property" rights, (even tho they steal my tax subsidy), all >he had to put in the bill was "the church _may_ prohibit". And it's >not just about CCW, as she said. The prohibition is by default. It >is a dictation by the State that in order to _not_ suppress the free >exercise of civil liberties, the church or property owner _must_ take >time and money consuming action. I agree absolutely. (Except the part about "stealing tax subsidy" which is too far afield from this list's charter to even begin to delve into.) I doubt that many of us would have any problem with churches and other private property being explicity allowed to prohibit guns. After all, if the LDS church can legally keep you out of their temples based on your most private of affairs, they can keep you out for any, or even no reason, including what you may be wearing or carrying at the time. Ditto for churches, synagouges (sp?), and mosques. >This is in fact a mandate on the >church. If that isn't plain.... It is a mandate only if the church wants to allow concealed carry. I don't like it any more than you do--probably less since I happen to attend a church that has made it very clear it isn't going to give permission to CCW. But I don't think it is quite the absolute mandate that Sarah made it out to be in her post or letter to the editor where, at least by my reading, it appeared she was saying the church could not allow CCW even if the wanted to. To use her example of shoes and wine, the law would read something like, no one may consume alcohol or remove their shoes on church premisses unless the church allows them to do so. I'd say an invitation from the priest to partake the sacramental wine is a pretty good indication he's granted me permission to drink alcoholic beverages (at least the sac wine) in his church. No? > >> So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private >> property owners is not correct. >> >see above. >Also, as it's written, I have to carry a note signed by me granting me >permission to carry on my own property...not a dictation? Hyperbole may be useful for arguing at times. But I nothing says you have to have written permission. Only prior permission. Clearly, if you have any reason to think the person granting permission may later lie, you would be well served to have it in writing. But unless you have multiple personalities, I think you should be safe vouching for the fact that you gave yourself and family permission to CCW. From the bill: 76-10-531. Restricting dangerous weapons in private residences -- Defense -- Penalty. - 15 - 1 (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, 2 Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, may not knowingly or intentionally: 3 (a) transport a dangerous weapon into a private residence; or 4 (b) enter or remain in a private residence while in possession of a dangerous weapon. 5 (2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person had prior permission 6 to possess the dangerous weapon in or to transport it into the private residence of: 7 (a) the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence; 8 or 9 (b) a person with apparent authority to act for the person in Subsection (2)(a). 10 (3) A violation of this section is a class C misdemeanor. >Having read and digested the bill, I find it packaged evil. Legally, >morally, ethically and strategically. The "chips" he's withheld, the >exceptions he's not mentioned, the sneaky little things he's done are >abominable. > I don't disagree with this assesment of the bill. Even more troubling to me than the churches or private homes, which I can avoid if I so choose, is his inclusion of schools and their grounds (1000' from any school, pre-school, or day care facility) for "enhanced penalties" for any offense involving a gun. So now my class A misdemeanor technical offense becomse a class C felony just because it occurred within 2 city blocks of a school, day-care, or pre-school. -- 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. "What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and long lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." -- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution - Preface, "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms" - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update Date: 11 Feb 1998 16:41:04 -0700 At 03:29 PM 2/11/98 -0700, you wrote: > >I will contact them as time permits, though I don't expect them to pay >too much credence to a non-member. The previous board didn't pay me >any credence when I was a member. As a newly elected board member, >feel free to pass along my comments as a past and potential future >member. Maybe the fact that I was once a dues paying member, but felt >morally required to quit support over NRA-like compromises will help >convince the current board to take a no compromise approach. I think the majority of members of this board are willing to listen. >And lest there be any confusion, I did not mean to imply the USSC was >a branch of the NRA, only that they had close ties. Nor did I mean to imply that you said so. I was just clarifying. >Not being a member, I was not elligble to attend. Given past history >I'm currently unwilling to lend financial support by joining. That >could change depending on how the USSC handles this issue. As a >current board member you would seem to be in a fine position to >distance the USSC from the NRA and their tactics and forming closer >alliances with GOA and JPFO. Actually, the meeting was open to the public. Anyone may attend, anyone may speak, although of course only members may vote. Even Board Meetings are open to the public, although the Board may elect to close a meeting when discussing sensitive matters. If you're interested in attending, let me know. Meetings are every Monday evening during the legislative session. >I certainely hope you are not suggesting that the USSC's policy's are >for sale to the highest bidder. It seems that if the NRA wants to >offer money for items the USSC supports, USSC is free to accept it, >but should not allow the NRA to dictate policy. The only people who set policy are the Board of Trustees. I'm not for sale, which I think you already know. I honestly don't think any of the others are either. But when the choice is to shut down or accept NRA money, I can understand that some people would choose to accept the money, even if it does have strings attached. I'm not one of them, and if we don't get anything going this session, I'm perfectly willing to let USSC fold and let gun owners fend for themselves. >I think you are opposed to CCW permits--prefering Vermont style carry. >Do you intend to lobby in that direction, or will the NRA's grand plan >for nationwide reciprocity (with its national data base) be USSC >policy? I am indeed opposed to CCW. I will lobby in that direction, but I do not expect any other Board members to support that idea. I could be wrong, and at any rate I'll do my best to persuade them. I don't know the position of other members on national reciprocity, but I oppose it. > >Three is a good start. As a board member, perhaps you could let us >potential members know where the others purport to stand and, most >importantly, how board votes stack up to what has been said. And maybe you potential members could let the board members know what you require in order to feel comfortable supporting the organization. It makes more sense to be proactive than to rant at them _after_ they make a decision you don't like. >I agree the bill, if passed would be a huge blow to current CCW >permits. I've already written a letter that will be sent to the >members of the Senate committee who end up hearing the bill asking >them to oppose the bill. However, honesty and credibility require us >to not report the bill to be more than it is. > >I read the text of the bill this morning. A church or private >property owner may, contrary to what you post and sent to the DesNews, >grant permission for the carry of concealed weapons on their property >if they so choose. I'll forward a copy of the relveant section, if >you'd like. However, unless they do grant permission, the CCW permit >is void and it is an infraction to CCW--unless specific notice of >prohibition has been given in which case it is a misdemeanor. > >So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private >property owners is not correct. I believe you are mistaken about that. The relevant section of the bill states: 76-10-530. Restricting dangerous weapons in a house of worship -- Defense -- Penalty. 13 (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, 14 Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, may not knowingly or intentionally: 15 (a) transport a dangerous weapon into a house of worship; or 16 (b) enter or remain in a house of worship while in possession of a dangerous weapon. 17 (2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person had permission of the 18 church or organization operating the house of worship to possess the dangerous weapon in or to 19 transport it into the house of worship. "Defense to prosecution" means you can be arrested, charged, your weapons confiscated, and only after you've hired an attorney and gone to court (at a cost of thousands of dollars) may you present the "defense" that you "had permission". Then you get to go to court to get your permit back and again to get your weapons back. Since Utah is moving away from jury trials for misdemeanors, your "defense" may be entirely worthless. When members of a church are subject to being arrested in a church for behavior "permitted" by that church, not only is there no religious freedom, you're living in a police state. >>And for that matter, since the last I heard, you are an officer of the >>Libertarian Party of Utah, just where does that "Party of Principle" stand >>on these flagrant desecrations of the Constitution and individual liberty? > >I am not empowered to offer official party position on any topic. And >since even you have apparantly not had time to fully read and digest >this bill yet, you certainely don't expect the State chair and State >Executive Committee of the LPUtah to have had time to read it and >issue official position. I will make enquiry and relay the answer >back to you and the list. I've virtually memorized the bill, actually. But I would appreciate knowing the LPU's position on this bill when the SEC has had time to review it fully. >I can state the LPUtah firmly supports the right to own and carry guns >without asking govt permission. I don't remember hearing a position on the "Safe Storage Bill", which was heard in committee last week either...... >The sticky thing about an issue like this is that to officially oppose >a bill affecting CCW is to at least tacitly support the CCW system. >As an individual, I am willing to do that at times. This is one of >them since gutting the CCW will make itthat much harder to ever move >from an "unrestricted" CCW towards a Vermont style carry. How an >organization reacts, may be different than how individuals within that >organization react, however. Agreed. Since it appears the majority of gunowners support CCW, I'm willing to work to preserve it until I have the opportunity to introduce legislation to restore unrestricted, unlicensed, unpermitted carry. That is my own, public, individual stance on the issue, and reflects how I will vote. I can only speak for myself and not the board as a whole. Sarah Thompson - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update Date: 11 Feb 1998 17:19:33 -0700 On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: > Actually, the meeting was open to the public. Anyone may attend, anyone >may speak, although of course only members may vote. Even Board Meetings >are open to the public, although the Board may elect to close a meeting >when discussing sensitive matters. If you're interested in attending, let >me know. Meetings are every Monday evening during the legislative session. It may be worthwile for me to attend a few and see just what kind of organization the USSC is these days. I joined not knowing the close ties to the NRA existed; was quite concerned over some corresponedence I had with prior board members; and decided just a few months ago that it was not good use of my very limited time or money. Maybe that has changed. I owe it to myself to know for sure. Please pass along the relevenat info. > I am indeed opposed to CCW. I will lobby in that direction, but I do not >expect any other Board members to support that idea. I could be wrong, >and at any rate I'll do my best to persuade them. I don't know the >position of other members on national reciprocity, but I oppose it. I'm starting to get nervous again. Any group of people who do not understand the simple language of the 2nd amd and support prior restraint cannot fully support my rights. I will accept political realities if people are fundamentally in agreement that CCW is a necessary evil. But if they support CCW as legitimate, there isn't much hope for any kind of offense in the legislation. They will be in constant defense mode because they already have everything they want. How many board members would be willing to support legislation removing SS numbers or some other info like work, residence history or the letters of reference from the current permit application? How many would be willing to support legislation requiring that fingerprints be submitted to the FBI in such a way that they cannot keep names on file of gun owners and that the DPS destroy certain info once a background check is done? I would consider those to be reasonable steps towards Vermont carry. But I've never met anyone on any gun org board except maybe you who would support them. > And maybe you potential members could let the board members know what you >require in order to feel comfortable supporting the organization. It makes >more sense to be proactive than to rant at them _after_ they make a >decision you don't like. Consider my above paragraph a short list of actions that would win me over very quickly. I sent a fairly long letter containing numerous pro-active ideas to one board member (maybe the chair) shortly after I first joined a couple years back. Never got one response. Figured it was all too radical for the duck hunters. >"Defense to prosecution" means you can be arrested, charged, your weapons >confiscated, and only after you've hired an attorney and gone to court (at >a cost of thousands of dollars) may you present the "defense" that you >"had permission". Then you get to go to court to get your permit back and >again to get your weapons back. If that is true, it is a great point to argue to the legislature. This bill clearly goes way too far is not about "restoring" private property rights which have never been challenged (anyone even think about suing Blockbustr Video? Or did we just take our business elsewhere?), it is about gutting the system. > I've virtually memorized the bill, actually. But I would appreciate >knowing the LPU's position on this bill when the SEC has had time to review >it fully. > I'll get it to you as soon as I know it. > I don't remember hearing a position on the "Safe Storage Bill", which was >heard in committee last week either...... I don't believe we issued one. I personnally contacted every member of the committee by email and phone oppossing the bill. I also made use of the LPUtah mailing list to notify party members as to the intent and status of the bill so they could take action as they saw fit. Our chair did attend some meeting recently and point out that all gun control laws in this country had come from the Ds and Rs. Rob Bishop was in attendance and openly disputed that claim. Who does Mr. Bishop think proposed and passed our gun control laws? Independants? Much to the consternation of many people, the LPUtah is not a single issue political party. We can no more issue official positions on every gun bill that comes up than we can issue official positions on every bill having to do with taxes, assett forfeiture, search and seizure, eminent domain, school vouchers, ballott access, and a thousand and one other issues which the legislature tackles every year. Our platform and positions on the issue of guns is very clear. I am unaware of ANY political party that even attempts to issue official statements on individual legislation except in rare cases. That isn't the role of political parties. It is the role of special interest groups like USSC. > Agreed. Since it appears the majority of gunowners support CCW, I'm >willing to work to preserve it until I have the opportunity to introduce >legislation to restore unrestricted, unlicensed, unpermitted carry. That >is my own, public, individual stance on the issue, and reflects how I will >vote. I can only speak for myself and not the board as a whole. Understood. I would hope CCW provides a history of benefits to draw on and a change in mindset where people get used to guns being carried. Realize there are mid steps between what we have now and Vermont carry that may make for more feasible legislation as stepping stones. -- 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. "What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and long lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." -- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution - Preface, "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms" - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Denny's policy, offical Date: 11 Feb 1998 17:54:13 -0700 I have not verified this personally.... Sarah >----Forwarded Message(s)---- > > #: 23412 S0/CompuServe Mail [MAIL] > 11-Feb-98 17:45 EST > Sb: Denny's policy, offical > Fm: Charles W. Parrott/FL [72350,70] > To: Paul Gallant/NY [70274,1222] > >All, > >Just got a call from Mr. Don Spice of Denny's - this is official, Denny's >policy regarding the signs is, the signs will NOT go up or be taken down if >they did go up. Mr. Spice was very concerned that they offended so many >people and that was not Denny's intention. I told Mr. Spice that I would >spread the word that Denny's has no intention of infringing on the rights of >law-abiding citizens. Please remove any Denny's boycott posts and pass the >word. Mark one up for responsible law-abiding citizens! > >Regards, > >Charlie > > > >----End Forwarded Message(s)---- > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Denny's: Follow-Up -Forwarded Date: 12 Feb 1998 08:13:26 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA11523; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:58:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma011177; Thu Feb 12 09:57:25 1998 Message-Id: <199802121438.GAA28594@cyclops-e0.cogent.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: jaspar@cogent.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list FROM Charles W. Parrott/FL, <72350.70@compuserve.com> Denny's has been swamped with calls, letters and faxes from their customers expressing their displeasure over the no gun signs their were going to put up on their restaurants. Denny's toll free-number has been working overtime handling these calls! I have been discussing this issue with Mr. Don Spice, Operations Manager for Denny's. I had requested that Mr. Spice call me and advise me what the official decision of Denny's would be in regards to these signs. Mr. Spice called me this evening (Wed., Feb. 11) and advised me that Denny's would not put up the signs. This is the official word from Denny's, so we can all go into a Denny's and enjoy the fine food they serve. I like to thank all of you for responding to this Denny's alert and contacting them. And I'd like to thank Mr. Don Spice, Mr. John Romandetti, CEO of Denny's and the Advantica Restaurant Group, owner of Denny's. Here's one more request: please contact Denny's at their toll free number, 1-800-733-6697 and thank them for not infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Or you can fax Denny's at 1-864-597-8099 and thank Mr. Romandetti and Mr. Spice for acting in accordance with the wishes of law-abiding gun owners. It is important that we put out these brush fires as they occur, for if we let just one business get away with this, then a lot more will bow to the political pressure being put on law-abiding gun owners in the on going effort to disarm American citizens. Thanks again for your excellent and timely response to the alert! Regards, Charlie - SFFO (South Florida Firearms Owners) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Junk that bear spray Date: 12 Feb 1998 10:44:42 -0700 Of interest to any who travel in bear country and think chemical spray is any kind of substitute for a good firearm. From today's Tribune. [Image] [Image] [Image] Thursday, February 12, 1998 [Image] [Image] Spray Repellent Attracts Bears If Used Incorrectly THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- It's the kind of discovery that makes bear country veterans shudder: Turns out the pepper spray hikers count on for bear protection can actually attract the beasts. U.S. Geological Survey researcher Tom Smith discovered the attraction in November while working on the Kulik River in Katmai National Park and Preserve, about 240 miles southwest of Anchorage. Smith was there to record brown bear activity around salmon streams, but became suspicious about the link between the powerful red pepper extract and bears when he saw a bear rolling on a rope sprayed more than a week earlier. Intrigued, Smith jumped from his observation post and sprayed the beach with repellent. Several bears approached and began rolling in the red pepper extract. ``It's a 500-pound cat with a ball of catnip,'' is how he describes the scene. For Alaskans who enjoy hiking, or anyone else who spends a lot of time in bear country, this isn't good news. The pepper spray is considered by many to be a good alternative to carrying a powerful shotgun or rifle, and tests have shown that it will stop a charging bear if it's sprayed in the bear's eyes, nose and mouth. More troubling, Smith said, is the risk that a can of spray that's been used may have enough residue on it to attract bears. [Image] [Thursday Navigation Bar] [Image] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 1998, 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. "...The right of the people peacefully to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is and always has been one of the attributes of a free government. It `derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v Ogden, 9 Wheat., 211, `from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.' It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution... The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of `bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependant upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government..." UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK; 92 US 542; (1875) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) (by way of "S. Thompson" ) Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update Date: 12 Feb 1998 16:16:25 -0700 Charles Hardy accidentally forgot to copy this to the list, and requested that I forward it. Sarah On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: > I'd love to have you attend, and I'm sure your input would be valuable. >I'll send you the info as soon as I have a definite location for Monday's >meeting. They're usually in Kaysville, which is a nuisance, at least for me. I look foward to it. Thank you. > If you, or anyone else on this list, would like to submit questions to >board members, please send them to me in some form that I can easily print >out (e-mail text is fine), and I'll be happy to pass them on. I obviously >can't force anyone to respond, but I'll relay the request. Ok, here goes. Ten easy questions (some multi-part) and an optional comment in case they want to add something about which I didn't ask in email format. You may want to add some blank lines between these to make it easier to answer on the same sheet as the question. Please don't help them with answers or info except as noted or pressure them into answering. How many will take the time to answer (about 20 minutes tops is all it should take for reasonably complete responses) is almost as important to me as what they answer. Answers, or lack thereof, to the first 10 questions will be made available to at least this email list. Comments under number 11 will be kept private if they request. They can relay answer through you or send directly to me at . 1-Do you support and believe in my right to own firearms for defense of self and loved ones? 2-Do you believe in and support my right to publicly carry firearms for defense of self and loved ones? 3-Does the 2nd amd to the U.S. Constitution GRANT an individual right to own and carry guns, does it recognize a pre-esting right to do so, or does it serve some other function? 4-Does the 1st amd to the U.S. Constitution GRANT an individual right to print newspapers and worship, does it recognize a pre-existing right to do so, or does it serve some other function? 4-Do you believe there is a difference between a right and a privlege? 4a-If so, what is the difference and how do I most easily tell one from the other? 5-Does the current Utah State CCW permit system grant a right to carry guns, or does it merely bestow a privlege to do so? 6-Do you believe residents of the State of Utah should have to obtain a permit before exercising their 2nd amd rights to own and carry guns? 7-Do you believe the residents of the State of Utah should have to obtain a permit before exercising their 1st amd rights to print/read newspapers or attend church? 8-If there is a difference between your answer to question 6 and your answer to question 7, please explain the difference. 9-What is "Vermont Style Carry"? (If you are not familiar with the term "Vermont Style Carry" you may ask Sarah before answering number 10, but please do not change answer to number 9.) 10-Political "realities" aside, are you in favor of Utah adopting "Vermont Style Carry"? 10a-Why or why not? 10b-If yes, what specific steps (changes to current system) do you support or propose to move us in that direction. 11(optional)-Any other comments? >I really have no desire to argue with Charles. I know him to be a staunch >supporter of gun rights. I don't want to argue with anyone else on this >list either. If I have to argue with people, I'd prefer to save my energy >for arguing with Robert Steiner and Lane Beattie. Agreed. And I hope I've not been perceived as argumenative. I just want to make sure the facts are all on the table. > >My point is simply that >1) In my opinion SB 57 is dangerously bad legislation that needs to be >opposed. We need to stick together on this. Agreed. >and >2) With three vocally "no compromise" Board members, there is now an >opportunity for similarly minded gun owners to influence the direction and >policies of USSC. > I hope so and look forward to seeing the attitude of current members towards Vermont style carry. >The rest is up to all of you. > >I apologize for any part I played in turning this into a somewhat hostile >discussion. That was never my intent. >I hope that we can work together as friends and colleagues to restore, or >at least maintain, our rights and liberty. I perceived no hostility. My apologies if anyone has found cause to take offense at my best assessment of the situation. -- 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. "Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Legislative ALERT!!!! Date: 12 Feb 1998 20:24:30 -0700 ******* PLEASE CROSS-POST AND DISTRIBUTE******** HELP DEFEAT SB 57!!! Last night the Board of Trustees of the Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC) held an emergency meeting to decide what to do about SB 57, Concealed Firearms Amendments, introduced by Senate President Lane Beattie. This is a bad bill for many reasons: First of all, contrary to the title of the bill, it is NOT only about concealed weapons. The bill refers to "dangerous weapons". This includes concealed pistols, of course, but also includes knives, long guns, and virtually anything else that can cause bodily injury. 1. It prohibits firearms (and dangerous weapons) on church (or other house of worship) property, regardless of the wishes of that particular church. a) This sets a dangerous precedent of allowing the State to dictate to a church or religion what it is or is not allowed to do. It is not the business of the state to dictate religious practices. b) The "defense to prosecution" clause is essentially meaningless. It provides that the police may enter a church, haul you out in handcuffs, (shoot you if you resist or if they're particularly worried about your gun), arrest you, book you, and humiliate you - EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE PERMISSION OF THE CHURCH. Assuming you survive the process, you then have to hire and pay defense counsel, and only at your trial may you present your "defense" that you had "permission". And then you still have to go back to court to try to get your seized weapon returned and your permit reinstated. (This is the legal opinion of Board Chair and legal counsel Elwood Powell.) c) The bill mandates that each church have a policy on firearms. If a church wishes to allow, or even encourage, members to carry, it must maintain a database of who carries, and who has permission to do so, and must issue statements of permission. Thus the state is forcing churches to do additional work and act as _de facto_ police. d) This bill disproportionately affects those people who live in high crime neighborhoods, especially those who must walk to services, and may actually deter people from attending church. 2.The bill mandates that a no one may carry a firearm (or dangerous weapon) into a private residence, again regardless of the wishes of the owner. It is not the business of the state to tell a homeowner what he may do in his own home! (There isn't even an exclusion for the homeowner!) a) The same "defense to prosecution" problem exists. b) This is a gross violation of the privacy of firearms owners. The essence of concealed carry is CONCEALED. If you have to tell everyone you know that you're carrying, any benefit of concealment disappears. If criminals know you are carrying (especially for women who carry in purses), you become an excellent target for an ambush. In addition, since firearms owners often collect firearms, if criminals know you are carrying, they may target your house for a burglary. And remember that YOU may be held liable for what's done with your stolen firearm! c) This bill presumes that law abiding gun owners with CCW's are so dangerous that they must announce their presence before entering a private residence. Not even convicted felons or sex offenders are required to do this. Are gun owners lower than child molesters or more dangerous than convicted rapists and murderers? 3. This bill prohibits firearms (and dangerous weapons) from the premises of schools. a) By declaring schools to be off-limits to responsible gun owners, schools are advertising that they are easy and safe targets for criminals who want to murder children, or even for student gang-bangers. For example, in Pearl, MI, the student who gunned down several of his fellow students was stopped only by a teacher who kept a firearm in his car. b) By prohibiting firearms teachers are also identified as easy targets. This is especially true for female teachers and those teachers who work with "troubled" youth. Their jobs are hard enough and there is no reason to deny them the right to self-defense. c) Schools are public property, owned by the people, and thus may not infringe the rights of the public; they do not have private property rights. d) Private schools are also forced to ban guns which IS a violation of their private property rights. e) School is defined vaguely enough that it could conceivably be construed to include everything from universities to home schools. Because of the above, the Board of USSC voted unanimously to oppose the bill in its entirety and to work for its defeat, rather than attempt any compromise or amendment. And now the ALERT!!!! As Senate President, Lane Beattie wields a lot of power. So it's going to take a very concerted effort to get this bill defeated or withdrawn. 1) PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR AND LET HIM/HER KNOW THAT YOU OPPOSE THIS BILL, AND WOULD LIKE IT DEFEATED, NOT AMENDED. If you don't know who your Senator is, call 468-3427. (They can also tell you who your Representative is.) If you go to http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/ you can look under "District Map" to locate your Senator and under "Roster" to find contact information. Some of the Senators have e-mail, but not all of them check it regularly. You can leave a message for any Senator at 801-538-1035. You can fax Democratic Senators at 801-538-1449, and Republican Senators at 801-538-1414. A brief follow-up contact can be helpful to remind your Senator of the issue and emphsize your interest. For example if your Senator says he hasn't read the bill, you might ask if he would do so and offer to call in a day or two to get his opinion. However, NEVER harrass legislators! They are extremely overworked, and we can best help them by providing concise and clear information. ALWAYS be polite and respectful, even if you disagree, and always thank your legislator for taking the time to listen to you and consider your thoughts. 2) WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER. Your letter does not have to be polished or eloquent, although it's great if it is. What counts is the NUMBER of letters expressing a particular viewpoint that the newspaper receives. The more letters they receive, the more likely they are to print some of them. Because there is a lag in getting letters printed, the sooner you send one, the better. Choose one or two of the "talking points" outlined above, and briefly state your concerns and why you feel the bill should be defeated. Use plain language and try to keep it simple and short - about 100-150 words. 3)PASS THIS ALERT ON TO AS MANY INTERESTED PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. Take it to shooting clubs and ranges, firearms stores and dealers, other firearms owners, and anyone else you know who cares about our Constitution. This is not the time to be shy! Thanks for your assistance! Sarah Thompson and the USSC Board of Trustees To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Horiuchi's trial; update -Forwarded Date: 13 Feb 1998 08:13:27 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA18952; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:38:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma018783; Thu Feb 12 19:37:09 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: dugga@pacifier.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list >***As Idaho Trial Date Nears, FBI Sharpshooter's Lawyers Argue for >***Immunity in Weaver Case >***By George Lardner Jr. >***Washington Post Staff Writer >***Tuesday, February 10, 1998; Page A05 > > > FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi's lawyers, with backing from the > Justice Department, launched an all-out effort yesterday to > prevent his impending involuntary manslaughter trial in Idaho for > killing Vicki Weaver in the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge. > > In motions filed in Federal court in Boise, Horiuchi's attorneys > said he was acting "within the scope of his authority as a federal > officer" when the shot he fired "unintentionally struck and killed" > the wife of white separatist Randy Weaver. Horiuchi was among > dozens of federal agents who surrounded Weaver's remote cabin > in August 1992 in an attempt to arrest Weaver on an illegal > weapons charge. > > Asking that the charge be dismissed, the FBI agent's > government-paid defense team argued that Horiuchi is entitled to > immunity from state prosecution under the Constitution's > Supremacy Clause and that neither he nor his family "should be > subjected to the ordeal of a criminal trial." > > The special prosecutor for Boundary County, Stephen Yagman, > said he was confident the defense effort would be rejected and > that the trial would go forward. He maintained that the immunity > issue is subordinate to the question of whether excessive force > was used and that is a question for the jury to decide. > > U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge set March 10 as a trial date, but > a long delay may be in store. The Justice Department in a separate > filing outlined plans for a prolonged pretrial battle that would > require state prosecutors to make an evidentiary showing > rebutting Horiuchi's immunity claim. Should Horiuchi lose that > fight, Justice Department lawyers maintained in a supporting > memo that he would be entitled to file an interlocutory, pretrial > appeal. > > Citing what it said was a relevant 1984 case in California, the > memo said Horiuchi's claim to immunity is based "on the right not > to be tried if it is to be upheld at all." > > Yagman countered with a motion asking Lodge to hold that > Horiuchi is "not entitled to the immunity defense at all." At the > time Vicki Weaver was killed, Yagman said, "Idaho state law > regarding the unlawful taking of a human life clearly was > established and so too was the law of the land with respect to the > use of deadly force by police." > > The Los Angeles-based civil rights lawyer, appointed by Boundary > County authorities, told a reporter that the Justice Department had > "no legal authority" to intrude in the case at this point and that he > would ask the judge to strike the government memo. > > In their pleadings, Horiuchi's lawyers said the sharpshooter was > aiming at Kevin Harris, a Weaver family friend, and that he acted > without malice toward Vicki Weaver. At most, they said, the > state's case rests on "gross negligence," and "not the malice > necessary" to deny Horiuchi immunity. > > They also asked that the trial be moved out of Idaho because of > "widespread and highly damaging" pretrial publicity, including > remarks by Yagman that it would be "a trial of the FBI . . . and of > Attorney General Janet Reno." > > Yagman said Horiuchi "waived any right" to have the trial moved > again after succeeding last month in having it moved from state > court in Boundary County to federal court in Boise. He said it was > "very unfortunate that when the federal government carries out > business in a state and then they do something allegedly wrong in > that state, they don't trust the people of that state to judge it." >============================================= > > The POLITICAL DIGEST is essentially an Internet "Clipping >Service." We gather many "Political News Articles" and "Political >Columns and Editorials" that are on the Internet and combine them into >one text file, just as a "Clipping Service" does for people with >"Hard Copies" of newspapers. We do NOT charge for the material. > >NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material >is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest >in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. > > TPD (THE POLITICAL DIGEST) which contains political >articles only and will average about 200 K. Cost is $90.00 per year. > > TPDL (THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE) which will average >about 50 K and will be selected articles out of the TPD & TPDP. > > TPDP (THE POLITICAL DIGEST PLUS) which is all >Commentary's and Editorials from all over the nation, plus selected >other articles that we find interesting. This will average about >250K. TPDP costs $90.00 per year. > > TPDXTRA (THE POLITICAL DIGEST XTRA) which is FREE >but sent out on an infrequent basis. It contains things too large >for TPDL and doesn't fit into TPD & TPDP very well. >Usually TPDXTRA will contain only one item. > > To subscribe to TPD and/or TPDP mail Cash, Check, or money >order to: > Wayne Mann > 1079 Farroll > Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420-4136 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Shameful Legislation ALERT! Date: 13 Feb 1998 15:38:39 -0700 *****PLEASE CROSS-POST AND DISTRIBUTE!!****** Do you get upset that your elected representatives routinely violate their oaths of office and fail to uphold the Constitution? Well, your legislators have come up with a perfect solution - no more oaths of office, and no more guilt about violating them! This piece of legislative garbage was passed _unanimously_ in committee and is now on the consent calendar, which virtually guarantees a vote without debate. The legislative review found nothing unconstitutional at all about this! If you think that this is maybe not the ideal solution, make sure you let your representatives know - NOW! You can find out who your representative is, and how to contact him/her at http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/house.htm. Or you can call the House directly at 538-1029 and leave a message. Thanks to Arnold Gaunt for the heads up! Sarah Thompson (speaking for myself only) >Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:01:02 -0800 >From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" >Reply-To: ajgaunt@xmission.com >Organization: XMission >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) >To: ajgaunt@xmission.com >Subject: Shameful Legislation > >This bill, by Rep. Koehn, is disgraceful in my view and worthy of >repudiation. It removes present appropriate criminal sanctions for >failing to commit to the Constitution and creates a new civil process >that places the burden on citizens. It may have to become a subject of >a resolution at the next URP convention if it passes. I'd rather that >this not happen. Call your Representatives now and urge them to bury >this contemptible legislation. > >http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1998/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0328.htm > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Denny's Date: 13 Feb 1998 18:50:00 -0700 Very ambiguous wording. Is the word 'NOT' included in the alternative? The technical interpretation is that the signs will NOT be taken down. If Denny's funds anti-gun groups, that is good reason to continue the boycott. I still abstain from HP computer equipment for that reason. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: gunflower@lgcy.com Quote: "this is official, Denny's policy regarding the signs is, the signs will NOT go up or be taken down if they did go up." End quote. Sorry folks, we don't see this as anything other than a compromise situation. Nothing was won here. They, Denny's, has not rescinded an anti-gun policy; all they've done is what the quote says about their SIGNS; to wit: 'If the sign is up, we leave it up. However, we agree not to put up any more signs.' How trite that _official_ policy is. At best that's being disingenuous. Denny's has not changed its negative corporate policy towards guns. In fact, they danced aground the Mulberry bush with this in a _successful_ attempt to mollify gun owners. This is not a victory in our eyes. We, in California, will continue to boycott Denny's until they sign on board the Constitution in support of the Bill of Rights and cease presenting the antis with checks for their agenda, and not a moment sooner. Someone out there is not doing their homework on who's supporting whom. Plus they're signaling victory when the battle continues to be in jeopardy on a larger front with this company. Follow the money, ladies, follow the money. Karen (Li) West - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Loose gun-control law leaves cities unarmed Date: 15 Feb 1998 01:09:55 -0700 As usual, they can't even get their facts straight..... >Subject: Loose gun-control law leaves cities unarmed > >http://www.desnews.com/newcit/sa14diwa.htm > >>From the Deseret News, Feb. 14, 1998 >> >> Loose gun-control law leaves cities unarmed >> [Image] >> State says gun isn't 'loaded' till you pull trigger >> [Image] >> >> [Image] >> Last updated 02/14/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT >> >> By Alan Edwards >> Deseret News staff writer >> >> Want to pack heat into City Hall? Feel free  it's perfectly >> legal. >> Even if you have bullets in your gun, you can waltz with perfect >> confidence right through the doors of, say, the Salt Lake City-County >> Building, stroll past the signs declaring "Loaded firearms prohibited >> in this building," tip your hat to the ominous-looking, but in this >> case, helpless uniformed guards, and sit yourself down in City Council >> chambers with a smile on your face. >> The most inconvenience your .45 might create, for you anyway, is >> poking you in the leg when you sit down. >> You might think a gun with bullets in it would be a "loaded" gun >> prohibited by the signs, but, legally, you would be wrong. According >> to state law a gun isn't considered loaded unless it takes only one >> physical action  namely, pulling the trigger  to discharge it. If >> the bullet isn't in the chamber and you have to cock the gun before >> pulling the trigger, it isn't loaded. >> State law prohibits firearms  loaded or not  in certain places >> such as airports and schools. But municipal buildings aren't included, >> and cities can't do anything about it. >> That's something Salt Lake City Attorney Roger Cutler isn't too >> happy about. >> "The proper role of cities is to provide refuge," he said in a >> speech Wednesday at the University of Utah Hinckley Institute. "Cities >> should be able to deal with these issues." >> Even though Utah municipalities are charged with regulating the >> "health, safety and welfare" of their residents, their power to >> regulate firearms was largely taken away in 1994 by the Legislature. >> After a rash of shooting incidents in 1993, Salt Lake City enacted an >> ordinance much like the yet-to-come federal Brady Bill that imposed a >> mandatory background check on 18- to 25-year-olds trying to buy guns. >> The ordinance survived a court challenge, but the Legislature >> overrode the courts and took the cities' power away, placing the bulk >> of firearm regulatory power in the hands of the state. >> Now, Cutler said, cities can do nothing but sit back and hope >> some crazy doesn't take advantage of the loose laws. >> "We can say they can't discharge a firearm within city limits, >> and we can exclude 'loaded' firearms, but we can't regulate >> possession," he said. "We've been pre-empted." >> The high bench that Salt Lake City Council members sit behind >> has reinforced steel embedded in it, just in case somebody who happens >> to have a gun on him decides he'd like to take a potshot at them. >> Judges don't have to deal with that  unlike cities, they legally can >> have metal detectors at the doors of their courtrooms. >> Let us go back to the late 1800s, Cutler says. Place: some wild >> and woolly frontier town  Abilene, say, or Dodge City. Situation: a >> clan of tough hombres armed to the teeth has pulled up to city limits, >> determined to free their younger brother who's cooling his heels in >> jail after a brawl in the local saloon. >> The steely eyed local sheriff, standing alone in the dusty >> street, meets the crowd. One hand is on his pearl-handled six-gun, and >> the other is pointing to the sign: >> "Check your guns." >> There is a moment of dangerous tension. The sheriff and clan >> leader face off, eyes narrowing, hands at the ready. The hot, still >> air crackles with deadly energy. >> Finally, the clan leader smiles, moves his hand away from his >> gun, and relaxes. He unbuckles his gun belt, motions his boys to do >> the same, and they ride into town for a drink. >> "The sheriff is a hero, right?" asks Cutler. He made his city a >> safer place. So why, in a supposedly more civilized world, has that >> authority been taken away? >> "We ought to be providing the means to local governments to >> achieve their objectives and not micromanaging their affairs," Cutler >> said. "There is a great deal of micromanaging done by the state." >> Cutler partly blames local governments for the situation. Many >> city officials don't "stake out their turf," and they accept state >> interference without protest. >> However it is regulated, by city or state, gun control is a >> guaranteed emotional issue in Utah. Some residents are wedded to their >> guns the way others are wedded to their cars. >> As the bumper sticker says, "You can take my gun away when you >> pry it from my cold, dead fingers." >> [Image] >> [Image] >> >> Return to front page >> [Image] > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Oppose HB 328 Date: 16 Feb 1998 15:07:16 -0700 The following letter was sent to the Salt Lake Tribune, letters@sltrib.com If you agree, please send your own letter. Please also contact your Representative, and particularly Speaker of the House Mel Brown. He can best be reached by e-mail at mbrown@le.state.ut.us Thanks! Sarah Oppose HB 328 Rep. Susan Koehn and the members of the House Government Operations Committee apparently believe that an oath of office is merely a formality. They unanimously passed Koehn's HB 328, which removes criminal sanctions for a legislator who refuses or neglects to take and file an oath of office. If this bill passes, a legislator may willfully refuse to take his oath of office, and the only recourse available to citizens will be to file a civil suit at their own expense. This is exactly the same as declaring that murder is illegal, but their are no criminal penalties for committing murder, so the victim's family must file a suit in civil court to seek restitution. In this case it is the Constitution being murdered. The United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution are the two documents by which all laws must be judged. They are the foundations of our way of life. Any legislator who is not willing to pledge to uphold these sacred documents, and do so with pride, does not deserve to serve the people of Utah. Any legislator who votes for this bill is pubicly stating that he or she has no respect for our Constitution. Citizens would do well to remember these votes come November. Sarah Thompson, M.D. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Legal opinion on UofU weapons ban Date: 17 Feb 1998 10:25:41 -0700 This is good news if we can now make the gov and UofU abide by it and keep the legislature from caving to the media's and Gov. Mikey's paranoid fantasies and making changes. From A legislative legal opinion on the possession of concealed weapons in state buldings and at the University of Utah was presented to the Executive Offices, Criminal Justice, and Legislature Appropriations Subcommittee, Monday, February 16. The opinion, prepared at the request of Co-chairs, Senator Michael Waddoups and Representative Blake D. Chard, addresses the authority of the Department of Human Resource Management and the University of Utah to restrict the possession of firearms. FORMAL OPINION No. 98-01 TO: Senator Michael G. Waddoups Representative Blake D. Chard Co-chairs, Subcommittee of Executive Offices, Criminal Justice, and the Legislature FROM: M. Gay Taylor, General Counsel Tani Pack Downing, Associate General Counsel DATE: February 16, 1998 SUBJECT: Regulation of Firearms This formal legal opinion is in response to your letter of February 3, 1998. For your convenience, the legal opinion includes: (1) an executive summary; (2) a review of the relevant law; and (3) the analysis of how the relevant law applies to the specific questions raised in your letter. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY QUESTION 1: Is the University of Utah ("University") policy prohibiting students and faculty from possessing firearms on University premises, unless authorized by the University, contrary to Utah law? ANSWER 1: Yes. QUESTION 2: Is the Department of Human Resource Management ("DHRM") rule(1) prohibiting state employees from carrying firearms in state facilities, state vehicles, or at any time while on state business, contrary to Utah law? ANSWER 2: Yes. II. RELEVANT LAW A. Constitutional Grant of Authority to Define Lawful Use of Firearms. Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, which addresses the right to bear arms, specifically grants to the Legislature the power to define the lawful use of firearms. It provides: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.(2) B. Legislature's Exercise of the Authority to Define the Lawful Use of Firearms. The Legislature has exercised its authority to define the lawful use of firearms through the adoption of a comprehensive statutory framework governing weapons. The Legislature expressly states that key to the exercise of its constitutional authority is the adoption of uniform laws. Section 76-10-501 provides: (1)(a) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law . . . . (b) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. . . .(3) C. Limited Delegation by the Legislature of the Regulation of Firearms. The Legislature provides for the delegation of the regulation of firearms in only very limited circumstances where the delegation is express, stating that: Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be: (i) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle under his control; or (ii) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm. (b) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms."(4) This statute demonstrates the Legislature's clear intent to maintain for itself the exclusive authority to regulate in the area of weapons, except where the Legislature formally acts to delegate that authority. We are aware of only limited circumstances where the Legislature through statute has specifically delegated rulemaking authority regarding weapons to any agency or political subdivision. For example, the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety may issue rules to administer the Concealed Weapon Act.(5) A second example permits certain persons to make rules that address training and requalification requirements in addition to concealed firearm permit requirements.(6) 1. Limits on Administrative Rulemaking. Although in general the Legislature may delegate some legislative power to political subdivisions or agencies through statute,(7) rulemaking authority delegated to administrative agencies or political subdivisions is limited and defined by the statute conferring the power.(8) Therefore, under general principles governing delegation of rulemaking authority, in the absence of a specific authority to regulate use of firearms, an agency or political subdivision does not have the power to issue rules related to the use of firearms. Moreover, in the case of regulating firearms, general rules of statutory construction negate the argument that general rulemaking authority allows an agency or political subdivision to regulate use of firearms. Under rules of statutory construction, a specific statute will govern over a general statute.(9) Although both the University and DHRM have been given general rulemaking authority, these general grants of authority do not mention the regulation of firearms. In contrast, the Utah Constitution provides that the Legislature shall "define the lawful use of arms."(10) It has done so in Section 76-10-501 which has "reserved to the state"(11), and specifically to the Legislature, the authority to regulate firearms. Thus, the specific reservation of firearm regulation in Section 76-10-501 governs over the general statutes granting general rulemaking authority to the University and to DHRM. 2. State Preemption of the Regulations of Firearms.(12) By reserving to the Legislature all authority to regulate firearms unless the Legislature "specifically" delegates this authority, the Legislature preempts regulation by other governmental entities.(13) As illustrated by recent legislative action, the Legislature is aware of and has sought to protect this preemption. In the 1995 bill that amended Section 76-10-501,(14) the long title stated that the bill was "AN ACT . . . PROVIDING STATE PREEMPTION OF WEAPONS AREA."(15) The Legislature has preempted the weapons area by prescribing: (a) where and when a person is restricted from possessing(16) a firearm; (b) where and when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm; and (c) the criteria necessary for a person to carry a concealed firearm with a valid permit. a. Where and when a person is restricted from possessing a firearm. The Legislature has addressed restrictions on the possession of firearms in two ways: those that apply specifically to concealed firearm permit holders, and those that apply to persons other than concealed firearm permit holders. We will first address restrictions the Legislature has placed on concealed firearm permit holders. Reading Sections 53-5-704 and 53-5-710 as a whole, the Legislature evidences its intent that a concealed permit holder be able to carry a concealed firearm except in the areas in which the Legislature specifically indicates a restriction. The relevant portion of Section 53-5-704 provides that the "permit is valid throughout the state, without restriction." Section 53-5-710 states: A person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm may not carry a concealed firearm in the following locations: (1) any secure area prescribed in Section 76-10-523.5 in which firearms are prohibited and notice of the prohibition posted; and (2) in any airport secure area as provided in Section 76-10-529.(17) In the provisions of the secure areas and airport statutes referred to in Section 53-5-710, the Legislature specifically states that even a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm is subject to the firearm restrictions contained in those sections.(18) For persons other than concealed firearm permit holders, the Legislature specifically provides other firearm prohibitions when it considers them necessary. For example, the Legislature prohibits firearms in areas, such as "on or about school premises"(19) and, if the firearm is loaded, in a vehicle, on a public street, or in a posted prohibited area.(20) Although the Legislature provides a general prohibition on firearms in these areas, the Legislature specifically exempts concealed firearm permit holders from the restriction.(21) These sections again illustrate that the Legislature, when it considers necessary, provides specific restrictions on where and when a firearm can be possessed by a person, including a person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm. b. Where and when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm. In exercising its preemption of the weapon area, the Legislature also specifically indicates where and when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm except by specific statute. Section 76-10-501 provides: (1)(a) . . . . Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be: (i) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle under his control; or (ii) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm. . . . .(22) Section 76-10-501 addresses generally where firearms cannot be restricted unless specifically provided by state law. In addition, the Legislature has stated that concealed firearm permit holders be permitted to carry their concealed firearms "throughout the state, without restriction"(23) except in the areas the Legislature listed in Section 53-5-710. Those statutes create a specific acknowledgment of protection for a permit holder to carry a concealed firearm that cannot be overcome without specific authorization from or restriction by the Legislature. c. The criteria necessary for a person to a obtain a permit and carry a concealed firearm. In the Concealed Weapon Act,(24) the Legislature established specific criteria necessary for a person to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. The Legislature did not provide or allow for the addition of any additional criteria by an agency or political subdivision without specific legislative authorization. This evidences the Legislature's intent that the criteria in the Concealed Weapon Act be exclusive. In the absence of any legislative delegation to an agency or political subdivision to add additional criteria for the right to carry a concealed firearm, any attempt to do so by an agency or political subdivision is invalid. Therefore, in order for an agency or political subdivision to regulate the use of firearms, there must be specific legislative grant of authority that does not contravene areas preempted by legislative action. Applying these principles to the University policy and DHRM rule shows that the prohibitions on firearms enacted by these entities are contrary to state law. III. ANALYSIS A. The University of Utah policy which prohibits students and faculty from possessing firearms on University premises, unless authorized by the University, is contrary to Utah law. The Board of Trustees of the University, in policy 8-10, provides that students will be "subject to disciplinary action" for "possession or use on University premises or at University activities of any firearm or other dangerous weapon . . . unless such possession or use has been authorized by the University."(25) On October 10, 1997, Interim President Jerilyn S. McIntyre issued a memorandum "extending the prohibition on the possession or use on campus of any firearm or other dangerous weapon to all University employees, including faculty."(26) These prohibitions are contrary to Utah law in two respects: (1) the Legislature has not delegated specific rulemaking authority to the University to regulate firearms; and (2) the University policy is preempted by the Legislature's regulation of firearms. 1. The Legislature has not delegated specific authority to the University to regulate firearms. Subsection 76-10-501(1)(b) requires that in order for a political subdivision to regulate the use of firearms, the Legislature must expressly allow for the regulation by statute.(27) Under Subsection 53B-3-106(2), "institutions of higher education are 'political subdivisions' and the board of the institutions is a 'local authority.'"(28) Therefore, as a political subdivision, the University can only issue a policy regulating the use of firearms if the University is expressly authorized by the Legislature to take such action. To our knowledge, the University has cited no statutes authorizing it to promulgate its weapons policy for students. In extending the weapons prohibition to the faculty, Interim President McIntyre relied on Section 53B-2-106 as the authority to make such a rule.(29) Section 53B-2-106 is general in nature -- only granting rulemaking authority to the president of each institution for the administration and operation of the institution. Because Section 53B-2-106 contains no specific grant of authority to regulate weapons on campus, it does not authorize this University policy. We know of no other statute that authorizes the University to regulate firearms and therefore any attempt to do so is contrary to Utah law. 2. The University policy is preempted by the Legislature's regulation of firearms. The Legislature preempts the conduct addressed by the University policy by prescribing: (a) where and when a person is restricted from possessing a firearm; (b) where and when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm; and (c) the criteria necessary for person to carry a concealed firearm with a valid permit. a. Where and when a person is restricted from possessing a firearm. The Legislature has specifically provided by statute that a firearm may not be possessed on or about school premises, except by certain individuals specifically exempted by the section.(30) Although the definition of a school may extend to colleges and universities as a postsecondary institution,(31) the University policy is unenforceable because the University attempts to regulate the possession of a firearm on or about school premises beyond what the Legislature provided in statute.(32) Further, the University's extension of its firearm restrictions to persons with a license to carry a concealed firearm directly contravenes the Legislature's express exemption for permit holders on or about school premises.(33) b. Where and when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm. Subsection 76-10-501(1)(a)(i) provides that a citizen cannot be "prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle under his control."(34) The University policy prohibits possession of a firearm on University premises. Thus, it attempts to prohibit firearms in student residences and in vehicles on campus. This prohibition is directly contrary to Subsection 76-10-501(1)(a)(i). Additionally, unless specifically restricted by statute, the Legislature has stated that a concealed firearm permit is "valid throughout the state without restriction."(35) Section 53-5-710 lists where a permit holder may not carry a firearm, and state university property is not included in that list. Further, the Legislature specifically exempted concealed firearm permit holders from the prohibition of possessing a firearm on or about school premises.(36) Therefore, the University's attempt to prohibit concealed firearm permit holders from carrying a firearm at the University directly contravenes the Legislature's express exemption for permit holders. c. The criteria necessary for a person to a obtain a permit and carry a concealed firearm. The Legislature has provided an exclusive list of criteria for a concealed firearm permit holder to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm.(37) The Legislature has not authorized a political subdivision to add to this list. Therefore, because the University has no specific authority to make rules concerning firearms, it lacks authority to impose additional requirements on concealed weapon holders to seek authorization from the University to carry their firearms on campus. Examples of additional requirements included in the University policy that are invalid include: the requirement that in order for a person to possess a firearm "such possession or use [has to be] authorized by the University";(38) the subsequent statement that authorization to possess a firearm on campus will only be given "if the individual is an off-duty police officer or if the individual has received threats on his/her life and has obtained a protective order";(39) and the requirements that a person must "hold the appropriate license or permit, undergo a criminal background check, and provide appropriate training certification."(40) B. The Department of Human Resource Management rule prohibiting state employees from carrying firearms in state facilities, state vehicles, or at any time while on state business, is contrary to Utah law. In November 1995, DHRM promulgated R477-9-1(5), which provides that "[e]mployees shall not carry firearms in any facility owned or operated by the state, or in any state vehicle, or at any time or any place while on state business."(41) The rule provides an exception for sworn officers and employees whose assigned duties require them to use a firearm. An employee who violates the prohibition is subject to disciplinary action. The DHRM rule is contrary to Utah law in two respects: (1) the Legislature has not delegated specific rulemaking authority to the DHRM to regulate firearms; and (2) the rule is preempted by the Legislature's regulation of firearms. 1. DHRM does not have the authority to regulate the use of firearms. Consistent with the analysis applied to the University under Section III.A.1. of this legal opinion, in the absence of a specific statutory grant of authority, an agency may not regulate the use of firearms. When DHRM enacted R477-9-1(5), it cited Section 67-19-6 as its statutory grant of authority to make the rule.(42) Section 67-19-6 requires the director of DHRM to "develop, implement, and administer a statewide program of personnel management for state employees" and authorizes the director to "adopt rules for personnel management according to the procedures of Title 63, Chapter 46a, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act."(43) This statute gives no specific authority to DHRM to regulate weapons. When later asked for a statutory basis for the rule, the Governor's General Counsel referred to Sections 34A-2-301 and 67-19-18, each dealing with workplace safety.(44) These sections merely address an employer's obligations to maintain a safe place of employment and do not grant specific authority to DHRM or to the governor to regulate weapons.(45) The statutes cited by DHRM and the Governor's General Counsel do not give a specific grant of authority to DHRM to regulate firearms. We know of no statute authorizing DHRM to regulate use of firearms, and therefore DHRM may not regulate the use of firearms. 2. The DHRM rule is preempted by the Legislature's regulation of firearms. Following the analysis applied to the University under Section III.A.2. of this legal opinion, the rule is preempted by the Legislature's action prescribing: (a) where and when a person is restricted from possessing a firearm; and (b) where and when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm.(46) a. Where and when a person is restricted from possessing a firearm. As outlined earlier, concealed weapon permits are "valid throughout the state, without restriction"(47) except where the Legislature has expressly restricted the possession of a firearm. The Legislature has listed(48) two specifically designated locations where permit holders may not carry their firearms -- in "secured areas"(49) and in "airport secured areas."(50) State building and vehicles are not "secured areas" as provided in these sections. Therefore, any attempt by DHRM to prevent concealed weapon permit holders from carrying their weapon in these areas is an unauthorized attempt to regulate firearms. b. Where and when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm. The DHRM rule directly contravenes the Legislature's directive that a citizen cannot be prohibited from possessing any firearm at his "place of . . . business, or in any vehicle under his control."(51) "Place of business" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as a place "where one carries on his business or employment." Thus, a state employee cannot be prohibited from possessing a firearm at his place of business even if it is a state owned building or facility. Additionally, a state employee cannot be prohibited from possessing a firearm in a state vehicle if the vehicle is under the employee's control.(52) Thus, the DHRM rule is invalid because it is in direct conflict with the Legislature's statutory directive that a person not be prohibited from possessing a firearm at his residence, business, or in a vehicle under his control. Regarding a person licensed to carry a concealed permit, unless specifically restricted by statute, the Legislature has stated that a concealed firearm permit be "valid throughout the state, without restriction."(53) The Legislature has listed restrictions on a concealed firearm permit holder's ability to carry a concealed firearm in Section 53-5-710. The Legislature did not restrict in that list an employee who is a concealed firearm permit holder from possessing a firearm in state buildings or facilities, a state vehicle, or while on state business. Therefore, DHRM's attempt to prohibit a concealed firearm permit holder from carrying a firearm in a state building or facility, a state vehicle, or while on state business directly contravenes the Legislature's statutory directives and is invalid. IV. CONCLUSION The Utah Constitution grants power only to the Legislature to define the lawful use of arms. The Legislature has exercised this power comprehensively, delegating the right to regulate the use of firearms in only limited situations. Thus, the Legislature has preempted regulation by an agency or political subdivision that is not expressly permitted by statute. Because the Legislature has not delegated any authority to the University or to DHRM to regulate firearms, their attempt to do so through the University policy and the DHRM rule are contrary to state law. Consistent with your February 3, 1998 request, this legal opinion addresses only whether the University policy and the DHRM rule are contrary to state law. This opinion does not address the public policy issues related to prohibiting the possession of firearms in the areas specified by the policy and rule in question. However, as this legal opinion makes clear, if there are any changes to be made in the policies pertaining to the lawful use of arms, those decisions rest squarely with the Legislature. 1. Although your letter indicated that the "governor has prohibited state employees from the possession of weapons in state buildings," the prohibition was derived from the rule promulgated by DHRM. 2. Utah Const. art. I, § 6 (emphasis added). 3. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-501 (Supp. 1997) (emphasis added). Unless the context indicates otherwise, any reference to a "section" in the text of this legal opinion is to a section of the Utah Code Annotated (1953). 4. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-501(1) (Supp. 1997) (emphasis added). 5. Utah Code Ann. § 53-5-704(12) (Supp. 1997). 6. See Utah Code Ann. § 53-5-711 (Supp. 1997). The statute permits rulemaking by: the Board of Pardons and Paroles for its members; the Judicial Council for judges; and the district attorney, the county attorney in a county not in a prosecution district, the attorney general, or the city attorney by policy for prosecutors under their jurisdiction. 7. See, 2 Am Jur 2d Administrative Law § 152 (1994). 8. See, Id. 9. See, Sutherland Stat Const § 40.02 (5th ed. 1993). 10. Utah Const. art. I, § 6. 11. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-501 (1997). 12. In State v. Hutchinson, 624 P.2d 1116, 1121 (Utah 1980), the Utah Supreme Court stated that "an ordinance is invalid if it intrudes into an area which the Legislature has preempted by comprehensive legislation intended to blanket a particular field." Preemption also applies to areas such as this where "the nature of the subject matter itself requires uniform state regulation." Id. at 1127. 13. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-501 (1997). 14. See H.B. 54, 49th Leg., Gen. Sess., 1995 Utah Laws. 15. Id. 16. For purposes of this legal opinion, the term "possessing" encompasses the following terms used in Subsection 76-10-501(1)(a)(i), "owning, possessing, purchasing, transporting, or keeping." 17. Utah Code Ann. § 53-5-710 (Supp. 1997). 18. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-523.5 (1997) states "[a]ny person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm . . . shall comply with any rule established for secure facilities" (emphasis added). Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-529 states "[w]ithin a secure area of any airport . . . a person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm, is guilty of" (emphasis added). 19. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-505.5 (Supp. 1997) states that " [a] person may not possess any . . . firearm . . . on or about school premises." "On or about school premises" as defined by Section 76-3-203.2 includes in or on the grounds of any public or private elementary, secondary, vocational, or postsecondary school or institution. No definition exists in the code for "postsecondary school or institution"; however "postsecondary education" is defined in Section 53B-5-103 as "education or educational services offered primarily to persons who have completed or terminated their secondary or high school education or who are beyond the age of compulsory school attendance." Utah Code Ann. § 53B-5-103 (1994). Although not entirely clear, it seems possible that the prohibition on firearms may extend to universities. Regardless, in Section 76-10-505.5 the Legislature specifically provides an exemption for concealed permit holders to the firearm prohibition on or about school premises. 20. See, Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-505 (1995). 21. See, Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-505.5(3) (Supp. 1997); see also, Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-523(2) (Supp. 1997). 22. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-501 (Supp. 1997). 23. Utah Code Ann. § 53-5-704(1) (1994). 24. Utah Code Ann., Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7 (1994 and Supp. 1997). 25. University of Utah Policy and Procedures Manual; Policy: 8-10, Rev.: 3 (July 14, 1993). In addition to addressing possession on campus, the University policy covers University activities. University activities may take place off of the university campus. Extending the university policy to these settings heightens the likelihood that the policy is contrary to state law because of the breadth of its impact. 26. Memorandum of Interim President Jerilyn S. McIntyre, October 10, 1997. For purposes of this legal opinion, the term "University policy" includes both policy 8-10 and the memorandum issued by Interim President McIntyre. 27. Subsection 76-10-501(1)(b) provides that "unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms." Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-501(1)(b) (Supp. 1997). 28. Utah Code Ann. § 53B-3-106(2) (1997). As used hereinafter in this legal opinion, the term "political subdivision" includes the board of the institution which is a "local authority." 29. See, Memorandum of Interim President Jerilyn S. McIntyre, October 30, 1997. 30. See, Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-505.5 (Supp. 1997). 31. Supra, at note 19 discussion. 32. See, Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-505.5 (Supp. 1997). 33. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-505.5(3) (Supp. 1997). 34. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-501(1)(a)(i) (Supp. 1997). 35. Utah Code Ann. § 53-5-704(1) (1997). 36. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-505.5(3) (Supp. 1997). 37. See, Utah Code Ann. §§ 53-5-704 and 53-5-710 (Supp. 1997). 38. University of Utah Policy and Procedures Manual, Policy: 8-10, Rev.: 3 (July 14, 1997). 39. Memorandum of Interim President Jerilyn S. McIntyre, October 10, 1997. 40. Id. 41. Utah Admin. R477-9 (1995). 42. Id. 43. Utah Code Ann. § 67-19-6 (1996). 44. See, Minutes of the Administrative Rules Review Committee, 51st Leg., November 3, 1997. 45. See, Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-301(1)(a)-(b) (1997) and § 67-19-18(4) (1996). DHRM has proffered no evidence that the rule is necessary for it to maintain a safe work environment. 46. Because the DHRM rule did not impose additional criteria for the possession of firearms, the criteria portion of the preemption analysis applied to the University is not applicable to DHRM. 47. Utah Code Ann. § 53-5-704(1) (Supp. 1997). The Governor's General Counsel has suggested the phrase "[a concealed weapon] permit is valid throughout the state, without restriction" means that the permit may be taken anywhere, without restraint; however, the possession of the concealed weapon may be further restricted. This interpretation seems to be an artificially strict reading of the statute and contradicts legislative action in Section 53-5-710 which gives the exclusive list of locations where "[a] person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm may not carry a concealed firearm . . . ." Utah Code Ann. § 53-5-710 (Supp. 1997). 48. Utah Code Ann. § 53-5-710 (Supp. 1997). 49. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-523.5 (Supp. 1997). 50. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-529 (Supp. 1997). 51. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-501(1)(a)(i) (Supp. 1997). In addition to prohibiting the possession of a firearm in a state building or facility or in a state vehicle, the DHRM rule prohibits a state employee from possessing a firearm "while on state business." Utah Admin. R477-9 (1995). With the advent of telecommuting, this rule may prohibit a state employee from possessing a firearm at his own residence "while on state business." This application clearly contradicts Section 76-10-501. The breadth of this rule heightens the possibility that it prohibits the legitimate possession of a firearm in a manner contrary to the Legislature's specific directives. 52. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-501(1)(a)(i) (Supp. 1997) 53. Utah Code Ann. § 53-5-704(1) (Supp. 1997). -- 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." - [This was Madison's original proposal for the "Second Amendment" -- James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Gov. Mikey's General Counsel's thoughts Date: 17 Feb 1998 11:02:19 -0700 In case you didn't make it through the footnootes, this one is quite telling. From my original post: 47. Utah Code Ann. =A7 53-5-704(1) (Supp. 1997). The Governor's General Counsel has suggested the phrase "[a concealed weapon] permit is valid throughout the state, without restriction" means that the permit may be taken anywhere, without restraint; however, the possession of the concealed weapon may be further restricted. This interpretation seems to be an artificially strict reading of the statute and contradicts legislative action in Section 53-5-710 which gives the exclusive list of locations where "[a] person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm may not carry a concealed firearm . . . ." This is unbelieveable. Anyone who thinks Leavitt is a friend of gun owners or our rights had better re-read that. Anybody who would hold or request such an opinion will twist or ignore the law to their liking. His counsel actually thinks the permit itself can be taken anywhere (I'm so glad I won't go to jail for possessing a concealed PIECE OF PAPER!!) but the gun authorized by the permit can be further restricted. It's no wonder these people have such a hard time understanding "shall not be infringed" and don't know the differerence between "use" and simple possession. Article I, Section 6 of Utah Constitution: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. It seems to me the legislature can define lawful use, but is not granted the power to define, regulate, or infringe ownership or possession (keep and bear). Even our current CCW permit process is an infringment of our rights to own and possess guns. Only a politician, or a judge, could ever confuse simple possession with actual use of any item. -- 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." - [This was Madison's original proposal for the "Second Amendment" -- James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Gov. Mikey's General Counsel's thoughts Date: 17 Feb 1998 12:33:54 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote: > It's no wonder these people have such a hard time > understanding "shall not be infringed" and don't know the differerence > between "use" and simple possession. > > Article I, Section 6 of Utah Constitution: > > The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and > defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for > other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall > prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. > > It seems to me the legislature can define lawful use, but is not > granted the power to define, regulate, or infringe ownership or > possession (keep and bear). Even our current CCW permit process is an > infringment of our rights to own and possess guns. Only a politician, > or a judge, could ever confuse simple possession with actual use of > any item. > Well.... The Oxford English Dictonary does include "use" in the definition for "bear" and "keep" if I remember right. And "carry" is also included in "bear" and "use". So, in that sense A1-6 is pretty meaningless. (i.e. the right to use shall not be infringed...but legislature shall regulate lawful use..) Conceptually you are correct. Regarding Millenium Mike, you are so very correct. Remember that we had to pull that embarrassment stunt to get him to sign the dang CCW bill. He's a pod people, he talks like a "conservative" but walks, quacks and flies like a whole different bird. (not that conservative means anything other than more "fascist" in one direction than a liberal...) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: LEGISLATIVE ALERT!! HB 343 Date: 17 Feb 1998 17:10:38 -0700 HB 343, Nuisance Code Amendments - Shooting Ranges will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Feb. 19. The committee meeting is from 8-9:30 AM, in Room 223 at the State Capitol. HB 343 is a shooting range protection bill. It prohibits local governments from passing ordinances to shut down or harass already existing shooting ranges, provides that individuals who use shooting ranges assume all reasonable risks, and limits the use of nuisance actions for "noise pollution". The text of the bill can be found at http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1998/bills/hbillint/HB0343.htm. The League of Cities and Towns plans to oppose this bill. The Board of Trustees of USSC recommend the following: ACTIONS: 1) If possible, please attend the Committee hearing. We need to pack the room! If you would like to testify, please get there early and notify Committee Chair Lamont Tyler, or the secretary. The bill is currently listed as first on the agenda. 2) Please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to SUPPORT HB 343. A. Lamont Tyler, Chair Greg J. Curtis, Vice Chair Katherine Bryson Bill Hickman Keele Johnson Swen Nielsen Tammy J. Rowan Glenn L. Way Patrice Arent John B. Arrington Loretta Baca To leave a message for Representatives, call 538-1029 or (800) 662-3367. Other contact information is available at http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/html/members.htm Thank you for your support! Sarah Thompson for the Board of Trustees As always, comments may be directed to any of the Board members listed below. Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse their open-door policy. All of us are VERY busy right now. Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), cathounds@aol.com Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (w), 364-0412 (h), 73214.3115@compuserve.com Shirley Spain, 963-0784, agr@aros.net Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w) Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, righter@therighter.com (I prefer e-mail to phone calls when possible). Joe Venus, 571-2223 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Communication with Legislators Date: 17 Feb 1998 18:20:34 -0700 I received a very nice email today from one of our legislators. I've removed all identifying references and pass along the remaining transcript to illustrate that there is benefit to taking the time to let elected officials know where you stand and to enlighten them or politely correct them wrt laws or bills. Don't assume a legislator knows the law any better than you do. Especially if you are talking about your "pet" area and you've read up on it recently. They are as busy or more than the rest of us and don't go around reading current statute just for fun. All, or nearlly all, legislators have their home numbers listed on the State legislative pages and are good about taking a few minutes to talk on the phone. I've had several nice conversations with legislators and highly reccomend you take the time to call them when a bill is of particular concern. This exchange started with me contacting this particular legislator concerning a particular bill concerning CCW. His response first, followed by my response. His final message is first is last. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- On Thu, 05 Feb 1998, posted: Dear Mr. Hardy: Thanks for the obvious reasoning and long thought on the subject of gun rights. I appreciate your concern. I too, have thought a great deal about this. I am convinced, after [much thought and experience], that there are times when "reasonable" restrictions are appropriate. The problem is, I haven't been able to yet determine the best way to define those. Maybe I never will, so in the mean time it's probably best to leave things alone. Briefly, though, let me give you an example of one of the problem areas I've identified. I have an 18 year old [child] who is eligible to obtain a concealed weapons permit. [S/He] is also still a senior in high school. If [s/he] were to obtain a permit, should [s/he] be allowed to take [a] handgun to school? My personal opinion to that is NO. As you eloquently stated, there's not much happening to give us cause to act immediately on this. Perhaps there is value in being pro active, but certainly not rash. Thanks again for your comments. That's what make this process work. Sincerely, [name deleted] >> Charles Hardy 02/06 4:49 PM posted>>> Dear [name deleted] Thank you for your thoughtful reply and raising the issues of primary and secondary schools. [some deleted] Your concern about high school seniors carrying guns into schools under the privleges of state issued CCW permit might be valid, except that Utah law does not allow a person to obtain a CCW permit until they are 21 years of age, not at 18 as you feared. I quote from Utah Code 53-5-704 as obtained at : 53-5-704. Division duties -- Permit to carry concealed firearm -- Requirements for issuance -- Violation -- Denial, suspension, or revocation -- Appeal procedure. (1) The division or its designated agent shall issue a permit to carry a concealed firearm for lawful self defense to an applicant who is 21 years of age or older within 60 days after receiving an ^^^^^^^^^^^^ application and upon proof that the person applying is of good character. The permit is valid throughout the state, without restriction, for two years. It seems pretty clear that our current CCW permits do not allow anyone under age 21 to carry a concealed weapon. Thus, any problem of students carrying guns to school must be caused--and should therefore logically be addressed--by something other than our CCW permit law. I trust you have no opposition to adults (21 yrs+) exercising their privleges under CCW permits while they are on public University or College property? Surely, a 22 year old woman poses no greater risk to her fellow citizens and is no less a target of crime simply because she is walking across University rather than city property? I know you are very busy, and I don't want to infringe on your time. But please let me briefly give you an example of one concern I have if CCW permits are rendered invalid on school grounds. In adittion to restricting law abiding adults when there is no evidence at all to date they pose any danger, any prohibition of guns in or around schools must be very carefully worded in light of the Federal Gun Free Schools Act of 1995. I've attached relevant portions of this law below. In summary, the Act makes it a crime for any person who is not specifically authorized (via a State issued permit that requires a background check) to posses a gun to be in possession of a gun on or within 1000 feet of any school grounds. 1000 feet is almost two city blocks! If Utah's CCW permits are not valid on school grounds, a permit holder who is otherwise legally in possession of his firearm, might possibly be ruled (by an anti gun federal judge in Denver) in violation of this Federal law simply by walking, jogging, or even driving within two city blocks of any school--public, private, or parochial (and some rumors suggest the BATF is also looking at interpreting this to include home schools)--anywhere in the State. I encourage you to obtain a map of Salt Lake County that shows all schools. Then shade in those schools and two city blocks in each direction of each school to see how much area could potentially make federal criminals of some of our most law abiding citizens. Thank you for your service in the legislature and your consideration of these views. Sincerely Charles Hardy [U.S. Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE deleted in repost] <<>> Dear Charles: You're absolutely right. Thanks for your efforts and helpful understanding of the issue. I appreciate it. I also know this is a delayed response, and for that I apologize. It's been a little crazy up here lately. Sincerely, [name deleted] -- 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. "There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by appearing uncertain and afraid. You volunteer by being (as grass-eaters invariably are) unprepared to deal with the dangers of life." - Cooper's Corner - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: SB57 Update Date: 17 Feb 1998 21:08:13 -0700 SB57, Sen. President Beattie's bill that would effectively destroy the CCW permit system was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee today. I had expected it to go to the Transportation and Public Safety Committee as other related bills have. I suspect the Judiciary Committee is less favorable to guns, and being Senate President, Beattie was able to direct it there. He is one of the committee members. The sponsor of SB23, negligent storage of a firearm, Robert Steiner is another member. I assume those 2 will vote for it right out of the box. I have no idea where the other 4 members stand. Contact info below: Robert C. Steiner (D) 80 North Wolcott Salt Lake City, Utah 84103-4477 H-596-1213 O-328-883 rsteiner@le.state.ut.us David L. Buhler (R) 1436 South Yuma Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 H-466-7140 O-355-5009 FAX-355-4008 dbuhler@le.state.ut.us Craig L. Taylor (R) (chair) 312 Oak Lane Kaysville, Utah 84037 O-544-5909 ctaylor@le.state.ut.us Lane Beattie (R) (sponsor and senate pres) 1313 North 1100 West West Bountiful, Utah 84087 H-292-7406 O-298-7000 email not listed but lbeattie@le.state.ut.us may reach him. Lyle W. Hillyard (R) (Assistant Majority Whip) 175 East First North Logan, Utah 84321 H-753-0043 O-752-2610 lhillyar@le.state.ut.us Mike Dmitrich (D) HC 65, Box 30 Altamont, Utah 84001-9703 H-454-3494 mdmitric@le.state.ut.us -- 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. "25 states allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" - Andrew Ford - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: FW: Oppose HB 328 -Forwarded Date: 18 Feb 1998 09:18:01 -0700 Received: from jserver.recovery-usa.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18623; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:03:18 -0700 Received: by jserver.recovery-usa.com from localhost (router,SLMail V2.6); Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:07:09 -0700 Received: by jserver.recovery-usa.com from David_Harmer.NTdomain (206.62.70.93::mail daemon; unverified,SLMail V2.6); Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:07:08 -0700 Received: by David_Harmer.NTdomain with Microsoft Mail id <01BD3B83.627F33E0@David_Harmer.NTdomain>; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:06:51 -0700 Message-ID: <01BD3B83.627F33E0@David_Harmer.NTdomain> "'Gaunt, Arnold'" , "'Harmer, Jonny'" , "'Harmer, Matt'" , "'Harmer, Miriam'" , "'Harmer, Wendy'" "'Jarrard, Jeff'" , "'Latham, Rob'" , "'Latham, Rob (work)'" , "'Poulter, Steve'" , "'Powers, Jason'" "'Salisbury, David'" , "'Simmons, Rob'" , "'Wells, Bob & Helen'" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD3B83.62885BA0" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD3B83.62885BA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 3:07 PM The following letter was sent to the Salt Lake Tribune, = letters@sltrib.com If you agree, please send your own letter. =20 Please also contact your Representative, and particularly Speaker of the House Mel Brown. He can best be reached by e-mail at = mbrown@le.state.ut.us Thanks! Sarah Oppose HB 328 Rep. Susan Koehn and the members of the House Government Operations = Committee apparently believe that an oath of office is merely a = formality. They unanimously passed Koehn's HB 328, which removes = criminal sanctions for a legislator who refuses or neglects to take and = file an oath of office. If this bill passes, a legislator may willfully = refuse to take his oath of office, and the only recourse available to = citizens will be to file a civil suit at their own expense. This is = exactly the same as declaring that murder is illegal, but their are no = criminal penalties for committing murder, so the victim's family must = file a suit in civil court to seek restitution. In this case it is the Constitution being murdered. The United States = Constitution and the Utah Constitution are the two documents by which = all laws must be judged. They are the foundations of our way of life. = Any legislator who is not willing to pledge to uphold these sacred = documents, and do so with pride, does not deserve to serve the people of = Utah. Any legislator who votes for this bill is pubicly stating that he or = she has no respect for our Constitution. Citizens would do well to = remember these votes come November. Sarah Thompson, M.D. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD3B83.62885BA0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IjMQAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAYBoAABAAAAAQAAAAAwAAMBEAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAcgAAAAAAAAC1O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbCFQAAADjw81RqX9ERsXEAYJea X4EkiwAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAAAQmlzY2hvZmYsIEppbQBTTVRQADExMDM0NC4x NTcyQGNvbXB1c2VydmUuY29tAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABsAAAAxMTAz NDQuMTU3MkBjb21wdXNlcnZlLmNvbQAAAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAEAAAACdCaXNj aG9mZiwgSmltJwACAQswAQAAACAAAABTTVRQOjExMDM0NC4xNTcyQENPTVBVU0VSVkUuQ09NAAMA ADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAAeAPZfAQAAAA4AAABCaXNjaG9mZiwgSmltAAAAAgH3XwEAAAAsAAAAvwAA ALU7wsAsdxAaobwIACsqVsIVAAAAOPDzVGpf0RGxcQBgl5pfgSSLAAADAP1fAQAAAAMA/18AAAAA AgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAERAAAAADAAAwEgAAAAsADw4AAAAAAgH/DwEAAABsAAAAAAAAALU7wsAs dxAaobwIACsqVsIVAAAAOPDzVGpf0RGxcQBgl5pfgQSMAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAA AABHYXVudCwgQXJub2xkAFNNVFAAYWpnYXVudEB4bWlzc2lvbi5jb20AHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01U UAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABUAAABhamdhdW50QHhtaXNzaW9uLmNvbQAAAAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAA HgABMAEAAAAQAAAAJ0dhdW50LCBBcm5vbGQnAAIBCzABAAAAGgAAAFNNVFA6QUpHQVVOVEBYTUlT U0lPTi5DT00AAAADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAHgD2XwEAAAAOAAAAR2F1bnQsIEFybm9sZAAAAAIB 918BAAAALAAAAL8AAAC1O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbCFQAAADjw81RqX9ERsXEAYJeaX4EEjAAAAwD9 XwEAAAADAP9fAAAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAABIQAAAAAwAAMBMAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAA aQAAAAAAAAC1O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbCFQAAADjw81RqX9ERsXEAYJeaX4HkjwAAAAAAAIErH6S+ oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAAASGFybWVyLCBKb25ueQBTTVRQAGlvY29hY2g0dUBhb2wuY29tAAAAAB4A AjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAASAAAAaW9jb2FjaDR1QGFvbC5jb20AAAADABUMAQAA AAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAQAAAAJ0hhcm1lciwgSm9ubnknAAIBCzABAAAAFwAAAFNNVFA6SU9D T0FDSDRVQEFPTC5DT00AAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAAeAPZfAQAAAA4AAABIYXJtZXIsIEpvbm55 AAAAAgH3XwEAAAAsAAAAvwAAALU7wsAsdxAaobwIACsqVsIVAAAAOPDzVGpf0RGxcQBgl5pfgeSP AAADAP1fAQAAAAMA/18AAAAAAgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAExAAAAADAAAwFAAAAAsADw4AAAAAAgH/ DwEAAABqAAAAAAAAALU7wsAsdxAaobwIACsqVsIVAAAAOPDzVGpf0RGxcQBgl5pfgYSGAAAAAAAA gSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAABIYXJtZXIsIE1hdHQAU01UUABtaGFybWVyQHBibHV0YWguY29t AAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABQAAABtaGFybWVyQHBibHV0YWguY29tAAMA FQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAAA8AAAAnSGFybWVyLCBNYXR0JwAAAgELMAEAAAAZAAAAU01U UDpNSEFSTUVSQFBCTFVUQUguQ09NAAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAAeAPZfAQAAAA0AAABIYXJt ZXIsIE1hdHQAAAAAAgH3XwEAAAAsAAAAvwAAALU7wsAsdxAaobwIACsqVsIVAAAAOPDzVGpf0RGx cQBgl5pfgYSGAAADAP1fAQAAAAMA/18AAAAAAgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAFBAAAAADAAAwFQAAAAsA Dw4AAAAAAgH/DwEAAABsAAAAAAAAALU7wsAsdxAaobwIACsqVsIVAAAAOPDzVGpf0RGxcQBgl5pf gSSRAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAABIYXJtZXIsIE1pcmlhbQBTTVRQAG1haDQ4QGVt YWlsLmJ5dS5lZHUAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABQAAABtYWg0OEBlbWFpbC5i eXUuZWR1AAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAABEAAAAnSGFybWVyLCBNaXJpYW0nAAAAAAIB CzABAAAAGQAAAFNNVFA6TUFINDhARU1BSUwuQllVLkVEVQAAAAADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAHgD2 XwEAAAAPAAAASGFybWVyLCBNaXJpYW0AAAIB918BAAAALAAAAL8AAAC1O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbC FQAAADjw81RqX9ERsXEAYJeaX4EkkQAAAwD9XwEAAAADAP9fAAAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAABUQ AAAAAwAAMBYAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAbwAAAAAAAAC1O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbCFQAAADjw 81RqX9ERsXEAYJeaX4HkjAAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAAASGFybWVyLCBXZW5keQBT TVRQAGhhcm1lcndAc3R1ZGVudC5zdXUuZWR1AAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAA GAAAAGhhcm1lcndAc3R1ZGVudC5zdXUuZWR1AAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAABAAAAAn SGFybWVyLCBXZW5keScAAgELMAEAAAAdAAAAU01UUDpIQVJNRVJXQFNUVURFTlQuU1VVLkVEVQAA AAADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAHgD2XwEAAAAOAAAASGFybWVyLCBXZW5keQAAAAIB918BAAAALAAA AL8AAAC1O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbCFQAAADjw81RqX9ERsXEAYJeaX4HkjAAAAwD9XwEAAAADAP9f AAAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAABYQAAAAAwAAMBcAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAcQAAAAAAAAC1 O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbCFQAAADjw81RqX9ERsXEAYJeaX4EkjQAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZnW4A3QEP VAIAAAAASGF3a2VzLCBCb2IgJiBTaGFybGVuZQBTTVRQAHJzaGF3a2VzQE1TTi5jb20AAAAAHgAC MAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAByc2hhd2tlc0BNU04uY29tAAAAAAMAFQwBAAAA AwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAABkAAAAnSGF3a2VzLCBCb2IgJiBTaGFybGVuZScAAAAAAgELMAEAAAAW AAAAU01UUDpSU0hBV0tFU0BNU04uQ09NAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAB4A9l8BAAAAFwAAAEhh d2tlcywgQm9iICYgU2hhcmxlbmUAAAIB918BAAAALAAAAL8AAAC1O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbCFQAA ADjw81RqX9ERsXEAYJeaX4EkjQAAAwD9XwEAAAADAP9fAAAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAABcQAAAA AwAAMBgAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAZAAAAAAAAAC1O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbCFQAAADjw81Rq X9ERsXEAYJeaX4EEjQAAAAAAAIErH6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAAASmFycmFyZCwgSmVmZgBTTVRQ AGplZmZAeDk2LmNvbQAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAADQAAAGplZmZAeDk2LmNv bQAAAAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAQAAAAJ0phcnJhcmQsIEplZmYnAAIBCzABAAAA EgAAAFNNVFA6SkVGRkBYOTYuQ09NAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAB4A9l8BAAAADgAAAEphcnJh cmQsIEplZmYAAAACAfdfAQAAACwAAAC/AAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUAAAA48PNUal/REbFx AGCXml+BBI0AAAMA/V8BAAAAAwD/XwAAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAYEAAAAAMAADAZAAAACwAP DgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAGwAAAAAAAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUAAAA48PNUal/REbFxAGCXml+B hIsAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAExhdGhhbSwgUm9iAFNNVFAAUm9iZXJ0LkxhdGhh bUBicmluLmNvbQAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAFwAAAFJvYmVydC5MYXRoYW1A YnJpbi5jb20AAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAAA4AAAAnTGF0aGFtLCBSb2InAAAAAgEL MAEAAAAcAAAAU01UUDpST0JFUlQuTEFUSEFNQEJSSU4uQ09NAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAAeAPZf AQAAAAwAAABMYXRoYW0sIFJvYgACAfdfAQAAACwAAAC/AAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUAAAA4 8PNUal/REbFxAGCXml+BhIsAAAMA/V8BAAAAAwD/XwAAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAZEAAAAAMA ADAaAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAHUAAAAAAAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUAAAA48PNUal/R EbFxAGCXml+BZI8AAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAExhdGhhbSwgUm9iICh3b3JrKQBT TVRQAHJvYmVydC5sYXRoYW1AYWJhbGNuLmNvbQAAAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzAB AAAAGQAAAHJvYmVydC5sYXRoYW1AYWJhbGNuLmNvbQAAAAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEA AAAVAAAAJ0xhdGhhbSwgUm9iICh3b3JrKScAAAAAAgELMAEAAAAeAAAAU01UUDpST0JFUlQuTEFU SEFNQEFCQUxDTi5DT00AAAADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAHgD2XwEAAAATAAAATGF0aGFtLCBSb2Ig KHdvcmspAAACAfdfAQAAACwAAAC/AAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUAAAA48PNUal/REbFxAGCX ml+BZI8AAAMA/V8BAAAAAwD/XwAAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAaEAAAAAMAADAbAAAACwAPDgAA AAACAf8PAQAAAG4AAAAAAAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUAAAA48PNUal/REbFxAGCXml+BhI4A AAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAFBvdWx0ZXIsIFN0ZXZlAFNNVFAAbWF2ZXJpY2tAeG1p c3Npb24uY29tAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABYAAABtYXZlcmlja0B4bWlz c2lvbi5jb20AAAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAARAAAAJ1BvdWx0ZXIsIFN0ZXZlJwAA AAACAQswAQAAABsAAABTTVRQOk1BVkVSSUNLQFhNSVNTSU9OLkNPTQAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAA AB4A9l8BAAAADwAAAFBvdWx0ZXIsIFN0ZXZlAAACAfdfAQAAACwAAAC/AAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgA KypWwhUAAAA48PNUal/REbFxAGCXml+BhI4AAAMA/V8BAAAAAwD/XwAAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAA AAAbEAAAAAMAADAcAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAHIAAAAAAAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUA AAA48PNUal/REbFxAGCXml+B5JAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAFBvd2VycywgSmFz b24AU01UUABqYXNvbi5wb3dlcnNAbS5jYy51dGFoLmVkdQAAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAA HgADMAEAAAAbAAAAamFzb24ucG93ZXJzQG0uY2MudXRhaC5lZHUAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAe AAEwAQAAABAAAAAnUG93ZXJzLCBKYXNvbicAAgELMAEAAAAgAAAAU01UUDpKQVNPTi5QT1dFUlNA TS5DQy5VVEFILkVEVQADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAHgD2XwEAAAAOAAAAUG93ZXJzLCBKYXNvbgAA AAIB918BAAAALAAAAL8AAAC1O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbCFQAAADjw81RqX9ERsXEAYJeaX4HkkAAA AwD9XwEAAAADAP9fAAAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAABwQAAAAAwAAMB0AAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8B AAAAdAAAAAAAAAC1O8LALHcQGqG8CAArKlbCFQAAADjw81RqX9ERsXEAYJeaX4FEiwAAAAAAAIEr H6S+oxAZnW4A3QEPVAIAAAAAU2FnZXJzLCBEYXZpZABTTVRQAGRzYWdlcnNAY2kud2VzdC12YWxs ZXkudXQudXMAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAAB0AAABkc2FnZXJzQGNpLndlc3Qt dmFsbGV5LnV0LnVzAAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAABAAAAAnU2FnZXJzLCBEYXZp ZCcAAgELMAEAAAAiAAAAU01UUDpEU0FHRVJTQENJLldFU1QtVkFMTEVZLlVULlVTAAAAAwAAOQAA AAALAEA6AQAAAB4A9l8BAAAADgAAAFNhZ2VycywgRGF2aWQAAAACAfdfAQAAACwAAAC/AAAAtTvC wCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUAAAA48PNUal/REbFxAGCXml+BRIsAAAMA/V8BAAAAAwD/XwAAAAACAfYP AQAAAAQAAAAAAAAdEAAAAAMAADAeAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAHMAAAAAAAAAtTvCwCx3EBqh vAgAKypWwhUAAAA48PNUal/REbFxAGCXml+BxIsAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAFNh bGlzYnVyeSwgRGF2aWQAU01UUABzYWxpc2J1cnlAdXRhaC1pbnRlci5uZXQAAB4AAjABAAAABQAA AFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAZAAAAc2FsaXNidXJ5QHV0YWgtaW50ZXIubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAA AwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAnU2FsaXNidXJ5LCBEYXZpZCcAAAIBCzABAAAAHgAAAFNNVFA6 U0FMSVNCVVJZQFVUQUgtSU5URVIuTkVUAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAB4A9l8BAAAAEQAAAFNh bGlzYnVyeSwgRGF2aWQAAAAAAgH3XwEAAAAsAAAAvwAAALU7wsAsdxAaobwIACsqVsIVAAAAOPDz VGpf0RGxcQBgl5pfgcSLAAADAP1fAQAAAAMA/18AAAAAAgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAHhAAAAADAAAw HwAAAAsADw4AAAAAAgH/DwEAAABpAAAAAAAAALU7wsAsdxAaobwIACsqVsIVAAAAOPDzVGpf0RGx cQBgl5pfgcSMAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAABTaW1tb25zLCBSb2IAU01UUABzaW1t b25zQGlvbWVnYS5jb20AAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABMAAABzaW1tb25z QGlvbWVnYS5jb20AAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAAA8AAAAnU2ltbW9ucywgUm9iJwAA AgELMAEAAAAYAAAAU01UUDpTSU1NT05TQElPTUVHQS5DT00AAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAB4A9l8B AAAADQAAAFNpbW1vbnMsIFJvYgAAAAACAfdfAQAAACwAAAC/AAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUA AAA48PNUal/REbFxAGCXml+BxIwAAAMA/V8BAAAAAwD/XwAAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAfEAAA AAMAADAgAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAH8AAAAAAAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUAAAA48PNU al/REbFxAGCXml+BpI4AAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAFdlbGxzLCBCb2IgJiBIZWxl bgBTTVRQAHJld2VsbHMtYm91bnRpZnVsQHdvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNN VFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAjAAAAcmV3ZWxscy1ib3VudGlmdWxAd29ybGRuZXQuYXR0Lm5ldAAAAwAV DAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAFQAAACdXZWxscywgQm9iICYgSGVsZW4nAAAAAAIBCzABAAAA KAAAAFNNVFA6UkVXRUxMUy1CT1VOVElGVUxAV09STERORVQuQVRULk5FVAADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoB AAAAHgD2XwEAAAATAAAAV2VsbHMsIEJvYiAmIEhlbGVuAAACAfdfAQAAACwAAAC/AAAAtTvCwCx3 EBqhvAgAKypWwhUAAAA48PNUal/REbFxAGCXml+BpI4AAAMA/V8BAAAAAwD/XwAAAAACAfYPAQAA AAQAAAAAAAAguaQBBIABABIAAABGVzogT3Bwb3NlIEhCIDMyOADUBAEFgAMADgAAAM4HAgARAAkA BgApAAIAIgEBCAAFAAQAAAAAAAAAAAABCQAEAAIAAAAAAAAAASCAAwAOAAAAzgcCABEACQAFABEA AgAJAQEJgAEAIQAAAEY4RTU2RDY4NzVBN0QxMTFCMTcxMDA2MDk3OUE1RjgxAAoHAQOQBgDMDgAA IwAAAAsAAgABAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQCA hRoJvju9AR4ATQABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAHAAAQAAABIAAABGVzogT3Bwb3NlIEhCIDMyOAAAAAIB cQABAAAAFgAAAAG9O74Ipmht5fyndRHRsXEAYJeaX4EAAAsAFwwAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAADAAAATVMA AB4AHwwBAAAAFAAAAFdpbmRvd3MvbmVpbC9kYXZpZGgAAwAGECQL5GQDAAcQYAUAAB4ACBABAAAA ZQAAAC0tLS0tT1JJR0lOQUxNRVNTQUdFLS0tLS1GUk9NOlNUSE9NUFNPTlNNVFA6UklHSFRFUkBU SEVSSUdIVEVSQ09NU0VOVDpNT05EQVksRkVCUlVBUlkxNiwxOTk4MzowN1BNVE8AAAAAAgEJEAEA AACiCwAAngsAABAbAABMWkZ1RyJu/gMACgByY3BnMTI1cjIMYGMxAzABBwtgbpEOEDAzMw8WZmUP kk8B9wKkA2MCAGNoCsBzhGV0AtFwcnEyAACSKgqhbm8SUCAwAdCFAdA2D6AwNTA0FCHzAdAUEDR9 B20CgwBQA9T7Ef8TC2IT4RRQE7IY9BTQrwcTAoACkQjmOwlvMBrf+mUOMDUcCh0hHN8d6Rv0/x4S HH8gTyANH48dvxwPEGD8Mjgl2ibxJq8nuRv0J+K/Jk8qHyndKV8njytUOQ5QHy6kMAEoIzAAAoJz dHnqbAeQaAngdAAAE1AD8FBkY3RsCrFcMlhhmGRqdTFwBRBnaAVCOxYyDAFjCcAyYAMwc258ZXgX MAewBbAAwAJzc7EAUHNiMhRQMWBhE/D0XGsJ4HALkDI/MqMIYOsykAuAZTGgdjlgAUAzm78MMDRk KAA3QASgC4BnJ/HpNOZiYRcQZAIgNaA1Rucx0DOQO5EgMTEzDlA2n/83rzi/AFE5/ACgNG48fz2G /zEkD8A+jz+fQK8OUDnvQw/bRB89szMCghMQYzZgS6GTM5A9sHRpOZAgRAEQqGF1bAVAUArAYQnA 4GFwaCBGAiE2JCVA6GZpLQ+QOAFAOTBQM+tHDzKjYgsgcglQUlIWoNlSUnc0JUEXAHAB0E1yfzO/ Sp9Lpk/QTpAFEAIwLUNPMANhOiBUb1ewUyh1YmoFkHRXsERh6HRlOjYkNk//UQ9SH/9TL1Q5McA9 ow4hS6E6tg5Qm1VvVn5SOYEXASBIPZH7BJA2JDdZb1p/W49cnTkPL12/D5BpcAjQYgqwdDj/SfoP VEYQX79gxmoAYdALULx5L09AXLALEWJFczYk/ygAYz9kT2VfXK9UT2tfbG/vbXVX0ld0WKk5b78z PwMwHWmzOXOfdK96oERvY/51B4ACMAXQTwA+FALRbuD+M0ZxZ3B+YngveT96z0s9rXKhTAQAT3Qy NnFhDiCffu9//4EPgh+D4CBCBHD+eVfANXFM1l+QTXkMYAlQHGNmieFLJk1RSHlw+wSQZ3FrGgGF IoSAhMBxUf0BgG5YMABgCfBNoH0AAgH7NeBeUmUA8H0AMYCMAA5Q0nYIkHdrC4Bka0CPYv8E8AdA EGEBQA4AcSI9gpDFvQIQbwVCFyES8ljAbQtRQVjAIEM6XFxXAG+9TuFtTzADEAeQk3BNDeDJA2Bz bwGAIE8BIA3gtY6wXJUmRQDAAxAuS3C+dIyQFxCEwDUhZ3J4AUC9jcFuMdAa8JbETjRjAyDnEvMA gAWQbHZBoUbQDnD/NeCZUgGQACCZ4o+xfUEBwX+ZURbgD3AAAEbQDNABkCD+LhoSmUgOUJoCTnCF EJp//5uPnJ8PwEbQBYGeP59PoF92bGtARtBsnf+iv6PFKR+czCVAoZ+mf6O0YiAo/wKRp5+Zk1lQ pU+qD6sfrC//mcBjEK1ymk+u36/vnMwoAP+tf7L/tA+1H5nAeACx/7ePf7ifuaQK+QMwhH+Fj4ad e/8KhQqFvmyD37+/wM/B1zTUQzWgEvJia21ru3Mgjl99gAMQWKFhfS3J4n5PxoELgAdABdAHkEZQ Z/5lyePC38PjYw/Ev3DPcd//Z09oX2lvan/Hm1dzDIIGAOouV8BoA3BwlNADoAKS+QiQbGQS8g9A PbExcMfIAWJAWVBFUkxJTuhLICKWMnRX4BoiyATAW1NNVFA6xoMEkCxAdJfx26QuBaBtXe3amCLX gsf5ZMmh18M6kQMLgHWgMyAA0MnqAHn5us4RjIIAgKoAS6kLAgDg4AoX4OEe4OFbAFMAAE0AVABQ ADoAAHIAaQBnAGgA6HQAZeJBQOLB4rDi8gHiei4AYwBvAG3UAF3g4eDf7Urg4eTw+mHiYWziweTQ 4jDhn+Kv/+O/5McaEAKS1/AXAE5xCMH/X4KKtds/3EsaE8gEy4/MlP9uv84Pzx9x78Y/x0kMMMf1 bwZgAjDWdNqYTQIg3qB56ixPMGXzUHUKwIjwWUAL+RAv8DnT4DM6MDf9TpBN73b2yVfR98bXz9jf x9nh2i/RMGFoLfEAGvCjCsCOYEB4bQQBaRDg79yy2pjdv97LN4ig38/g1job4OF16KHmsOiQLQB+ ZuhB6DDo0Oaw6DDk8HP96QF45OHoUAegB6DoUOTQ5m7kh+U/C0TmbwYvBz//CE/rD+wbAA8BGO7P +ytYFpH3zU9wcBgiSEJMsP8ocO9/vw/Fn/WfwjjDT8RfPxh/GY/CBNcAkzCR4GxsVxzxPdExoHTt gSBtkHO+IBXwfVHaYCHQIBFTkGA5khBMYUagV8BJoGJ1/zVg+RD8f/2C/k/agSDkAMC/D5EjAQFk I3EC/4ugM3qg+wRf4NYT4OHm8OjQC8DotG8NIg0g5vLoMmII3ylYNP8Knyq/K88Oz+wMJh8SQyNx 0ElmIHnRICBO0Uaw//kQkvA9kBXxIZHCMDUBG0DfHPAXoCDk1uDvZlA1xJBg7ZTQINzAveBhHTA2 ZG0B/5gQIZJYsE3h+RBq4MIwGyHfTdB9EBdw84D5oFOMACKx7zahNODcERr1SNEgFfHKwP2ZAEKU sDbQN2FiUDiwauBcIGKUQJIQPoAgESFj+5EwwjBi+aDLIJYyNTCSELcjjySf2kVt81A2wUAg4LYu u3FYwC7RMEPQcyc/7d8lNQQ/4LgWLiMsUOpQ/eTQdwix6RAvMuSQDSALwr/osuSQC6JJkg0gLP8L 6BD/5n5Hv0jPSdgxn+xIQu9D8/9PYRr/HAR+Hx0PHh8fLmrg3cjQIVKVIlCT0GhSnxef/1XPVt8a zxvfWp9br1y+Fb8/XfFtAdbgFEBfQFpgS2/8ZWhaYDqSIhJ9MFEAbiGTPBU85Udv0bBybn0z32LA biA6IXUARCRD1yAA8P8hAThRYtBd8H1BO3E+gNFQr9GhIgFAIT5Rb3dgaDwS+5TglUIgAQBlgZgQ O3GkEPeOMpBgikB5nLBBkEBBIAHn+aAjMNTAaW09ATtxXeCPyuA/UWSzQFFycXWSAJ+TMEBQIXAW JPkQd2iV0P9rAJgQbiDRsCFwuxBuEMpz/2RxX/Bn944xbFEg4MpgT+Dfd2BzEXCwIfCYEGY9EWXx +14AfIBnIOBf8CFwIeIisv86kvEAIOBqmUQza1Q3YTTR39wQa8HfUCBgboRzOnFzWv+WMPmgX8Ag YHRwIGD5oHRU/3WHeGF3RGrrOnQiEoKAevP33MA2kDhCdpZB1qB2cSHh+mOKQXqNwCFweoI+wiHh v3ZSRDOkEH/Aj2ByAXWKQP9AEtwRERA2s4hgjACZcTdh/9cAa8FrwYhgOQE7cSISX0D/Z0A1MCFw qTE7QSChRDNqU/5tNpC8IF4Ag/IgYHNwkGD/+RAjIIJ2aVF08DihcaaDUf8iYY9wIXBzAtzBaLKF 9obE//kQOJEiEo9gclEBkm+JmKD/APA7cYbA/YF2VIIEWlGBtOd+giHDFfBla0QzOcE6MO500TAB Ml21SVpgeFM+QP8V8Y7idXEgEWiA/XGRBT5x3yCihsQ/UIOjZsBVu/Bo4L3CMFNDkmgmk4llFlUQ wSeTXIiSIhJ0dyHwZG+/OyBnQniBemFww2zAbEQzvVowd2vRjhI+0WEgZMsQ/5UFbEGZJXMAbdAD MWfyaxNfNpEhUPmgPCHRUGZ34kH8bnmbNHN8a8FfoNKgeoKfIKJ/kTWxnHEh0nVw1xC/3xHcETXy OQCU4ZnILIFE/zZBmdCL0l/AavE5sF/QI1HfmdBxYaFivCAV8HJqIpAS96dTIBE7sG81sTwSl/KR dnufwXNedm+xihR4WGvBcP8UUHDQO3FDgiCiakR94l4A/9LQgTS8wKFCPvH0sBSBiiP3NoKTajdh Q3/X0SDfEaVh/nfRwMqgf5FxEWWjhiWjgveq9NzBZsBOZvFlspF2WPPj1vf54E0uRJF2Wb9f339g 71zv+wPIZjYyyUi2xn0F4OEAvfAAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAEAAAADAIAQ/////0AABzBADcnWvTu9 AUAACDBADcnWvTu9AQsAAIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAOFAAAAAAAAAwACgAggBgAAAAAA wAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAADAAWACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABShQAAtw0AAB4AJYAI IAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADguMAADACaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAA AAABhQAAAAAAAAsAL4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAA6FAAAAAAAAAwAwgAggBgAAAAAAwAAA AAAAAEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADADKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAB4AQYAIIAYA AAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAEKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA3 hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgBDgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAOIUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4A PQABAAAABQAAAEZXOiAAAAAAAwANNP03AAAFdw== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD3B83.62885BA0-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Communication with Legislators Date: 18 Feb 1998 09:56:13 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote: > > I received a very nice email today from one of our legislators. I've > removed all identifying references and pass along the remaining > transcript to illustrate that there is benefit to taking the time to > let elected officials know where you stand and to enlighten them or > politely correct them wrt laws or bills. > hear hear.... As I understand it, the so-called "alternative" to SB57 was dealt a major blow yesterday when the NRA sleaze wasn't able to meet with one of the reps. Herewith a response from another rep...and this guy's probably even gonna get a small donation from me next time 'round. (in spite of some of his other problems) > Dear Mr. Thompson: > > I wish to share with you my feelings regarding SB 57. I am happy to say that I > do not support any legislation that will limit the rights of the gun owners. I > believe that the concealed weapons laws that are in place are fine. > > Sincerely, - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: HB 328 Date: 18 Feb 1998 09:45:25 -0700 It appears from the State legislature home page that the house passed HB 328, these people must be eating prunes, they'll pass anything! Contact your Senator. ----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 3:07 PM The following letter was sent to the Salt Lake Tribune, = letters@sltrib.com If you agree, please send your own letter. =20 Please also contact your Representative, and particularly Speaker of the House Mel Brown. He can best be reached by e-mail at = mbrown@le.state.ut.us Thanks! Sarah Oppose HB 328 Rep. Susan Koehn and the members of the House Government Operations = Committee apparently believe that an oath of office is merely a = formality. They unanimously passed Koehn's HB 328, which removes = criminal sanctions for a legislator who refuses or neglects to take and = file an oath of office. If this bill passes, a legislator may willfully = refuse to take his oath of office, and the only recourse available to = citizens will be to file a civil suit at their own expense. This is = exactly the same as declaring that murder is illegal, but their are no = criminal penalties for committing murder, so the victim's family must = file a suit in civil court to seek restitution. In this case it is the Constitution being murdered. The United States = Constitution and the Utah Constitution are the two documents by which = all laws must be judged. They are the foundations of our way of life. = Any legislator who is not willing to pledge to uphold these sacred = documents, and do so with pride, does not deserve to serve the people of = Utah. Any legislator who votes for this bill is publicly stating that he or = she has no respect for our Constitution. Citizens would do well to = remember these votes come November. Sarah Thompson, M.D. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Waco Update 02-18-98: The Konformist -Forwarded Date: 18 Feb 1998 09:57:28 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin53.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id KAA20511; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:31:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <980218103110_1111084592@mrin53> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.25356.mrin53.887815870" --PART.BOUNDARY.0.25356.mrin53.887815870 Content-ID: <0_25356_887815870@mrin53.222> Content-type: text/plain Waco Update 02-18-98: The Konformist --PART.BOUNDARY.0.25356.mrin53.887815870 Content-ID: <0_25356_887815870@mrin53.223> Content-type: text/plain; name="waco0218.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A Konformist Special Waco Update 02-18-98 Subj: SOME FACTS ON CLINTON'S WACO COVER-UP FACT SHEET: assembled by Carol Moore, author, The Davidian Massacre CarolMoore@kreative. Net 202-635-3739 =0D EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE 1993 WACO MASSACRE =0D This sheet outlines just some of the evidence that President Clinton, through his various appointees, intentionally obstructed justice in covering up negligent and intentional homicide by federal agents of 82 Branch Davidians--24 men, 35 women and 23 children. Clinton's brutal comment April 20, 1993 is typical of a co-conspirator, not a President: "I was, frankly, =D4surprised,' would be a mild word to say, that anyone would suggest that the Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics murdered themselves." =0D ** One of the chief planners of the February 28, 1993 BATF raid on the Branch Davidians was Bill Clinton's personal friend William Buford, Special Agent in Charge of Little Rock BATF. According to a March, 1993, Wall Street Journal article, the day after the February 28 raid, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman visited the injured Buford in a Texas hospital and reported back to Clinton. Congress never asked Altman or Buford about what they discussed. Did President Bill Clinton have foreknowledge of, or involvement in, the Waco raid which he has not revealed? =0D ** During the siege against the Davidians news reporters claimed that the White House was "micro-managing" the FBI's actions at Waco. However, during 1995 Congressional hearings former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell denied he discussed the subject more than once with President Clinton. Attorney General Janet Reno initially asserted Hubbell had spoken to Clinton on April 19th but withdrew her statement when Clinton and Hubbell denied it. =0D * An FBI report on White House counsel Vince Foster's suicide revealed that his wife, Lisa, told the FBI that Foster felt responsible for the deaths of the Davidians. Lisa Foster must be quizzed about what Vince Foster told her about his and the White House's involvement in the Waco massacre. During the House Waco hearings the White House released Foster's "Waco file" which contained only one memorandum. In August, 1997, journalist Ambrose Evans-Prichard revealed Foster's former executive assistant, Deborah Gorham, told the Senate Banking Committee in June, 1997, that Foster kept a file on the Waco incident locked in an office cabinet. Evidently Congress did not ask her if it contained more than the one memorandum previously released to Congress. Linda Tripp was also a Foster aide. What could she tell us about the White House's involvement in Waco?? =0D * Confidential memoranda and handwritten notes presented during the 1995 House Waco hearings revealed that the Treasury Department, under pressure from the Justice Department and Webster Hubbell, halted its post-February 28 shooting review investigation because agents' stories "did not add up." The Justice Department protested that the interviews were generating "exculpatory" material that could help the Davidian defendants at trial. Webster Hubbell even threatened to go to Bill Clinton if the Treasury Department did not cooperate in the suppression of such exculpatory evidence. During the hearing, representatives quizzed defense attorneys on this suppression of evidence. However, Congress never asked Webster Hubbell about his role in squelching these interviews. And even though Hubbell promised to produce his personal "Waco files" to Congress, he did not do so. =0D * On April 19, 1993, Reno and Hubbell sat in the FBI Operations Center in Washington, D.C. for four hours watching the tank attack on Mount Carmel. Reno mentioned during the 1993 house hearings that she talked to Clinton at 11:00 a.m. on April 19th, just before she left the Operations Center. Incredibly, Congress never asked her then, or during 1995 hearings, about the content of this conversation! Did Clinton tell her to press on with the attack? Did he tell her to leave Webster Hubbell in charge? What instructions did he give her?? =0D There is ample similar evidence of cover-up by the Clinton White House and executive branch in both the 1993 and 1995 Congressional "Waco" hearings, in the conduct of the Treasury and Justice Department investigations into the massacre, and in the prosecution of Davidian defendants. Clinton's deliberate suppression of evidence and obstruction of justice in the massacre of 82 civilians at Waco is a far more heinous crime than that of asking an intern to lie under oath about their sexual affair. A separate independent counsel must be appointed to find evidence of negligent and intentional homicide of the Davidians and of systematic cover-up of those crimes that goes all the way up to President Clinton. =0D DON'T FORGET COMMITTEE FOR WACO JUSTICE DEMO IN D.C. 1/27/98 =0D Demo at the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Congress, calling for the impeachment of Waco co-conspirator President Bill Clinton and for the end to the ongoing physical abuse by guards of Branch Davidian Livingstone Fagan at U.S.P. Leavenworth. =0D Demonstrators will gather at 12:00 p.m. at Bureau of Prisons Headquarters, 320 1st Street, NW, at C Street. We will be available for comments to the press at 12:30 p.m. and then will march to Independence and New Jersey Avenues to demonstrate and leaflet Congressional members. January 27th is both the first day of the 1998 session and the day President Clinton is scheduled to give his State of the Union address. Subj: Waco Update--January 29, 1998 WACO UPDATE=D0JANUARY 29, 1998 Carol Moore Member, Committee for Waco Justice Author, The Davidian Massacre =0D GOOD NEWS FROM LIVINGSTONE FAGAN Yesterday I received a letter from Davidian prisoner Livingstone Fagan reporting things have improved greatly for him at the Special Housing Unit at USP Leavenworth. (During November and December 1997 Leavenworth guards repeatedly beat him and locked him half naked in freezing cells. They even hosed him down and turned an industrial fan on him after he complained to outsiders about abuse of inmates in that unit. For more information go to: http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/cwj-update-98.html ) Fagan writes: "My thoughts have been of you, and of the people who have taken the time and effort to write me. . .You might be interested to know that 1/6/98 was the date I had an interview with an official from the office of internal affairs. A development arising from the efforts of those good people mentioned above. "I think the way is now clear for my resuming writing. I have a lot of letters to catch up on. Unfortunately, some of these were confiscated along with other personal effects." On Fagan's refusal to release his Bureau of Prison (B.O.P.) records to me, and at least one Senator who wrote on behalf of a constituent, Fagan writes: "Past experience has taught me that these people (B.O.P. administrators) are not interested in the truth of what's going on. Giving your consent for them to act on your behalf amounts to a public relations exercise in the interest of the B.O.P. I was not content with having this dealt with administratively, rather =D4on the ground.' Where the reality is. Perhaps the most substantial development has been that of the interview with an official from the office of internal affairs. The effects have been noticeable, at least with respect to the harassment." Fagan also notes: "You also expressed concern about people thinking these things are made up. I can understand the desire to think that. It relieves one of his/her responsibility to do anything about it. I'm reminded of a comic strip you once sent me of two prisoners chained to a wall in their boxers. The caption was, "It's no use complaining. They'll only think you're trying to get something for free." It was for me (having experienced the reality) an indictment against the ignorance and resulting insensibility of public perception. Or at least the perception created by the Media. There's a large class of Americans who seem to take comfort in denying (by making light of) the realities of what is going on. This is a tragedy, considering it is in their power to fix it..." =0D So thanks again to all of those of you who took time to write Warden Booker, BOP Director Kathleen Hawk, Representative McCollum, etc. Sometimes letter writing works! I don't know if letter writing campaign to the Supreme Court would help the Davidian appeals. But we should note than in mid-January court proceedings regarding an Oregon SWAT team's no-knock search, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said: "We all have in mind what happened at Waco. We think we have some concerns here." Hopefully, the whole court will have more than mere "concerns" when they hear the Branch Davidians' appeals sometime in the next year or so. Will they rule that trial Judge Walter J. Smith should have allowed the jury to consider "self-defense" in the aiding and abetting manslaughter charge? Will they rule that Davidians should not have been found guilty of carrying a gun during the murder of federal agents=D0when= they were found *innocent* of those murders? Will they rule that the jury, not the judge, should have been responsible for finding them innocent or guilty of carrying illegal weapons? Will they rule that there is insufficient evidence against any of the Davidians? Will they demand the Davidians be re-tried by a fair and impartial judge=D0or even that they should be freed immediately? Seven Davidians still imprisoned have received a total sentence of 235 years. Will the Supreme Court reverse this grave injustice? Can we convince them to do so? For more information about the Branch Davidian prisoners go to: http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/waco-prisoners.html =0D REPORT ON JANUARY 27TH COMMITTEE DEMONSTRATIONS On Tuesday, January 27th eight members of the Committee for Waco Justice demonstrated as planned at the Bureau of Prisons Headquarters and the U.S. Congress. January 27th was both the first day of the 1998 session and the day President Clinton gave his State of the Union address. Before those demonstrations five of us went to the nearby U.S. Court House where dozens of reporters and cameramen were reporting on the Grand Jury looking into charges that President Clinton lied under oath and encouraged Monica Lewinsky to do so. We figured we'd remind the press that Clinton's obstruction of justice in the Waco massacre is a lot more important than the current "crisis." Like many, I believe it will be at least some measure of justice if it is proved Clinton urged a woman to lie to protect him from losing a civil suit for sexual harassment and he is forced to resign. Also, his fall may allow new evidence of his crimes against the Branch Davidians finally to become public. For evidence of Clinton's obstruction of Justice at Waco go to: http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/waco-clinton-impeach.html We carried our signs, "Clinton Obstructed Justice at Waco", "Impeach the Liar", "Free the Branch Davidians", and "Impeach Clinton for Waco Massacre" and chanted the last three slogans. A number of television crews filmed and interviewed us and the footage may show up somewhere someday. One sarcastic reporter started asking one member about the "conspiracy to kill Diana in the tunnel." We set him straight about the seriousness of the government's unpunished massacre of civilians at Waco=D0and reminded him it may have driven at least on individual to kill another 168 people in Oklahoma City; he immediately skulked away. Eight of us then protested at Bureau of Prisons while dozens of police officers, guards and employees=D0and a poorly concealed video camera=D0watched us. The whole block heard our chants=D0also printed on signs=D0"Warden Booker Control Your Guards =D0 Stop Beating Fagan", "BOP Stop Abusing Fagan," "Free the Branch Davidians." We took lots of pictures, so we'll have them to send to present and future wardens of any prison that starts mistreating Davidian prisoners. Just to remind them we are ready to make a fuss to protect the prisoners. To see some of the photographs, go to: http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/impeach-demo-photos.html Finally, we spent another hour or so outside Congress, distributing our Impeach Clinton-Free the Davidians press release=D0to predictably mixed reactions. One Republican operative boasted to some Democratic big shots he ran into that he had "hired" us. Lyndon LaRouche followers were also distributing their literature=D0claiming tha= t Linda Tripp was a George Bush operative trying to discredit Clinton the Great (with the help of the Queen of England, of course). When a Democrat later accused us of being LaRouchies, we set him straight: "LaRouche is Clinton's biggest supporter!" Since we got there after the Congressmen had already gone into Congress for the opening ceremonies (reminder, get there at 11:30 a.m. next time) we only ran into to a few actual members. However, we did see Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a very vocal critic of the government's actions at Waco, across the street and chanted a few "Waco, Never Again" just for him. Some people may scoff that these demos accomplish little. But, like the butterfly that starts a hurricane, small efforts can have large effects. A few guilt trips levied at reporters, Bureau of Prison employees and congressional aides and members may yet reap rewards. Maybe one of them will even notice that we presented concrete evidence Clinton obstructed justice at Waco and do something about it!! =0D TELL CLINTON TO FREE THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS Thinking that President Clinton might be resigning any day now, I sent him the following e-mail: "You know what the truth is and you know you will be forced to resign. If you do believe in God, think about your moral soul and think about the 82 misguided but sincere Davidians who died at Waco. (Note: I confess, I pandered to him. I guess just writing to that man corrupts one!) Then think of the seven remaining Davidian prisoners and Pardon Them! Let this act of mercy be the defining moment of your Presidency!!! Renos Avraam, #60590-080 Brad Branch, #60536-080 Graeme Craddock #60593-080 Jaime Castillo, #60594-080 Livingstone Fagan, #60550-080 Paul Fatta, #61154-079 Kevin Whitecliff, #60537-080 (And while you are at it, Free Leonard Peltier, as well!!) (End) It can't hurt for people to e-mail Clinton at and/or call him on the White House comment line 202-456-1111 asking him to pardon the Davidians. As he goes through the crisis of having to recognize his own failings, if not his crimes, perhaps he will look for some symbolic redemptive acts before the inevitable resignation or impeachment. (Assuming he doesn't just go nuts and push the red button.) Let's suggest that freeing the Davidians be one of those acts! (For more information on Clinton's obstruction of justice in the Waco Massacre go to: http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/waco-clinton-impeach.html ) =0D COMMITTEE SEEKS FUNDS FOR FEBRUARY 28 AND APRIL 19TH EFFORTS We thank all those who have helped us in the past, even as we ask for a bit more help in 1998. The Committee for Waco Justice has a $100 debt it would like to pay off. Plus we would like to place at least a $200 advertisement in the Washington Times on each of these two upcoming Fifth Year anniversaries of the massacres. (And that will buy just a three inch by two inch advertisement.) We may have some unexpected expenses for our April 19th memorial on the Ellipse, south of the (Gore?) White House. Plus we would appreciate contributions to help pay for postage and xeroxing for materials we frequently send to the Davidian survivors and prisoners, as well as to pay for collect phone calls from some of the prisoners. The Committee for Waco Justice's budget is less than $1,500 a year, so we do not have a bank account. Make checks to: Carol Moore, P.O. Box 65518, Washington, D.C. 20035 202-635-3737. (For a list of available materials and buttons and an order form go to: http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/cwj-order-form.html In the alternative, you might want to help the Branch Davidian survivors get ready for their April 19, 1998 memorial at Mount Carmel outside Waco. Also, if things go well at their next court hearing, February 23rd, they may finally get official recognition of their ownership of the Mount Carmel property, which will insure the Sheriff evicts the aggressive squatters who have been there since shortly after the fire and have threatened them with weapons. Almost a dozen Davidian survivors are interested in re-occupying Mount Carmel and beginning to turn it into a fitting memorial. Send checks to: Mount Carmel Survivors Memorial Fund, Inc., Box 120, Axtell, TX 76624. Also write for their price list of books, videos and audiotapes about David Koresh and the destruction of their community. =0D CarolMoore@kreative.net =0D http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/davidian-massacre.html Subj: Branch Davidians / Website information http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/3877/ noimposters@hotmail.com Uninvited imposters at site of Waco tragedy website. The following is the text taken from the website at: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/3877/ It is the answer to the website: 'A brief stop at Mt. Carmel' by Daniel Tobias. Daniel Tobias revisited the site and added another section to his website titled 'Return to Mt. Carmel'. People can access Mr. Tobias site from this site to compare the information. The following is the real story...... Return to Mount Carmel (Going Back to the Scene of the Crime just to find another crime taking place!) It has been a couple of years since I last visited the site of the = Branch Davidian tragedy of 1993, and I'd heard that some of the = buildings I photographed had been burned down since, so I decided to = check the place out again..... Davidians don't like the name "compound" to describe their location = (preferring to refer to it as their church and their home), but the = squatters who have taken over the property seem to be exploiting the = situation, and have 'Branch Davidian Compound' written on the sign at = the front of the place, and also on the fraudulent admission pass they = require! (Notice the hand written 1 in the line marked: party of. Can this person write? Good thing he has a stamp for the date.) Just how pathetic does it get? (picture) These fraudulent passes are given after bullying a small 'recommended' = donation from visitors, in an attempt to exploit the victims of the 1993 = tragedy. It has been rumored that the money they fraudulently collect is = used to buy beer as well as the enamel paint used to deface the property = into looking more like a makeshift tourist attraction. A friend of mine = visiting the site recently was approached by a surly man wanting her to = pay the fee. He was angered when she refused, and she said he looked = like he had not washed for weeks. Perhaps they should take some of that = money they are stealing posing as Davidians, and buy some soap!!! The buildings I saw last time have indeed been burned down. I had to = wonder if the squatters who have invaded the property were the culprits. = Now a trailer serves as the imposters "office". A man was there, who = said he's the husband of the woman who used to live there (Amo Roden = Drake), but he and his buddy (Charles Pace, another uninvited squatter/imposter) ran her off the property and will not allow = her back on! She is on a permanent vacation from the property. One of = the buildings burnt down was her 'home', convenient huh? In place of the old "museum" (that was burnt down by the = squatter/imposters more than likely) was a new crude structure with = various exhibits. One shows the cover of a book by Carol Moore and = refers to it as "dishonest". Very likely this is because these squatters = are NOT Branch Davidians and they dislike any attempt to vindicate/free the Davidian prisoners, who if released would kick these = imposters right off the property, as they should be! This time, I went further onto the property, to look at what was left of = the buildings, and to witness what further vandalism had occurred on the = part of the uninvited squatters. In between the front area and the building ruins, were many monuments = and markers, including memorials to each person who died in the church = in 1993, and a monument to "The Living Waters -- Branch of Righteousness = -- This monument (pictured below) is dedicated to Christ the Word, the = Branch of Righteousness" and was erected by the squatter/imposter Charles Pace, who is convinced he is a prophet. = ACTUALLY he wants to MAKE a PROFIT! One must wonder what David Koresh = would think of these monuments and markers. As for myself, I hold the = view that David would be disgusted, however he would expect this to = happen! The burned-out remains of a bus were out in the field, with a bathtub = nearby. The imposter/squatters have dug up every available remaining = ruin in order to use it in their exploitation of the Branch Davidians. Parts from another bus were buried in the ground; this was the bus that = was placed by Koresh as part of a storm shelter so his people could take = refuge in it in case of a tornado. Many places on the property had signs identifying things that visitors = were being called attention to. These signs were also erected by the = squatter/imposters, a result of their disgusting lack of respect and = reverence, and completely geared towards soliciting money from = unsuspecting visitors. This is the remains of a swimming pool on the property. (picture) As if the vandalism and destruction of the FBI was not enough...we found = this vandalism on the corner of the swimming pool, which pointed the way = to various spots that showed up in the media coverage of the Branch = Davidian siege, somehow this is relevant to the squatter/imposters. Further in and blocked off so the public cannot approach it, is a = structure where Branch Davidian men would work on and refurbish cars. = The imposter/squatters seem to be using this structure as a makeshift = church. A further exploitation of the 'real' Branch Davidians. The Branch Davidian property is being vandalized and exploited by = squatters who do not mind if visitors think that they are the Branch = Davidians. In fact, they deceitfully promote that false idea in the = minds of visitors. They solicit 'donations' from visitors who think they = are Branch Davidians, all the while they are slandering and defaming David Koresh and the real Davidians. This page was written as an answer to the original page created by = Daniel Tobias. This was not meant as a disrespect to Mr. Tobias. All = photos presented here were taken by Daniel Tobias who without realizing, = thought that the Mt.Carmel property is being maintained by Branch = Davidians. However, the property is being squatted by imposters seeking = to PROFIT from the 1993 tragedy. This website was not written by Daniel = Tobias. Let all visitor's to the site BEWARE. Another interesting note, one of the squatters is facing charges for = threatening someone with a gun. = ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --PART.BOUNDARY.0.25356.mrin53.887815870-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Pro-gun Rep. Assaulted -Forwarded Date: 18 Feb 1998 09:59:01 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA19749; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma019560; Tue Feb 17 22:20:11 1998 Message-Id: <199802172354.QAA28897@mail2.rockymtn.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: davisda@rmi.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list >Return-Path: >Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:40:07 -0500 >From: Gun Owners of America >Reply-To: Gun Owners of America >To: goamail@gunowners.org >Subject: Pro-gun Rep. Assaulted > >Vermont Carry Bill Sponsor Assaulted By Anti-gun Legislator > >Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert >8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 >Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 >http://www.gunowners.org > >Multi-state Alert: February 17, 1998 > > >Representative Lisa Lutz, the sponsor of the Vermont-style >Carry Bill for New Mexico (HB 296) must be getting the >attention of the enemy. While sitting in a House >Appropriations Committee meeting on February 11th, >Representative James G. Taylor, the anti-gun water boy for >Speaker Raymond Sanchez, walked up behind her and slapped >her on the back of the head! > >GOA's State and Local Affairs Director Dennis Fusaro, who >witnessed the incident, was shocked. "What is this?" said >Fusaro, "The New Mexico House, or Animal House?" Lutz asked >Fusaro not to act on his first impulse and return the favor >to Taylor. GOA members need not exercise similar restraint >in expressing their (1st Amd) outrage at this kind of >thuggery. > > >When a Vermont-style carry law was introduced in Oregon, its >sponsor, Representative Patti Milne, was verbally abused by >anti-gun House Rep. George Eighmey. > >Oregon GOA members were alerted and flooded Eighmey with >calls, faxes and E-mails. At the second hearing for the bill >Eighmey publicly apologized and credited GOA members for >"showing him the light." > >Taylor's physical abuse calls for no less of a response. >Let's show Taylor the same light Oregon members showed >Eighmey. Contact Taylor and Speaker Sanchez and tell them >what you think of Taylor's outrageous behavior. > >The numbers for Rep. Taylor are: >(505) 986-4248. (Legislature) >(505) 764-6850 (Buisiness) >(505) 877-4986 (Home) > >The numbers for Speaker Sanchez are: >(505) 986-4782 (Legislature) >(505) 247-4321 (Business) >(505) 898-6644 (Home) > >Both can be faxed at (505) 986-4755 > >While you're at it, Contact Representative Lutz and let her >know what a great job she's doing. Representative Lutz can be >reached at: (505) 986-4233. Tell the Republican Leadership the >same thing: (505) 986-4758/4757. > >You can and should call even if you don't live in New Mexico. >New Mexico's Speaker needs to know the word is spreading to >other states about the kind of nonsense he is letting happen. >General Information Line is (505) 986-4751. > >Any ?s Call GOA >Guns Save Lives > >*********************************************************** >Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of >getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider >joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service >is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume >is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week >indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward >this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your >state of residence in either the subject line or the body. ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net ******************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Careful when responding to "police" at door Date: 18 Feb 1998 10:22:04 -0700 [Image] [Image] [Image] Millcreek man shot in leg during break-in attempt [Image] [Image] [Image] Last updated 02/17/1998, 11:50 a.m. MT MILLCREEK — A man was shot in the leg while three masked assailants tried to break into his house Monday night. Paramedics transported the man to Columbia-St. Mark's Hospital, where he was in good condition, said Salt Lake County sheriff's deputy Peggy Faulkner. His name was not released Monday night. The assailants knocked on the front door of the house, 1128 E. Elgin Ave. (3000 South), about 10:30 p.m. When no one answered the door, the assailants pounded on the back door. "They told the residents they were deputies from the sheriff's department," Faulkner said. The homeowners thought it was some friends playing a joke. Two men live in the house, Faulkner said. The residents opened the door and quickly closed it when they saw one man pointing a shotgun at them. The gunman took one shot through the door after it slammed shut, hitting one of the residents in the leg. No other shots were fired, Faulkner said. The other resident called 911, Faulkner said. The perpetrators ran down the street and sped off in a car after the homeowner told them police were on the way. Investigators weren't sure if the assailants picked the house at random, Faulkner said. The assailants were still at large Tuesday. [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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: 1984? Date: 18 Feb 1998 10:24:20 -0700 Several troubling items in this one... Wonder if frequent trips to the range with scary looking guns qualifies one for a police checkup... [Image] [Image] [Image] Wednesday, February 18, 1998 [Image] [Image] Rolly & Wells: 1984 Revisited? By Paul Rolly and JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells 1984 REVISITED? The Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office ran an ad in The Salt Lake Tribune Sunday with the title ``Big Crime Produces Big Wealth.'' The ad listed a hot line residents may call anonymously about their neighbors if they notice strange visitors at unusual hours, suspicious stories about sources of income or jobs, lavish spending habits and working unusual hours. Sheriff's Sgt. Craig Watson said honest residents need not worry about unwarranted investigations. Watson, a narcotics investigator, said the department is going after the ``top of the food chain'' of drug traffickers, who usually pose as respectable, wealthy individuals. If a check shows the subject has a legitimate job, the investigation will end. But the ad ruffled some feathers, even among law enforcement, possibly because it came on the heels of an incident earlier this month when the Sheriff's Office checked license plates of cars parked at the South Jordan Library. Former Deputy Scott Miller, who plans to run for election against Sheriff Aaron Kennard, was holding a political meeting there. Among those checked: Two Granite School District undercover officers and a State Tax Commission investigator. Undersheriff Jim Bell, who asked for the investigation to find out who belonged to the license plates, said he made the inquiry because of an anonymous letter complaining of reckless driving in the area. But the timing of his inquiry means he would have had to receive that anonymous letter less than 24 hours from when the cars were in the area. BITE OUT OF CRIME Friday night, House Minority Leader Dave Jones and his wife, Cindy, were at Crossroads Plaza in Salt Lake City when they spotted a man attacking a woman near the basement rest-rooms. Jones, D-Salt Lake City, tackled the suspect, who was then arrested by his wife, a state correctional officer with the Domestic Violence Unit. CHECK THE FILE? William Flandro reported Jan. 10 to the West Valley City police that his 1989 Ford Probe was stolen. The car was placed on a national register of missing vehicles. Two days later, the Probe was found abandoned in the middle of the road in Spanish Fork Canyon by Utah Department of Motor Vehicles crews. UHP had it towed to an impound lot in Spanish Fork. No one notified Flandro or West Valley City detectives until Thursday, when Flandro received a letter from UHP stating his ``unclaimed vehicle'' had been in impound for a month and he owed $560. TRUCK DRIVERS BEWARE But diligent law enforcement may be seen in areas that attract federal dollars. We wrote last week about alleged quotas for DUIs being required of Utah Highway Patrol troopers, despite an official denial that quotas exist. There seems to be another area where quotas are required of UHP troopers. An Aug. 24, 1997, memo to UHP sergeants in the Salt Lake County district notes: ``The Federal Highway Administration has offered $81,000 to the Utah Highway Patrol for CDL [Commercial Driver's License] enforcement. Six dollars per CDL citation or warning will be given to the UHP. [Salt Lake County] has been tasked with 1,125 CDL citations or warnings. The following is a breakdown of our current stats on CDLs: Total [CDL tickets or warnings] as of Aug. 15 -- 490. Number needed by Sept. 30 -- 635. Number needed per trooper -- 15.'' The memo did not address the question: What if truck drivers don't commit 635 offenses in the alloted time? [Image] [Wednesday Navigation Bar] [Image] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 1998, 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. "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Sarah's Letter Date: 18 Feb 1998 10:26:19 -0700 From today's DesNews... Great letter Sarah. [Image] [Image] [Image] READERS' FORUM [Image] Firearms bill goes too far [Image] [Image] [Image] Last updated 02/18/1998, 10:02 a.m. MT Your editorial (Feb. 8) urging support for Senate President Lane Beattie's SB57 is both irresponsible and reprehensible. Beattie's bill would not, as you falsely inform your readers, "allow church leaders, private property owners and public school officials to ban concealed weapon permit holders from bringing firearms into their buildings." It would absolutely prohibit the possession of firearms on these premises, and the churches and private property owners would have no discretion whatsoever. Prohibition is not the same thing as choice. This mistake is quite understandable since you both wrote and published your editorial days before the actual text of the legislation was available. While you are entitled to your opinions, I wish you would have the journalistic integrity to base your opinions on facts and not rumors. Both Utah and the LDS Church have long been known for their religious tolerance and adherence to the principle of separation of church and state. This is a worthy tradition, which should be held sacred. Beattie's bill would set a heinous precedent for intrusion of the state into church matters. If the state may prohibit firearms from the premises of a house of worship regardless of the wishes of the religion or clergy involved, all religious freedom is endangered. If the state may force a church to ban guns, what is to stop it from banning sacramental wine or requiring that Muslims wear shoes during prayer? What is to stop it from mandating birth control or equal religious standing for homosexuals? If a house of worship wishes to ban guns or even require guns, let it do so on its own authority. Religious practices are not the domain of the state. All Utahns who support religious freedom should vigorously oppose SB57. Sarah Thompson Sandy [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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Need Chris Kierst's email Date: 18 Feb 1998 11:13:29 -0700 Chris, need to email you privately but have misplaced your address. Please respond to . Thanks. -- 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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: 1984? Date: 18 Feb 1998 11:35:19 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote: > > Several troubling items in this one... > > Wonder if frequent trips to the range with scary looking guns qualifies > one for a police checkup... > > [Image] > [Image] [Image] Wednesday, February 18, 1998 [Image] [Image] > > Rolly & Wells: 1984 Revisited? > > By Paul Rolly and JoAnn > Jacobsen-Wells > > 1984 REVISITED? > The Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office ran an ad in The Salt Lake > Tribune Sunday with the title ``Big Crime Produces Big Wealth.'' [snip] > Undersheriff Jim Bell, who asked for the investigation to find > out who belonged to the license plates, said he made the inquiry > because of an anonymous letter complaining of reckless driving in the > area. Good ol' Bell...this is the same (sixties minutia) who said he'd make you eat dirt then ask questions if he saw a suspicious bulge in yer drawers. Is anyone surprised that he'd be involved in another form of "big bro" activity? "By their fruits they shall be known" <-Someone who knows better, please correct this? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: 1984? Date: 18 Feb 1998 11:37:34 -0700 On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Will Thompson posted: >> Undersheriff Jim Bell, who asked for the investigation to find >> out who belonged to the license plates, said he made the inquiry >> because of an anonymous letter complaining of reckless driving in the >> area. > >Good ol' Bell...this is the same (sixties minutia) who said he'd >make you eat dirt then ask questions if he saw a suspicious bulge >in yer drawers. Is anyone surprised that he'd be involved in >another form of "big bro" activity? "By their fruits they >shall be known" <-Someone who knows better, please correct this? > OK, correction. That was officer D.B. Bell of the SLC PD. -- 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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: 1984? Date: 18 Feb 1998 12:05:31 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Will Thompson posted: > > >> Undersheriff Jim Bell, who asked for the investigation to find > >> out who belonged to the license plates, said he made the inquiry > >> because of an anonymous letter complaining of reckless driving in the > >> area. > > > >Good ol' Bell...this is the same (sixties minutia) who said he'd > >make you eat dirt then ask questions if he saw a suspicious bulge > >in yer drawers. Is anyone surprised that he'd be involved in > >another form of "big bro" activity? "By their fruits they > >shall be known" <-Someone who knows better, please correct this? > > > > OK, correction. That was officer D.B. Bell of the SLC PD. > er... Yup apologies to Undersheriff Bell for the mistaken ID. > -- > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: HB 328 Date: 18 Feb 1998 15:05:42 -0700 At 09:45 AM 2/18/98 -0700, you wrote: > >It appears from the State legislature home page that the house passed >HB 328, these people must be eating prunes, they'll pass anything! > >Contact your Senator. > The bill is now in Senate Judiciary. Members are: Craig Taylor, Chair Lane Beattie David Buhler Mike Dmitrich Lyle Hillyard Robert Steiner Messages may be left for Senators at 538-1035, or 800-953-8824. Democrat fax: 801-538-1449 Republican fax: 801-538-1414 Please save these names and numbers because the same committee will be hearing SB 57, Lane Beattie's gun control bill. However, please DO NOT include both issues in the same message, since HB 328 is really a non-partisan issue, while gun control arouses strong feelings in this committee. Sarah Thompson (for myself only) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [jimdex@inconnect.com: SB57 Press Release] Date: 18 Feb 1998 16:53:30 -0700 From the Utah-Libertarian Party concerning SB57. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Government Wants To Make Criminals of Law-Abiding Citizens SALT LAKE CITY, UT -- If you want to reduce crime, let more people carry more concealed weapons too more places, the Libertarian Party of Utah said today, but if you want to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals just pass Senate Bill 57, sponsored by Lane Beattie. "Mindless gun control is one of the best examples of government enacting laws that force citizens to either to put themselves in danger or become lawbreakers," proclaimed Jim Dexter, the party's state chair. Libertarians oppose SB57 because it would make the licensed possession of a concealed weapon illegal in houses of worship, schools, and private residences. "New laws are entirely unnecessary," said Dexter, pointing out that houses of worship and homeowners already have the right to ban or prohibit concealed weapons from entering their property. "The LDS Church has correctly stated that concealed weapons in church are 'inappropriate'," Dexter noted, "and they could easily disfellowship or excommunicate a violator of their internal policy if they felt it was a real problem." "Perhaps the church authorities have forgotten the June 11, 1995 incident in a West Valley City wardhouse when a wife was kidnapped at gun point by her estranged husband. The unarmed congregation could do nothing to stop him." Dexter said. "The inability to respond in kind also applies to the two recent cases in our Utah government schools where children brought stolen guns to school knowing no adult would be able to stop them because of misguided school policy. And let's not forget the recent rash of armed robberies on the U of U campus." "The effect of these bills would be to create areas where only crimnals would be safe. People who live in high crime neighborhoods would be forced to choose between meeting their spiritual needs and protecting their lives. Co- eds would not be safe from rape on campus and teachers would not be safe in classrooms," said Dexter. Libertarians also believe forcing churches to take a stand on concealed carry is unconstitutional, as a separation of church and state should allow houses of worship to set their own policies, free from government coercion. Dexter asks, "What good is a concealed carry permit if you are not allowed to carry or turned into a criminal for carrying? Trying to fix a law that's not broken is silly. Legislation like this only serves to turn otherwise law- abiding citizens into criminals." Dexter also said there is absolutely no proof that Utah's concealed carry permit holders have posed the slightest risk to anyone's health, safety or the public good under current law. Utah's violent crime rate has dropped an average 8%, despite population increases, since Utah's concealed carry law went into effect. This follows the pattern in other states that have permitted their law-abiding citizens the right of armed self-defense, according to recent studies from Professors Lott and Mustard of the University of Chicago and from the Cato Institute. Dexter said, "Restricting our right to carry concealed weapons and the places we may carry them, is the equivalent of politicians painting targets on our backs. Denying terrified Utahns the right to carry a concealed weapon into well-publicized 'gun-free zones' is like sentencing innocent people to death because they can't legally defend themselves. When will our legislators learn that criminals don't obey any laws . . . especially gun laws." Speaking of not obeying laws, the Libertarian Party of Utah urges the legislature and law enforcement to require the governor and UofU authorities to immediately cease their resistance to the concealed carry laws and restore the basic right of self-defense to all government workers, teachers and adult students. "If the chancellor or the governor have to face criminal charges, so be it. We are a nation of laws, not subject to the personal likes and dislikes of politicians and/or academicians," said Dexter. ----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). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: URGENT ALERT! STOP SB 57!! Date: 18 Feb 1998 20:12:40 -0700 ************PLEASE CROSSPOST and DISTRIBUTE!!************** Lane Beattie's SB 57, Concealed Firearms Amendments, has now been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is scheduled to be heard on Friday Feb. 20, at 8 AM, in Room 403 at the State Capitol. This bill MUST be stopped! IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NECESSARY! 1) PLEASE PLAN ON ATTENDING THE COMMITTEE HEARING! I know most of you have to work, but the bill is first on the agenda, so you can probably show up before work. 2) PLEASE CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND ASK THEM TO OPPOSE SB 57 and OPPOSE ANY AMENDMENTS. Members of the committee are: Sen. Craig Taylor - R, Chair, O-544-5909 No home number. No personal fax. Email: ctaylor@le.state.ut.us Sen. Lane Beattie - R, Sponsor of the bill and Senate President, H-292-7406 O-298-7000 No personal fax. No email. Sen. David Buhler - R, H-466-7140 O-355-5009 FAX-355-4008 Email: dbuhler@le.state.ut.us Sen. Mike Dmitrich - D, H-637-0426 O-637-2875 No personal fax Email: mdmitric@le.state.ut.us Sen. Lyle Hillyard - R, Assistant Majority Whip, H-753-0043 O-752-2610, No personal fax. Email: lhillyar@le.state.ut.us Sen. Robert Steiner - D H-596-1213 O-328-8831 No personal fax Email: rsteiner@le.state.ut.us Note: All Senators can be reached at the Capitol at 801-538-1035 or 800-953-8824. Faxes for Republicans can be sent to: 801-538-1414 Faxes for Democrats can be sent to: 801-538-1449 3) PLEASE CONTACT YOUR OWN STATE SENATOR AND LET HIM/HER KNOW THAT YOU OPPOSE THIS BILL, AND WOULD LIKE IT DEFEATED, NOT AMENDED. If you don't know who your Senator is, call 468-3427. (They can also tell you who your Representative is.) If you go to http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/ you can look under "District Map" to locate your Senator and under "Roster" to find contact information. Some of the Senators have e-mail, but not all of them check it regularly. You can leave a message for any Senator at 801-538-1035, or 800-953-8824. You can fax Democratic Senators at 801-538-1449, and Republican Senators at 801-538-1414. 4) PLEASE FORWARD OR OTHERWISE DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYONE WHO VALUES FIREARMS RIGHTS OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN UTAH. Thank you for your support. This is the BIG ONE, so we need to work together to protect our rights! Following is USSC's analysis of the bill, as previously posted. HELP DEFEAT SB 57!!! SB 57, Concealed Firearms Amendments, introduced by Senate President Lane Beattie is a bad bill for many reasons: First of all, contrary to the title of the bill, it is NOT only about concealed weapons. The bill refers to "dangerous weapons". This includes concealed pistols, of course, but also includes knives, long guns, and virtually anything else that can cause bodily injury. 1. It prohibits firearms (and dangerous weapons) on church (or other house of worship) property, regardless of the wishes of that particular church. a) This sets a dangerous precedent of allowing the State to dictate to a church or religion what it is or is not allowed to do. It is not the business of the state to dictate religious practices. b) The "defense to prosecution" clause is essentially meaningless. It provides that the police may enter a church, haul you out in handcuffs, (shoot you if you resist or if they're particularly worried about your gun), arrest you, book you, and humiliate you - EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE PERMISSION OF THE CHURCH. Assuming you survive the process, you then have to hire and pay defense counsel, and only at your trial may you present your "defense" that you had "permission". And then you still have to go back to court to try to get your seized weapon returned and your permit reinstated. c) The bill mandates that each church have a policy on firearms. If a church wishes to allow, or even encourage, members to carry, it must maintain a database of who carries, and who has permission to do so, and must issue statements of permission. Thus the state is forcing churches to do additional work and act as _de facto_ police. d) This bill disproportionately affects those people who live in high crime neighborhoods, especially those who must walk to services, and may actually deter people from attending church. 2.The bill mandates that a no one may carry a firearm (or dangerous weapon) into a private residence, again regardless of the wishes of the owner. It is not the business of the state to tell a homeowner what he may do in his own home! (There isn't even an exclusion for the homeowner!) a) The same "defense to prosecution" problem exists. b) This is a gross violation of the privacy of firearms owners. The essence of concealed carry is CONCEALED. If you have to tell everyone you know that you're carrying, any benefit of concealment disappears. If criminals know you are carrying (especially for women who carry in purses), you become an excellent target for an ambush. In addition, since firearms owners often collect firearms, if criminals know you are carrying, they may target your house for a burglary. And remember that YOU may be held liable for what's done with your stolen firearm! c) This bill presumes that law abiding gun owners with CCW's are so dangerous that they must announce their presence before entering a private residence. Not even convicted felons or sex offenders are required to do this. Are gun owners lower than child molesters or more dangerous than convicted rapists and murderers? 3. This bill prohibits firearms (and dangerous weapons) from the premises of schools. a) By declaring schools to be off-limits to responsible gun owners, schools are advertising that they are easy and safe targets for criminals who want to murder children, or even for student gang-bangers. For example, in Pearl, MI, the student who gunned down several of his fellow students was stopped only by a teacher who kept a firearm in his car. b) By prohibiting firearms teachers are also identified as easy targets. This is especially true for female teachers and those teachers who work with "troubled" youth. Their jobs are hard enough and there is no reason to deny them the right to self-defense. c) Schools are public property, owned by the people, and thus may not infringe the rights of the public; they do not have private property rights. d) Private schools are also forced to ban guns which IS a violation of their private property rights. e) School is defined vaguely enough that it could conceivably be construed to include everything from universities to home schools. THIS BILL MUST BE STOPPED! Sarah Thompson To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [SB57 Contact Info] Date: 19 Feb 1998 18:26:43 -0700 I know this has gone out already, but here it is again in case you want to try to phone, fax, or email any of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee tonight or first thing Firday (Feb 20) morning before they discuss SB57. The hearing is scheduled for 8:00 am, RM 403, and is first on the agenda. Let's pack the room. Contact info below: Robert C. Steiner (D) 80 North Wolcott Salt Lake City, Utah 84103-4477 H-596-1213 O-328-883 rsteiner@le.state.ut.us David L. Buhler (R) 1436 South Yuma Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 H-466-7140 O-355-5009 FAX-355-4008 dbuhler@le.state.ut.us Craig L. Taylor (R) (chair) 312 Oak Lane Kaysville, Utah 84037 O-544-5909 ctaylor@le.state.ut.us Lane Beattie (R) (sponsor and senate pres) 1313 North 1100 West West Bountiful, Utah 84087 H-292-7406 O-298-7000 email not listed but lbeattie@le.state.ut.us may reach him. Lyle W. Hillyard (R) (Assistant Majority Whip) 175 East First North Logan, Utah 84321 H-753-0043 O-752-2610 lhillyar@le.state.ut.us Mike Dmitrich (D) HC 65, Box 30 Altamont, Utah 84001-9703 H-454-3494 mdmitric@le.state.ut.us -- 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. "He that violates his oath profanes the Divinity of faith itself." -- Cicero (found on LA City Hall) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: UofU Parking Spat Date: 19 Feb 1998 18:50:00 -0700 This is the second article in the U POLICE REPORT in The Daily Utah Chronicle, Friday, 13.February 1998 p3: Feb. 11 Pigeonhole Principle Provokes Parkers' Passion [headline written by Kevin Bergeson] -- As on most mornings in the business parking lot, several cars were competing for a select few open spots. Two individuals came across the same open space; one had been waiting "in line," and the other had stumbled across it by chance. When the two simultaneously atttempted to occupy the spot, tempers flared and gestures were exchanged. After a heated exchange, the one who had been waiting succeeded in claiming the spot. Feeling threatened by the encounter, however, he wrote down the other car's license plate number. At this time, according to driver #1, the other driver got out of his car and yelled, "Don't mess with me or I'll put a bullet in your head." Driver #1 then found an officer and made a report. The officer remained by the vehicle, waiting for the suspect to return. The officer did a quick background check on the car and its owner, and discovered the owner had a concealed weapons permit. When the suspect returned, the officer confronted him about the alleged verbal assault. The man admitted he mentioning [sic] a bullet, but couldn't remember the context. He was given a misdemeanor citation for making threats. [end] The names of the writer, drivers and officer are not given. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: VICTORY ALERT!! SB 57 is DEAD! Date: 20 Feb 1998 00:55:38 -0700 Apologies for this late message. I just got home from my first evening out in as long as I can remember. :) What a GREAT surprise! You've probably already heard by now, but just in case...... SB 57, Sen. Lane Beattie's draconian gun control bill is now DEAD! It will NOT be heard in committee Friday, or any other day this session, and you do not need to attend the committee meeting. In addition, the alternate bill discussed in a previous post is no longer necessary and will not be further pursued. YOU, all of you, deserve the credit for helping to preserve our gun rights. It was YOUR persistence and dedication, YOUR phone calls, faxes, e-mails, and letters that finally persuaded Sen Beattie to withdraw the bill in the face of overwhelming public opposition. Working together, WE were able to convince our legislators that the law abiding gun owners of Utah will not allow their rights to be infringed. No organization, and no lobbyist, can succeed without the support of its members and friends, and I think I can safely speak for the rest of the Board when I offer my heartfelt thanks to all of you. Thanks also to our excellent lobbyist, Rob Bishop and to NRA liaison, Brian Judy. More thanks to: The Utah Gun Rights Association The Libertarian Party of Utah Craig Fields and the folks at Gunowners of America for getting an alert out in record time. and of course my fellow Board members and Advisory Board members. While I hate to be a party pooper, I do need to add that HB 343, the Range Protection Bill, was killed by the House Judiciary Committee, on a 4-4 vote. I don't yet have a vote report, but will get one to you as soon as I have the information. HAVE A VERY HAPPY WEEKEND!!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!! Sarah Thompson To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: NRA fires telemarketer -Forwarded Date: 20 Feb 1998 11:34:34 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA19833; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:09:41 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA23578; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:13:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma023384; Thu Feb 19 12:08:42 1998 Message-Id: <01ITRHMOT0B68ZFO1B@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: MIKEY@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Forwarded by Michael P. Baker Member, NRA BOD Micanopy, FL The following letter from Tanya K. Metaksa is in response to querys about NRA's position on semi-auto firearms raised by recent erroneous statements made by a contracted telephone solicitor. Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director NRA Institute for Legislative Action Dear NRA Member: Recently, there has been a rumor circulating about NRA-ILA's position on the Clinton gun and magazine ban. The rapid and widespread reach of this erroneous information is clear evidence of the need to confirm, with a reliable source, any questionable information obtained via the Internet. I thank you for taking the time to do just that by contacting my office. The basis for this rumor was a conversation between one particular individual and a representative from a telemarketing firm contracted by NRA for membership recruitment. Unfortunately, in his zeal to sign up a new member, the telemarketer made several false statements to this particular individual regarding our position on the Clinton gun and magazine ban. The telemarketing firm in question has been suspended pending further review of their procedures. Furthermore, the telemarketer involved in this incident has been removed from our account. Let me assure you that NRA-ILA opposes the Clinton gun and magazine ban and is committed to its full repeal. We opposed this ban when it was first introduced as stand-alone legislation; we opposed it being attached to the rest of the 1994 Clinton crime bill; and we are still opposed to the ban now that it is law. Our efforts to defeat the ban in Congress are well-documented. During the summer of 1994, NRA-ILA led the charge against this ill-conceived legislation. We left no stone unturned, no option unused in our effort to kill this bill. When it became clear that despite our best efforts, we did not have the votes to block its passage, we orchestrated the legislative maneuver that stalled its passage for two weeks. Unfortunately, with the vast resources of the United States Treasury at his disposal, President Clinton was finally able to persuade enough lawmakers to drop their opposition to his crime bill and force it through Congress. We did not give up, however. That fall, we poured millions of dollars into campaigns across the nation to defeat anti-gun politicians and elect the most pro-gun Congress in decades. President Clinton himself "blamed" NRA for his party's decisive defeat in the 1994 elections, and acknowledged during his State of the Union address in January the politically devastating impact of his anti-gun policies. In 1996, on a bi-partisan vote, the House of Representatives passed overwhelmingly a full repeal of the Clinton gun and magazine ban. Passage of this repeal was achieved only after months of hard work by NRA-ILA to bring this legislation to the floor. Unfortunately, the Senate took no action on the repeal. While we relentlessly exploited every legislative remedy at our disposal, we simultaneously pursued this matter in the courts. In 1995, NRA filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan challenging the law. When that suit was dismissed, NRA appealed to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court. Last November, that court reinstated the challenge to the federal gun ban, and as I write to you today, the staff of NRA's Office of General Counsel is busy preparing their arguments in this case. Clearly, an organization that supported the Clinton gun and magazine ban would never go to such lengths to abolish it. In fact, NRA has invested more money and time in the effort to scrap the Clinton gun and magazine ban than any other organization in the United States. And I would remind you that our battle against gun bans is by no means limited to the Federal level. Right now, in California, NRA is fighting a semi-automatic ban that threatens to put law-abiding gun owners like you and me in jail. I hope this information puts to rest any concerns you may have had about this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you ever have any questions about this or any other NRA-ILA policy. Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director NRA Institute for Legislative Action I hope that this helps to put this issue to rest, so that we can all get back to focusing on our primary concerns--defending the Second Amendment. Sincerely, Anthony Roulette NRA-ILA Grassroots Division E-mail: groots@nra.org National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (800) 392-8683 http://www.nra.org - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Fwd from ca-liberty: Charlton Heston - Father of gun control! Date: 20 Feb 1998 17:11:26 -0700 I haven't verified this. It sounds plausible, but that doesn't mean it's _true_. I also think it's necessary to add that people DO change. I was once an advocate of gun control; it doesn't mean I am now. OTOH, I haven't seen any real evidence that Heston has had a change of heart. Sarah >>From: Hlmorse@aol.com >>Subject: Charlton Heston - Father of gun control! >>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:10:29 EST >>To: ca-firearms@lists.best.com >> >>Did you see the posting on talk.politics.guns of a letter Heston signed in >>1968 calling for national gun control? Bad enough he's on the radio giving >>away our assault weapon rights, now this....Heston is the father of gun >>control!!! >> >>These letters are in the LBJ Library in Texas. Transcribed word for word >>below. >> >>(White House letterhead) >> >>June 20, 1968 >>Thursday, 8:00 p.m. >> >>FOR THE PRESIDENT >> >>FROM: Joe Califano >> >>I thought you might be interested in the attached statement which Hugh >O'Brien >>read on the Joey Bishop Show last Tuesday. This was a statement >subscribed to >>by Charlton Heston, Kirk Douglas, James Stewart and Gregory Peck and has been >>widely circulated throughout the country. >> >>The statement was prepared by Levinson and Middleton and was "slipped" to >Hugh >>O'Brien through Jack Valenti. >> >>Attachment >> >> >>TWO WEEKS AGO, ROBERT F. KENNEDY BECAME ONE OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS STRUCK >>DOWN BY AN ASSASSIN'S BULET. SOMETIME TODAY, IN SOME CITY IN AMERICA, A GUN >>SHOT WILL RING OUT AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL FALL DEAD OR WOUNDED. THE VICTIM >MAY >>BE A PUBLIC LEADER OR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, BUT WHOEVER HE IS AND WHEREVER HE >>FALLS, HE IS NOT ONLY THE VICTIM OF A GUNMAN -- HE IS THE VICTIM OF >>INDIFFERENCE. >> >>THE TRAGEDY IS STARK AND REAL. THE SCARS LAST FOREVER, AND THE ULTIMATE AND >>SENSELESS HORROR IS THAT SO MUCH OF THIS SLAUGHTER COULD BE PREVENTED. OUR >>GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON...THE MENTALLY ILL, >>THE CRIMINAL, THE BOY TOO YOUNG TO BEAR RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNING A DEADLY >>WEAPON. >> >>THE SOUND OF THAT GUNFIRE WILL ECHO AGAIN...TOMORROW, THE DAY AFER, AND ALL >>THE DAYS TO FOLLOW UNLESS WE ACT!!! 6,500 PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EVERY YEAR >WITH >>FIREARMS IN THESE UNITED STATES. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE AND WHEN IT IS COMPARED >>WITH THE FAR, FAR LOWER RATES IN OTHER FREE COUNTRIES, IT IS INTOLERABLE. >> >>LIKE MOST AMERICANS, WE SHARE THE CONVICTION THAT STRONGER GUN CONTROL >>LEGISLATION IS MANDATORY IN THIS TRAGIC SITUATION. WE DO NOT SPEAK FROM >>IGNORENCE OF FIREARMS. THE FIVE OF US COUNT OURSELVES AMONG THE MILLIONS OF >>AMERICANS WHO RESPECT THE PRIVILEGE OF OWNING GUNS AS SPORTSMEN OR AS PRIVATE >>COLLECTORS. WE HAVE USED GUNS ALL OUR LIVES BUT THE PROPER USE OF GUNS IN >>PRIVATE HANDS IS NOT TO KILL PEOPLE. >> >>THE CONGRESS HAS RECENTLY GIVEN US SOME PROTECTION AGAINST PISTOLS IN THE >>WRONG HANDS, BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH...NOT NEARLY ENOUGH. THE CARNAGE WILL NOT >>STOP UNTIL THERE IS EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE SALE OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS. >> >> PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. >> MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. >> MEDGER EVERS WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. >> >>NOT LONG AGO, A DEMENTED SNIPER PERCHED ON A TOWER KILLED FOURTEEN PEOPLE IN >>COLD BLOOD...BY A RIFLE. >> >>FOR MANY LONG MONTHS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ASKED THE >>CONGRESS TO PASS SUCH A LAW, BUT THE CONGRESS WILL NOT LISTEN UNLESS YOU, THE > >>VOTER, SPEAKS OUT...UNLESS THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY RISE UP AND DEMAND >THAT >>THE CONGRESS GIVE US A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL LAW. >> >>THE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. IN THE SENAT, IT IS S-3633. IN THE >>HOUSE IT IS HR-177735. >> >>THIS BILL IS NO MYSTERY. LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT IT. IT'S PURPOSE IS SIMPLE >AND >>DIRECT. IT IS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE SPORTSMAN OF HIS HUNTING GUN, THE MARKSMAN >>OF HIS TARGET RIFLE, NOR WOULD IT DENY TO ANY RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN HIS >>CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM. IT IS TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF >>AMERICANS. IT CONTAINS THREE SENSIBLE AND REALISTIC RULES. >> >>FIRST, IT WOULD OUTLAW THE MAIL ORDER SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES. IF THIS >>LAW WERE IN FORCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT MIGHT HAVE STOPPED LEE HARVEY OSWALD >>FROM BUYING THE HIGH-POWERED RIFLE HE USED TO MURDER PRESIDENT JOHN F. >>KENNEDY. EACH YEAR ON MILLION RIFLES ARE SOLD THROUGH THE MAILS. >> >>SECOND, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO MINORS -- PEOPLE TOO >>YOUNG TO BEAR THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A GUN OWNER. >> >>THIRD, IT WILL OUTLAW THE SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO STRANGERS. PEOPLE >>WHO DRIFT ACROSS STATE LINES, TOO OFTEN WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, BUY THESE >>WEAPONS, AS EASILY AS THEY BUY CIGARETTES AND CANDY. THE STATES WHICH HAVE >>STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED. >> >>WE URGE YOU, AS A RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE AND CONCERNED CITIZEN, TO WRITE OR >>WIRE YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IMMEDIATELY AND DEMAND THEY SUPPORT THESE >>BILLS. IN THE SENATE, IT IS BILL S-3633. IN THE HOUSE OF >REPRESENTATIVES, IT >>IS BILL HR-17735. >> >>IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY...IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE...FOR THE COMMON >SAFETY OF >>US ALL...FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT IS UP TO YOU...YOU ALONE AND >>THE TIME IS NOW! >> >>CHARLTON HESTON, KIRK DOUGLAS, JAMES STEWART, GREGORY PECK, HUGH O'BRIEN >> > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: University Police contact info Date: 20 Feb 1998 19:01:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > I would also want to read the report and make sure the fellow was > actually a CCW permit holder rather than someone simply in possession > of a concealed weapon. Papers tend to make a habit of missing that > subtle point when reporting on bad guys. You could check with the University Police. (I think the officer who mainly corresponds with the press is named Kevin Nollenberg.) [Chronicle office phone # 581-7041] University Police phone numbers: Building 301: 585-2677 Administration: 581-7619 Records: 585-3634 Investigations: 581-5460 Crime Prevention: 585-2677 Security Division: 581-8669 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Chronicle editorial Date: 20 Feb 1998 19:01:00 -0700 Unsigned editorial: Reply to editor@chronicle.utah.edu or drop off at 240 Union. Please include phone number for verification purposes. http://chronicle.utah.edu/0dag/opinion/0298/1902perspec/1902house.html DUC: Letters and Opinion CHRONICLE EDITORIAL Weapons on Campus? The Debate Goes On It's another normal day on campus. You're walking through the plaza by the Marriott Library and you notice somebody carrying a shotgun at his side. You think it's odd, but continue on. Suddenly you notice a rifle slung over the shoulder of another student. Upon closer inspection, you see noticeable bulges underneath students' jackets. It seems everybody on campus has a weapon but you. It may seem sensational, but just such a scenario is plausible. There's a big hullabaloo brewing over the University of Utah's and Governor Michael Leavitt's bans on weapons. The U's ban prohibits weapons on campus and Leavitt's prohibits state employees from packing heat in state buildings, state cars or while on state business. Legislative lawyers and some legislators say such bans are illegal. Think about it, if the ban on campus is lifted, students will get weapons just because they can. If there's no fear of retribution, they'll flaunt them. Other students, fearing the students who already have guns will get guns of their own. Soon, large portions of the student population will be packing heat. If someone has a weapon on their person, think about what could happen if that person encounters somebody who deftly maneuvers into a parking space before them. Think about what could happen the next time tempers flare in the long lines at the Student Services Building. It could get ugly. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) makes employers responsible for providing safe work places, banning weapons does just that. The university and the governor should continue their policies until it's no longer possible, that is, until the Legislature clarifies the laws to include the university and state institutions as places where guns are allowed, or until the courts rule the ban illegal. The Chronicle feels the Legislature should leave the issue alone and recognize the fact it's not healthy to have guns everywhere you go, but its not likely that will happen. If the University of Utah is serious about keeping the gun ban on campus, it should propose legislation of its own to ensure the ban will stay in place. Such a bill would stand a good chance of passing. We have the support of the governor and the attorney general, an odd couple, but capable of garnering the support of legislators on both sides of the aisle. The Daily Utah Chronicle is an independent student newspaper. Unsigned editorial reflect the majority view of the Chronicle Editorial Board. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Fwd from ca-liberty: Charlton Heston - Father of gun control! Date: 21 Feb 1998 07:31:00 -0700 On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 S. Thompson wrote: >I haven't verified this. It sounds plausible, but that doesn't mean it's >_true_. >I also think it's necessary to add that people DO change. I was once an >advocate of gun control; it doesn't mean I am now. OTOH, I haven't seen >any real evidence that Heston has had a change of heart. [snip] >>>GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON...THE MENTALLY ILL, Have you seen the Jan 26, 1998 NEWSWEEK? The cover story implies we may all be a little crazy. Perhaps indicative of a design to bar anyone from having a firearm except under direct federal supervision? Also, why was that "letter" in all caps? Was it actually a telegram? Were the spelling and grammatical errors in the original? Copy to HLmorse@aol.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:26:39 -0700 Attached is a message about antigun public service announcements running in Dallas. In Utah these same TV PSA are sponsored by IHC. I wrote a letter to IHC's President - Scott Parker and copied VP of public relations - John Taylor. After a couple of weeks I called John Taylor to discuss the PSA. We discussed the actual numbers of accidential gun deaths and how the PSA are misleading, if not deceptive. I was basically patted on the head and told I didn't know what I was talking about. Later I received a letter mostly saying that IHC was right and that my information was wrong. It is time that we start criticising IHC for running anti gun ads that teach kids dangerous and irresponsible gun handling practices. These include how to break into a locked gun case, (use your dad's birthday), showing kids that when they see a gun they should immediatly pick it up, point it at the nearest person and pull the trigger. I offered to give my Eddie Eagle video to IHC to use as a PSA, because it teaches a much safer and smarter message to kids, "Stop, Don't touch, Leave the area and teall an adault." IHC was not interested. Seems that IHC is more interested in the political ageda than in providing a responsible PSA. I did find out that the IHC person pushing this campaign is a Mr. Bill Barnes at Primary Children's Medical Center. As suggested in the attached e-mail, it is time we find out more about this and start the letter writing campaign. Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA21595; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma021547; Mon Feb 23 09:47:26 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list I just heard another PSA public service announcement by a group called "Project Lifeline" on 1190AM IMUS in the morning 8am Dallas 2-23. It had the sound of kids playing with a loaded handgun in the background as a Woman Doctor talks about how: A gun is fired more times against a love one or friend than an intruder. You are 43 more times to be injured by a gun if you own one. Please if you own one remove the bullets and put them in a safe place, better yet get rid of the gun. Then you here the kids fussing over the gun and it discharges. Then she says before its to late. It is time we find out more about this and start the letter writing campaign. Imus is one of the top rated shows in America. I think this is only being aired in Dallas at this time. Regards, Paul Watson C.P.M., pwatson@utdallas.edu Senior Buyer UTD The University of Texas at Dallas ph# 972/883-2307,fax# 972/883-2348 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Love Libertarian Style Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal. handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic, loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery victim." My friend then smiled and said my point was well taken but she herself could never carry a gun for self-defense for fear a criminal may take the gun away from her and use it on her because she wouldn't have the nerve to pull the trigger and shoot anybody. I then told her, she could go shooting with me and Lori and that once she became more familiar with firearms she'd have more self-confidence and less to fear (just like Lori) as Lori was once shy of guns but now wants to go shooting all the time as Lori finds it not only relaxing but fun. Cat said she would consider tagging along and for us to let her know next time we go shooting. Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such). At any rate, until our friend works through her gun phobia, Lori suggests, we get her some pepper spray for her upcoming birthday, which makes me wonder... what good is pepper spray going to do, if you're still too cared to squeeze the trigger? ;) Unfortunately, our friend lives in a high crime area and works the night shift and thus our concern. Nobody wants to see anybody become a crime victim especially your friends but sometimes that's what it takes for some people to learn the importance of self-preservation. Next year, I'll send my wife flowers with a box of ammo. Warmly, Don - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Fw: Hb-57 dead. Guns or Games. Food storage not allowed inIndonesia] Date: 23 Feb 1998 09:51:58 -0700 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- ---------- > From: Mike Megeath > To: Alexis.W.Megeath@AEXP.COM; MBENYE@AOL.com; MTMegeath@AOL.com; GAVINSW@AROS.NET; MICHASE@IBM.NET; blaze37@juno.com; Gunflower@lgcy.com; cong.merrill.cook@mail.house.gov; JMCOOMBS@SISNA.COM > Subject: Hb-57 dead. Guns or Games. Food storage not allowed inIndonesia > Date: Friday, February 20, 1998 4:29 PM > > You have probably heard by now that Sen Beattie > withdrew SB-57. Good news indeed. > You might like to know where this bill and those > similar to it are pointed. You will come to understand > why Governor Leavitt quietly passed a no guns policy > and why the U of Utah did likewise, although not so > quietly. > Olympic rules require "gun free" zones. In order to get > the Olympics and perhaps even to hold the Olympics > after they were awarded, local authorities have > promised to make it so. No guns at Olympic sites. > The "without restriction" clause of current CCW law is > at odds with this. > We have yet to learn what constitutes an Olympic > site. Considering sites are widely dispersed, local > officials might be required to insure gun free > transportation zones and parking facilities. Perhaps > there can be no guns within a certain radius of a site. > Since we are talking about a lot of money to loose > our elected officials are in a real bind. Uphold the law > or loose the Olympics. I surmise pressure to kill CCW > and eliminate gun rights will build as the time for the > games approach in 2002. Our opponents will look for > and perhaps "create" an "incident" to inflame the > passions of the populace. They may try to finesse the > issue, delaying a full hearing of restrictions until after > the games are held, then admit they were wrong. > I think, as rights activists, we must be on guard for > such incidents and behavior. We should use the > games to prove to the world that every human being > has a right to keep and bare arms for defense of self, > family, property or country without restriction. More > especially law abiding citizens. We should give the > world another shining light on a hill to better see truth > and better hear that immortal word, "freedom" > shouted out by the brave and courageous people of > Utah. > The "without restriction" clause of Utah's CCW law is > at odds with the Olympic Games rules for a host city. > Utah has the games, and now, our elected officials > must keep their promise to the citizens of Utah or to > the U.S. and World Olympic Committees. > Guns or Games what will it be? > > That's my view. I could be wrong. I'd like to hear > what you think. > ------- > Out of 2/20/98 "USA Today," Section B (Money), Page > 1, Money Line. > "Death Penalty. Indonesians found guilty of hoarding > any of the nine basic essential goods, such as rice or > cooking oil, could face the death penalty, a > spokesman for the country's Attorney General said > today. Warehouses are also subject to more stringent > rules. The action was taken after shortages spurred > rioting across the nation." > Comment: Corruption and official interference > with the economy. These folks might send an > Olympic team to Utah. > > Happy Birthday George. > > end. =|:^# ----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 best that we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers at 184-8) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: RTR:Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruby Ridge Ruling (fwd) Date: 23 Feb 1998 15:18:11 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA24479; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:01:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma024340; Mon Feb 23 13:59:17 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Does this mean there really is a "legal over riding authority" could it be the US constitution?=20 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/top_stories/story.html?s=3Dn/reuters/9= 80223/news/stories/rubyridge_1.html -- Monday February 23 11:17 AM EST Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruby Ridge Ruling By Gail Appleson WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court Monday=20 let stand a ruling that said federal agents at the deadly seige at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 are not=20 immune from civil claims they lied about events at the shootout. This case stems from the fatal confrontation at the=20 home of white separatist Randy Weaver. The FBI's "shoot to kill" policy led to the death of Weaver's=20 wife and the serious wounding of his long-time friend, Kevin Harris. Harris sued 13 federal agents for their actions but=20 the agents moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging they were immune from such claims. The district court=20 denied the motion based on the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable seizure. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. On Aug. 21, 1992, the agents entered Weaver's property=20 to serve an arrest warrant upon Weaver. Harris was then living on the Weaver property. Three agents had=20 confronted Harris, Weaver, Weaver's son Sammy, and the family dog at a road intersection near the Weaver=20 property. One of the agents shot and killed the dog and firing=20 erupted. Sammy and one of the agents were killed. Harris said he fired one or more shots but that they=20 were in self defense. Following the incident, Harris alleged that some of=20 the agents conspired to lie about events, including describing Harris as the initiator. A group of FBI=20 agents and marshals then created a special "shoot to kill" rule allowing them to shoot adults in the=20 vicinity. On Aug. 22, federal agents shot and wounded Weaver and=20 killed his wife. Harris was seriously injured when he was hit in the chest and arm. The standoff ended=20 nine days later when Weaver surrendered. Weaver and Harris were indicted for assaulting the=20 agents with a deadly weapon and for killing the agent, though they were later acquitted. Harris then sued the agents. Among his claims was that=20 his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. He argued that the agents' lie about his role in the first=20 shooting led him to be shot and almost killed in the second incident. The fabrications also led to his=20 arrest and wrongful prosecution. The agents argued that as law enforcement officers,=20 they had immunity from claims that they gave false testimony. The Ninth Circuit said that while immunity has been=20 granted to officers who testify during the trial stage of a proceeding, this was a difference case. It=20 held that the agents at Ruby Ridge functionally served as complaining witnesses who initiated Harris'=20 prosecution and as such were not entitled to immunity for their false statements. The court also said that the 13 defendants, working=20 together, created special rules that required FBI agents to "shoot on sight" in order to "kill." The=20 rules infringed on Harris' rights. The appeals court said there was no immunity for this as well or the=20 fact that Harris was shot without warning while he was retreating. -------------------------------------------------------- =20 Copyright =A9 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.=20 Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written=20 consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for=20 any actions taken in reliance thereon. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Political quote -Forwarded Date: 23 Feb 1998 15:14:12 -0700 Received: from shire.coloc.XMISSION.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ra511073; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:21:23 -0700 Received: from slc507.modem.xmission.com (W7RCP.pengar.com) [166.70.7.11] by hobbiton.shire.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0y71ZA-0006oC-00; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:21:20 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal Message-Id: X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com X-ListMember: dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us [discussion@derail.org] The following quote was emailed to me by a friend. It appeared in an article about photocop. "As representatives we are given the power to take people's money and their rights." Rep. Keele Johnson, R-Blanding /Allen -------- You're already a Libertarian in your heart, why not at the voting booth? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: URGENT ALERT! - RANGE PROTECTION Date: 23 Feb 1998 15:58:32 -0700 URGENT ALERT! SUBSTITUTE HB 343, a new range protection bill, will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee at 8 AM tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 24. The meeting will be held in Room 223 at the State Capitol. You may remember that last week the original HB 343 was defeated in committee on a 4-4 vote. (Not all members of the committe were present.) Although I still don't have formal vote results, committeee members voting AGAINST HB 343 were Nielsen, Rowan, Tyler, and possibly Arent. The substitute bill is not available online as of this afternoon. The new bill, unlike the original version, does not deal with zoning issues. Because the primary objection to the bill offered by the League of Cities and Towns was that it removed too much discretion from local governments, this bill should be more acceptable. The new bill provide that: 1) Users of the range accept reasonable risks associated with using a shooting range 2) Noise ordinances may not be used to shut down an existing range 3) Developers within roughly 1/4 mile of the range are required to inform prospective buyers that they are in a shooting zone range. ACTIONS: 1) If at all possible, please SHOW UP at the committee hearing tomorrow. We had a good turnout last time, and I hate to ask people to take time to attend yet again, but it is important that we fill the room one more time. This bill is the ONLY item currently on the agenda, so it should be a quick meeting. 2) Contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to support this bill. We have addressed their concerns and would like them to reciprocate. Reps. Arrington, Hickman, Keele Johnson, and possibly Curtis supported the original, so please thank them for their support if you contact them. Members of the committee are: A. Lamont Tyler, Chair Greg J. Curtis, Vice Chair Katherine Bryson Bill Hickman Keele Johnson Swen Nielsen Tammy J. Rowan Glenn L. Way Patrice Arent John B. Arrington Loretta Baca Individual contact information including e-mail can be found at http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/html/members.htm All Representatives can be contacted by phone at 801-538-1029 or 800-662-3367. The fax for Republican Representatives is 801-538-1908 and for Democrats is 801-538-9505. As always, thanks for your support and assistance. The session is almost over and YOU have done a great job!! Sarah Thompson As always, comments may be directed to any of the Board members listed below. The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info made public. Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse their open-door policy. All of us are VERY busy right now. Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), cathounds@aol.com Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (w), 364-0412 (h), 73214.3115@compuserve.com Shirley Spain, 963-0784, agr@aros.net Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w) Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, righter@therighter.com (I prefer e-mail to phone calls when possible). Joe Venus, 571-2223 To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA fires telemarketer 2/2 Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700 NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles) by ORAL DECKARD The Vigo Examiner I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.) I was told repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles). Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the Second Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by surprise, and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say something along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word." And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is your job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second Amendment, and you don't even know what it says?" Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they continue trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even embarrassed. This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I decided to have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my NRA membership had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I replied "No, I support the Second Amendment." There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second Amendment and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America (goaslad@aol.com) and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (Against- Genocide@JPFO.org) He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the NRA?" Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV and announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47." I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he took that as a good thing. So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right to keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word." So I simply told him what it says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second Amendment was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now we could buy instant food. A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my wife signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no one needed high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to identify him. Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not this time. So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even spelled it for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February 4th, where are you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas." As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I asked "Is there any need to protect assault high capacity semi-automatic rifles?" He answered "We would like to keep them for matches and things, but they don't have to have those big magazines, and only if they were used just for that purpose. We want to be reasonable." I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor. His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, I introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo Examiner, explained Richard Kuhlman and myself were just discussing the need to protect high capacity semi-automatic rifles, and asked "What's your take on it?" He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered "Both." So he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic rifles were imported from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get rid of them." Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying the NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles?" He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them." So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow (Feb. 5th, 1998) So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor on the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment, and now, that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of firearms, the class of firearms the Second Amendment was specifically enacted to protect. Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected to their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it, or were determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They both seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This time I didn't get it just from the solicitor, but also from his supervisor. And not just his opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion of the NRA. So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you can support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH the NRA. Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an NRA VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead. One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members over a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the years of refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When you give up a right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable will you ultimately have to become? In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged that they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't hold over two shots. They were reasonable. And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground will you now brace your feet? Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is now no solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That defense must now rest with those who have not compromised the Constitution. After Neville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our time", it then fell to Winston Churchill to defend England. Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting the Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies) to get off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are loyal to the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem too proud of our Constitution. Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner All are free to republish at will this intact document. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Guns for Olympic Games? Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700 Is Mike Megeath's assertion that the Olympics require gun-free zones correct? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- You have probably heard by now that Sen Beattie withdrew SB-57. Good news indeed. You might like to know where this bill and those similar to it are pointed. You will come to understand why Governor Leavitt quietly passed a no guns policy and why the U of Utah did likewise, although not so quietly. Olympic rules require "gun free" zones. In order to get the Olympics and perhaps even to hold the Olympics after they were awarded, local authorities have promised to make it so. No guns at Olympic sites. The "without restriction" clause of current CCW law is at odds with this. We have yet to learn what constitutes an Olympic site. Considering sites are widely dispersed, local officials might be required to insure gun free transportation zones and parking facilities. Perhaps there can be no guns within a certain radius of a site. Since we are talking about a lot of money to lose our elected officials are in a real bind. Uphold the law or lose the Olympics. I surmise pressure to kill CCW and eliminate gun rights will build as the time for the games approach in 2002. Our opponents will look for and perhaps "create" an "incident" to inflame the passions of the populace. They may try to finesse the issue, delaying a full hearing of restrictions until after the games are held, then admit they were wrong. As rights activists, I think we must be on guard for such incidents and behavior. We should use the games to prove to the world that every human being has a right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, property or country without restriction. More especially law- abiding citizens. We should give the world another shining light on a hill to better see truth and better hear that immortal word, "freedom" shouted out by the brave and courageous people of Utah. The "without restriction" clause of Utah's CCW law is at odds with the Olympic Games rules for a host city. Utah has the games, and now, our elected officials must keep their promise to the citizens of Utah or to the U.S. and World Olympic Committees. Guns or Games what will it be? That's my view. I could be wrong. I'd like to hear what you think. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Love Libertarian Style Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:58:19 -0700 SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:11:48 EST > From: Dwjohnstun@aol.com > To: lputah@qsicorp.com > > This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife > Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal. > handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed > me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife > on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic, > loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means > to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see > my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery > victim." > [snip] > Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion > and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think > that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for > self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody > into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such). [snip] > Warmly, > Don > > - Indeed. For her wedding present, I gave Sarah the first of her collection of Glocks. This one was her 19. First shot, she put a hole in the center of the logo on a Pepsi can from about 15-20 feet. I knew then I'd made the right choice. Will - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA fires telemarketer 2/2 Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700 NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles) by ORAL DECKARD The Vigo Examiner I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.) I was told repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles). Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the Second Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by surprise, and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say something along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word." And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is your job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second Amendment, and you don't even know what it says?" Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they continue trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even embarrassed. This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I decided to have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my NRA membership had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I replied "No, I support the Second Amendment." There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second Amendment and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America (goaslad@aol.com) and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (Against- Genocide@JPFO.org) He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the NRA?" Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV and announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47." I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he took that as a good thing. So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right to keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word." So I simply told him what it says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second Amendment was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now we could buy instant food. A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my wife signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no one needed high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to identify him. Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not this time. So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even spelled it for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February 4th, where are you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas." As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I asked "Is there any need to protect assault high capacity semi-automatic rifles?" He answered "We would like to keep them for matches and things, but they don't have to have those big magazines, and only if they were used just for that purpose. We want to be reasonable." I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor. His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, I introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo Examiner, explained Richard Kuhlman and myself were just discussing the need to protect high capacity semi-automatic rifles, and asked "What's your take on it?" He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered "Both." So he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic rifles were imported from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get rid of them." Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying the NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles?" He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them." So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow (Feb. 5th, 1998) So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor on the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment, and now, that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of firearms, the class of firearms the Second Amendment was specifically enacted to protect. Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected to their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it, or were determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They both seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This time I didn't get it just from the solicitor, but also from his supervisor. And not just his opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion of the NRA. So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you can support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH the NRA. Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an NRA VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead. One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members over a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the years of refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When you give up a right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable will you ultimately have to become? In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged that they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't hold over two shots. They were reasonable. And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground will you now brace your feet? Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is now no solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That defense must now rest with those who have not compromised the Constitution. After Neville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our time", it then fell to Winston Churchill to defend England. Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting the Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies) to get off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are loyal to the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem too proud of our Constitution. Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner All are free to republish at will this intact document. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA fires telemarketer 1/2 Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is an important letter. However, it seems to me that overall the incident was salutary. In her letter Metaksa suggests that the Internet can be a source of unreliable information, and indeed it can be (and how!). But, it turns out that the story told by The Vigo Examiner was in the end accepted by NRA. What the Examiner said was that one or more telemarketers had expressed views which are in effect contrary to those of Constitutionalists, and contrary to those which should be held by the NRA, an organization members pay to help support the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The NRA in fact, through the Internet rumor mill, was able to determine that there was a problem, and to resolve that problem. The larger implication of the Examiner's article, that the NRA itself has a weak position, is false, according to Metaksa. But it is nonetheless important for the NRA's marketing arms to be well-prepared and to express the views of the organization, because when telemarketers make calls, during those calls they _are_ NRA. The incident was salutary because it helped NRA to realize that a problem existed and required action, which they have taken. > Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director > NRA Institute for Legislative Action > Dear NRA Member: > Recently, there has been a rumor circulating about NRA-ILA's > position on the Clinton gun and magazine ban. It is perfectly natural for the recipient of a call to believe that the contents of the call reflect the position of the organization. > The rapid and widespread reach of this erroneous information is > clear evidence of the need to confirm, with a reliable source, any > questionable information obtained via the Internet. The informational aspect of the Examiner's article was correct. The telemarketer did reflect the position that various types of weapons are not considered worthy of protection. > I thank you for taking the time to do just that by contacting my > office. Upon receiving this information, people asked the NRA for follow-up. Hardly a sign that the Internet is a bad resource. > The basis for this rumor was a conversation between one particular > individual and a representative from a telemarketing firm contracted > by NRA for membership recruitment. Unfortunately, in his zeal to > sign up a new member, the telemarketer made several false statements > to this particular individual regarding our position on the Clinton > gun and magazine ban. The telemarketing firm in question has been > suspended pending further review of their procedures. Furthermore, > the telemarketer involved in this incident has been removed from our > account. [ ... ] Thus confirming that the Examiner's information was reliable, and important. Below I reproduce the Examiner article. One detail which remains unresolved is that the article makes reference to a pattern of similar incidents. Carl - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Love Libertarian Style Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:58:19 -0700 SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:11:48 EST > From: Dwjohnstun@aol.com > To: lputah@qsicorp.com > > This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife > Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal. > handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed > me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife > on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic, > loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means > to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see > my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery > victim." > [snip] > Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion > and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think > that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for > self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody > into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such). [snip] > Warmly, > Don > > - Indeed. For her wedding present, I gave Sarah the first of her collection of Glocks. This one was her 19. First shot, she put a hole in the center of the logo on a Pepsi can from about 15-20 feet. I knew then I'd made the right choice. Will - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:54:03 -0700 I hope I'm not seen as supporting anti-gun ads. However, I don't think the ads are as bad as has been suggested. They are not aimed at kids, but at parents. Kids don't need instructions on how to break into the cheap 3 dial home lock box. I'm no genuis and by the time I was 11 or 12 I had long since figured out that simply starting at 000 and counting my way up towards 999 would open the box and give me the combo for future use with about 30 to 45 minutes of effort. Neither, do I think, do they teach kids to pick up a gun and shoot--at least far less than anything else portraying guns on TV does. The overall message is that to do so will get someone hurt. The ads are aimed at parents. And the message is simply, "Don't rely on hiding places or simple lock devices to keep your children away from your guns." None of us here would disagree with that message. They could be improved by adding the message that education "gun-proofing" your child is as or more important than locks and mechanical means of "child-proofing" your gun. But as far as they go, they are reasonably good and I think we discredit ourselves by opposing them. Offering the Eddie Eagle as an addittion (rather than a substitue) which would be aimed at kids, is a good idea. If you have kids and guns you need to, IMO, do two things. 1--teach your child proper gun safety so that they are safe around your guns and around any guns they may stumble across in someone else's home. Even--or especially--those without guns need to do this as their child are the ones who likely to be most intrigued by the mystique of guns. 2--physically secure your guns so that if your child EVER has friends over they can not easily get into your guns if they have not been properly trained. On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, DAVID SAGERS posted: >Attached is a message about antigun public service announcements >running in Dallas. In Utah these same TV PSA are sponsored by IHC. > >I wrote a letter to IHC's President - Scott Parker and copied VP of public >relations - John Taylor. After a couple of weeks I called John Taylor to >discuss the PSA. > >We discussed the actual numbers of accidential gun deaths and how the >PSA are misleading, if not deceptive. I was basically patted on the head >and told I didn't know what I was talking about. Later I received a letter >mostly saying that IHC was right and that my information was wrong. > >It is time that we start criticising IHC for running anti gun ads that teach >kids dangerous and irresponsible gun handling practices. > >These include how to break into a locked gun case, (use your dad's >birthday), showing kids that when they see a gun they should immediatly >pick it up, point it at the nearest person and pull the trigger. > >I offered to give my Eddie Eagle video to IHC to use as a PSA, because it >teaches a much safer and smarter message to kids, "Stop, Don't touch, >Leave the area and teall an adault." IHC was not interested. Seems that >IHC is more interested in the political ageda than in providing a >responsible PSA. > >I did find out that the IHC person pushing this campaign is a Mr. Bill >Barnes at Primary Children's Medical Center. > >As suggested in the attached e-mail, it is time we find out more about this >and start the letter writing campaign. >Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA21595; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST) >Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST) >Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) > id sma021547; Mon Feb 23 09:47:26 1998 >Message-Id: >Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com >Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu >Originator: noban@mainstream.net >Sender: noban@Mainstream.net >Precedence: bulk >From: >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning Dallas >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list > >I just heard another PSA public service announcement by a group called >"Project Lifeline" on 1190AM IMUS in the morning 8am Dallas 2-23. >It had the sound of kids playing with a loaded handgun in the background >as a Woman Doctor talks about how: A gun is fired more times against a >love one or friend than an intruder. You are 43 more times to be injured >by a gun if you own one. Please if you own one remove the bullets and put >them in a safe place, better yet get rid of the gun. Then you here the >kids fussing over the gun and it discharges. Then she says before its to >late. > >It is time we find out more about this and start the letter writing >campaign. Imus is one of the top rated shows in America. I think this is >only being aired in Dallas at this time. >Regards, >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Paul Watson C.P.M., pwatson@utdallas.edu Senior Buyer UTD >The University of Texas at Dallas ph# 972/883-2307,fax# 972/883-2348 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >- > > -- 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 rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious." -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Love Libertarian Style Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:58:19 -0700 SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:11:48 EST > From: Dwjohnstun@aol.com > To: lputah@qsicorp.com > > This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife > Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal. > handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed > me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife > on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic, > loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means > to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see > my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery > victim." > [snip] > Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion > and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think > that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for > self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody > into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such). [snip] > Warmly, > Don > > - Indeed. For her wedding present, I gave Sarah the first of her collection of Glocks. This one was her 19. First shot, she put a hole in the center of the logo on a Pepsi can from about 15-20 feet. I knew then I'd made the right choice. Will - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael J McPharlin" Subject: Re: University Police contact info Date: 23 Feb 1998 09:17:46 +700 > Subject: University Police contact info > From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 98 19:01:00 -0700 > Organization: Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA 801-281-8339 > Reply-to: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:16:21 -0700 (MST) > From: T Bergeson > Subject: Re: Scott's Proof > > > I would also want to read the report and make sure the fellow was > > actually a CCW permit holder rather than someone simply in possession > > of a concealed weapon. Papers tend to make a habit of missing that > > subtle point when reporting on bad guys. > > You could check with the University Police. (I think the officer who > mainly corresponds with the press is named Kevin Nollenberg.) > [Chronicle office phone # 581-7041] > > University Police phone numbers: > -------------------------------- > Building 301: 585-2677 > Administration: 581-7619 > Records: 585-3634 > Investigations: 581-5460 > Crime Prevention: 585-2677 > Security Division: 581-8669 > The man arrested was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Detective Michael McPharlin University of Utah Police 585-1202 michaelj@pubsafety.utah.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Fwd: (from Sen. Ashcroft) Hatch's S-10 will go to the full Date: 23 Feb 1998 08:47:57 -0700 Senate -Forwarded Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA19410; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:05:23 -0700 Received: (qmail 12988 invoked by uid 516); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:47 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 12961 invoked from network); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000 Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg1.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.11) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000 Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA14877; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from helmetfish ([166.93.69.112]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA07693; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:46 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <34EBBE55.3054@rmi.net> Organization: Global Neighborhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by "C. F. Inston" ----------------------- Looks like the work on the Senate Judiciary committee didn't work to kill S.10, time to work on our individual U.S. Senators now. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FWD %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% John Ashcroft wrote: > > Dear On-Line Friend: > > Thank you for sharing your ideas with me about juvenile > justice. I am happy to report that the Senate Committee on the > Judiciary, of which I am a member, favorably reported the Violent > and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997, clearing it for > consideration by the full Senate early in the new year. > > The Committee recognizes that a traditional rehabilitative > approach to juvenile justice has been ineffective and inadequate > in trying to curb juvenile crime. Data confirms this -- from > 1985 to 1996, the number of persons under the age of 18 arrested > for violent crimes rose by 75 percent. Criminologists also > expect the number of juvenile offenders to increase as the > children of the baby boom generation reach the age at which they > are most likely to commit crimes. > > To counteract this trend, the Violent and Hardcore Juvenile > Offender Act (S.10), which I sponsored, enables state and local > governments to establish effective juvenile justice systems so > that serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders can be > identified, punished, and deterred. The Judiciary Committee > recognizes that an effective strategy to reducing violent > juvenile crimes requires greater access to juvenile records and > greater collection of data. Currently, juvenile records are > tightly controlled. The police, school officials, and even > judges are unable, in many cases, to obtain information about > possible violent and repeat youth offenders. Neither these > juvenile offenders nor society is well served by this policy. > > It is imperative that judges, educators, and law enforcement > officers have accurate information about violent juveniles. Many > of these offenders move from county to county and from state to > state in committing crimes. Therefore, I have authored > provisions in S.10 that encourages states to create and maintain > criminal records on juveniles. S.10 would encourage states to > transmit juvenile criminal records, including fingerprints and > photographs, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion > into the national criminal identification data base. Juvenile > criminal records would then be made available to state and > federal courts for purposes of sentencing juveniles. These > records would also be made available to law enforcement agencies > and school officials. > > Likewise, violent disabled students should be held > accountable for their behavior, especially when the disability > has no relationship to the violent behavior. On June 4, 1997, > the President signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education > Act Amendments of 1997 (P.L. 105-17). This legislation expands > the authority of school officials to discipline students with > disabilities. Under prior law, violent children were not removed > from the classroom until the dispute was resolved. Now, a > hearing officer can order a change in placement for no longer > than 45 days if the child is considered to be of harm to himself > or others. The new law also subjects disabled students to the > same discipline as a child without a disability if the child > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > carries a weapon to school or uses, possesses, or sells illegal > drugs. > > While I support tough action against juvenile offenders, I > will not allow S.10 to be used as a means to expand gun control > regulations. Standing firm in my belief in the Second Amendment, > I will continue to oppose misguided amendments to S.10 that > infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear > arms. Restricting lawful firearm ownership will not stop crime. > > Finally, let me stress that S.10 as it was voted out of the > Judiciary Committee is not a perfect bill. In particular, the > bill does not do enough to ensure that the most violent juvenile > criminals are treated as adults. I plan to offer amendments on > the Senate floor to ensure that those who commit adult crimes are > sentenced as adults. > > Once again, thank you for expressing your views. If you > have additional concerns, please feel free to contact my office. > > > Sincerely, > > John Ashcroft > www.senate.gov/~ashcroft -- Charles 'Chuck' Inston Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Guns for Olympic Games? Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700 Is Mike Megeath's assertion that the Olympics require gun-free zones correct? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- You have probably heard by now that Sen Beattie withdrew SB-57. Good news indeed. You might like to know where this bill and those similar to it are pointed. You will come to understand why Governor Leavitt quietly passed a no guns policy and why the U of Utah did likewise, although not so quietly. Olympic rules require "gun free" zones. In order to get the Olympics and perhaps even to hold the Olympics after they were awarded, local authorities have promised to make it so. No guns at Olympic sites. The "without restriction" clause of current CCW law is at odds with this. We have yet to learn what constitutes an Olympic site. Considering sites are widely dispersed, local officials might be required to insure gun free transportation zones and parking facilities. Perhaps there can be no guns within a certain radius of a site. Since we are talking about a lot of money to lose our elected officials are in a real bind. Uphold the law or lose the Olympics. I surmise pressure to kill CCW and eliminate gun rights will build as the time for the games approach in 2002. Our opponents will look for and perhaps "create" an "incident" to inflame the passions of the populace. They may try to finesse the issue, delaying a full hearing of restrictions until after the games are held, then admit they were wrong. As rights activists, I think we must be on guard for such incidents and behavior. We should use the games to prove to the world that every human being has a right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, property or country without restriction. More especially law- abiding citizens. We should give the world another shining light on a hill to better see truth and better hear that immortal word, "freedom" shouted out by the brave and courageous people of Utah. The "without restriction" clause of Utah's CCW law is at odds with the Olympic Games rules for a host city. Utah has the games, and now, our elected officials must keep their promise to the citizens of Utah or to the U.S. and World Olympic Committees. Guns or Games what will it be? That's my view. I could be wrong. I'd like to hear what you think. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Love Libertarian Style Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:58:19 -0700 SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:11:48 EST > From: Dwjohnstun@aol.com > To: lputah@qsicorp.com > > This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife > Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal. > handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed > me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife > on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic, > loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means > to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see > my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery > victim." > [snip] > Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion > and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think > that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for > self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody > into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such). [snip] > Warmly, > Don > > - Indeed. For her wedding present, I gave Sarah the first of her collection of Glocks. This one was her 19. First shot, she put a hole in the center of the logo on a Pepsi can from about 15-20 feet. I knew then I'd made the right choice. Will - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Fwd: (from Sen. Ashcroft) Hatch's S-10 will go to the full Date: 23 Feb 1998 08:47:57 -0700 Senate -Forwarded Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA19410; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:05:23 -0700 Received: (qmail 12988 invoked by uid 516); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:47 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 12961 invoked from network); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000 Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg1.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.11) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000 Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA14877; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from helmetfish ([166.93.69.112]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA07693; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:46 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <34EBBE55.3054@rmi.net> Organization: Global Neighborhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by "C. F. Inston" ----------------------- Looks like the work on the Senate Judiciary committee didn't work to kill S.10, time to work on our individual U.S. Senators now. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FWD %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% John Ashcroft wrote: > > Dear On-Line Friend: > > Thank you for sharing your ideas with me about juvenile > justice. I am happy to report that the Senate Committee on the > Judiciary, of which I am a member, favorably reported the Violent > and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997, clearing it for > consideration by the full Senate early in the new year. > > The Committee recognizes that a traditional rehabilitative > approach to juvenile justice has been ineffective and inadequate > in trying to curb juvenile crime. Data confirms this -- from > 1985 to 1996, the number of persons under the age of 18 arrested > for violent crimes rose by 75 percent. Criminologists also > expect the number of juvenile offenders to increase as the > children of the baby boom generation reach the age at which they > are most likely to commit crimes. > > To counteract this trend, the Violent and Hardcore Juvenile > Offender Act (S.10), which I sponsored, enables state and local > governments to establish effective juvenile justice systems so > that serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders can be > identified, punished, and deterred. The Judiciary Committee > recognizes that an effective strategy to reducing violent > juvenile crimes requires greater access to juvenile records and > greater collection of data. Currently, juvenile records are > tightly controlled. The police, school officials, and even > judges are unable, in many cases, to obtain information about > possible violent and repeat youth offenders. Neither these > juvenile offenders nor society is well served by this policy. > > It is imperative that judges, educators, and law enforcement > officers have accurate information about violent juveniles. Many > of these offenders move from county to county and from state to > state in committing crimes. Therefore, I have authored > provisions in S.10 that encourages states to create and maintain > criminal records on juveniles. S.10 would encourage states to > transmit juvenile criminal records, including fingerprints and > photographs, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion > into the national criminal identification data base. Juvenile > criminal records would then be made available to state and > federal courts for purposes of sentencing juveniles. These > records would also be made available to law enforcement agencies > and school officials. > > Likewise, violent disabled students should be held > accountable for their behavior, especially when the disability > has no relationship to the violent behavior. On June 4, 1997, > the President signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education > Act Amendments of 1997 (P.L. 105-17). This legislation expands > the authority of school officials to discipline students with > disabilities. Under prior law, violent children were not removed > from the classroom until the dispute was resolved. Now, a > hearing officer can order a change in placement for no longer > than 45 days if the child is considered to be of harm to himself > or others. The new law also subjects disabled students to the > same discipline as a child without a disability if the child > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > carries a weapon to school or uses, possesses, or sells illegal > drugs. > > While I support tough action against juvenile offenders, I > will not allow S.10 to be used as a means to expand gun control > regulations. Standing firm in my belief in the Second Amendment, > I will continue to oppose misguided amendments to S.10 that > infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear > arms. Restricting lawful firearm ownership will not stop crime. > > Finally, let me stress that S.10 as it was voted out of the > Judiciary Committee is not a perfect bill. In particular, the > bill does not do enough to ensure that the most violent juvenile > criminals are treated as adults. I plan to offer amendments on > the Senate floor to ensure that those who commit adult crimes are > sentenced as adults. > > Once again, thank you for expressing your views. If you > have additional concerns, please feel free to contact my office. > > > Sincerely, > > John Ashcroft > www.senate.gov/~ashcroft -- Charles 'Chuck' Inston Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael J McPharlin" Subject: Re: University Police contact info Date: 23 Feb 1998 09:17:46 +700 > Subject: University Police contact info > From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 98 19:01:00 -0700 > Organization: Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA 801-281-8339 > Reply-to: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:16:21 -0700 (MST) > From: T Bergeson > Subject: Re: Scott's Proof > > > I would also want to read the report and make sure the fellow was > > actually a CCW permit holder rather than someone simply in possession > > of a concealed weapon. Papers tend to make a habit of missing that > > subtle point when reporting on bad guys. > > You could check with the University Police. (I think the officer who > mainly corresponds with the press is named Kevin Nollenberg.) > [Chronicle office phone # 581-7041] > > University Police phone numbers: > -------------------------------- > Building 301: 585-2677 > Administration: 581-7619 > Records: 585-3634 > Investigations: 581-5460 > Crime Prevention: 585-2677 > Security Division: 581-8669 > The man arrested was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Detective Michael McPharlin University of Utah Police 585-1202 michaelj@pubsafety.utah.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA fires telemarketer 1/2 Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is an important letter. However, it seems to me that overall the incident was salutary. In her letter Metaksa suggests that the Internet can be a source of unreliable information, and indeed it can be (and how!). But, it turns out that the story told by The Vigo Examiner was in the end accepted by NRA. What the Examiner said was that one or more telemarketers had expressed views which are in effect contrary to those of Constitutionalists, and contrary to those which should be held by the NRA, an organization members pay to help support the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The NRA in fact, through the Internet rumor mill, was able to determine that there was a problem, and to resolve that problem. The larger implication of the Examiner's article, that the NRA itself has a weak position, is false, according to Metaksa. But it is nonetheless important for the NRA's marketing arms to be well-prepared and to express the views of the organization, because when telemarketers make calls, during those calls they _are_ NRA. The incident was salutary because it helped NRA to realize that a problem existed and required action, which they have taken. > Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director > NRA Institute for Legislative Action > Dear NRA Member: > Recently, there has been a rumor circulating about NRA-ILA's > position on the Clinton gun and magazine ban. It is perfectly natural for the recipient of a call to believe that the contents of the call reflect the position of the organization. > The rapid and widespread reach of this erroneous information is > clear evidence of the need to confirm, with a reliable source, any > questionable information obtained via the Internet. The informational aspect of the Examiner's article was correct. The telemarketer did reflect the position that various types of weapons are not considered worthy of protection. > I thank you for taking the time to do just that by contacting my > office. Upon receiving this information, people asked the NRA for follow-up. Hardly a sign that the Internet is a bad resource. > The basis for this rumor was a conversation between one particular > individual and a representative from a telemarketing firm contracted > by NRA for membership recruitment. Unfortunately, in his zeal to > sign up a new member, the telemarketer made several false statements > to this particular individual regarding our position on the Clinton > gun and magazine ban. The telemarketing firm in question has been > suspended pending further review of their procedures. Furthermore, > the telemarketer involved in this incident has been removed from our > account. [ ... ] Thus confirming that the Examiner's information was reliable, and important. Below I reproduce the Examiner article. One detail which remains unresolved is that the article makes reference to a pattern of similar incidents. Carl - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:54:03 -0700 I hope I'm not seen as supporting anti-gun ads. However, I don't think the ads are as bad as has been suggested. They are not aimed at kids, but at parents. Kids don't need instructions on how to break into the cheap 3 dial home lock box. I'm no genuis and by the time I was 11 or 12 I had long since figured out that simply starting at 000 and counting my way up towards 999 would open the box and give me the combo for future use with about 30 to 45 minutes of effort. Neither, do I think, do they teach kids to pick up a gun and shoot--at least far less than anything else portraying guns on TV does. The overall message is that to do so will get someone hurt. The ads are aimed at parents. And the message is simply, "Don't rely on hiding places or simple lock devices to keep your children away from your guns." None of us here would disagree with that message. They could be improved by adding the message that education "gun-proofing" your child is as or more important than locks and mechanical means of "child-proofing" your gun. But as far as they go, they are reasonably good and I think we discredit ourselves by opposing them. Offering the Eddie Eagle as an addittion (rather than a substitue) which would be aimed at kids, is a good idea. If you have kids and guns you need to, IMO, do two things. 1--teach your child proper gun safety so that they are safe around your guns and around any guns they may stumble across in someone else's home. Even--or especially--those without guns need to do this as their child are the ones who likely to be most intrigued by the mystique of guns. 2--physically secure your guns so that if your child EVER has friends over they can not easily get into your guns if they have not been properly trained. On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, DAVID SAGERS posted: >Attached is a message about antigun public service announcements >running in Dallas. In Utah these same TV PSA are sponsored by IHC. > >I wrote a letter to IHC's President - Scott Parker and copied VP of public >relations - John Taylor. After a couple of weeks I called John Taylor to >discuss the PSA. > >We discussed the actual numbers of accidential gun deaths and how the >PSA are misleading, if not deceptive. I was basically patted on the head >and told I didn't know what I was talking about. Later I received a letter >mostly saying that IHC was right and that my information was wrong. > >It is time that we start criticising IHC for running anti gun ads that teach >kids dangerous and irresponsible gun handling practices. > >These include how to break into a locked gun case, (use your dad's >birthday), showing kids that when they see a gun they should immediatly >pick it up, point it at the nearest person and pull the trigger. > >I offered to give my Eddie Eagle video to IHC to use as a PSA, because it >teaches a much safer and smarter message to kids, "Stop, Don't touch, >Leave the area and teall an adault." IHC was not interested. Seems that >IHC is more interested in the political ageda than in providing a >responsible PSA. > >I did find out that the IHC person pushing this campaign is a Mr. Bill >Barnes at Primary Children's Medical Center. > >As suggested in the attached e-mail, it is time we find out more about this >and start the letter writing campaign. >Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA21595; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST) >Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST) >Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) > id sma021547; Mon Feb 23 09:47:26 1998 >Message-Id: >Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com >Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu >Originator: noban@mainstream.net >Sender: noban@Mainstream.net >Precedence: bulk >From: >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning Dallas >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list > >I just heard another PSA public service announcement by a group called >"Project Lifeline" on 1190AM IMUS in the morning 8am Dallas 2-23. >It had the sound of kids playing with a loaded handgun in the background >as a Woman Doctor talks about how: A gun is fired more times against a >love one or friend than an intruder. You are 43 more times to be injured >by a gun if you own one. Please if you own one remove the bullets and put >them in a safe place, better yet get rid of the gun. Then you here the >kids fussing over the gun and it discharges. Then she says before its to >late. > >It is time we find out more about this and start the letter writing >campaign. Imus is one of the top rated shows in America. I think this is >only being aired in Dallas at this time. >Regards, >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Paul Watson C.P.M., pwatson@utdallas.edu Senior Buyer UTD >The University of Texas at Dallas ph# 972/883-2307,fax# 972/883-2348 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >- > > -- 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 rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious." -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: University Police contact info Date: 24 Feb 1998 09:34:16 -0700 Michael J McPharlin wrote: > > > > I would also want to read the report and make sure the fellow was > > > actually a CCW permit holder rather than someone simply in possession > > > of a concealed weapon. Papers tend to make a habit of missing that > > > subtle point when reporting on bad guys. > > > > You could check with the University Police. (I think the officer who > > mainly corresponds with the press is named Kevin Nollenberg.) > > [Chronicle office phone # 581-7041] > > > > The man arrested was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Detective Michael McPharlin > University of Utah Police > 585-1202 > michaelj@pubsafety.utah.edu Another question I have is whether or not this guy actually _did_ anything. I've heard that he asked a question. That sort of question gets asked every day on campus, usually by rather large "sports stars" or packs of roving frat boys... So, did a gun actually make an appearance? Will - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: New Anti-Gun Organization -Forwarded Date: 24 Feb 1998 14:41:42 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA12103; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma011972; Tue Feb 24 15:16:58 1998 Message-Id: <199802241936.NAA22404@earth.niu.edu> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list It is reported on the Nando News today that one of those wounded in the shootings on the Empire State Building last year is forming a group whose stated purpose is to end gun violence. They apparently don't want to ban guns, just fix it so that they all have combination locks on them. Who gets to have the combination isn't specified. The name of the group is "PAX," and the article is available at: http://www.nando.net It's either under the "Political" or "Nation" buttons. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Legislative ALERTS!! Date: 24 Feb 1998 15:28:45 -0700 At the Board of Trustees meeting of USSC last night, the Board voted to take official positions on several bills currently before the legislature. None of these bills is specifically a firearms bill. However, all of these bills will ultimately affect firearms-related legislation. HB 328 - Public Office Misconduct Amendments This bill removes criminal sanctions for a legislator who refuses or neglects to take and file an oath of office. If this bill passes, a legislator may willfully refuse to take his oath of office, and the only recourse available to citizens will be to file a civil suit at their own expense. It is the opinion of the Board of USSC that any legislator who is unwilling to take and file an oath stating that s/he will uphold the Constitutions of the United States and Utah should not be allowed to serve in public office. This bill has already been passed by the House and the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is now before the Senate. PLEASE CONTACT SENATE PRESIDENT LANE BEATTIE AS WELL AS YOU OWN SENATOR AND REQUEST THAT THIS BILL BE DEFEATED. Senators can be contacted at 801-538-1035 or 800-953-8824. Additional contact info can be found at: http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/roster.htm SB 182 - Restrictions on State and Local Governments Collecting Monies for Groups This bill would prohibit automatic payroll deductions (at government expense) for contributions to labor organizations' political action funds, and require that political action fund monies be kept in a separate fund from labor organization dues. This legislation would affect only government employees, not private employees. The Board of USSC believes that it is improper for government funds to be expended to collect money for political activities, and that payroll deductions by the government may tend to exert a coercive force on public employees to contribute to these funds. This bill has been passed out of committee with amendments and is now before the Senate. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR OWN SENATOR AND REQUEST THAT S/HE SUPPORT SB 182. It is NOT necessary to contact Lane Beattie as he is a co-sponsor of this bill, although it would be polite to thank him for his support. Contact information is listed above. HB 304 - Initiative Process Amendments This bill would make it more difficult for individuals or groups to have an initiative submitted to the legislature by providing that the required number of signatures be obtained from 20 (twenty) counties. Current law requires that the signatures be obtained from only 15 (fifteen) counties. The opinion of the Board is that this bill will prevent the legislative process from being sabotaged by an overload of frivolous initiatives (as happens frequently in California) and that it will make it more difficult for anti-gun initiatives (such as Washington's I-676) to be introduced in Utah. This bill has had a very stormy course in the legislature, but was eventually passed by the House. It is currently in the Senate Rules Committee. Until or unless it is released from Rules, NO ACTION is necessary. However, you may want to familiarize yourself with this bill in case action does become necessary. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER REGARDING ANY OF THE ABOVE BILLS WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED! Please stay tuned for future updates on: The draconian Federal S 10 which has finally been approved by committee and sent to the U.S. Senate The problematic provisions of the Brady Act National Instant Check system scheduled to take effect in Novermber Governor Leavitt's response to the opinion of the legislative general counsel that his ban on concealed carry by public employees is illegal under State law USSC's upcoming seminar on how YOU can become a delegate to state or county conventions and more! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! As always, comments may be directed to any of the Board members listed below. The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info made public. Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse their open-door policy. All of us are VERY busy right now. Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), cathounds@aol.com Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w), 73214.3115@compuserve.com Shirley Spain, 963-0784, agr@aros.net Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w) Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, righter@therighter.com (I prefer e-mail to phone calls when possible). Joe Venus, 571-2223 To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: New anti-gun organization -Forwarded Date: 24 Feb 1998 11:02:11 -0700 Received: (qmail 9419 invoked by uid 516); 22 Feb 1998 06:00:50 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 9384 invoked from network); 22 Feb 1998 06:00:42 -0000 Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (206.214.98.12) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 22 Feb 1998 06:00:42 -0000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id AAA10413 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:00:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from den-co8-08.ix.netcom.com(204.31.232.72) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010385; Sat Feb 21 23:59:59 1998 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980222054845.0068975c@popd.netcruiser> X-Sender: pquixote@popd.netcruiser X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Patricia Fosness ----------------------- I guess this is bad news and good news. The good news is that if they think they need another one, the ones they have must be ineffective by their standards. I'd be particularly delighted if the groups started to vie for power and began arguing between themselves. Sure happens enough with *pro* gun organizations. The bad news follows in the post below: >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:39:34 -0500 (EST) >From: mcm74@juno.com (Mark C M) >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: New anti-gun organization > >To All Concerned, > >Just heard on the local (NJ) radio station that Lousenberg,Schcumer, and >the brady`s >are launching a NEW anti-gun organization to be announced on monday >2/23/98. >Sorry i don`t have more details on it, this is just a note to keep >everyone on their >respective toes!!! When i hear more i will post. > >Regards, > MC > >_____________________________________________________________________ >You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com >Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > > > Regards, Pat Fosness NRA certified instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest" - Mahatma Ghandi - 1927 Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: builders hardware -Forwarded Date: 24 Feb 1998 11:04:18 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA22011; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:30:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma021960; Sat Feb 21 14:26:45 1998 Message-Id: <199802211856.LAA18550@mail2.rockymtn.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: davisda@rmi.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Forwarded message follows: Howdy All. . . This was on another list. . .FYI. . . . Cas Gadomski Alaska Some of you may remember a few weeks ago when I posted a message regarding the Builder's Square/Hechinger Company merger. Well, I just returned from my local Builders Square/HQ store, where I posted yet another payment to my account. When I presented my check to the clerk, she promptly returned it and informed me that I failed to fill it out properly. I normally fill out the payment checks to HRS. However, the clerk informed me that all future checks must now be filled out the "Hechinger Company". So, those of us who were holding out hopes that our favorite "hardware store" may not be tied with anti-gun efforts can stop holding out. Therefore, I am re-issuing this informative post requesting, suggesting and asking that all home-owners/gun owners begin an official boycott of Builders' Square immediately. Again, for those of you who are reading this for the first time, the Hechinger Company, headed by anti-gunner John W. Hechinger, bought out the Builder's Square name in September of 1997. All Builder's Square stores now fly a green HQ banner above the Builder's Square store logo. According to the NRA, Hechinger is on a list of "the most prominent national corporations and/or corporate heads that have used the company name while actively supporting anti-gun proposals or organizations. " The complete listing can be obtained here: http://www.nra.org/research/rianti.html The address to the Hechinger Company is as follows: Hechinger Company John W. Hechinger, Chrm. 1616 McCormick Drive Landover, MD 20785 (301) 341-1000 Lumber and building supply retailer Just to be 100% certain, I called the telephone number above and verified my findings. This is true my friends. I am asking that anyone who picks up a hammer with the same hand that he or she picks up a firearm, STOP BUYING FROM BUILDER'S SQUARE immediately ! The next time that you need hardware supplies, I would like you to think of other options, even if it means traveling a few miles more. And, if you even get the urge to walk into a Builder's Square to buy something, I suggest that you walk out, go to you car, fill out a check payable to Handgun Control, Inc. and put it in the mail. Because buying from Builder's Square is essentially the same as lining HCI's pockets with your money. Do you really want to pay someone to take your firearms from you ? Most gun grabbers are willing to do it at their expense, Hechinger wants you to pay for it ! Tell everyone that you know about this, and write a letter to Hechinger telling him of your choice to shop somewhere else. Follow the money friends, follow the money. Frank Finch Canton, MI ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net ******************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Antigun PSA from Barnes Date: 24 Feb 1998 19:20:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: wagc@rt66.com, tbdinc@earthlink.net Interesting! Bill Barnes used to the spokesman for UTA! That little traitor! Gosh, I fought him when he was at UTA. Look like I'll be fighting him now that he's at the hospital! I talked with him a couple of months ago and he was excited to be working for the hospital because it was such a worthwhile cause. I think a great thing to do would be to get the anti-light rail crowd and make an appointment to see him. What a shock he'd face! I think one of the reasons he left the UTA was that he got sick of fighting the anti-light rail people. If he thought the anti-light rail people were bad, wait till he takes on the gun lobby! He also is a convicted felon. He was caught last year voting twice. That's a felony. I don't know if it's been taken off his record or not. Maybe he's getting back at the gun lobby because now he can't own a gun! What a little sneak! Regards, Janalee > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > To: utah-firearms@xmission.com > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:26:39 -0700 > From: DAVID SAGERS > Subject: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning > Dallas -Forwarded > Attached is a message about antigun public service announcements > running in Dallas. In Utah these same TV PSA are sponsored by IHC. > I wrote a letter to IHC's President - Scott Parker and copied VP of > public relations - John Taylor. After a couple of weeks I called John > Taylor to discuss the PSA. > We discussed the actual numbers of accidential gun deaths and how the > PSA are misleading, if not deceptive. I was basically patted on the head > and told I didn't know what I was talking about. Later I received a > letter mostly saying that IHC was right and that my information was wrong. > It is time that we start criticising IHC for running anti gun ads that > teach kids dangerous and irresponsible gun handling practices. > These include how to break into a locked gun case, (use your dad's > birthday), showing kids that when they see a gun they should immediatly > pick it up, point it at the nearest person and pull the trigger. > I offered to give my Eddie Eagle video to IHC to use as a PSA, because it > teaches a much safer and smarter message to kids, "Stop, Don't touch, > Leave the area and teall an adault." IHC was not interested. Seems that > IHC is more interested in the political ageda than in providing a > responsible PSA. > I did find out that the IHC person pushing this campaign is a Mr. Bill > Barnes at Primary Children's Medical Center. > As suggested in the attached e-mail, it is time we find out more about > this and start the letter writing campaign. [snip] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: More from NRA Date: 24 Feb 1998 19:53:00 -0700 scott, below is an answer from the nra about your concerns with large capacity auto larry ---------- Thank you for your note regarding the misinformation that is currently circulating on the Internet. While I have no idea as to whether Mr. Decker is mistaken, or making this up, it would appear, at least, that he already had a problem with NRA. Someone who was truly concerned, like yourself, would have contacted NRA Headquarters to straighten this out, like you did. To set the record straight, let me assure you that NRA is still 100% opposed to the ban on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We support H.R. 1147, Rep. Ron Paul's (R-TX) bill to repeal the '94 ban, and we are also involved with a legal challenge to it. I hope that this helps to ease your concerns, and we appreciate your taking the time and trouble to ask for clarification. Had Mr. Deckard bothered to do the same, we might have been able to avoid this confusion. Perhaps he was not too concerned with the truth. We are, however, and we will be sure to investigate his claims, to see if there is a legitimate problem. Sincerely, Anthony Roulette Larry S. Larsen http://larsenfamily.com/russian_stove/ _=3D_____________________________! <|------=3D=3D(______)-------- |____| |/////_____________45 ACP___|___| \ /|( )/ / /) ___| / o/ / / /o___/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Utahns: Make Tone of 2002 Multicultural Date: 25 Feb 1998 01:53:59 -0700 http://www.sltrib.com/98/feb/022498/utah/24682.htm Hmmmm..... No "sixguns". No stagecoaches. No rodeos. But it's "multicultural". Yeah, right. Sarah (proud member of the GUN culture) > [Image] > [Image] [Image] Tuesday, February 24, 1998 [Image] [Image] > > Utahns: Make Tone of 2002 Multicultural > > BY MARTIN RENZHOFER > THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE > > > If the Atlanta > Summer Olympic Games > reeked of commercialism and the Winter Games in Nagano celebrated > traditional, spiritual values, what will Salt Lake City stand for in > 2002? > ``It's going to be difficult, but I hope those in charge think in > terms of arts and ethnic cultures,'' said Linda Smith of Salt Lake > City's Repertory Dance Theatre, which sent four dancers to the > closing ceremonies. ``I'd hate for the opening and closing ceremonies > to look like halftime at the Orange Bowl.'' > A clue of what's to come came during the Games' closing > ceremonies Sunday when Salt Lake City dancers posed with a colorful > banner of the 2002 snowflake-like logo while a Wild West stagecoach > roared through an inflatable Delicate Arch. > Utah's Winter Games, the first Olympiad of the new millennium, > offer the state a showcase for the world to see its rich history, > diverse cultures and progressive artistic visions. > It is not an accident that its Olympic > theme is ``Contrast, Culture and Courage.'' > ``The theme we've chosen certainly leaves the door open for lots > of interesting interpretation,'' Smith said. > Japan gloried in its thousands of years of tradition. Its opening > ceremonies were dignified and spiritual. The closing of the Games > began the same way, but concluded with spectacular fireworks, lights > and banners, taiko drums and energetic dance and music. > It was not overstated. > ``I hope it's not time to dust off the six-shooters and start > living up to every stereotype the West has to offer,'' said Casey > Jarman of the Salt Lake City Arts Council after the Salt Lake portion > of the ceremonies. ``I didn't like the stagecoach. It was kind of > hoaky. But I liked the horses.'' > Jarman favors including American Indian culture and showing > Utah's multicultural heritage. > ``We're not celebrating a rodeo,'' said Jarman. ``We have to > understand that it is a world event that celebrates the world, the > country, the region and the state. We're such a melting pot, much > different than Japan.'' > Notes from a recent meeting of the Utah Cultural Alliance Forum > show its concerns for the 2002 Games as well as lessons learned from > Nagano's Games. > Among the greatest fears was that the effort to represent Utah > will not be all-inclusive -- that artistic and cultural offers might > be unbalanced, outweighed by history and conservative art. > The great hope was that the Games will leave a cultural legacy > beyond 2002. > ``You might be able to do that with music,'' said Joan Woodbury > of Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company. ``The [Mormon] Tabernacle Choir > should sing, but I'd like to see other choirs as well. And I'd love > to see dance people involved.'' > Linda Smith, a native Utahn, said it is impossible to ignore > Utah's early settlers, and, most notably, the Mormon pioneers. > ``How could you avoid it?'' she said. ``It would be ridiculous to > deny any aspect of our history. It would be foolish. `Courage' would > typify that spirit more than any religious dogma. > ``On the other hand, I don't want to characterize the entire > state by one area. We need to put all of what Utah has to offer on > the table and see what's of value. We need to get rid of the politics > and paranoia.'' > The Utah Cultural Alliance hopes that Olympic organizers will > invite open communication and accessibility. > ``I come from Living Traditions,'' said Jarman, referring to the > annual multicultural festival in Salt Lake. ``I would like to see > more American Indian tradition. It would show a deeper commitment to > our multicultural heritage. One should think how others around the > world will see us.'' > Olympic organizers also must consider what images television will > broadcast. During the recent CBS coverage, quick pans of the closing > ceremonies were interrupted by several minutes of commercials. > Smith called it the Coca Cola culture. > ``I'm concerned about what the camera chooses to focus on,'' she > said. It's not fair.'' > What about the impression that Utah and Salt Lake City make > beyond the scope of the Games? > ``I'm interested in what takes place culturally in the city for > two weeks,'' said Woodbury. ``Not only will people see the Games, but > also the opportunities Utah has to offer. What lasts is how people > respond. The Games happen every four years, but what we want to do is > leave a lasting impression on people.'' > > > [PHOTO] > > Proud Utahns wait at the airport Monday to > welcome the Olympic flag. (Lynn R. > Johnson/The Salt Lake Tribune) > > [1998 Winter Olympics] > > [Image] [Tuesday Navigation Bar] [Image] > > [Image] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ) Copyright 1998, 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. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Antigun PSA from Barnes -Reply Date: 25 Feb 1998 13:25:43 -0700 I have a copy of Eddie Eagle to give to Barnes. Maybe we'll be surprised and IHC will run a clipas a PSA. Who knows Barnes well enough to make an appointment? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! (fwd) Date: 25 Feb 1998 20:03:00 -0700 I agree with Bart on this issue. I would urge the USSC Board to reconsider its opinion endorsing HB 304. Scott Bergeson ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: cathounds@aol.com, agr@aros.net, 73214.3115@compuserve.com, righter@therighter.com Thanks to Scott Bergeson for forwarding the USSC Legislative Alert to the LP list server which stated: >>HB 304 - Initiative Process Amendments This bill would make it more difficult for individuals or groups to have an initiative submitted to the legislature by providing that the required number of signatures be obtained from 20 (twenty) counties. Current law requires that the signatures be obtained from only 15 (fifteen) counties. The opinion of the Board is that this bill will prevent the legislative process from being sabotaged by an overload of frivolous initiatives (as happens frequently in California) and that it will make it more difficult for anti-gun initiatives (such as Washington's I-676) to be introduced in Utah.<< While I agree with USSC on everything else in this alert I must disagree with their stand on HB304. Utah does not have an "overload of frivolous initiatives" as California does. This part of their statement is simply to stir up anti-California sentiments. Utah's initiative requirements are already among the most difficult in the entire nation. The important issue to USSC is that HB304 will make it "more difficult for individuals or groups to have an initiative submitted to the legislature." Unfortunately not just anti-gun initiatives, but ALL INITIATIVES would be harder to bring to the Legislature or the voters. If this bill is defeated I'm sure we would all willingly help USSC defeat anti-gun initiatives. I certainly would. Passing HB304 is simply shooting ourselves in the foot (pun intended) by making it harder to bring freedom oriented initiatives to the ballot. Bart Grant - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! Date: 26 Feb 1998 07:56:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Thank you Bart. I totally agree. Those of us who have worked on gathering signatures knows how hard it is to do this. I'm very concerned about this bill. Janalee - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! (fwd) Date: 26 Feb 1998 10:29:45 -0700 SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > I agree with Bart on this issue. I would urge the USSC Board > to reconsider its opinion endorsing HB 304. > > Scott Bergeson > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:48:48 -0700 > From: Bart Grant > To: lputah@qsicorp.com > Cc: cathounds@aol.com, agr@aros.net, 73214.3115@compuserve.com, > righter@therighter.com [snip] > > While I agree with USSC on everything else in this alert I must disagree > with their stand on HB304. Utah does not have an "overload of frivolous > initiatives" as California does. This part of their statement is simply > to stir up anti-California sentiments. Utah's initiative requirements > are already among the most difficult in the entire nation. > > The important issue to USSC is that HB304 will make it "more difficult for > individuals or groups to have an initiative submitted to the legislature." > > Unfortunately not just anti-gun initiatives, but ALL INITIATIVES would be > harder to bring to the Legislature or the voters. If this bill is defeated > I'm sure we would all willingly help USSC defeat anti-gun initiatives. I > certainly would. Passing HB304 is simply shooting ourselves in the foot > (pun intended) by making it harder to bring freedom oriented initiatives > to the ballot. > > Bart Grant > Yup, For those of you who are counting.... There was one lone vote in opposition, for the above reasons. Unfortunately, the person (Sarah) who cast that vote is no longer allowed to report who voted which way. The board voted 4-3 to not allow any member of the board to publish who voted which way for what reasons. As stated, who votes which way is "not relevant", if someone wants that information they can come to the meetings. Mere moments after that vote, the same four who voted to not publish got extremely exorcised that the Utah Legislature would vote to abolish penalties for not filing an oath of office. They "felt" that this would remove any ability to hold a legislator "accountable" for his/her actions. No irony was perceived... Will Thompson -Hoping more non-compromisers show up and vote at the next USSC elections. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! (fwd) Date: 26 Feb 1998 10:43:03 -0700 Everytime I start to get anykind of good feeling about USSC, something like this comes up. I'm not a member and am not about to join at this point. I may join just soon enough to cast a vote next time. How long does one have to be a member to vote? Seems to me somebody could do a great service to those of us in the gun communtity and the members of USSC, by publishing who voted which way and any reasons they can glean. If the board wants to hide their actions, maybe someone should be looking closer at what they do. If nothing else, it will make it easier to vote for the right people next time. On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Will Thompson posted: >Yup, > >For those of you who are counting.... > >There was one lone vote in opposition, for the above reasons. >Unfortunately, the person (Sarah) who cast that vote is no longer >allowed to report who voted which way. The board voted 4-3 to not >allow any member of the board to publish who voted which way for >what reasons. As stated, who votes which way is "not relevant", >if someone wants that information they can come to the meetings. >Mere moments after that vote, the same four who voted to not publish >got extremely exorcised that the Utah Legislature would vote to >abolish penalties for not filing an oath of office. They "felt" >that this would remove any ability to hold a legislator "accountable" >for his/her actions. No irony was perceived... > >Will Thompson >-Hoping more non-compromisers show up and vote at the next USSC >elections. > -- 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 have rights who dare maintain them." -- James Russell Lowell - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! (fwd) Date: 26 Feb 1998 13:51:50 -0700 At 10:43 AM 2/26/98 -0700, you wrote: > >Everytime I start to get anykind of good feeling about USSC, something >like this comes up. I'm not a member and am not about to join at this >point. I may join just soon enough to cast a vote next time. How >long does one have to be a member to vote? > >Seems to me somebody could do a great service to those of us in the >gun communtity and the members of USSC, by publishing who voted which >way and any reasons they can glean. If the board wants to hide their >actions, maybe someone should be looking closer at what they do. >If nothing else, it will make it easier to vote for the right people >next time. I agree with you. I haven't checked the bylaws, but at the last annual meeting people who joined before the meeting were allowed to vote. However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM. Their contact information has been made public repeatedly. In addition, there are plans for a newsletter which I hope will allow for letters from the public. Yes it would be helpful if "somebody" published votes and reasons for those votes. And yes, it would be a good idea for "someone" to look more closely at what the Board does. The question is, are there any "somebodies" or "someones" out there willing to do so? Meetings are open to the public, and always have been. Sarah (for myself only) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Sent to Sec. Date: 26 Feb 1998 18:03:14 -0700 Received auto notification that the status of SB23, Negligent storage of a firearm, had changed. Change history is below. Anyone know what the last item, today's update means, and is it cause for concern? -- S.B. 23 Negligent Storage of Loaded Firearm (Steiner, R.) 01/06/98 Number LRGC 01/08/98 Bill Distributed LRGC 01/19/98 Senate/read 1st (Introduced) SPRES 02/02/98 Senate/to Standing Committee SSTTPS 02/26/98 Senate/comm rpt sent to Senate Secretary SSEC 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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Feb. 26 column - Anthrax] Date: 26 Feb 1998 23:41:16 -0700 The latest from Vin... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 26, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz The Great Las Vegas Anthrax Plot The news flashed around the world on Thursday, Feb. 19. I know, because I started getting phone calls from New England, and e-mail from Asia ... asking me if I'd broken out my gas masks. The news was accepted at face value in most places, too ... because it was precisely what many folks had been led to expect. A pair of depraved white men -- one a former Mormon bishop and the other (according to a hastily-drawn-up federal criminal complaint) a "self-admitted member of the Aryan Nations (who) claims to have the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel," had been busted by FBI agents and thrown in a Las Vegas hoosegow, while the Mercedes-Benz they had been driving was carefully shrink-wrapped in plastic and hauled away to a U.S. Army facility for testing. Why? "These individuals posed a potential chemical and biological threat to our community," Bobby Siller, head of the FBI's Las Vegas office, told members of the working press at a Thursday morning press conference. A "citizen informant (hereafter 'the source')" had telephoned the Las Vegas offices of the FBI on Feb. 18 -- again according to the criminal complaint -- to report that suspects Larry Wayne Harris, 46 (a licensed microbiologist from Lancaster, Ohio), and William Job Leavitt, Jr., 47 (a fire extinguisher manufacturer, owner of a pair of microbiological laboratories, and former Mormon bishop from Logandale, Nevada) were in possession of what Leavitt had reportedly described as "military grade" anthrax in flight bags in the trunk of their Mercedes-Benz convertible. Another source, spotted with Leavitt and Harris at the Gold Coast Hotel, reportedly told the FBI that Harris held out a vial and stated there was enough there to "wipe out the city." FBI Special Agent John W. Hawken further alleged in his Feb. 19 criminal complaint -- this time citing no specific source -- that Harris, the Ohio microbiologist, had "in the summer of 1997 ... told a group of plans to place a 'globe' of bubonic plague toxins in a New York subway station, where it could be broken by a passing subway train, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. Harris stated that the Iraqis would be blamed for that event." 'Go write your own Civil Defense manual' But something about this one smelled wrong from the start. Defendant Harris had appeared as a guest on Las Vegas-based radio talk shows within the previous week, spouting his obsessive concern that the Iraqis were preparing to launch precisely the kind of biological attack the FBI was talking about, and that the United States was ill-prepared to defend against any such attack. Patriot sources on the Internet (ever paranoid) immediately theorized that the FBI had busted well-known gadfly Harris precisely to shift the blame for any such attack -- considered all the more likely if Bill Clinton proceeded with plans to renew bombing of Saddam Hussein -- onto the FBI's favorite target, the gun-owning domestic patriot militias. Only a few minutes work were required for Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith to download from the Internet and hand me the opening section of Larry Wayne Harris' book, "Bacteriological Warfare: A Major Threat to North America, What You and Your Family Can Do Defensively, Before and After." (http://norden1.com/~hawkins/CIVIL.HTM) In it, Harris describes taking courses in advanced microbiology at Ohio State University in 1991, and meeting there fellow student Miriam Arif, daughter of a former Iraqi president. After the two became friends, Arif reportedly told Harris in 1993 of the plans of Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria And North Korea to respond to any future American interventions in their regions by loosing germ warfare weapons in this country. It is agents of those nations that plan to release plague and anthrax cultures in the subway systems of large American cities, according to Harris' writings. Harris reports calling the FBI, and the CDC in both Atlanta and Fort Collins. "I told them what Miriam had told me, and they responded that they thought I had been watching too many science fiction movies." After repeatedly promising to send Harris a copy of the government contingency plan to deal with such an attack, Harris writes that he was finally told by exasperated spokesmen at the CDC that all such biological civil defense planning had been scrapped in 1972. "They said if I were a microbiologist and so concerned, why don't I go and write my own Civil Defense manual and leave the CDC alone?" Would a man planning to kill thousands via a germ warfare attack, write books and appear on the radio, drawing attention to himself by warning Americans of how unprepared we are to deal with such an attack? What would Harris' motive be, anyway? Might it not be possible that the FBI's sources had misunderstood Harris' intense warnings about Miriam Arif, as threats he himself was making? Time machines and UFOs The possibility grew even stronger when it turned out FBI agent Hawken had admitted in his initial criminal complaint that the FBI's main source "has two felony convictions for conspiracy to commit extortion in 1981 and 1982." I have been unable to independently confirm that Ronald G. Rockwell -- since identified by numerous sources as the FBI's main informant -- was indeed twice convicted on extortion counts. But Leavitt's attorney, Kirby Wells, paints quite a picture of Rockwell, reporting that at a Feb. 14 meeting Rockwell offered to sell Leavitt more than just the machine Leavitt wanted to conduct anthrax research. "He offered as part of the deal to turn over work on other projects, including a time machine project and a UFO project," attorney Wells told Review-Journal reporter Steve Friess on Feb. 23. "I questioned Bill about whether it made sense to be negotiating with someone who professed to have these kinds of projects." Eventually, Leavitt did reject Rockwell's demand that he buy a so-called Rife Regenerator for $2 million, including a non-refundable $100,000 deposit. (The discredited Rife machine, which is supposed to cure illness through radio waves, usually sells for $20,000.) Within days, the disappointed Rockwell apparently telephoned the FBI to turn Leavitt and Harris in. Paul Pantone, chief executive officer for research at Global Environmental Energy Technology LLC, spent 15 minutes chatting with Rockwell at a conference in Las Vegas last April, and pronounces the fellow "a total fruitcake." "He said he can build flying saucers any size you want," said Pantone, whose Utah company specializes in far more mundane mileage-boosting automotive fuel processors. "He said he has a plane the size of a 747 that extracts energy out of the air as it moves and flies for hours on one gallon of gasoline. He has it hidden somewhere in Nevada. ... For the FBI to even listen to this man, I'm appalled," Pantone told reporter Friess. False alarm Businessman Leavitt was released from jail on Saturday, Feb. 21. Scientists at the Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases in Fort Detrick, Md. (where the Army stores precisely the kinds of toxic agents which President Clinton brands other nations "terrorist" for developing) had worked through the night analyzing the contents of the Harris-Leavitt vials, and found them to contain exactly what the defendants said they contained -- veterinary anthrax vaccine, incapable of forming spores to spread the disease to either humans or animals. Informant Rockwell "wanted money up front, sight unseen, and when he didn't get it ... he went to the FBI and made some outlandish statements," says Leavitt's other attorney, Lamond Mills. "That's their witness. And on that, we've had worldwide news." After a final weekend FBI search of both defendants' homes to see if they could find anything else to hold them on, all criminal charges against both defendants were dropped on Monday, Feb. 23. Mind you, Ohioan Harris would appear to be several stops down the local line toward Bonkersville, himself. He signed a consent decree in 1995, under which he is still on probation for fraudulently obtaining bubonic plague toxins for his research. His book contains such unattributed nuggets as his rambling report that "The HIV (AIDS) virus ... was designed to kill only Negro's (sic). The HIV virus was ... inoculated into Negro's for their genocidal removal from Africa. The HIV virus was designed to use an intermediate bacterial carrier, that was present in the Negro's body but not present in Caucasians. This strategy has been extremely effective and by some estimates the Negro population of Africa will soon be reduced to below 5 million." Yeah, right. So: should police agents have had some serious questions for Messrs. Harris and Leavitt? Of course. Should they have acquired warrants to seize and test the material in question? OK; fine. But the broadest public response to this whole tempest in a teapot seems to be that the FBI was justified in acting swiftly -- even if the tip turned out to be wrong -- given the virulence of the agents the two men supposedly possessed. I feel obliged to offer a somewhat different perspective. Infiltrate the churches, shoot the dogs The FBI, as currently composed, is an illegal and unconstitutional agency. The Constitution grants the Congress no power to swear in any federal political police force, the familiar German word for which is "Gestapo." In recent years -- leaving aside its treatment of the presumably innocent security guard Richard Jewel while the real perpetrators of Atlanta's Olympic Park bombing walked away at their leisure -- this proud and courageous agency stood in charge of the final, deadly, tank, machine gun, and poison gas assault on the parishioners of the Mount Carmel Seventh Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas, which directly caused the deaths by fire and poison gas of dozens of innocent women and children. (See it for yourself, as filmed by federal government cameras: Order the video "Waco: The Terms of Engagement," now nominated for an Academy Award as best documentary, at $25 by dialing 1-800-771-2147, ext. 19.) Only a few months before, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, acting under FBI orders, shot and killed the unarmed Vicky Weaver in the kitchen doorway of her Idaho home as she held her baby in her arms. (The federal government is still involved in procedural shenanigans to shield Horiuchi from facing the criminal charges he so richly deserves for that little feat of marksmanship.) The Weaver standoff started when federal agents approached and entrapped Vicky Weaver's husband, Randy, in order to convince him to infiltrate and snitch on parishioners of a nearby church. The Waco standoff started when ATF agents turned down the Rev. David Koresh's invitation to come out and inspect his parishioners' fully legal firearms "any time," preferring to stage a big military-style raid for the TV cameras, shortly before their next set of funding hearings in Washington. In both cases, the federals targeted churches. In both cases, the first shots were fired by federal agents, killing their victims' dogs. But under our American system, it is (start ital)not(end ital) acceptable to trash the First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights of the politically unpopular few, in order to "protect the many" even from real threats ... let alone trumped-up ones. If it were, the FBI would be justified in sending SWAT teams into the homes of the 100 patriot militiamen and foreign nationals which it judges most likely to cause trouble, with orders to simply shoot them all through the head. Nevada has a State Police force. Las Vegas has its own, sizeable, Metropolitan Police. Those agencies had sole jurisdiction in this case. All law enforcement, under our constitutional system of government, is left to local authority. (start ital)No(end ital) federal police force is authorized. The safest thing for the liberties of the citizens of this republic would be to disband the deadly, incompetent FBI, immediately. Failing that, this homicidal gang should at least be restricted to what the "I" in its name stands for, "Investigation" (keeping up to date with what's readily available on talk radio and the Internet, for starters -- and perhaps keeping running tabs on the credibility of such local snitches as Ronald G. Rockwell, while they're at it.) When they feel an arrest is justified, they should do just what everyone else does: Call the police. As goofy as Larry Wayne Harris may be, he has a point. If we keep meddling in the affairs of nations that can't afford to build aircraft carriers and nuclear bombers, they will eventually strike back in any way they can ... quite possibly with such cheap, easy-to-employ weapons as germ warfare and poison gas. (Calling them "terrorists" proves nothing. Generals Howe and Cornwallis doubtless would have called the brigand Washington -- unwilling to line up all his men across an open field and fight it out in a sporting manner -- a "terrorist.") But instead of heeding such a sensible warning, the federals just arrest the messenger. Anyone interested in disarming America's criminal element would do well to start with the incompetent and counterproductive ATF and the FBI ... auctioning off their Tommy guns and MP-5s to law-abiding private citizens, who would then be in a much better position to drop by their offices occasionally, "just to check." Then, if we're finally tired of making enemies overseas, comes the CIA. 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 web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. 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. God created all men equal. Sam Colt made sure they remain that way. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! Date: 26 Feb 1998 21:17:00 -0700 On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy: >However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM. Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the call. It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights supporters in Utah? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! Date: 27 Feb 1998 01:22:32 -0700 Sarah posted contact info a while back. I thought I had saved it, but apparantly did not. Sarah, would you be so good as to post that again? I should make everyone aware that in addition to Sarah, only one board member has contacted me regarding the 10 questions I posted here and which Sarah presented to the USSC board. That response I considered very positive. I only wish the other board members had responed as well, let alone at all. Apparantly the board voted and decided that individual members would only respond to the questions if they wanted to do so strictly as an individual. The board itself would respond by passing along some formal positions adopted by the previous board. I've not seen that info yet but will pass it along if it ever shows up. It seems the majority of board members do not want the USSC membership or the gun owning non-members of this State to know their true position on gun rights or even how they voted on any given issue. So far there are only 2 of the 7 members in whom I can place any confidence. I'm hoping based on what I've heard, there is a 3rd who is ok, as well. Three out of 7 may be a start, but at this point I'm not prepared to offer my financial support. I do plan to attend meetings whenever possible which is going to be few and far between since I'd have to leave work at a reasonable hour and fight commuter traffic between SLC and Kaysville to get there. Any meeting I attend I will do my very best to record votes, etc and pass along. I ask others to do likewise. Assuming it looks like there is hope, I will consider joining just soon enough to vote in the next election and try to put the true rights, no-compromise, respond to questions, not afraid to let their views be known advocates in a majority. For heaven sakes, even the State legislators record votes and publish them on the internet for at least committee business. Of what are those 4 members of the USSC board afraid? Maybe if enough members keep track and let board members know which votes will cause loss of support for them and/or lack of renewal and if enough non-members let the board know exactly why we aren't members yet, they will get the message and change their ways or will get off the board and let someone who really values and understands rights do the job they seem unwilling to do. I fear too many are far too cozy with the NRA. And yes, I agree completely that it would behoov board members to at least read this list, if not become active participants in it. If they want to claim to represent gun owners' interests in this State, they should make at least as much effort to search out those interests as gun owners make to make them known. Accolades to Sarah for doing just that and much more. On Thu, 26 Feb 98 21:17:00 -0700, scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) posted: > >On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy: > >>However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM. > >Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf >list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them >depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would >seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the >call. It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what >they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board >meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It >would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating >their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can >override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a >contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC >attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights >supporters in Utah? > > > > >- > > -- 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. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officials." -- George Mason, Framer of the Declaration of Rights, Virginia, 1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights; 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: USSC Date: 27 Feb 1998 02:03:38 -0700 At 09:17 PM 2/26/98 -0700, you wrote: > >On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy: > >>However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM. > >Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf >list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them >depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would >seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the >call. It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what >they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board >meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It >would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating >their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can >override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a >contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC >attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights >supporters in Utah? I'm the only Board (or Advisory Board) member of USSC who's subscribed to utah-firearms. Most, but not all, of the other members have e-mail capabilities. However, my impression is that not too many read e-mail with any regularity or are very comfortable with computers. I've posted the e-mail addresses of all who were willing to make them available, so you can e-mail at least those members. But I suspect most of them do prefer telephone contact. As I understand the so-called "gag order", members may not _publish_ positions or votes. (I don't have the exact language.) I don't think there's any prohibition against stating one's position or vote. But there are huge gray areas such as private e-mail and public statements. I can understand that the Board would not want internal discord aired publicly - at least during the legislative session, when it's necessary for the most part to present a united front. (I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I do understand this point of view.) However, I don't see why that should preclude recording votes and publishing them immediately after the session. However, with the possible exception of during the legislative session, it makes no sense to me to suppress one Constitutional right while fighting for another. The first and second amendments depend upon each other - as do all our rights. The problem is that the only people complaining are non-members. The only member who's let me know he has complaints is Will. No Board member has any obligation or mandate to represent anyone other than members, and I'm not sure how many will be receptive to comments from non-members. Certainly there's room for more than one gun rights organization in Utah. There's already the Utah Gun Rights Association, the Utah Rifle and Pistol Assoc. and a few more whose names don't immediately come to mind. If anyone wants to start a chapter of NRA, GOA, Brassroots, SAFE, CCRKBA or even another independent organization, they're free to do so. And if some other organization can do a better job than USSC, more power to them! I might even join. But since I'm the only Board member here, complaining about USSC on u-f isn't going to do any good. If you want to tell anyone but me what you think, you're going to have to do it their way, since I know of no way to force anyone to subscribe to or read u-f. (Not that I'd force anyone anyway!) Contact info follows: The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info made public. Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse their open-door policy. Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), cathounds@aol.com Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w), 73214.3115@compuserve.com Shirley Spain, 963-0784, agr@aros.net Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w) Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, righter@therighter.com Joe Venus, 571-2223 Because of the confusion over whether comments via e-mail are permitted, I'd suggest phone calls. There are a lot of gun owners in Utah, and they have widely divergent views. Some are "no compromise" people. Some only care about concealed carry. Some only care about hunting, or target shooting, or collecting. Some are confrontational, and some prefer not to "make waves". I don't honestly think one organization can be everything to everyone. OTOH, if we split into too many factions, we're likely to end up with no voice at all. I don't have any perfect, or even very good, ideas on how to solve this problem. But I am open to suggestions. Sarah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: USSC Contact Info Date: 27 Feb 1998 06:45:00 -0700 On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:22:32 Charles Hardy asked: >Sarah posted contact info a while back. I thought I had saved it, but >apparantly did not. Sarah, would you be so good as to post that again? I'm not Sarah, but here it is: The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info made public. Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse their open-door policy. All of us are VERY busy right now. Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), cathounds@aol.com Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w), 73214.3115@compuserve.com Shirley Spain, 963-0784, agr@aros.net Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w) Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, righter@therighter.com (I prefer e-mail to phone calls when possible). Joe Venus, 571-2223 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: ACTION ALERT: "Anti " Article in LHJ -Forwarded Date: 27 Feb 1998 10:07:27 -0700 Received: (qmail 19538 invoked by uid 516); 27 Feb 1998 03:17:58 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 19337 invoked from network); 27 Feb 1998 03:17:42 -0000 Received: from ocelot.avana.net (HELO Email.Avana.Net) (205.245.133.6) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 1998 03:17:42 -0000 Received: from tiger.avana.net (tiger.avana.net [205.245.133.2]) by Email.Avana.Net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA28908; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:27:56 -0500 Received: from nancys (atl867.avana.net [207.42.62.157]) by tiger.avana.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA00415; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:18:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34F6303E.2787@2die4.com> Organization: Real Pro Second Amendment Activist Never Give Up. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 GA-RKBA@athens.net, ma-firearms@world.std.com, pa-rkba@pobox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Nancy ----------------------- ACTION ALERT: "Anti" Article in Ladies Home Journal Date: Thu, 26 Feb 98 22:03:05 EST5EDT From: ladybug@fiber-net.com (Brenda Bernard ) To: undisclosed-recipients:; Dear Brother / Sister Shooters, I just received information, from a sister shooter, about an article appearing in the current "Ladies Home Journal, p. 28 praising women in the "war against guns". The article highlights "Tina Johnstone" whose husband was gunned down by a criminal. "Tina" is organizing a march on D.C. and wants to make a pile of several thousands of shoes of victims. I am sure there will be many shoes thrown in there for the heck of it and the media will have a hay day dramatically portraying all the shoes as being worn by victims. You may want to visit a news stand and see the article for yourself before responding. It does not seem to be in their website publication. "Tina Johnstone's" committee phone number is (516) 247-9101. Ladies Home Journal 125 Park Avenue New York, N.Y. 10017 E-mail: LHJ@nyc.mdp.com Website: http://www.lhj.com Toll free: (800) 347-4545 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brenda Bernard (Ladybug) P.O. Box 1997 Crystal River, FL 34423-1997 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Women AGAINST Gun Control @ www.wagc.com GUNS GIVE WOMEN A FIGHTING CHANCE All THOSE IN FAVOR OF LOSING YOUR GUN RIGHTS, DO NOTHING For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! Date: 27 Feb 1998 11:22:17 -0700 SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy: > > >However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM. > > Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf > list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them > depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would > seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the > call. I have sent the last few of these to Shirley at AGR/UGRA with the suggestion that she subscribe and "listen in" to our arguments and suggestions. I know she's busy but I've told here that this is mostly a fairly low-volume mail list, maybe she'll have enough spare time and energy to spend some of it with us. > It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what > they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board > meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It > would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating > their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can > override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a > contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC > attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights > supporters in Utah? While I disagree vehemently with their stand, I can sort of understand why they are taking it. These guys, especially Bob, are all respected "businessmen and pillars of the community" (gag) and if Dan Harrie or Vince Horiuchi got hold of something they could use to embarrass them or otherwise damage their reputation/business, you can bet they'd use it in a heartbeat. These guys are scared, with reason, I believe. I don't believe any of them except Sarah (and maybe Joe and Shirley, I haven't asked them) have accepted that we've probably already lost the war and _will_ lose it if we don't go on the offensive - hard and fast. They're still proud of being "life members of NRA" as if that proves how _staunchly_ they support the 2nd. And as always....the target pistol shooters don't really care about anything but "sporting use". The hunters just want to be able to keep the "ol' thuty-thuty". The CCW'ers want a better/longer permit. The collectors want the pre-paid (in rights) convenience of not having to pay BCI every time they make a trade...meanwhile the few of us who dispise CCW, who want a return to pre-NFA liberty, are fighting our own absolutest battles...Yeah, I'm proud to be an "extremest", but I also realize that I scare the bejeezus out of guys like Bob Templeton. Education is all I can try and offer them, realizing that it's going to take even longer for them to (maybe) come 'round than it did for me. (What with my pre-disposition to fight authority) So I'm going to stand out here, vent my frustrations here and keep trying to get the "them" board members to see the light...dunno what else to do...it's "them" who're going to have to bring the hunters, paper punchers, and other factions with us and we ain't gonna get that by slammin em down every time they don't get it. Sarah tells me that Jews put honey on the pages of the Torah to get their children to read it and associate "sweetness" with it...seems like a good idea...if only I can keep from flippin my lid every time someone does something "stupid".... vent vent vent - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: steiner and beattie Date: 27 Feb 1998 11:28:39 -0700 After that last bit....now I don't have time to look it up....in this morning's Trib was a short article about how Steiner and Beattie have teamed up (sort of like putting two amoebas in a bowl...) to amend the bill describing how one's CCW may be revoked, by adding the church ban....(indeciperable, I know) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: steiner and beattie Date: 27 Feb 1998 11:34:11 -0700 Which section? I can't find it. On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Will Thompson posted: >After that last bit....now I don't have time to look it >up....in this morning's Trib was a short article about >how Steiner and Beattie have teamed up (sort of like >putting two amoebas in a bowl...) to amend the bill >describing how one's CCW may be revoked, by adding the >church ban....(indeciperable, I know) > >- > > -- 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. "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent *the people* of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..." -- Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: steiner and beattie Date: 27 Feb 1998 11:43:26 -0700 The legislative update section, bottom middle of the page in the print version - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Gun Ban not dead yet!! Date: 27 Feb 1998 12:27:45 -0700 From today's tribune, Legislative update section--"Briefs" article: HB242 orignally only made some minor technical and clarifications on how and when a CCW permit may be revoked and has sailed through thus far. GUN BILL NOT DEAD YET Legislation banning legally permitted concealed weapons in certain buildings is not dead yet. Democrats plan to amend a bill to prohibit weapons-permit holders from carrying their guns to church. ``It's one of the areas where there is a great deal of consensus. It's one thing that we can do,'' said Sen. Robert Steiner, D-Salt Lake City. Senate President Lane Beattie was planning to spearhead the move to ban concealed weapons in churches, private property and schools, but pulled out last week because of mounting legal questions about the move. But the West Bountiful Republican said he will vote for Steiner's amendment. Steiner said he will amend House Bill 242, which details circumstances when a concealed-weapons permit can be revoked. -- The Associated Press -- 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. "A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: Victims fight back (Tennessee Bill) -Forwarded Date: 27 Feb 1998 12:56:08 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id GAA27338; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 06:58:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma027287; Fri Feb 27 06:57:21 1998 Message-Id: <34F6A95A.9923816A@inetnebr.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: lball@inetnebr.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Here is the text of the bill. I am sending a copy to a Nebraska State Senator for consideration. Filed for intro on 01/21/98 SENATE BILL 2167 By Cohen HOUSE BILL 2260 By Buck AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6, to enact the "Victim and Citizen Criminal Apprehension and Protection Act of 1998" authorizing the use of force to apprehend certain suspected felons and for the protection of persons and property from such felons. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Victim and Citizen Criminal Apprehension and Protection Act of 1998". SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-11-621, is amended by designating the existing language as subsection (a) and by adding the following new subsections: (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a private citizen is justified in threatening or using all necessary force, including deadly force, to apprehend a person who is committing or has committed first or second degree murder, attempt to commit first or second degree murder, aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, rape, aggravated rape, or rape of a child if the citizen uses such force: A) While the defendant is on the same property where the offense was committed or attempted to be committed or on any public property adjoining such property; and B) During or in fresh pursuit of the person after commission or attempted commission of the offense. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a private citizen present in a motor vehicle is justified in threatening or using all necessary force, including deadly force, against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use unlawful force against such citizen while committing or attempting to commit the offense of carjacking. (d) Any private citizen using deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon under the circumstances set out in subsection (b) or who uses deadly force pursuant to subsection (c) is presumed to have been put in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to self or others by such offender and the use of deadly force is justified even though the person using such force does not retreat from the encounter. (e) Any private citizen who uses force under the circumstances authorized by subsections (b) or (c) shall be absolutely immune from actual or punitive damages resulting from property damage, injury or death either accidentally or intentionally inflicted by such citizen upon the person or persons who committed or attempted to commit one or more of the enumerated offenses. SECTION 2. This act shall take effect on July 1, 1998, the public welfare requiring it. Return to Main Bill Index - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Please oppose Steiner Amd to HB242 (LONG) Date: 27 Feb 1998 15:06:10 -0700 Folks please pass this to all pro-gun people you know. There will be no further committee hearing on HB242, the technical changes to CCW recocation process bill that Steiner intends to amend to prohibit guns in churches, schools, and private property. It will receive a full floor debate only. Please contact your Senator immediately and ask them to oppose Steiner's amendment and to kill the entire bill if necessary to keep the amendment from passing. Contact info at . Messages can also be left at (801) 538-1035 and Faxes sent to (801) 538-1414 addressed to the Senator. In addittion to contacting your own Senator, I have it on good authority there are five Senators in a position to swing this who could use a little extra attention from us. I'm hoping we can generate some calls, faxes, emails, or phone calls. Email is certainly the least painful way for most of us here to contact them, but please also take the time to make a phone call or send a fax as I have no idea if/how often these 5 read email. Please contact Sens. Beattie, Montgomery, Petersen, Howell and Jones and ask them to oppose this amendment and to vote against the entire bill if necessary. Contact info below, followed by a couple of emails I've sent to various legislators on this issue. Feel free to use as much of anything I've written as you feel is usefule, but please modify it enough that it doesn't look like a form letter. And remember, polite but firm. Lane Beattie (R) Sen. Pres. (sponsor of SB57 which he withdrew over legal concerns) 313 North 1100 West (has said he will support the amd.) West Bountiful, Utah 84087 H-292-7406 O-298-7000 no email listed but try Lorin V. Jones (R) 177 E Center St Veyo UT 84782 H 574-2961 Robert F. Montgomery (R) 1825 North Mountain Road North Ogden, Utah 84414 H-782-1694 no email listed but try Craig A. Peterson (R) Majority Leader 1687 North 200 West Orem, Utah 84057 H-226-3236 O-756-8888 Scott N. Howell (D) Minority Leader 9711 South 3725 East Sandy, Utah 84092 H-943-5770 O-328-6643 -----email I have sent to various legislators follows----- Dear Senator I'm writing to implore you to please oppose Sen. Steiner's amendment to HB242 that would ban guns in churches, private homes, and schools. I expect the language to do so will be virtually identical to the languege used in SB57 and HB69. Both of these bills have been withdrawn due to legal questions and concerns--including concerns about whether a CCW permit holder would now be in violation of the Federal Gun Free School Zone Law simply by driving within two city blocks of any school in the State. Those questions and concerns still remain. HB242 has sailed through the House because it made only technical and clarrification changes to the process of revoking a CCW permit. A major change to Utah's CCW laws should be allowed to sneak through the process in the last week of the legislature. Doing so not only passes a bad bill, but subverts the deliberative process that should take place. I also so feel it violates the spirit of legislative rules requiring bills to be filed by a certain date so that the legislature may give them adequate research and debate and so the public has time to let legislators know their feelings on the bill. Please remember that the language used in SB57 and HB69 did not merely "allow" churches and schools to ban guns if they wanted to. It outright banned guns with the only allowance being that prior permission from someone authorized to control the property was a "defense against prosecution." If there is anything I can do to help defeat this amendment, including contacting members of any committee that may hear the bill or nce sitting" members of the legislature at large, please let me know. Sincerely Charles Hardy Dear Sen. I do not, nor have I ever possesed a State issued permit to carry a concealed weapon. My personal, professional, housing, and other circumstances are such that I do not feel a need for such a permit. However, I'm writing to urge you to please oppose SB57. I believe SB57 unnecessarily infringes on the right to worship and practice religion, places clergy in an undesireable position between their parishoners and the State, tramples on private property rights, and may make federal criminals of some of our most law abiding citizens. Further, while there has been much fuss and hysteria in the media, the facts simply do not point to any problems involving law abiding adults legally carrying concealed weapons for self defense anywhere within the State. In fact, there has been exactly one case involving a CCW permitee reported in the media. And even that permitee's most vocal critics must admit, if they are honest, that his actions in firing into a dirt bank, while possibly, technically illegal, did not pose a threat to anyone's health or safety. SB57 would make the licensed possesion of concealed weapon illegal in houses of worship, private property and schools. Obtaining the prior permission of someone authorized to control access to the house of worship, private property, or the school administrator would only be a "defence against prosecution" under the changes made by SB57 and would not prevent arrest and prosecution from occurring in the first place according to at least one legal opinion I've read. While some of the larger churches in the State have publicly stated they do not feel firearms are appropriate in houses of worship, none have gone so far as to actually prohibit their members from carrying a licensed concealed weapon to church or to impose any penalties of membership such as disfellowship or excommunication for doing so. Instead, these churches have stated general principle and have left it to the best judgement of individual members to determine if their personal circumstances differ enough from the norm to warrant possession of a weapon in church. Why should the State legislature go further in deciding what activities should be prohibited within a house of worship than even churches themselves have gone? More importantly, this bill ignores the very real possibility of smaller, minority churches who may have absolutely no opposition to their members providing for self-defense while in church buildings but would rather not be forced to take a formal position and keep records to allow their members who feel a need to do so. Just a few months ago a robbery was averted and lives potentially saved in Arizona when a church member used a legally carried firearm to scare away an armed intruder seeking the daily offering which was being counted. If a church wishes to prohibit weapons, they are and should be free to do so. But why should the State prohibit weapons inside churches and then force a church to take a stated position in an area they would rather leave to indiviual members? In addition to ignoring the property rights of smaller, minority churches, this bill places clergy in the undesirable position of having to decide whether a congregation member caught with a licensed, concealed weapon in church should face the wrath of the State. In every congregation there is sure to be at least one person vehemently opposed to anyone carrying a gun for any reason regardless of what the law says. This one person could easily demand State action against anyone suspected of carrying a concealed weapon. Why should the State force clergy to decide the issue of concealed weapons by placing them in a position to avert or allow prosecution of a purely technical offense? I have felt no need to carry a gun to church. But I recognize the possibility that there are those who might. Attending church does not reduce the threat posed by violent ex-husbands. Witnesses to crimes should not be forced into deciding between fulfilling their spiritual needs and protecting themselves against those who would rather they keep quiet. And parishoners, clergy, or staff in high crime neighborhoods should not be limited to daylight hours for holding church activities or attending to financial or other business on church property. Remember that in June of 1995, Lucinda Bonilla and her children were abducted at gun point from a church in West Valley City by her estranged husband while an unarmed congregation sat helpless to stop him. The husband, Raul Bonilla, violated numerous laws including, among others, illegal discharge of a weapon, kidnapping, and attempted murder of police officers. Does anyone really think one more law specifically outlawing guns in churches would have deterred him one moment? Such a law only guarantees that women married to abusive, dangerous men will always be unarmed and defenseless while attending church. Criminals in Florida have taken to directing their actions against tourist who they know are less likely to be armed and able to defend themselves than Florida State residents who have been able to obtain concealed weapons permits for a decade. Do we really want to advertise to Utah criminals that those attending any funtion in a church, regardless of circumstance or time of day, are unarmed and easy targets? I can think of few scenarios more inviting to a stalker than knowing his intended victim will be safely disarmed as she leaves evening service or meetings at her chosen house of worship and makes her way through the parking lot to her car. I believe a better approach with regard to private property and houses of worship is to allow owners to prohibit weapons if they choose, but not create a crime nor impose a penalty unless the owner has taken reasonable steps to inform visitors of the prohibition. I believe current law recognizes this right as evidenced by Blockbuster Video's decision a couple of years ago to post their property as off limits to guns. No one challenged their right to do so. However, CCW permitees and others boycotted Blockbuster because of their decision. I believe partly because of the economic consequences of alienating some of their customers, along with the realization that without metal detectors and guards, any gun ban, regardless of the law, becomes nothing more than an honor code which criminals disobey with impunity, Blockbuster rescinded their policy and left the decision of whether or not to carry a concealed weapon in the hands of Utah's responsible adults where it belongs. Finally, any prohibition of guns in or around schools must be very carefully worded in light of the Federal Gun Free Schools Act of 1995. I've attached relevant portions of this law below. In summary, the Act makes it a crime for any person who is not specifically authorized to posses a gun (via a State issued permit that requires a background check) to be in possession of a gun on or within 1000 feet of any school grounds. 1000 feet is almost two city blocks! I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me if Utah's CCW permits are not specifcally valid on school grounds, a permit holder who is otherwise legally in possession of his firearm, might possibly be ruled (by an anti-gun, federal judge in Denver) in violation of this Federal law simply by walking, jogging, or even driving within two city blocks of any school--public, private, pre-school, or parochial (and some rumors suggest the BATF is also looking at interpreting this to include home schools and even day-cares)--anywhere in the State. I encourage you to obtain a map of Salt Lake County that shows all schools. Then shade in those schools and two city blocks in each direction of each school to see how much area could potentially make federal criminals of some of our most law abiding citizens. I do not think SB57 is worded carefully enough to safeguard Utah's CCW permitees from federal prosecution and should be opposed for that reason and the others stated. I remind you once again that there is absolutely no evidence that CCW permitees have posed the slightest risk to anyone's health, safety, or even public good order under current law. A concealed weapon cannot cause concern to others because, by definition, it is concealed. In fact, the best and most recent scholarly research on the subject of concealed weapons by Prof. John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student at the Department of Economics, released on July 26, 1996, shows allowing responsible adults to carry concealed weapons for self defense results in dramatically lower rates of violent crime. I have enclosed the abstract below and encourage you to read the full report at . Lower crime rates benefit not just permit holders. Everyone enjoys a lower rate of violent crime when adults are allowed to carry concealed weapons. Because criminals do not know who is prepared to defend themselves and who the unarmed, "safe" victims are, they are less likely to attack ANYone. Thank you for your service in the Senate. I appreciate your time in considering and responding to this letter so I may better know your position on this issue and look forward to you putting reason and rights above politics and media hype and voting no on SB57. Sincerely Charles Hardy "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an 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." -- Tench Coxe - 1788. Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns John R. Lott, Jr. School of Law University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637 David B. Mustard Department of Economics University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637 July 26, 1996 * The authors would like to thank Gary Becker, Phil Cook, Clayton Cramer, Gertrud Fremling, Ed Glaeser, Hide Ichimura, Don Kates, Gary Kleck, David Kopel, William Landes, David McDowall, Derek Neal, Dan Polsby, and Douglas Weil and the seminar participants at the University of Chicago, American Law and Economics Association Meetings, and the Western Economic Association Meetings for their unusually helpful comments. Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns Abstract Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly. On the other hand, consistent with the notion of criminals responding to incentives, we find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth and where the probabilities of contact between the criminal and the victim are minimal. The largest population counties where the deterrence effect on violent crimes is greatest are where the substitution effect into property crimes is highest. Concealed handguns also have their greatest deterrent effect in the highest crime counties. Higher arrest and conviction rates consistently and dramatically reduce the crime rate. Consistent with other recent work (Lott, 1992b), the results imply that increasing the arrest rate, independent of the probability of eventual conviction, imposes a significant penalty on criminals. The estimated annual gain from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion. GUN FREE SCHOOL ACT OF 1995 TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS -HEAD- Sec. 921. Definitions (25) The term ''school zone'' means - (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school. Sec. 922. Unlawful acts (q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that - [findings ommitted for brevity] (2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm - (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license; (iii) that is - (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle; (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone; (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities. (3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm - (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program; (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity. (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection. Sec. 924. Penalties (a)(4) Whoever violates section 922(q) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law. Except for the authorization of a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years made in this paragraph, for the purpose of any other law a violation of section 922(q) shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor. -- 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. "A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: FP- No Driver's License - No Gun! Date: 27 Feb 1998 16:12:27 -0700 Thought this might be of interest..... >SCAN THIS NEWS >02/27/98 > >[Forwarded Message] >>One more bit of insanity from California. I have a friend who has an HK USP. >>He recently bought a Sig 229 which was sent to a local FFL. When he went to >>pick it up, the paperwork didn't clear because his Driver's License had >>expired. He paid his renewal fee and received a valid temp license. However, >>the CALIF DOJ says he can't get his gun until his new CA ID card arrives in >>60 days. >> >>This may be off-topic, but I think this is outrageous. I understand why a >>state needs to check a person's background (criminal record), but that can >>be done with a Social Security number or his CA Driver's license number, >>which is still on the books (and is currently valid though he hasn't >>received his plastic card yet.) >> >>But what is the larger issue here?! >> >>When you think about this, what does a driver's license have to do with >>firearms ownership? I don't mean to get political, but the Second Amendment >>guarantees the right to bear arms to all citizens, not just those who have a >>current, valid driver's license. Nobody had a driver's license when the Bill >>of Rights was written. >> >>I can't believe that any jurisdiction deny firearms ownership to persons who >>don't possess a driver's license. Imagine if CA said you can't go to the >>church of your choice unless you are licensed to drive! Wouldn't we hear >>some noice about that from our friendly liberals? >> >>Amazing and deeply disturbing. >> >>Paul McMenamin >====================================================================== > "ScanThis NewsLetter" from the "Fight the Fingerprint" Email List! >====================================================================== >Web sites dedicated to fighting the National ID: > >{WA} http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/index.html >{AL} http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml >{GA} http://www.atlantainfoguide.com/repeal/ > >Donnie Guthrie - Arrested for NOT showing SSN to the police. >http://www.scott.net/~dg1/1.htm >====================================================================== > Reply to: mcdonald@networkusa.org > Type FP-JOIN in the SUBJECT to join, type FP-REMOVE to be removed. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > "ScanThis NewsLetter" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. > SOVEREIGN CITIZENS AGAINST NUMBERING > Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: > http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml > http://www.networkusa.org >====================================================================== > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS 1/2 Date: 28 Feb 1998 07:58:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a108422.htm Topic: UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS THE WEEKLY STANDARD FEBRUARY 23, 1998 RONALD BAILEY THE UNITED NATIONS WANTS TO DISARM AMERICANS AND OTHER GUN OWNERS AROUND THE WORLD. NO, THIS IS NOT SOME WILD CLAIM COOKED UP BY THE FEVERED IMAGINATIONS OF MILITIA CRAZIES. For the past couple of years, three different UN agencies -- the UN Disarmament Commission, the UN panel of government experts on small arms, and the UN economic and social council's commission on crime prevention and criminal justice -- have been holding meeting to devise policies to control light weapons. Ostensibly, these agencies are hoping to limit the illicit international trade in handguns, rifles, and other small arms. perhaps not surprisingly, though, they have concluded that the way to crack down on the illicit trade is to keep law-abiding people from owning firearms. This, of course, mirrors the arguments of gun-control advocates in the US, who it turns out are working hand-in-glove with the UN bureaucrats on these intiatives. "THE CONSTANT RHETORIC YOU HEAR IN THE UN IS THAT THE AVAILIBILITY OF FIREARMS CAUSES CRIME," say Tom Mason of the NRA. Yet US studies clearly show that states with the highest per capita gun ownership -- Vermont for one -- generally have the lowest crime rates. Now, it may be good thing to prevent weapons from flowing into countries undergoing civil war -- Rwanda, say, or Bosnia -- but the UN and gun-control advocates have misidentified the problem. Take Afghanistan. That country is an armed camp not because some greedy gun-runners sold weapons to Afghan citizens; it's an armed camp because the governments of the USSR and US supplied armaments to their respective allies in that country. Besides, guns didn't cause the Afgan civil war, the soviet invasion did. And in most of the world's civil conflicts today, the vast majority of the weapons are supplied by governments pursuing what they believe to be their interests. Hunters and sport shooters are simply not part of the equation. As creatures of government, UN functionaries do not accept or respect the principle that gun ownership might be a citizen's right. The 2nd amendment guarantee of an American citizen's right to keep and bear arms is beyond fathoming by UN officials whose governments essentially want to figure out how best to control and disarm their citizens. "WE CONSIDER PERSONAL DEFENSE TO BE A BASIC UNIVERSIAL RIGHT," SAID MASON. "THEY DO NOT." Instead, the UN's gun-controllers argue that citizens should rely solely on their governments for personal protection and blandly advise that "all states should improve the safety and security of their societies, so their citizens would not see the necessity to arm themselves." The most troubling of the three initiatives is the UN "declaration of principles for the regulation of firearms" being devised by the commission on crime prevention and criminal justice. The working draft declares that "no state can be left immune from the effect of the lack or laxity of legislative and administrative controls of other states. The absence of effective firearm regulation in one member state can undermine not only the regulatory efforts but also effective governance of other member states. Decoding the UN-speak, the declaration is claiming that countries which restrict the ownership of firearms are threatened by countries in which citizens have a right to own guns. The implied solution is global gun control -- international standards for the regulation of firearms. Indeed, the draft declaration recommends: "The acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition would always require a license granted by an authority. A system for firearm registration to record information on serial number and other markings of the firearms legally imported and sold to citizens, or reported lost/stolen, should be domestically/internationally harmonized. That is, there is a need for centralizing and computerization of information in a standardized manner to facilitate further criminal investigations and to determine the responsibility of owners." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Antigun PSA from Barnes Date: 28 Feb 1998 07:58:00 -0700 Reposted by permission ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Scott, I called Bill Barnes today and left a message. I know him all too well from debating him in light rail. He's actually kinda nice. Just misinformed, as always. FYI, the City Weekly called me today: IHC. I have a letter from the NRA announcing that Sarah Brady is behind those commercials. I told the reporter that. They were very interested. Regards, ---------- > From: Scott Bergeson > To: Libertarian Party of Utah > Subject: LPU: Antigun PSA from Barnes -Reply > Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 8:50 AM > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > To: utah-firearms@xmission.com > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:25:43 -0700 > From: DAVID SAGERS > I have a copy of Eddie Eagle to give to Barnes. Maybe we'll be surprised > and IHC will run a clip as a PSA. > Who knows Barnes well enough to make an appointment? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: RKBA, CA & Driver License Date: 28 Feb 1998 07:58:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is just one more example of what I have been saying for years - please note that this rant isn't directed at the writer or sender of the original post. All authoritarian control mechanisms require identification of the controlees. The ROOT enabler of all of these mechanisms is the "DRIVER'S" license... YOUR PAPERS, PLEEZZZZZ... It is the most pervasive of the control documents and until the state PUBLICLY declares them to be your internal passport, we will continue to see an ever expanding use of the "driver's" license as the DEFACTO internal passport. Remember, NOTHING in a dictatorship happens without identification. While I support the efforts of groups attempting to restrict the use of fingerprints and other biometric identification methods on "driver's" licenses and the NO NATIONAL ID movement, they are 30 or 90 years too late and too many dollars short. They have missed the point. Your "driver's" license became your national ID 30 years ago when the "driver's" licenses were computerized. The call should not be "NO NATIONAL ID" - as if this is something new - BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE ONE! The call should be "ELIMINATE THE NATIONAL ID - NO "DRIVER'S" LICENSE" There would be no issue of biometric identification if there wasn't an existing document to tie it to. WAKE UP, AMERICA!!! An SSN is assigned to almost every "driver's" license - whether or not it appears on the face of it. That is your sheople identification number. When the state or Fedz want to find out where you live, where do they go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles. When the state or Fedz want to enforce a protection payment or extortion out of you, where do they go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles. When some litigation happy lawyer wants to sue you and needs to serve process on you, where does he go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles. When the state or Fedz get around to requiring drug testing of EVERYONE, where are they going to go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Where is your privacy when there is a cattle bell hanging around your neck that can be heard around the world with 16 keystrokes? HUH? For those people out there that think that this is just some radical, paranoid, solution to a non-existent problem, take your heads out of your illusion long enough to examine the facts. http://agitator.dynip.com/agitator/privacy.htm http://agitator.dynip.com At 03:16 PM 2/27/1998 -0500, you wrote: >>Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:34:58 -0800 >>Subject: [HK-L] RKBA, CA and Driver's Licenses >>From: "Paul McMenamin" < >>To: "HK-List" < >>One more bit of insanity from California. I have a friend who has an HK USP. >>He recently bought a Sig 229 which was sent to a local FFL. When he >>went to pick it up, the paperwork didn't clear because his Driver's >>License had expired. He paid his renewal fee and received a valid temp >>license. However, the CALIF DOJ says he can't get his gun until his >>new CA ID card arrives in 60 days. >>This may be off-topic, but I think this is outrageous. I understand why >>a state needs to check a person's background (criminal record), but that >>can be done with a Social Security number or his CA Driver's license >>number, which is still on the books (and is currently valid though he >>hasn't received his plastic card yet.) >>But what is the larger issue here?! >>When you think about this, what does a driver's license have to do with >>firearms ownership? I don't mean to get political, but the Second >>Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to all citizens, not just >>those who have a current, valid driver's license. Nobody had a driver's >>license when the Bill of Rights was written. >>I can't believe that any jurisdiction deny firearms ownership to >>persons who don't possess a driver's license. Imagine if CA said you >>can't go to the church of your choice unless you are licensed to drive! >>Wouldn't we hear some noice about that from our friendly liberals? >>Amazing and deeply disturbing. >>Paul McMenamin >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >>To Unsubscribe : E-Mail "majordomo@odaiko.ss.uci.edu" >>Put "UNSUBSCRIBE hk-l" in the body of the message >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >SENT BY: >Jay Shore >"We the people are the rightful masters of Congress and the >courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow >men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln >Why be politically correct when you can be right? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS 2/2 Date: 28 Feb 1998 07:58:00 -0700 Simply put, the declaration is calling for global gun licensing and registration. But this would only be the first step. International gun-control advocacy groups that are advising the UN commission want much more. According to the NRA's Mason, the main supporters of the declaration are Japan and Canada. "Japan is supplying the money and Canada is supplying the brains," he said. The leading non-governmental organization pushing the UN initiatives is a leftist arms-control group, the British American security information council, based in Washington and London. With the help of a generous grant from the Ford Foundation, the council is expanding its old military arms-control agenda with a new project on light weapons. They define light weapons as including pistols, revolvers, rifles and machine guns. In a report for the group, deputy director Natalie Goldring outlines its plans for domestic and international control of light weapons. First, Goldring derides the NRA and other gun ownership groups for being paranoid about global firearms initiatives: "Unlike the NRA, which apparently sees the UN efforts as an international conspiracy led by Japan and canada, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA SEES THE UNITED NATIONS AS A FRONT GROUP FOR DOMESTIC GUN CONTROL IN THE UNITED STATES." BUT ONLY A FEW PARAGRAPHS LATER SHE BLITHELY DECLARES: It will be difficult to control the international light weapons trade without monitoring and controlling domestic access to weapons." Goldring goes on to suggest what measures would be needed to "make the connections between domestic gun control and international gun control. Subregional, regional, and global registers, greater oversight of existing national control and enforcement mechanisms, harmonizing national measures in bilateral, regional, and global frameworks; and/or enhancing national policies." CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT THAT ENHANCING NATIONAL POLICIES IS TO GUN CONTROL WHAT REVENUE ENHANCING IS TO TAX INCREASES? Goldring singles out the US for opprobrium, declaring that "the direct relationship between lax US gun laws and illicit trafficking in US weapons suggests that to control light weapons internationally, it would be necessary to control them nationally. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to control the illicit market in light weapons without monitoring and controlling domestic access to weapons," AS THE OLD SAYING GOES, JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE PARANOID, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT OUGHT TO GET YOU. Does it really matter what the UN decides about regulating firearms? It may matter a great deal. Consider the recent UN treaty to ban landmines. The US participated in all the landmine negotiations, trying to make the point that while mines do cause considerable harm to civilians, they are essential to protecting American troops, especially along the DMZ in South Korea. The US asked for an exemption in that case but was simply ignored. In the end, President Clinton uncharacteristically resisted enormous political pressure from arms-control groups and refused to sign the landmine treaty. The UN Commission On Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice plans to submit its declaration of principles for the regulation of firearms to the UN General Assembly later this year, where it will almost certainly be hailed as an advance for civilization. It would then be a short and predictable step for gun control activists to urge turning the declaration into a UN convention on firearms regulations -- in which the US politicians could be bludgeooned, as they have been on landmines. This is why the NRA's Tom Mason insists, "We have a good reason to make a big deal out of this UN gun control effort." Nonetheless, gunowners and sportshooters are playing catch up. Earlier this year, the NRA and more than 20 gunowner and sport shooter organizations from 12 countries formed the world forum on the future of sports shooting activities to counterbalance the UN bureaucracies. Meantime, the US has sent official representatives from the ATF, the Treasury Department, and Customs to UN negotiating sessions on the Declaration of Principles. Their participation simply lends credibility in a process that threatens to erode the rights of American citizens. IT SHOULD STOP. -