From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: COMING SOON TO A LEGISLATURE NEAR YOU 1/2 Date: 02 Nov 1998 08:14:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ****GOA-Texas e-mail Alert!**** GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE Chris W. Stark - Director 915 Yacht Ct., P.O. Box 1924 Crosby, Texas 77532-1924 Ph. (281) 787-4111 Fax (281) 328-7505 http://www.GOA-Texas.org email: Director@GOA-Texas.org 10/27/98 -------- COMING SOON TO A LEGISLATURE NEAR YOU: THE NEW PENNSYLVANIA-STYLE PRE-EMPTIVE GUN BAN LAWS!!! If you liked the Lautenburg Bill/Domestic Violence erosion of our gun rights, you'll just LOVE the new wave of Pennsylvania-Style gun control laws that are about to become the next "model for the nation"! FIRST PHASE-- PA Act 17 (1995): DEMONIZE GUNOWNERS; PRE-EMPTIVE GUN CONFISCATION; AND ELIMINATION OF DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS FOR GUNOWNERS Pennsylvania, the "Keystone State" is getting ready to launch the next wave of progressive gun-ban laws, having successfully reduced gun ownership to a mere state-granted privilege in 1995. Passed in 1995, on the momentum of the "assault-weapon" gun hysteria, PA Act 17 (the Uniform Firearms Act) was sponsored by both NRA and Handgun Control, Inc.. It was hailed as a "model for the nation", and was indeed unique in that Act 17 implemented the first-ever law that allowed the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms and the permanent loss of all fundamental 2nd amendment rights for anyone "suspected" of being dangerous. No warrant needed, no court or other hearing provided, no conviction or adjudication necessary -- just an automatic gun-grab and forfeiture of fundamental constitutional rights based on any undocumented suspicion. On the heels of PA Act 17's "model legislation", the Federal Lautenburg Domestic Violence bill was passed and for the first time there was an automatic loss of gun-rights for misdemeanor convictions, potentially including the use of a loud voice or harsh language in family dispute. PA Act 17 and Lautenburg were just the first phase of a structured ongoing campaign to eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. They are the new "Pre-Emptive Laws" -- intended to take away your second amendment rights not based on actual adjudicated violent behaviors such as a felony conviction, but to progressively extend the gun-ban to lesser criminal offenses, or in the case of PA Act 17, to allow the ban even where no allegation (let alone conviction) of violent behavior is made...just an undocumented "suspicion" --not supported by a warrant, never adjudicated in a court or other formal hearing. PHASE II: RATIONING & INTIMIDATION Following the success of Act 17 in 1995, the Keystone State legislature is now gearing up to unleash the next phase of gun-banning: rationing and intimidation. Upcoming sessions of legislature are expected to propose laws to limit gun purchases to one firearm per month. And we all know that once the rationing process is initially planted, it can be easily broadened to one gun every three months and eventually once a year, or five per household, etc. Along with rationing, the new "model for the nation" legislation will require fingerprinting of those who purchase firearms. Many were surprised and outraged to find out that PA Act 17 began the creation of an electronic "mental health data base" by the PA State Police containing the mental health records of all citizens, whether they own guns or not. This invasion of privacy will now be supplemented with the fingerprinting of lawful gun buyers, thereby further demonizing those who wish to exercise a fundamental constitutional right -- a right specifically and emphatically guaranteed by the Pennsylvania constitution until, that's right, I forgot -- PA Act 17 reduced this fundamental right to a weak, unprotected privilege. Remember when being fingerprinted meant that you were a criminal?? WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN Law-abiding citizen and resident of Pennsylvania Russell Laing can tell you about what pre-emptive gun-hysteria laws do. In 1996 his home was invaded by gun-waving members of a local township police department who later justified storming into his quiet suburban home without a warrant as being due to their having learned that he did not report to work or call in sick with his employer. Having no criminal record, never even being ACCUSED of any threatening or violent behavior, Russ Laing was jumped on in his bedroom where he was found sleeping -- and summarily marched out on the street in front of his neighbors to be taken to a local hospital for "observation" -- because the policeman who led the charge expressed the belief that Russ "was unable to care for himself". Not dangerous, not threatening, not even being awake when the "dynamic entry" was made into his home. Go to http://www.goa-texas.org/r-laing.htm for more information. Of course, this was after the police noticed his locked gunsafe and made a clumsy, unsuccessful attempt to get his employer (where Russ continues to be employed as a highly successful financial director) to make a statement that Russ was believed to be "armed and dangerous". Without a warrant or any other authority --except Act 17-- these same police then dragged Russ Laing's locked gunsafe out of his home and away to their headquarters. Several years of court hearings later, a nearly bankrupted Russ Laing finally had his gunrights restored only upon a ruling by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms that PA Act 17 was unconstitutional in its lack of due-process protections. But rather than restore our rights taken by Act 17, the legislators are getting ready to make EVEN MORE GOOD LAWS JUST LIKE IT! [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun Buyer System By Christmas Date: 02 Nov 1998 08:14:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FBI System To Check Gun Buyers To Be Ready For Christmas By James Vicini Reuters WASHINGTON (Oct 29) - A national system to instantly check the backgrounds of would-be gun buyers will be ready on schedule in a month, prepared to handle the year's busiest time for gun sales right before Christmas, an FBI official said Thursday. Deputy Assistant FBI Director David Loesch said the system covering the more than 12 million firearms sold each year will start on Nov. 30, right before the peak sales season when many people buy guns as Christmas gifts or for hunting season. ''Of course, we're worried about it. Sure. You know, I mean, we'd be crazy if we weren't, I think, '' he said, joining Attorney General Janet Reno at the regular weekly Justice Department news briefing to discuss details of the system. ''The big months, obviously, are December, November and October. The three weeks just before Christmas are very large,'' he said, referring to gun sales. ''We'll definitely be prepared. It's difficult, obviously, to bring up a system in the biggest month of the year,'' he said. ''We know that we'll be ready and running at that time, and be able to handle it.'' The historic Brady gun-control law required that the FBI-run system be in operation by Nov. 30 to replace the prior system that allowed local sheriffs to voluntarily conduct background checks on handgun buyers during a five-day period. The new system will be operated by the FBI or some of the states as the main point of contact for 60,000 gun dealers. It will deny a gun to fugitives, criminals, the mentally ill, habitual drug users or those with other disqualifying factors. Reno explained that a prospective gun buyer will fill out a form in the gun shop. The dealer will then place a phone call and an instant check will be run on the computerized network. An estimated 85 percent of the checks will be done instantly, with the purchase either approved or denied. When records are unclear and follow-up inquiries are required, the law allows for a three-day period to complete the check. Reno said she thought the FBI and its system would be prepared for December's surge in gun sales. Loesch said pawnshops, where an estimated 2.5 million guns are pawned each year, and gun shows also will be covered by the new system. An FBI plan to charge gun dealers about $10 for each check has been dropped after Congress approved $42 million to cover the FBI's costs for the first year of the system, he said. Reut12:49 10-29-98 Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: COMING SOON TO A LEGISLATURE NEAR YOU 2/2 Date: 02 Nov 1998 08:14:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH YET? Are you going to wait until they storm into your bedroom the next time your alarm clock malfunctions? Being quietly asleep in your bedroom is the new standard to have your home invaded, your property seized and forever lose your fundamental constitutional rights in Pennsylvania. Sleeping in the privacy of your bedroom now constitutes sufficiently dangerous behavior to be declared by your local policeman as "unable to care for yourself" -- which in turn automatically makes you too dangerous to own a firearm. Have you felt drowsy lately? Variations of PA Act 17's "Model for the Nation" have been passed or are now being considered in state legislatures across the nation. "Pre-emptive law" like the Lautenburg Bill is broadening the population of citizens prohibited from the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, while state laws like Act 17 are passed to demonize the remaining lawful gunowners as a class of people so inherently dangerous that they need not be protected by the constitutional right to due process of the law. We can now also look forward to being fingerprinted just like a convicted murderer and have that be entered into the same database that contains the record of all our visits to the marriage counselor. Please FAX and then call your Representative in Harrisburg immediately. Then contact as many of the members of the House Judiciary Committee as you can before November 3, 1998. Anti-gunners are planning to force a vote and "pop" a very restrictive gun control bill out to the floor as early as November 9, 1998. House Bill 2484 (L. Cohen) amends Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) to restrict firearms purchases to one firearm per 30 day period (gun rationing). HB 2484 also requires new restrictive paperwork to be filled out by gun buyers, a photo and fingerprints! In addition, HB 2484 makes it a crime for you to not report a lost or stolen firearm within 14 days, even in cases where you don't own the firearm but "control" it. Here's the House Judiciary Committee list: (All area codes are 717 unless noted otherwise.) Phone # / FAX # Chm. Thomas Gannon (R-161) 783-6430 / 783-2867 Jerry Birmelin (R-139) 783-2037 / 772-9869 Scot Chadwick (R-110) 783-8238 / 787-5713 Dan Clark (R-82) 783-3850 / 783-3899 Lita Cohen (R-148) 783-2063 / 787-0860 Craig Dally (R-138) 783-8573 / 772-2468 Brett Feese (R-84) 787-5270 / 772-2468 Tim Hennessey (R-26) 787-3431 / 787-0860 Steve Maitland (R-91) 783-5217 / 783-3899 Al Masland (R-199) 772-2280 / 772-9869 Jane Orie (R-28) 772-9943 / 772-2470 Bob Reber (R-146) 787-2924 / 772-6952 Jere Shuler (R-43) 783-6422 / 772-6952 Chris Wogan (R-176) 787-3974 / 772-9905 Tom Caltagirone (D-127) 787-3525 / 772-5401 Andy Carn (D-197) 787-3542 / 787-7295 Pete Daley II (D-49) 783-933? / 783-7558 Frank Dermody (D-33) 787-3566 / 787-8060 Harold James (D-186) 787-9477 / 787-7517 B. Josephs (D-182) 787-8529 / 787-0861 Kate Manderino (D-194) 787-1254 / 787-0861 Dave Mayernik (D-29) 783-1654 / None Listed Joe Petraca (D-55) 787-5142 / 705-2014 Don Walko (D-20) 787-5470 / 783-0407 L. Washington (D-200) 783-2175 / 783-8724 Call the phone numbers above to get district office phone and FAX numbers. They're not just stopping you randomly at the armed checkpoints for drunk-driver-screening (instituted in PA in the past several years), now they will come into your home, your bedroom, your most private medical records (that used to be protected by Federal and State Privacy Laws). All in the name of pre-emptive law. And they will not stop until they have "pre-empted" virtually every right that you still have left. It's not just about guns anymore, it's about freedom. Have you had enough? Or will you wait for your State to be the next to experience your very own "Act 17"? If PA can succeed in their latest attempt to further erode freedom in that State, surely it will be a green light for the antis of every other State, to proceed with your very own "Act 17", in YOUR STATE! As Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc.. said, It was hailed as a "model for the nation". What will you do? And now you know what the PA legislature is up to, even after the great victories Russell Laing has seen, http://www.goa-texas.org/process2.htm and now you know "The R E S T of the Story!" ***************************************************************** Gun Owners Alliance Chris W. Stark - Director P.O. Box 1924 Crosby, TX 77532-1924 Voice: (281) 787-4111 EMAIL: Director@GOA-Texas.org Visit our Web Page at: http://www.GOA-Texas.org ***************************************************************** Copyright (c) 1998, Gun Owners Alliance (GOA-Texas). Republication permitted provided this article & attribution is left intact in its original state. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual or organization, than Gun Owners Alliance. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ***************************************************************** TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: subscribe@GOA-Texas.org and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: From another list... Date: 02 Nov 1998 08:53:41 -0700 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 02 Nov 1998 02:07:29 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA04334; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:54:43 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id EAA15436; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 04:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma015181; Mon Nov 2 04:01:41 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: dugga@pacifier.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline >NRA launches last-minute drive to stop Schumer >Associated Press, 10/30/98 15:34 > > > ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - In an 11th-hour effort to shoot down >Democrat Charles Schumer's challenge of Sen. Alfonse >D'Amato, the National Rifle Association has fired off a $160,000 >appeal to gun owners, an NRA spokesman said Friday. > >Recent polls have shown the race to be a statistical dead heat or >with Schumer slightly ahead. > >``Al D'Amato needs your support ... now more than ever,'' a >letter from the NRA says. > >The NRA mailing to an estimated 500,000 to 1 million >households across the state features a fake newspaper story >dated Nov. 4, 1998, with the headline: ``Schumer Elected To >U.S. Senate ... Gun Ban, Confiscation Law Likely to Pass.'' > >```The time has come in America to get rid of guns,' Schumer >told a jubilant election night crowd at his campaign >headquarters,'' the bogus newspaper story reports. > >A note pasted over the top edge of the phony newspaper page >says: ``Only your vote can prevent this.'' > >``The mailing is full of lies and distortions,'' Schumer >spokesman Howard Wolfson said. ``The only true thing about it >is that Chuck Schumer will be the winner on Election Day.'' > >The congressman, author of the gun-control Brady Bill and the >assault weapons ban, has long been considered a leading NRA >target. The gun group has contributed at least $36,000 directly >to D'Amato's campaign for a fourth term. The senator has been >a staunch opponent of gun-control legislation. > >``The NRA owns Al D'Amato lock, stock and barrel,'' Wolfson >said. > >In a letter accompanying the ersatz news story, NRA leaders tell >voters that ``you - and you alone - can rid every American gun >owner of the most anti-gun politician in this country.'' > >The appeal, according NRA spokesman Bill Powers, was sent to >sportsmen, hunters, gun owners and NRA members across the >state this week. It says Schumer's goal is to ban the private >ownership of guns. > >``And, as a senator, he'll have six long years to work to ban your >firearms ... six years before you get another chance to vote >Schumer out of office!'' the letter warns. > >While Schumer has said he does not favor an outright ban on all >guns, the NRA's Powers said his group does not believe that. > >``The message that we want to convey to New York ... is Charles >Schumer has lied about his views toward the Second >Amendment and gun control,'' the NRA spokesman said. ``Not >only has he voted for every gun ban and restriction that's >crossed his desk in Congress, but he has proposed more.'' - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: packing a gun Date: 03 Nov 1998 08:24:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Read this and you, too, will be packing a gun for self-defense By Charley Reese Published in The Orlando Sentinel, Oct 29 1998 A new book out should dispel any doubts about using firearms for self-defense. It's The Best Defense by Robert A. Waters, and it is published by Cumberland House in Nashville. Waters, who is a former director of adult programs for an association of retarded adults and a former counselor in vocational rehabilitation, interviewed extensively people who were forced to defend their lives with a firearm. The 14 stories are well-told. Some read like a suspense story, and they put the reader into the shoes of people whose normal, peaceful lives suffered the sudden, horrifying shock of a criminal attack. You also will see clearly that neither police nor the courts offer much protection. One story is about the Stanton family in Ohio. A man with a grudge against the world set out on a killing spree. His first three victims included a small child. Then he tried to kill a former supervisor, but the supervisor, though wounded, managed to retrieve a rifle from under his bed, and the killer fled. Doug Stanton's family got a call, informing them that the man, who once, long ago, had stalked Mrs. Stanton, could be on the way. Stanton immediately gathered his four children and wife to flee. He kept them in the kitchen and went outside to make sure it was safe. There was the killer in the driveway, holding a pistol and wearing a bullet-proof vest. Stanton hustled his family back into the kitchen, instructing the children to lie flat. The killer came to back door, fired through it and then kicked it open, spraying bullets into the kitchen. Stanton took careful aim with his .45 automatic and fired. The first shot missed, but the second one struck the killer, and, despite his vest, he staggered backward, fell off the porch and fled. Later, bruised and bleeding beneath the vest, he was arrested by the police. Convicted of four murders, he was sentenced to death. Doug Stanton said it best in an interview after the incident: "People are quick to espouse the virtues of gun restrictions. They say if it saves one life, it will be worth it. Because the Stanton family had a gun, six lives were saved. Had there been restrictions on gun ownership, the Stantons would be dead. This is a fact, not a hypothetical situation." The story of a 100-pound divorcee who had to fight for her life against a 200-pound home invader in broad daylight inside her own home in an upper-middle-income neighborhood will raise the hairs on your neck. He slashed her face with a box cutter, knocked out four teeth and shattered her face so that one eye was knocked out of its socket. The only thing that saved her was a .25-caliber pistol. She managed to pump four bullets into the guy, and he finally bled to death before he could kill her. Her assailant had been arrested 30 times, sent to prison and released three times. So much for the protection of the law. Perhaps the scariest of the stories is that of a family whose members found themselves at the mercy of a serial killer who tied up the husband in the garage and bound the wife to a bed. He alternated between the two, torturing them with a knife. He had bashed the husband in the head and stabbed him in the chest. The assailant -- who, the family would later learn, had already killed 10 people -- worked in the same store that the wife did. The husband, though severely wounded, managed to free himself and shoot the guy with one bullet from an antique rifle. Then he beat the guy with the barrel and the stock, finally killing him. Trust me: This book is an exciting read, and the 14 stories are true. It'll make a believer in the Second Amendment out of any sensible person. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Who Dumped Saltpeter on the GOP Date: 04 Nov 1998 10:31:57 -0700 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 04 Nov 1998 10:09:17 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07194; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:56:29 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA21025; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:07:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma020872; Wed Nov 4 12:07:12 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline ---------- Forwarded message ---------- www.FreeRepublic.com=20 =20 Who Dumped Saltpeter in the GOP Fountain ? =20 OWK 11/4/98 One who knows... =20 What happened yesterday..?? What went wrong..?? This isnt a difficult question to answer. Anyone willing to look at the situation with even the slightest hint of objectivity can tell you. The GOP has lost its manhood. =20 This has not always been the case. The greatest successes ever enjoyed by the republican party, have come from the partys willingness to stand firm in the face of opposition. The Contract with America was roundly ridiculed by the press, and by the left. In the face of that ridicule, the GOP stuck to its guns, and enjoyed the greatest single election turnaround in the history of party politics. And then theres Ronald Reagan. He spent his entire political career being ridiculed, lambasted, and undermined by his opposition, and even by those in his own party. He stood against this opposition like a man, and drew well from both parties giving him landslide victory. =20 Like any other human interactions, politics and elections are driven largely by psychological perceptions of the central players on the stage. We have created a two party system, whose power brokers are judged as icons for the party itself. The ability of these icons to project power, reliability, and confidence has as much to do with success or failure, as does policy. The republican party has lost the mid-term elections almost entirely because of its failure to stand and fight on issues of importance. The party leadership chose to capitulate on issue after issue, in an effort to avoid the appearance of controversy. In doing so, the have emasculated the party. =20 I challenge each of you, and I challenge the GOP leadership, to review the product of the 105th congress. Review it, and count the number of times the GOP has stood firm on principle. Try it, you wont need many fingers I can assure you. When the party fails to stand for anything, it projects an image of weakness, and ineptitude. You have all seen it. You have all felt that sickening feeling in your gut. You have seen Trent Lott stare down at the ground, and kick at his shoes, and say, "We felt it was important to work to bring this to closure in a bi-partisan way", and you knew he was surrendering yet again. =20 Well if the GOP wishes to prosper as a party, they need to shed this testosterone free image. They need to develop a real legislative agenda. Not some candy-ass "save Social Security", and "more teachers" garbage. They need to stand for the goals they swore to defend. They need to forward an agenda which is true to the smaller government, lower taxes, freer people, and stronger defense. They need to start now, and they need to stand firm against the opposition. =20 If they do these things, and they show the stones to carry them out, they will win in ways they never imagined. People vote for men who can project power. They cannot bring themselves to vote for habitual cowering capitulators. Stand now and be counted, or be forever marginalized _________________________________________________________________ =20 Posted by: One who knows... (owknows@yahoo.com) * 11/04/98 06:30:45 PST Reply _________________________________________________________________ =20 To: One who knows... Actually, it happened a year ago this time in November when Janet Reno, sandbagged the Thompson committee. She waited until after Thompson declared he would end the hearings before trundling out all the damning information. The bull dyke at justice, effecitively told the republicans that they were not men. From: ckilmer (ckilmer@juniata.dgsys.com) * 11/04/98 06:39:07 PST Reply _________________________________________________________________ =20 =20 To: One who knows... There is a new element in the mix. The Democrats have perfected, with the direction of the LIAR, lying. And they are good at it. After 1994, the Democrats knew their ideas were lost so they turned to bald-face lying which is now perfected. The Contract with America could not have passed in this envoirnment(today) and Reagan would have been hard pressed to be elected - because of the professional liars. =20 It's only going to get worse with the lying and it's only going to get worse for conservative priniples unless the GOP figures out how to combat the obtrusive lying. From: DEADROCK (emailname) * 11/04/98 06:45:38 PST Reply _________________________________________________________________ =20 www.FreeRepublic.com=20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Paul & Chenoweth WIN! Date: 04 Nov 1998 10:43:04 -0700 PAUL (REP) * 84431 55% WIN=20 SNEARY (DEM) 67924 45% CHENOWETH (REP) * 108911 55% WIN WILLIAMS (DEM) 88707 45% - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Does anyone know...? Date: 05 Nov 1998 09:34:41 -0700 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 05 Nov 1998 03:13:00 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA08091; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 03:00:13 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id FAA24134; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 05:11:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma023952; Thu Nov 5 05:07:48 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: dugga@pacifier.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline J.T. wrote: >Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 12:48:11 -0700 (PDT) >From: JT McBride >To: noban@Mainstream.net >Subject: NRA Alert >Message-ID: <199804101948.MAA23101@gde.GDEsystems.COM> >Haven't seen this on the list yet: >Call your senators today (4/9/98). Tell them to support Sen. Craig's >amendment (S.Amdt. 1604) to override Komrade Klinton's recent gun ban by >executive order. All the guns he just banned are legal under the rules >he made in 1994. >Senate phone no.: 202-224-3121 >also call your representative at 202-224-3121 and tell him to support >the companion bill, H.R. 2734. >CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND TELL THEM TO DO THIS TODAY!!! >L. Mahanay Does anyone know what happened to this? Wasn't this "temporary ban" supposed to end after 90 days? Is it still in effect? Has congress screwed us AGAIN? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: NFRA Election Analysis Date: 05 Nov 1998 17:49:18 -0700 Return-Path: Received: from relay29.mx.aol.com (relay29.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.29]) by air07.mail.aol.com (v51.13) with SMTP; Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:15:15 1900 Received: from mail.wgn.net (mail.wgn.net [207.213.0.9]) by relay29.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id OAA03280; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:13:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from sc204sf (du340-pcap-nca01.wgn.net [207.213.6.86]) by mail.wgn.net (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id LAA06722; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:11:21 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981104110837.006e6970@mail.wgn.net> X-Sender: eagles@mail.wgn.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline November 4, 1998 Dear NFRA Leaders and Supporters: There are two ways to look at the results of the November 3 election. To put it bluntly, our leadership in Washington suffered from the Seinfeld syndrome-a campaign about nothing. First, it was a wake up call. We know we have problems, no had no agenda and our leadership wimped out on the issues. We still have 30 governorships. Even the Ventura win in Minnesota helped the Republicans. He carried in, by a good margin a Republican majority in the Minnesota House of Representatives, throwing out the DFL. We still have 55 members of the Senate and we only lost about five members of Congress. This was not to be a "typical" election cycle. We had won so large in = 1994 and kept most of it in 1996, that there was no way to win the typical 27 seats in the House and the few Senate and Governorships we would "normally"= win in the sixth year of a presidency. That was an explanation of the disaster of yesterday. The real answer is that we gave the voters no reason to vote for the Republican Party. Not only didn't we have a message, but we backed away, on a national level, from tax cuts and government limitation. Did we see our Congressional leadership go to the wall to help families by providing an end to the marriage tax penalty? Did we see our leadership working to cut government spending, or did they "steal" $21 billion from the "surplus" for emergency spending. Not only didn't we save the money for social security (if that was a proper decision) but also we gave money away to the corrupt IMF, studies on onions, having the federal government pay for teachers, etc. In exchange we got a memorial against communism = and put off the creation of a national identification card. What the public saw was a morally challenged president who had an agenda and didn't care about impeachment, lack of votes in the House or Senate, but went nose to nose with the Republican leadership. Our leadership didn't blink, they begged for forgiveness. Then to compound things, the American public saw us put ads on television asking whom do you trust? Well, they wouldn't allow the President near their daughters, but would allow him to govern because he has a vision. The public trusted Clinton over the Republicans, because the Republicans didn't even try to deliver on tax cuts, government limitations or protecting Social Security. Then there will be some that claim this was a repudiation of conservative Republicans in favor of moderate or liberal Republicans. Yet, in California a self proclaimed conservative Dan Lungren lost and a moderate, Matt Fong lost. In Illinois a solid conservative Peter Fitzgerald won and in Iowa a liberal, Jim Lightfoot, lost. A moderate Joel Fox lost and a conservative Snowbarger lost for Congress. This election was not a repudiation of conservatism; it was a repudiation of the Seinfeld syndrome-nothingness. Bob Dylan once wrote, "when you = have nothing you have nothing to lose." The corollary is when you say nothing; you have nothing to win. Principles always win. Even when you lose, you still win by pushing the agenda. Barnes, Seigelman and Hodges all campaigned as conservatives. They spoke our language, even if they didn't believe it. They did so, because they know that the electorate is conservative. In 1996 Clinton campaigned on a Balanced Budget Bill, Welfare Reform, anti-crime education reform. All of these were our issues. Yet Dole and our leadership never mentioned that he was speaking like a Republican and governing like a Democrat. For the next two years we need to strengthen the grass roots movement, develop honest, principled candidates and speak out for a true Republican Platform. And, if our "leadership" won't join in, then ignore them and go directly to the people. We need a real Republican Party, we need principled leadership, and we = need an agenda of tax cuts, limited government and a return of decision making to the family. If we do that, the year 2000 will be another 1994. If we don't, we will deserve to become the minority party once again. The = choice is ours. I saw the article below from Steve Forbes on the Internet. As I see similar articles from other presidential candidates on their vision, I = will forward them to our list. The time is past for recriminations, now we = must look for vision and ideas. Please feel free to forward this whole document to your discussion and subscription lists. From the Republican Wing of the Republican Party, Steve Frank President National Federation of Republican Assemblies NOVEMBER 4, 1998 TO: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND CONSERVATIVE LEADERS FROM: STEVE FORBES, HONORARY CHAIRMAN SUBJECT: BACK TO BASICS: RECAPTURING THE MORAL AND POLITICAL HIGH GROUND No message is no way to win elections. Republicans should have learned by now that you must give people compelling reasons to vote for you. Mealy-mouthed rhetoric is no substitute for a muscular, substantive agenda. A party that loses sight of its values and principles, loses its base. The budget deal was evidence of a party adrift from its core beliefs. The temptation will be to take a defensive crouch. Do the opposite. Offer an eye-opening, exciting, bold agenda. Vividly demonstrate to the American people the meaningful difference between dynamic conservatism and the forces of stagnation and status quo (a.k.a., liberalism). Here's how the GOP can again become a party of principle and high purpose, instead of a party of timid, office-clinging incumbents. Domestic policy: =B7 Immediately pass a massive tax cut of $2,000 per family as a downpayment towards the flat tax. Highlights of the tax cut: Repeal the George Bush tax increase of 1990 and the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. Abolish the marriage penalty and death tax. Repeal the Social Security earnings penalty on the elderly. Slash capital gains taxes. A reinvigorated American economy is a must in the face of a growing international economic storm. =B7 Expand parental control of education. Start by overriding the President's veto of educational savings accounts and urban school choice pilot projects. =B7 Expand patient control of health care. Make genuine, affordable = medical savings accounts available for all, particularly for working families, single moms and the uninsured. Do it by removing the strangling, suffocating restrictions imposed in 1996 and 1997 by believers in national health care. =B7 Put young people in control of their own Social Security payroll = taxes. Protect the current system for those on it, and those about to go on it. Take the money out of the hands of the politicians; let younger people control those assets in their own individual retirement accounts. =B7 Ban partial birth abortion and require parental notification and consent in the case of minors. National security policy: =B7 Rebuild the hollowed out American military. Properly compensate those serving in our armed forces. Provide them proper training and the most modern equipment. =B7 Move rapidly to deploy a missile defense system. Why wait for North Korea to develop missiles that can reach Hawaii and Alaska? =B7 Reassert American economic leadership amidst the global economic crisis. The $18 billion IMF bailout was a major mistake. Immediately end White House-IMF malpractice. Forcefully advocate the principles of economic progress: 1) low taxes; 2) honest money; 3) rule of law; 4) non-bureaucratic interference in the setting up and running of businesses; 5) open trade. =B7 The Fed must slash interest rates and provide badly needed liquidity = to the markets. Finally, Congress must carry out its constitutional responsibility to conduct hearings on all of the abuses committed by the Clinton-Gore Administration, including Filegate and the foreign campaign cash scam. Remember, the President of the United States - the nation's chief law enforcement officer - lied under oath. This exciting, serious agenda will help the GOP seize the moral and political high ground - and America and the world will benefit. * * * * * * * * Contact: Joel Rosenberg, Communications Director, (703) 519-4680 http://www.ahgo.org - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Nov. 5 column - one-issue voter] Date: 06 Nov 1998 11:20:07 -0700 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED NOV. 5, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Confessions of a one-issue voter When I got so confused by the political fliers landing daily in my mailbox that I couldn't tell where either candidate for my state Assembly seat actually stood, I copied down their phone numbers and called them. These guys are spending thousands of dollars trying to get their message to you, aren't they? Trust me, if you're a registered voter, they are not going to mind if you save them the quarter and call (start ital)them(end ital). One of Jeff Knight's volunteers called me last Thursday evening to ask if she could speak to me about Mr. Knight. I said no, I'd called him and it was him I wanted to talk to. "You called (start ital)him(end ital)?" asked the young lady. "Wait a minute, I'll put him on." Young Mr. Knight won the Review-Journal's endorsement this year (there was no third-party candidate), but it was a close call. Counting against wonderfully-named incumbent Tom Collins far more than the fact he's admitted to engaging in a few barroom scrapes over the years (his response when asked to confirm or deny those rumors a few years back remains a legend at the paper: "I've whupped, and I've been whupped") is the fact that he regularly wins the endorsement of every public employees' union in the state. Tom is a big supporter of public school "class size reduction," which sounds great except that fast-growing Nevada never has enough classrooms to actually put just 22 kids in each. So they squeeze 44 kids into each room, put one teacher at the front to teach and one at the back to grade papers, and call that an "22-to-one student-teacher ratio." A teachers union full-employment boondoggle, is what it is. Jeff Knight made a good pitch to the editorial board in favor of privatization and smaller government. But I increasingly worry, these days, that such talk comes cheap. I asked young Mr. Knight -- who literally went to school with Tom Collins' kids -- if he supports the Second Amendment. He said he does, though he admitted he owns no firearms and belongs to no gun-rights groups, nor even to the National Rifle Association. Then why on earth, I asked him, did so many of his mailers feature frightening, full-color staged photographs of handguns in school lunchboxes, and accuse Tom Collins of wanting to make it legal for convicted felons to carry guns? It turns out that's a reference to the first version of Nevada's "must-issue" concealed-carry handgun permit bill, introduced by Tom Collins years ago, which would have required Nevada sheriffs to license concealed carry of pistols without background checks. The Republicans now interpret that early version (the law which finally passed does require some background checking) as "legalizing" concealed carry by convicted felons, though I suspect it would still have been a parole violation for many. As for felons who have finished paying their debt to society, they're allowed to go to church under the First Amendment, aren't they? They still have a right to a jury trial under the Fourth Amendment, don't they? If the Second Amendment is a right, it's a right. Why do we have to fill out any darned "permit applications," punishing the 98 percent of us who are law-abiding in a vain effort to disarm the rest? Mr. Knight started squeaking a bit at that point, insisting it's "only the criminals, only the felons" he's concerned about. "Everyone else has a right to carry a gun." All those frightening pictures of kids with guns appeared on pre-printed, generic GOP party handouts based on focus groups that told them folks were worried about violence in the schools this year, he explained. "My only decision was whether to use them or not, and since it's a close race and I was being outspent, I had to use them." With his name and photo plastered at the top, mind you. Tom Collins got home at 11 p.m. that evening. The reason I know is because that's when he called. I let the answering machine field the call, so he called back again at 7:30 the next morning. What kind of politician is Tom Collins? He has streets in his district, on the far northwest edge of Las Vegas where the desert and the Indian reservation start, that have no streetlights, recalls columnist John L. Smith. When voters asked him for streetlights, Tom Collins went to work and got the county to OK them. Then Tom Collins -- a journeyman lineman by trade -- showed up and (start ital)installed those streetlights in person.(end ital) You bet Mr. Collins was going to keep calling till he reached this voter. He explained about the concealed-carry bill. I asked why we need permits at all. He agreed, but said that was the best bill he's been able to get passed so far, and a whole lot better than it used to be. As my friend L. Neil Smith says, "How can you trust a politician who won't trust you with a gun"? On Tuesday, I voted for Tom Collins -- a Democrat, a proud union member, a gun owner, and a life member of the NRA. The race was supposedly too close to call. By sunrise Wednesday, Mr. Collins had roared home with 58 percent of the vote. Next time: a tough choice in the nation's closest Senate race. 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 The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * ----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. "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. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [ALERT!!! SENATE SEAT UP FOR GRABS!!!] Date: 06 Nov 1998 12:48:29 -0700 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- If anyone knows of a good candidate..... >GOP taking applications to replace Orem senator > > Last updated 11/05/1998, 09:10 a.m. MT > > OREM =97 The Republican Party is accepting applications to >replace state Sen. Craig Peterson, R-Orem, > who will resign in December to devote more time to his business. > Candidates must submit written requests to the Republican >Party, P.O. Box 452, Provo, UT 84603, no later > than 5 p.m. Friday, Nov. 13. Last-minute filings may be hand >delivered to party officials who will be at the Provo > post office, 95 W. 100 South, at 5 p.m. on the same date. > Qualifications include being at least 25 years old, three >years residency in the state and six months residency > in the district. > Utah County GOP delegates in District 14 will meet Nov. 19 >at the Orem City Council chambers to consider > the applicants. Each candidate will have seven minutes to make a >speech. > If one candidate receives 60 percent of the vote, he or she >will be ratified by the Utah County Republican > Central Committee and submitted to the governor. If no candidate >receives 60 percent, the top two vote-getters > will be forwarded to the committee and the governor. > For more information, call Rod Fudge, 221-1668, or Stan >Lockhart, 377-7428. > > ----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. "All military science becomes a matter of simple prudence, its principle object being to keep an unstable balance from shifting suddenly to our disadvantage and the proto-war from changing into total war." -- Clausewitz (From the book "On War" by Raymond Aron, Doubleday, New York, 1959). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ON NOV 30th:ALL GUN BUYS MUST be REGISTERED ALL-ALL-ALL-ALL Date: 09 Nov 1998 07:52:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 'An every increasing number of "laws" are infringing on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.' That is correct, in 30 DAYS from TODAY, ALL GUN BUYS, and I mean ALL, including Shotguns, and Rifles MUST pass through the FEDERAL "INSTANT" Background Check. For the fools out there who thought a super sophisticated interlocking computer system with info on EVERYONE it touches was a solution, soon you will experience your folly. Don't think for a moment that a "check" will not also record the fact that a check was done, with all the pertinents about you. HOW is this NOT in fact REGISTRATION also? And how will an "INSTANT" background check be useful UNLESS the COMPUTER DATABASE CONTAINS DETAILED and UP TO DATE PSYCHOLOGICAL/IDEOLOGICAL/BIOLOGICAL/CRIMINOLOGICAL DATA ON EVERYONE who might want to buy a gun? And since they cannot know who might want to buy a gun in advance, the database by necessity MUST, if not initially, then over time, CONTAIN this DETAILED DATA on ALL CITIZENS to even pretend to provide the protections the "government" claims it will provide. And you bet your bottom dollar that at first it won't be comprehensive enough to fill that mandate, therefore there will be cries of "WE NEED to IMPROVE" the database for it to be effective. Bottom line is they will know who has what and which doors to knock down to collect them when it is no longer fashionable, or whom to jack up a tax on, or whom to visit periodically for inspection, federally mandated gun cyber-retrofiting, and indoctrination, and identification upgrade recertification etc. ad nauseum. Your comments are invited, AND WHERE ARE THE SECURITY CAMERA VIDEOTAPES from all the SECURITY CAMERAS in and around the MURRAH BUILDING in Oklahoma City. WHERE ARE THEY?!!! Where is the pressure to OBTAIN THEM? Are we all fools? ralph@TeamInfinity.com Government Braces for Complaints Over New Gun Laws WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal and state officials are bracing for a tide of complaints when they begin a national system of instant background checks for all gun buyers November 30 -- just in time for the crush of holiday purchases. "We need to work together to minimize the complaints," Attorney General Janet Reno said Thursday, "to make it as easy as possible for law-abiding people to have weapons." "Although it's not been easy, we are on schedule," Reno said at her weekly news conference. She announced the system will be operating nationwide on the date set by the Brady Act, which established federal background checks for handgun purchasers almost five years ago. The new instant system, operated by the FBI and state governments, will encounter two crushing burdens from the day it replaces the checks on handgun buyers, which have been made since February 1994 by state and local police and sheriffs: Rifles and shotguns included The new law will double the number of checks because it requires background approvals not just for handgun buyers but also for those purchasing rifles and shotguns. Deputy Assistant FBI Director David Loesch estimated 12.4 million firearms of all kinds are sold each year in the United States. All will be covered now, plus another 2.5 million annual transactions when an owner retrieves a firearm from a pawn shop. December is the busiest month of the year for gun sales, because hunting seasons coincide with Christmas buying. "It's difficult to bring up a system in the biggest month of the year, obviously," Loesch said. "Of course we're worried about it, sure. I mean, we'd be crazy if we weren't." But he maintained, "We'll definitely be prepared." Some states will do checks themselves Under the new system, 27 states have decided to do some or all of the checks themselves. The FBI will do the checks for the rest. ALSO: States that will do instant gun buyer checks In the FBI system, a gun dealer will telephone one of two toll-free numbers and supply the buyer's name, sex, race, date of birth and state of residence. If no record is found in a computer check, approval for the sale will be given to the dealer within three minutes, Loesch said. He predicted this outcome 80 percent to 85 percent of the time. If a record is found, the call will be transferred automatically from the telephone centers run by a contractor to FBI examiners, who will check the actual computer record. They will advise the dealer to deny the sale or delay it for further checking. The FBI and local lawmen will have up to three days to check further -- to see, for instance, if an arrest led to a conviction or acquittal if the disposition of the case is not on the computer. The current system allows up to five days for that check. The FBI has hired and almost finished training 513 people in West Virginia to handle its share of the work, set up two telephone centers through the contractor, Teletech, and sent teams to brief the nation's 106,000 gun dealers and pawnshop owners. Reno said the Justice Department has distributed $200 million in the past few years to states to correct, complete and computerize their criminal history and other records. Every state now has some computerized records, but not all the records needed are complete or on computers. Loesch said that effort has paid off: The FBI's Interstate Identification Index of state and federal criminal histories has grown to 29 million records from between 21 million and 22 million four years ago. Two months ago, the index had 50,000 court protective orders issued in domestic abuse cases; today it has 109,000 such orders, Loesch said. But Loesch and Reno both said state checks were preferable to federal ones because many mental health and some drug abuse records are held only within states and not shared with the FBI or other states. Who is banned from buying guns Federal law bans gun purchases by people convicted or under indictment on felony charges, fugitives, the mentally ill, those with dishonorable military discharges, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, illegal aliens, illegal drug users and those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or under domestic violence restraining orders. State laws add other categories. From February 1994 through last December 31, the checks had blocked an estimated 242,000 handgun sales. In the most recent year, 61.7 percent of those disapprovals came because the buyer was a convicted or indicted felon. TO RECEIVE email from ralph: send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com and in the Subject make sure your email address and the word GO-RALPH (no spaces) is in the subject. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: UT: General Election Survey Results 1/3 Date: 09 Nov 1998 07:52:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: gerry@tranquility.net, rockman@brigham.net, jcreager@hotmail.com, jimdex@inconnect.com, kinfam@favorites.com, gordonmi@mansell.net, dnamsec@utahlinx.com, apart@infowest.com, chrispartridgeut@hotmail.com, grumpscn@usa.net, research@juno.com, agr@aros.net To their discredit, the GOA earlier mailed out their survey results showing Partridge as not having replied (I had), so I fired off a rather stern Email to them. To their credit, my phone rang within minutes with a very repentant GOA person ready to make amends. He faxed another copy of the survey - I faxed my answers, and "voila"! the result below: (By the way, there was quite a number of LPUs who were shown as not returning the survey. In Utah, a candidate who is shown as such, might as well kiss the election off. That's worse than answering adversely as it indicates indifference.) Dick --------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: <199810292209.RAA19194@smtp1.erols.com> GOA 1998 Utah General Election Survey Results Roster 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 October 29, 1998 1. Do you oppose "one-gun-a-month" laws that limit purchases of firearms by law-abiding citizens? 2. Should state law prohibit Utah localities from placing limitations on the rights of citizens to purchase, possess, or carry firearms? 3. Would you support legislation prohibiting state and local officials from conducting Brady background checks, charging fees, and keeping records of the Brady information they receive from gun dealers? 4. Would you oppose legislation that would require that firearms purchased by private citizens be registered with law enforcement and tracked by a centralized record system administered by government agencies? 5. Do you oppose legislation banning the manufacture, sale or possession of semi-automatic firearms? 6. Do you oppose legislation banning the manufacture, sale or possession of large-capacity magazines? 7. Do you oppose laws that would require that the police give permission prior to a person buying a firearm? 8. Do you oppose laws which allow persons who are shot by a properly-working firearm to sue firearms manufacturers and/or firearms sellers (strict liability)? 9. Do you oppose laws which would impose any punitive taxes on the ownership, purchase or use of firearms or ammunition currently available to honest citizens? 10. Do you oppose government licensing to buy a gun? 11. Will you oppose computerized "instant" background check legislation since it centrally registers gun sales and gun owners? 12. Do you oppose government mandated use of trigger locks or other such hazardous "safety" devices which have the effect of making it difficult, if not impossible, to have a gun available to defend your home and family? 13. Would you support Vermont-style legislation which would eliminate all requirements to pay fees and register gun owners and simply allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms openly or concealed (at the individual's discretion) for any reason except for the commission of a crime? Key: Y = pro-gun. N = anti-gun. NR = did not respond to that question. - = did not return survey. Senate Results 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 01 Julander IA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 01 Smith L y y y y y y y y y y y y y 01 De Cair NL - - - - - - - - - - - - - 03 Davis D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 03 Jones R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 04 Black D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 04 Stephenson R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 07 Hale D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 07 Larsen I - - - - - - - - - - - - - 07 Elwell L - - - - - - - - - - - - - 07 Buhler R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 09 Wall D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 09 Swain NL - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Van Horn D y y y y y y y y y y y y y 10 Bonsall L - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Coleman NL - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Mansell R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 Mayne D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 Peterson D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 Leigh R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 Allen D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 Nelson R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 Davis D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 Maloney IA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 Hellewell R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18 Allen D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18 Tanner R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 Ostler R y y y y y y y y y y y y y 22 Sanders D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 Spencer R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 Rowley D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 Knudson R y y y y y y y y y y y y y 24 Partridge L y y y y y y y y y y y y y 26 Romero D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26 Sady L - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26 Evans R y n y y y y y y y y y y y [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: UT: General Election Survey Results 2/3 Date: 09 Nov 1998 07:52:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] House Results 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 01 Anderson D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 01 Gardner R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 02 Wight I - - - - - - - - - - - - - 02 Ferry R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 03 Bissonette D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 03 Buttars R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 04 Redd D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 04 Pace R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 05 Jones D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 05 Olsen R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 06 Barrow D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 06 Erwin NL - - - - - - - - - - - - - 06 Stephens R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 07 Babcock D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 07 Gladwell R y y y nr y y y y y nr nr y nr 08 Hasenyager D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 08 Murray R y n y y y y y y y y y y nr 09 Hansen D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 09 Miles R y y y y y y y y y y y y y 10 Shurtliff D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Turner R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 Whiting D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 Saunders R nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 12 Rounds D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 Adair R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 Stoddard D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 Stephens R y y y y n y y y y y y y y 14 Blakeley D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 Bush R y y y y y y y y y y y y y 15 Espinoza D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 Parker L - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 Arciaga R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 Chard R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 Nilsen D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 Garn R y y y y y y y y y y nr y nr 17 Miles D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 Judd L y y y y n nr y y y y nr y y 17 Dillree R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18 Koehn R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 Pollock D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 Allen R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 Wadsworth A - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 Jeppson D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 Hansen I - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 Siddoway R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 Gowans D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 McNeill R y y y y y y y y y y y y y 22 Duckworth D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 Richards I - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 Johnstun L y y y y y y y y y y y y y 22 Cripps R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23 Bourdeaux D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23 Ellefsen R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 Becker D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 Brady R y y y y y y y y y y y y y 25 Jones D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25 Estes NL - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25 Latham R y y y y y y y y y y y y y 26 Fife D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26 Garske IA y y y y y y y y y y y y y 27 Baca D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27 Amos L y y y y y y y y y y y y y 27 Burnham R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28 Cohne D y y y y y y y y y y y y y 28 Bradshaw R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29 Goodfellow D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29 Staker R n y n n n n n y n n n n n 30 Biskupski D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30 Irving R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31 Carlson D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31 Christensen I - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31 Pearce L y y y y y y y y y y y y y 31 White R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32 Christensen D y n y n n n n y y n n n n 32 Ericson IA y y y y y y y y y y y y y 32 Bigelow R y y y y y y y y y y y y y 33 Hendrickson D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33 Cannon R y y y y y y y y y y nr y y 34 Carty D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34 Holdaway R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35 Buffmire D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35 Arrington R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36 Peters D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36 Tyler R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37 Gill D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37 Short R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38 Cox D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38 Pierce L y y y y y y y y y y y y y [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: UT: General Election Survey Results 3/3 Date: 09 Nov 1998 07:52:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] 39 Dexter L y y y y y y y y y y y y y 39 Zolman R y y n y y y y y y y y y y 40 Jensen D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 Walsh R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41 Arent D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41 Olsen IA y y y y y y y y y y y y y 41 Woolley R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42 Buckner D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42 Meng R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43 Hammond D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43 Harper R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 Yengich D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 Bangerter IA y y y y y y y y y y y y y 44 Bennion R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45 Olsen D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45 Brown R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46 Morgan D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46 Hepner L - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46 Allen R y n y y y y y y y y y y y 47 Faux I y y y y y y y y y y y y y 47 Holladay R y y y y y y y y y y y nr y 48 Beck D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48 Perry R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49 Shouse D y y y y y y y y y y y y y 49 Curtis R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50 Chamberlain I - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50 Hardy RL y y y y y y y y y y y y y 50 Frandsen R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51 Hall D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51 Swallow R y y y y y y y y y nr nr y nr 52 McKenzie P y y y y y nr y y y y y y nr 52 Hogue R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53 Miner D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53 Ure R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54 Coombs D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54 Snow R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 55 Seitz R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56 Tripp D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56 Heindel IA y y y y y y y y y y y y y 56 Cox R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 57 Mayne D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 57 Nelson R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58 Johnson IA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58 Valentine R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 59 Wilkinson IA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 59 Rowan R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 60 Ransom D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 60 LeBaron IA y y y y y y y y y y y y y 60 Bryson R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 61 Light IA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 61 Dayton R y y y y y y y y y y y y nr 62 Hill IA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 62 Alexander R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63 Todd IA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63 Tanner R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 64 Thayne NL n y y y n n y y y y y n n 64 Lockhart R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65 Bird D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65 Jensen IA y nr y y y y y y y y y y y 65 Throckmorton R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 66 Bradford D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 66 Way R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 67 Meredith I - - - - - - - - - - - - - 67 Wright R y y y y y y y y y y y y y 68 Pipes IA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 68 Styler R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 69 King D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 69 Miller NL y n y y y y y y y y y y n 69 Johnson R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71 Valerio D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71 Johnson R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 72 Schafer IA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 72 Bowman R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 73 Gubler A y y y y y y y y y y y y y 73 Hatch R - - - - - - - - - - - - - 74 Moore D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 74 Iverson R y y y y y y y y y y y y y 75 Dalton D - - - - - - - - - - - - - 75 Holliday IA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 75 Hickman R - - - - - - - - - - - - - *********************************************************** 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: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Milwaukie Editorial Date: 09 Nov 1998 07:52:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Web editor's note: Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly chose to protect the right to bear arms with a constitutional amendment - now newspaper editors have their skirts in a tangle. (11/6/98) ************************** Gun right mustn't be treated as absolute From the Journal Sentinel November 06, 1998 As expected, Wisconsin voters have agreed to insert into the state constitution the right to keep and bear arms. Does that amendment give each and every resident the freedom to sport an arsenal without any regulation whatsoever? Heaven forbid. Even though the measure enjoyed lopsided approval at the polls the other day, surely most voters did not intend for the right to be absolute. Guns are prompting too much havoc on the streets and in homes for the weapons to escape all controls, most people doubtless recognize. So in getting the amendment passed, the gun lobby scored a major victory. But Wisconsin must fight what appears to be the ultimate aim of at least some members of the gun movement: the eradication of virtually all controls on buying, owning and handling firearms. That possibility is why we opposed the amendment. Still, its wide appeal was understandable. The measure seemed only to affirm a right that already exists. Now that the amendment is reality, the trick is to keep it from aggravating the wild proliferation of firearms in the streets -- a proliferation that has led to much death and destruction. The gun lobby has already targeted one regulation it wants to roll back: the state's prohibition on carrying a concealed weapon. Lifting that ban is precisely opposite what the state should do. It should work on removing weapons from the streets, not on permitting more of them. Besides guarding against the rollback of existing gun regulations, the Legislature and the citizenry mustn't allow the amendment to block new and reasonable controls -- such as requirements that guns meet certain safety standards. The adoption of one safety feature, a trigger lock, would slow the frequency of news stories about tragedy befalling kids playing with guns. Though most citizens support the right to bear arms, most also support reasonable gun controls, opinion polls suggest. The trouble is, lawmakers hardly hear from them. Rather, legislators hear from the opponents of gun regulations. Residents who support the bar against concealed weapons, the imposition of safety standards and other controls should communicate those facts to their elected representatives. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: 1st Amendment Loophole Date: 09 Nov 1998 07:52:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton directed his government Saturday to find a way to close a legal loophole that allows speakers/journalists to express their ideas at public places with no questions asked. In his weekly radio address, Clinton said a ``dangerous trend'' is emerging at seminars and radio talk shows because the First Amendment permits people to express their ideas without background checks. ``Some of these talk shows have become a haven for criminals and hate-speech mongers looking to sway people on a no-questions-asked basis,'' Clinton said. He directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno to report back to him in 60 days with a plan to close the loophole in the Bill of Rights and to prohibit any free speech without a background check. ``I believe this should be the law of the land: No background check, no free speech, no exceptions,'' Clinton said. In a fact sheet, the White House said that every week about 35 million people regularly listen to an estimated 50 conservative radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. On Nov. 30, 1999 the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System is set to take effect to allow quicker checks and approve speech license sales within minutes. In addition, on Nov. 30, 1999 the law will be strengthened in two ways: purchases of all speech licenses, not just political, will be subject to Reno background checks as will Kinko's printing services, which are four times as likely to involve prohibited printed opinions. Overall, the White House said, it is estimated that the number of background checks conducted nationally will increase from 0 million to between 10 and 12 million. Unregulated speech is ``an open invitation to criminals and right wing crazies,'' said Janet Reno, who chairs SpeechControl Inc. The Clinton law was named after the President, who was wounded in verbal attacks first launched by radio personality Rush Limbaugh in 1992. California and Maryland regulate ``hate speech'', said Reno. Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment Tuesday giving counties the power to require a waiting period and a background check for speeches at political rallies and other public places. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/story.html?s=v/nm/19981107/ts/guns_2.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Pig in Chief Speaks on Guns Date: 09 Nov 1998 07:52:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- L & J Next it will be private sales of all guns, even personal sales from your home. MikePiet@aol.com wrote: Here we go again folks. Mike P Clinton Urges Gun Show Crackdown c The Associated Press By ROBERT BURNS WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton today ordered the Treasury and Justice departments to recommend ways to stop gun shows from exploiting a loophole in the Brady gun control law. He said gun shows have become ``illegal arms bazaars'' for criminals and gun runners. ``We didn't fight as hard as we did to pass the Brady law only to let a handful of unscrupulous gun dealers disrespect the law, undermine our progress and put our families at risk,'' Clinton said in his weekly radio address. The president's message was echoed by Sarah Brady, wife of former White House press secretary James Brady, who was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on former President Reagan. The law, named in Brady's honor, established a five-day waiting period for hand gun purchases so that background checks could be performed on buyers. ``In state after state, criminals can now walk into a weekend gun show and buy a gun with no questions asked from an unlicensed dealer that is selling from his or her `private collection,''' Mrs. Brady, chairwoman of the advocacy group Handgun Control Inc., said in a written statement. ``That's an open invitation to criminals. ``The past five years have demonstrated the importance of observing waiting periods and doing background checks at gun stores,'' she added, ``but we now need to extend the Brady law to include all gun sales occurring at gun shows and flea markets.'' The government estimates that 5 million people a year attend gun shows, typically held in convention centers, school gymnasiums or fairgrounds. The Brady law requirement for waiting periods and background checks does not apply to gun show sales. Clinton noted that gun shows are popular in his home state of Arkansas, which he visited Friday after taping his radio address at the White House. ``I have visited and enjoyed them over the years,'' he said. ``They're often the first place parents teach their children how to handle firearms safely.'' ``But at too many guns shows, a different, dangerous trend is emerging,'' the president said. ``Some of these gun shows have become illegal arms bazaars for criminals and gun traffickers to buy and sell guns on a cash-and-carry, no- questions-asked basis.'' Clinton noted that Florida voters passed a measure Tuesday to enable communities to require background checks for the public sale of all guns. ``I believe this should be the law of the land: no background check, no gun, no exceptions.'' Mrs. Brady said several Florida counties are expected to pass local ordinances regulating gun show sales. Mayor Alex Penelas of Miami-Dade County already has unveiled a draft ordinance, Mrs. Brady said. The president directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno to present to him within two months a plan to close the Brady law loophole and prohibit any gun sale without a background check. Clinton said gun control efforts also will be strengthened on Nov. 30 when the Justice Department implements the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This system will give law enforcement officials access to a wider array of records than is now available. Also as of Nov. 30, the background checks will apply not only to handguns but also to rifles and shotguns and firearms transfers at pawn shops. With that system in place, the number of background checks for gun purchases will increase from an estimated 4 million a year to 12 million, Clinton said. AP-NY-11-07-98 1006EST Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press. ============================================= To unsubscribe, write to pi-request@involved.com with "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [NRA and GOA] Date: 10 Nov 1998 13:17:41 -0700 Anyone have any idea why NRA or Christian Coalition would oppose ballot access reform? ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- The November issue of Ballot Access News had some interesting comments about what groups supported ballot access reform in Florida and which opposed it. This is related to Revision 11, which changed the Florida state constitution to require that ballot access for all parties be the same. Previously, Florida had the most difficult ballot access laws in the country. Groups supporting Revision 11 include League of Women Voters and Gun Owners of America. Groups opposing it include National Organization for Women, the Christian Coalition, and the National Rifle Association. Makes me glad to support the GOA over the NRA! ----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 object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." -- General George S. Patton - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA and GOA Date: 11 Nov 1998 06:54:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The November issue of Ballot Access News had some interesting comments about what groups supported ballot access reform in Florida and which opposed it. This is related to Revision 11, which changed the Florida state constitution to require that ballot access for all parties be the same. Previously, Florida had the most difficult ballot access laws in the country. Groups supporting Revision 11 include League of Women Voters and Gun Owners of America. Groups opposing it include National Organization for Women, the Christian Coalition, and the National Rifle Association. Makes me glad to support the GOA over the NRA! Jim Elwell - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: The Siege Date: 11 Nov 1998 06:54:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I live in Central Florida. Today, our local TV news proudly showed the armored personnel carrier the police just got. All nicely done up in black paint. On the same program they reported some policemen had jumped a man in his yard, and when he raised a barbecue fork one of the cops shot him dead on the spot. It was sort of like ho-hum on the news. No big deal. If a cop had been shot they would have been still talking about it every half hour. Get us used to the cops drilling citizens. The guy didn't have a gun. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Hizzoner Sues Pistol-Makers Date: 12 Nov 1998 07:56:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "Richie sure ain't da stand-up guy his ol' man was!" ---Overheard in the 10th Ward, comparing Mayor Richard M. Daley to his late father, Richard J. Daley (known as "the *real* Mayor Daley") Emboldened by federal lawsuits against tobacco producers and a recent New Orleans suit against gun manufacturers, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley announced a lawsuit--filed on behalf of the City of Chicago--against manufacturers of handguns which calls the pistols "a public nuisance" and seeks $200 million in damages to compensate the city for expenses incurred in dealing with handgun violence. It remains unclear if Hizzoner intends to order his police officers to cease the practice of carrying their own sidearms and/or wearing body armor---the better to avoid provoking confrontations with armed thugs (based upon the theory that--since "more missiles mean more risk of a confrontation--the United States should unilaterally disarm, abandon research into a missile-defense system, and cut military spending). No mention was made of a lawsuit aimed at breweries, distilleries, and the big three auto makers to recover the costs of enforcing DUI statutes and dealing with the carnage created by alcohol-related traffic accidents. David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte Wheeling, Illinois Replies/Abuse: gonzalez@mcs.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: LP RELEASE: Gun Lawsuit Date: 12 Nov 1998 07:56:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Politicians attack tobacco and guns: What product will they go after next? WASHINGTON, DC -- A lawsuit filed by New Orleans Mayor Marc H. Morial against gun companies to recover the cost of firearms violence has Libertarians asking: "Who's next?" "Which law-abiding industry will be the next target of greedy politicians?" asked Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director. "Will they force Budweiser and Heineken to pay for the crimes of drunken, violent criminals? Will they extort money from McDonald's and Burger King to pay for heart bypass surgery, and compel Chrysler and Honda to pay the medical bills of car-crash victims?" Dasbach's questions came in response to the lawsuit, now moving through the court system, which seeks to hold 15 major gun companies financially liable for the medical and police costs related to gun violence. Morial is also actively encouraging other politicians across the country to follow his lead, and so far the mayors of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Miami are weighing similar suits. Vowing that "guns must now become the next tobacco," Morial has made it clear that the attack on gun companies will be modeled on the anti-tobacco lawsuits filed by 41 state attorneys general. "If you thought politicians would be satisfied after extorting more than $40 billion from tobacco companies, think again," Dasbach said. "That only whet their appetite. Now the only question is, which industry will be next?" Some possible targets: * Barbecue grills: "It's absolutely clear that charcoal broiling is carcinogenic," says Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, who predicts that the manufacturers of barbecue grills may soon be a litigation target. * Wine and beer: "Every year, tens of thousands of Americans are killed in auto accidents, half of which are alcohol-related," Dasbach said. "If politicians can blame Smith & Wesson for murder in the streets, why can't they blame Busch & Budweiser for carnage on the highways?" * Fatty foods: Yale University researcher Kelly Brownell warns that the country is plagued by an "out-of-control epidemic of obesity" that is causing diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Her solutions including slapping a "fat tax" on certain foods and funneling the money into nutrition and public exercise programs, and restricting junk-food advertisements. * Milk: Last year a Seattle man who describes himself as a "milk-a-holic" sued Washington state dairy farmers for contributing to his clogged arteries and a stroke. "Many Americans never dreamed that the War on Tobacco could lead to a war on alcohol, fatty foods, barbecue grills, or even milk," Dasbach said. "But once the government has the power to sue companies in the name of public health, it's only a matter of time until the product that you like becomes their next target. "Yes, violent crime is a serious problem -- but what's really frightening is politicians using their political power to bankrupt businesses that make products they don't like, and in the process, destroying your freedom to use them." The attack strategy against gun companies also demonstrates another important fact, Dasbach said. "Filing this lawsuit was a glaring admission by Mayor Morial that he has failed to perform the most basic function of government: Protecting people from violent crime. "But instead of protecting public safety, he's committing a crime of his own: Extorting money from honest companies in order to pay for the crimes of street thugs." # # # - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Beware the Lipidleggers! Date: 12 Nov 1998 21:47:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- eagleflt@bignet.net The bullies' next target: junk food By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist, 11/12/98 You didn't object when they forced motorcyclists to wear helmets. It's for their own good, you figured. And it was no skin off your nose, since you don't ride motorcycles anyway. You didn't protest when they passed mandatory seat-belt laws. You couldn't see what the big deal was - after all, you've always buckled up. You didn't say anything when they pushed tobacco ads off the air, or when they drove up the price of cigarettes with sin taxes, or when they tried to classify nicotine as a drug. [It is, and CNS-active and addictive to boot. Obviously this oppressive effort harks back at least to Prohibition and the Harrison Narcotics Act. What legitimate power have "they" to restrict access to drugs? - Scott] Smoking, you believed, is nasty and unhealthy; why shouldn't the government discourage it? You kept quiet when they made air bags compulsory. When they passed laws to keep adults from owning guns. When they tried to censor the Internet. Yes, all of these eroded Americans' freedom to make decisions for themselves. And yes, they further empowered the government to regulate the way we live our lives. But none of them discommoded you personally, so you didn't see any reason to speak out. Do you think the lifestyle police will stop goosestepping when they get to something you do care about? Meet Kelly Brownell. He directs the Center for Eating and Weight disorders at Yale, and he doesn't like your diet. "The contribution of diet to poor health in America is staggering," he says. "It's an epidemic." Brownell doesn't stop there. He isn't satisfied with trying to persuade you to eat less junk food. He wants Big Brother to make you eat less junk food. In a dispatch from New Haven last week, the Associated Press reports: "Brownell believes the government should subsidize the sale of healthy food, increase the cost of nonnutritional foods through taxes, and regulate food advertising to discourage unhealthy practices." In the name of "public health," the antitobacco bullies have gotten away with restricting speech, crushing freedom of choice, penalizing the consumers of a lawful product, and demonizing the sellers of that product. Brownell thinks the food bullies should be able to do no less. "To me," he has said, "there is no difference between Ronald McDonald and Joe Camel." Pause to recall the hysterical outrage that R.J. Reynolds's cartoon figure evoked - a Washington Post columnist called Joe Camel ads "as dangerous as putting rat poison in a candy wrapper" - and you get a sense of just how far Brownell would like to go. Societies do not usually lose their freedom at a blow. They give it up bit by bit, letting themselves be tied down with an infinity of little knots. As rules and regulations increase, their range of action is gradually compressed. Their options slowly lessen. Without noticing the change, they become wards of the state. They still imagine themselves free, but in a thousand and one ways, their choices are limited and guided by the authorities. And always, there are what seem to be sensible reasons for letting their autonomy be peeled away - "safety," "health," "social justice," "equal opportunity." It is easy to grow accustomed to docility. That is why eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not because liberty is easy to shatter, but because it can be softened and dismantled with the acquiescence of the very men and women from whom it is being stolen. Many Americans no longer understand this, which is why the government now dictates everything from the words that may appear on wine labels to the volume of water toilets may flush. But Brownell and his ilk understand it very well. To those who snicker at his goal of hitting snack-food makers with heavy taxes and forbidding the use of Ronald McDonald in advertising, Brownell has a reply: "If 20 years ago somebody had said, `I predict that states will recover health care costs from the tobacco industry for deaths; I predict that an icon of smoking advertising, Joe Camel, would be banned from billboards,' people would have said, `Oh, that's horrible government intrusion.' What is now taken for granted, 20 years ago would have been thought of as impossible." Exactly. Watch as it unfolds. Already other voices have taken up Brownell's call. The Center for Science in the Public Interest - the food fanatics who periodically issue reports denouncing movie popcorn and Chinese food - declares that "diet and lack of exercise kill as many people as tobacco" and agrees that a tax on Big Macs and Double Stuf Oreos "makes eminent sense." Hanna Rosin writes in The New Republic that a tax on fatty foods "can actually be a less intrusive policy than regulating tobacco" and asks, "Is it really such a crazy idea?" US News & World Report hails the "Twinkie tax" as one of "16 Silver Bullets: Smart Ideas to Fix the World." Soon you'll hear about all the children whose lives will be cut short because they got hooked on junk fook at an early age. You'll see references to the 300,000 people "killed" each year by fatty diets. In time there will be lawsuits and congressional hearings and moving testimony by the "victims" of chocolate [Tristearin, the major component of cocoa butter, has been found to be a relatively healthy fat. OTOH chocolate gives many people migraine headaches. - Scott] and butterfat. Politicians, sensing another interest group to [which to] pander, will demand strict controls over candy ads. Ben and Jerry will be transformed from kindly Vermont hippies to foul peddlers of heart disease. Preposterous, you say! Laughable! Absurd! Philip Morris used to think so, too. Jeff Jacoby is a Globe columnist. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: War on domestic violence is one-sided Date: 15 Nov 1998 22:21:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- eagleflt@bignet.net Yell, at your wife. Go to jail. If that isn't one sided, I dont know what is. (Like it never happens the other way around one a month). And to show you how these people think, kicking your dog has actually been mentioned as possible domestic abuse! And remember the Lautenburg Ammendment? The Gestapo comes and takes your guns away when you are ACCUSED (not convicted), of domestic abuse. The supposedly educated police chiefs, lawyers and judges actually enforce this ex-post-facto (unconstitutional) law. What hope do we the people have left? The bullet box, I guess. Mark War on domestic violence is one-sided By Jerry A. Boggs In Mars and Venus Starting Over, John Gray writes, "Ironically, one of the biggest misunderstandings about men and women is this: Women assume men have a fear of intimacy, and it's quite the opposite. It's the women who fear intimacy." I have news for Gray. His myth buster is soon to become a myth itself. Men's fear of intimacy -- hence men's fear of commitment to relationships -- may eclipse women's fear a hundred fold once the collective male grasps where domestic abuse policies are headed. Take the case of Susan Finkelstein, a 31-year-old free-lance editor in a small Michigan town, and her live-in boyfriend "Jim". The two were arguing as they drove home from a party. Susan recalls that both were under a lot of stress. The argument intensified, and Jim decided it best to pull over. He tried to get out of the car and walk. Susan tried to stop him. "I lost my temper, he lost his temper," Susan says, "and we got into a mutual scuffle. I may have scratched him; he may have pushed me. It got physical, but there certainly wasn't any beating." Back on the road after they'd cooled down, they were stopped by a police car. Their scuffling had been seen by someone who had taken their license plate number and called the police. Although Susan assured the officer that Jim hadn't harmed her and she didn't fear him, the officer hauled him away. Department policy required an arrest in a domestic dispute, the officer said. Susan was upset that no one would listen when she said she was OK. Her efforts to convince the court that nothing had happened were to no avail. She was told abused women may lie out of fear. "What happened to Jim and Susan," says Detroit News op-ed columnist Cathy Young, "is ... just another story from the trenches of what might be called the War on Domestic Violence. Born partly in response to an earlier tendency to treat wife-beating as nothing more than a marital sport, this campaign treats all relationship conflict as a crime. The zero-tolerance mentality of current domestic violence policy means that no offense is too trivial, not only for arrest but for prosecution." That's bad news for men because the courts, influenced by the radical feminist politics of the battered women's advocacy movement, see only male perpetrators and female victims. So does the federal government; it funds booklets that say battering is the extreme expression of the belief in male dominance over women." Ignored is the fact that domestic abuse is an equal-opportunity recruiter. In 1995, the Journal of Family Violence reported a study of young American military couples, possibly the most patriarchal of all, in which 47 percent of the husbands and wives had harmed each other to the exact same degree. Last year on ABC's 20/20, violence researcher Suzanne Steinmetz, asked if men were abused by their spouses as often or as much as women, replied, "When you're looking at hitting, slapping, pushing, shoving, they're fairly equal." Still, the war on domestic violence is decidedly a war on male partners. Consider the results of feminist lobbying to prevent women from ever being arrested in domestic disputes. When a Detroit man was stabbed in the chest by his wife, the police refused not only to arrest her but to remove her from the home. After Susan Finkelstein told the arresting officer she was as much the aggressor in their scuffle as Jim, she was told the policy required arresting the larger of the two parties. Consider, too, a frightening trend regarding spousal homicide. In many states, women who kill their husband are released if they claimed physical abuse as their reason. In California, says crime writer Patricia Pearson in When She Was Bad -- Violent Women & the Myth of Innocence, husband killers are allowed to apply for release due to emotional abuse. This opens the door to risk-free husband killing. Women will be able to operate the system even more to their advantage if feminists get a law modeled on an Australian statute. In Australia, domestic violence is defined to include a man's raising his voice to his wife -- "the domestic decibel rule." But a woman raising her voice to her husband, says Australian psychologist Frank Brennan, is viewed as an understandable defense to male dominance. "These double standards," says author Warren Farrell, "have made men in Australia very fearful of getting married. Men are increasingly feeling that their only form of relationship power is not getting into a relationship." Men may soon know domestic abuse policies better than the sports page. The only men then willing to commit to marriage might truly be men from Mars. Jerry A. Boggs is the Michigan representative of the National Coalition of Free Men. Write letters to The Detroit News, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, Mich. 48226, or fax us at (313) 222-6417, or send an e-mail to letters@detnews.com Copyright 1998, The Detroit News - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ARMED AND DANGEROUS Date: 15 Nov 1998 22:21:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FRIDAY NOVEMBER 13, 1998 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.html ARMED AND DANGEROUS Police shooting victim files lawsuit Children finally turned over to grandmother in Sallisaw By David M. Bresnahan Copyright 1998 WorldNetDaily.com The victim of a police shooting in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, has filed a federal lawsuit to recover damages, and officials still refuse to provide information to the public. Press reports and talk-radio hosts across the nation have referred to the actions of Sallisaw Police on Oct. 23 as "Gestapo tactics." Police stormed into a trailer home and shot Patricia Eymer while she was holding her 4-year-old daughter. An infant was only a few feet away, and a 13-year-old daughter passed out in fear and shock. Eymer was shot in the right shoulder, and is recovering. It is still unknown whether doctors will be able to perform a shoulder replacement, or if she will lose her arm, according to Eymer. "We filed a 1983 civil rights suit in federal court," said Daniel George, Sallisaw attorney for Eymer. "The officer and city have not yet been served, nor do they know of it. It's fairly obvious that a .45 caliber slug in the shoulder will tend to violate your civil rights." Despite the criticisms being raised, the Sallisaw mayor, the Sallisaw Police Department, the Sequoyah County sheriff's office, the district attorney, and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation have all refused to provide information to WorldNetDaily. Repeated and frequent attempts to get information have been met with silence. Mrs. Eymer has not been charged, however her husband, Steven Eymer, and some guests in her home were arrested on drug charges. The evidence listed in court records does not identify any "controlled dangerous substance" or marijuana to support the charges made. Detective Larry Blount led a team of Sallisaw officers on a drug raid at the Eymer home. He was assisted by officers Dawn Jerman, David Bethany, Freeman (first name unknown), and John Owens. Travis Holman is mentioned in the evidence report, but the police claim he is not an officer and they will not say who he is. George has identified Owens as the shooter in his suit. Police refuse to explain what evidence they had to justify the need for the search, nor will they explain why it was necessary to conduct a no knock search in a pre-dawn raid. Neighbors say they believe another neighbor falsely told police that the Eymers were making methamphetamine and selling drugs. The warrant states that Detective Blount showed "probable cause" that there was evidence at the Eymer home that would result in a charge of "unlawful possession and/or distribution of controlled dangerous substances." Specifically, the warrant authorized a search for methamphetamine, and the items associated with its manufacture and sale. No such items were listed in court records of evidence found by police. The fact that they live in a very modest single-wide mobile home with no telephone is evidence of their income level, according to George. Both cars owned by the Eymers do not operate and are in need of repair. The family's income is extremely low. The attorney pointed out that there was no evidence the Eymers were making money selling drugs. The evidence list provided by the court does not list any drugs found in the home, although it does list some marijuana pipes. Mr. Eymer said their behavior and the evidence obtained did not warrant the dramatic entrance of the police into the home. He also said there was no provocation to justify police firing at his wife. Everyone in the home cooperated with police and offered no resistance, he said. The Eymers' three children were taken by child protective services. Grandparents arrived the day of the shooting and were not permitted to take custody of the children, or even see them. They said they were concerned about the needs of the children after witnessing a traumatic event, and they could not find out if the children were getting emotional help. Three days after the shooting, Mrs. Martha Smyrl, who is Mrs. Eymer's mother, finally saw the children for a few minutes at a court hearing. "The 5-year-old, when I seen her in court, she came running to me and said, "Grandma I want to come home with you." She said, "Grandma, Mama's been shot." I told her, I said, "Honey, Mama's okay. She's doing fine. I had to keep her calm," explained Mrs. Smyrl. "They won't tell us nothing about the kids," said Mrs. Smyrl--more than a week after the shooting. "They wouldn't tell me where they were at. I couldn't see them. I'm their grandmother. I practically helped raise these kids. This is what I don't understand." Mr. Smyrl said he was told that Oklahoma would not give custody to relatives who live out of state. The Smyrls live in Texas. After Mrs. Smyrl began looking for a place to rent, she was told the only place acceptable for her to have the children would be in Sallisaw. Mr. Eymer says the traumatic experience the children went through, and the lack of contact with family members is a form of child abuse. The children were finally turned over to Mrs. Smyrl earlier this week. She said a great deal of grief for the family and the children could have been avoided [had] she [been] given custody earlier. There are still many unanswered questions about this case, and police continue their silence. Mrs. Eymer said she and her family are being followed by police wherever they go. The apparent intimidation has made her more determined to proceed with her federal lawsuit. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Information from a friend of a friend of a EMT Date: 18 Nov 1998 10:18:44 -0700 acasanova@ci.west-valley.ut.us, achamberlain@ci.west-valley.ut.us, achristensen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, acowan@ci.west-valley.ut.us, adavis@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ajensen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ajue@ci.west-valley.ut.us, aluther@ci.west-valley.ut.us, amadrigal@ci.west-valley.ut.us, amonson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ashavers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, asorensen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, astauffer@ci.west-valley.ut.us, atye@ci.west-valley.ut.us, awright@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bbracken@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bbuchanan@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bchristianson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bday@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bfitzgerald@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bfroelich@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bhall@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bharward@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bholtry@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bhudson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bidle@ci.west-valley.ut.us, blucero@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bmccarthy@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bmeyers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bmorgan@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bmyler@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bnielsen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bparslow@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bpetersen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bplotnick@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bsalmon@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bshields@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bthomas@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cacocks@ci.west-valley.ut.us, calberico@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cblack@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cchase@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cchilton@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cchristensen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ccurtis@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cdinger@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cdumas@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cevans@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cflannery@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cgeorgi@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cgibson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cgleed@ci.west-valley.ut.us, challaday@ci.west-valley.ut.us, chope@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cillsley@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cjeppson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cjohnson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cmullins@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cnielsen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cobrian@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cpetersen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, creardon@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cziegenhorn@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dahansen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dbenson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dbowers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dbrophy@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dclark@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dcrane@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ddain@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ddumas@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dgetz@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dgroo@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dhamilton@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dhansen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dhutchings@ci.west-valley.ut.us, djohnson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dking@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dlarsen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dmontgomery@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dmoriarty@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dmoss@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dnordfelt@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dolson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dpalmateer@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dpaulsen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dprisbrey@ci.west-valley.ut.us, drex@ci.west-valley.ut.us, drichards@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dshopay@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dsievers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dtaylor@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dvarney@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dwilliams@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dwoodruff@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dwright@ci.west-valley.ut.us, edomian@ci.west-valley.ut.us, elawrence@ci.west-valley.ut.us Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Be aware!!! Drug users are now taking their needles and putting them into the coin = return slots in public telephones. People putting their fingers in to the = slots to recover coins or just to check if anyone left some change are = getting stuck by these needles and infected with hepatitis, HIV and other = diseases. Keep this in mind when using a public telephone. =20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Fwd: Information from a friend of a friend of a EMT Date: 18 Nov 1998 11:14:01 -0700 On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, "David Sagers" posted: >Be aware!!! >Drug users are now taking their needles and putting them into the coin = >return slots in public telephones. People putting their fingers in to the = >slots to recover coins or just to check if anyone left some change are = >getting stuck by these needles and infected with hepatitis, HIV and other = >diseases. Keep this in mind when using a public telephone. =20 > I'm not sure what this has to do with firearms, but if true is a good heads up. FWIW, my girlfriend who draws blood for the Red Cross tells me that medical professionals are far more worried about hepatitis than about HIV simply because hepatitis is a far more robust virus outside the body. And as she says, hepatitis C will kill you just as surely and unpleasantly as will AIDS. -- 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? 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. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Nov. 13 column - "lesser of two evils"] Date: 19 Nov 1998 09:18:13 -0700 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED NOV. 13, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'Not a nickel's worth of difference between 'em' The mailbox has been full, of late. One disgruntled Republican wrote in, responding to the column in which I explained why I cast my U.S. Senate vote for Libertarian Michael Emerling Cloud instead of Republican John Ensign -- my local congressmen who spent four years backpedaling from the 1994 Republican promise to repeal some of the more outlandish federal violations of my Second Amendment right to keep and bear military-style arms: "By trashing the Republican candidate in Nevada, you unwittingly gave your support the socialist Democrat. You tout the conservative line but you're a wolf in sheep's clothing. Your vote and 459 others could have made the difference!" Actually, the latest recount has reduced Democrat Harry Reid's victory margin to 401 votes, out of more than 420,000 cast -- with more challenges likely. But my response to reader M.H. was a bit more forthright: # # # WHAT difference? The Republicrats are no different from the Demopublicans, except they might increase the size of the WELFARE state only 95 percent as quickly as the other half of the "Incumbent Party," while beefing up the POLICE state about 120 percent as fast. It's the "freedom-loving, lower-tax, smaller government" Republican Congress which has given us the new National ID cards, the so-called national "deadbeat dad" and "child immunization" tracking centers to track ALL Americans, national gun registration (coming Dec. 1), limits on how much cash you can withdraw from your own bank account without explanation to the government, new laws which will soon allow armed soldiers to patrol our airports with M-16s, looking for "drug smugglers and terrorists" (the former harmless, the latter non-existent ... so far), armed ATF agents murdering California gun store owners in their shops, armed U.S. Marines murdering little shepherd boys in Texas ... and which in its spare time has passed the Clinton-Feinstein "gun-free school zone" bill ... twice.) I have never "touted a conservative line." I'm a Libertarian, and proud of it. Libertarians are not conservatives; we seek radical change ... back to the pre-1912 free society of the Constitution. I did not support the socialist Democrat. I voted for the Libertarian. If a plurality of Nevadans voted socialist, it's not my responsibility. I keep shouting as loud as I can, every week. If given the choice between feeding your children to a bear or a tiger, are you telling me you would dutifully make that choice as ordered -- that it would never even occur to you to shoot the bear, the tiger, AND the guy who told you only had two choices? It's "Democrat Lite" Republicans like you, with your "lesser of two evils" rationalizations for giving our seal of approval to tyranny, who have brought this nation to the brink of armed dictatorship, and/or violent secession. Which are the proud successes of four years of GOP congressional control -- in terms of restoring our lost liberties -- to which you would proudly point? Name any. As for "trashing the Republican candidate in Nevada," my newspaper endorsed both Republican Senate candidate John Ensign, and Republican congressional candidate Don Chairez ... and I personally wrote repeatedly in favor of Don Chairez, a decent and thoughtful judge who took on the political powers of this town to overrule an illegal eminent-domain property seizure from a widowed Greek grandmother (among others.) In fact, I recently wrote a column on the "six brightest new faces" in Nevada politics in election 98, and not one was a Libertarian; every one was a Republican. On Nov. 3, all but one of those six lost -- and that one got elected to the entirely ceremonial post of lieutenant governor. It's not my fault these Republicans decided not to run on the kind of libertarian issues (however modest and watered-down) that worked so well for them in 1994. Many of us URGED John Ensign and Don Chairez to run on issues like property rights and restoring the Second and 10th amendments. But they (or their assigned handlers from the Republican National Committee) were afraaaaid. They didn't want to be called "far-right wackos." So they ran by claiming they wanted to "protect Social Security" and "make public education better." In other words, they ran on the platform of the WRONG PARTY. At which point, having declined to identify themselves with any popular libertarian issues (these guys weren't even willing to openly embrace medical marijuana, a "controversial" measure which Nevada voters approved by a whopping 59-to-41 percent margin), they opened themselves to being defined by their opponents as nothing but "Democrats who hate homosexuals and want to ban abortion." Oh, there's a winning formula! As another commentator said last week, "When you hold an election between a Democrat and a Democrat, you can pretty much assume it'll be won by a Democrat." Usually, the real one. 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 The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * ----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. "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. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Nov. 15 column - felons with guns] Date: 19 Nov 1998 09:19:24 -0700 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED NOV. 15, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz On the selective doling out of 'constitutional rights' T.T. writes in, in response to the Nov. 5 column in which I admitted being a one-issue voter, rejecting any politician who won't trust me with a gun: "Thank you, Vin, for raising the issue which has been bothering me for quite a while: when I read through the Bill of Rights, I cannot understand why a convicted felon WHO HAS SERVED HIS OR HER TIME is, under the present selective 2nd Amendment rights-lifting, not automatically and permanently stripped of ALL of his or her rights, and not just the Second, plus voting: "Felon = no free speech, freedom to assemble, or, as you say, freedom to go to the church of choice; no 3rd Amendment protections ... hey, quarter those soldiers at will in the forever-felon's house! ... no 4th Amendment protections, or 5th, or 6th (as you point out) nor 7th or 8th. And of course, the 9th and 10th are moot, since they're long-gone anyway for everyone, felon and misdemeanor and non-convicted alike. "But if the power-geeks were to do this, why, then it would be too blatantly obvious what was really happening, wouldn't it? "Best wishes, and thanks for keeping the faith so eloquently." I responded: # # # Yes. Does a felon, once he has "done his time" and "paid his debt to society," again become a member of "the people" to whom all the rights in the Bill of Rights apply, or not? If NOT, then indeed any government agency should be able to arrest anyone who has EVER been convicted of a felony -- even a 90-year-old guy who tended bar in a speakeasy in 1930 -- hold him without bond and without letting him confront his accusers, in some foreign jurisdiction, torture a confession out of him, convict him without a jury trial, and then subject him to a cruel and unusual execution, all in secret. No problem with the Bill of Rights -- it DOESN'T APPLY. Needless to say, under this evil premise, the government should also be able to deny such a person the right to attend church, the right to publish a newspaper or magazine, the right to own property which cannot be seized on a bureaucrat's whim without compensation, etc. On the other hand, if that is NOT the situation which does or should prevail, then it seems to me any former felon who is no longer on "parole" has a right to vote and bear arms, along with all his other pre-existing rights ... which after all are only ACKNOWLEDGED by the Bill of Rights as having been ordained by the Creator, not actually "granted" therein. This business of creating different classes of citizens, with different degrees of legal "disability," is the basis for virtually ALL the invasions of our privacy -- up to and including the police numbering system on our cars -- so frequently justified as "allowing us to check and make sure you're not an escaping felon." (Note what a police state South Africa became, based on the simple notion that one should have to show one's "racial identity card" to any policeman who asked, to determine whether one had a right to be on a given street at a given hour of the day -- and the sad absurdities it created, as visiting Japanese businessmen were given passports declaring they were "white" so they wouldn't have to suffer the indignities visited on South Africa's native east Indian merchants, who carried second-class INTERNAL passports identifying them as inferior "Asians.") There should be no NEED for me to ever "submit to a background check" to prove I'm "not a felon." Felons should be in prison, or in the graveyard. "Parole" is the French word for "promise." If you can't trust a convict to keep his "promise" not to acquire and carry a gun until his sentence expires, then don't let him out on "parole." It's not (start ital)I(end ital) who should have to suffer inconvenience or indignity because the government wardens can no longer tell the difference between me and all these convicted thugs they're allowing to wander the streets in plain clothes. Start repealing one law a day until you have enough jail cells to keep those guilty of violating our REMAINING laws (you might want to to keep murder, forcible rape, and armed robbery on the books, while tossing out drug use, "money laundering," and failure to pay gun "transfer taxes") in stir for their FULL SENTENCES. And set the rest of us free. 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 sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and 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 The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * ----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. "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. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: "Gregory" : Re: Our Enemy Flaunts Date: 19 Nov 1998 09:23:13 -0700 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 04:55:39 -0700 Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA23765; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 04:42:44 -0700 Received: (from mail@localhost) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA18897; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:49:26 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com using -f Received: from m25.boston.juno.com (m25.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.187]) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA18894 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:49:25 -0800 Received: (from sacres@juno.com) by m25.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id DUESFW82; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:49:08 EST Message-ID: <19981119.064907.3510.0.SACRES@juno.com> Reply-To: NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com Sender: NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com Precedence: list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: <001101be11f3$099298c0$cd2096d1@eadsent.nai.net> Well, apparently "we" need to get kicked so hard the wind is knocked from "us" and we see "stars". After the stupid Brady Bill (1993) and the stupid 'so-called Assault Weapon Ban', lot of idiots and toadstools woke up, stood up, got to the polls and turned Congress around for the FIRST time in over 40 FORTY !!!! Years. Put Klinton so far back (I'm still "relevant") on his ass (20% approval rating) that he had to have his black bag boys blow up the OKC Federal Bldg. THEN his approval rating went to the mid-60's....where it's stayed to this very day. Are gunowners like ALCOHOLICS- IN DENIAL - until they HIT ROCK BOTTOM - and THEN decide that it's time to do something ???? Any refutations to the above theorem ? Gregory CT-6 Greetings Gregory No refutation from here. Right now my people and I are reaching out to everybody we can think of who appreciates the value of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to help us form a phone tree of activist we can count on to phone, write, fax or e-mail their legislators from their home districts all over the state, when legislation comes up we need=20 supported or opposed. We are looking for people who appreciate or are learning how central the Constitution and Bill of Rights are to our rights and freedoms.We seek people who can understand the significance of the attempt to deny the Second Amendment is an individual right much less a civil right, and are willing to speak out on this before legislators and the public, starting with letters to the editor and talk radio. We have gone outside the traditional gun owner groups to the property rights people and other Constitutional rights activist like the school choice people, many of whom are trying to have their traditional values reflected in the school they send their children to, as opposed to having their values ignored, or ridiculed and denigrated as the popular culture does. To many people are willing to ignore the rule of law to excuse Clinton, they have forgotten our country is a representative Republic ruled by Laws that must conform to, and be limited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are not a Democracy ruled by the popular majority opinion of the time. We are not an Oligarcy ruled by a priviledged elite, an elite that uses a massive government and media controlled by elitist to make decisions for "the masses". A public too ignorant to make the right decisions for themselves. O.k. we are an Oligarcy, but we are not supposed to be and Oligarcy. Every time we buy into the argument that our fellow citizens are too stupid to appeciate our arguments and do what needs to be done we not only validate rule by privileged elite, we ignore the fact there is reason for all the lies, bigotries and prejudice against us. Many people are merely ignorant, not stupid. They don't know the truth about our rights. If knowledge of the truth didn't matter then why the expense and effort to lie about us and our situation. People's opinions and action can be changed with knowledge. We ask for any gun owners or sympathizers in the ranks of the pro-individual rights activist to help us with the Second Amendment as Civil Rights. An approach that helps reinforce the primacy of the Constitutuion, the Bill of Rights and the Amendment or Amendments that support their efforts as Civil Rights. Most people can recognize the bigotry, and prejudice against gun ownership when it is pointed out, and the subversion of the Bill of Rights that is now common practice in the U.S.. The Second Amendment example is high profile and something most people have been exposed to and have an opinion on.=20 Please consider what we are doing and how the approach might help you. I'll keep you posted as I can. We are still working on our Second Amendment Civil Rights website at www.frontiernet.net/~billy/scope/ the top of the SCOPE webpage. Keep up the fight Tom Chandler NRA-ILA-EVC NY 21st CD Chairman Capital District SCOPE ___________________________________________________________________ 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/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege**** The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20 official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20 a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20 NRA-1st@telebyte.com *********** Victory 1998! *************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Olympics--Guns Date: 19 Nov 1998 10:33:19 -0700 From today's SLTRIB. Note the part towards the end about "safe games...positive impression...without compromising lifestyle..." Gun laws by any other convoluted name! Is this delay a good thing, or can we expect a deal to be hammered out and agreed to before we even get any input? Thursday, November 19, 1998 Lawmakers Push Back Review of Olympic Issues BY MIKE GORRELL THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Legislators will wait until after next session to look closely at state and local government dealings with the 2002 Winter Games. The Legislative Management Committee has endorsed a recommendation to refer a dozen Olympics-related issues to interim committees for review between the 1999 and 2000 sessions. Suggested topics came from six legislators on the Sports Advisory Committee, a board of state and local-government officials created in 1989 to advise the Utah Sports Authority, governor and Legislature on governments' roles in building and operating Olympic-related facilities with $59 million in sales-tax revenue. Those lawmakers also sought legislative leadership's endorsement of a bill, to be introduced this session, that would change the Sports Advisory Committee's name to the ``Olympic Coordination Commission.'' The bill would add two legislators and include members from all Olympic-venue cities and counties. Legislative leaders refrained from supporting the concept before its details are spelled out, apparently out of concern about Rep. Jordan Tanner's remarks the changes would give legislators more control over the Olympic-preparation process. House and Senate leaders have said repeatedly that preparations are the responsibility of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC). Instead, the Legislative Management Committee instructed Tanner, R-Provo, co-chairman of the Sports Advisory Committee, to draft legislation that would be subject to customary debate during the session. Issues recommended for interim review, legislators said, should focus on: -- The ability of Utah citizens to participate in Olympic activities. -- State and local governments being repaid for their contributions to the $59 million facility-construction fund. -- SLOC completing the Games with a balanced budget. -- Olympic athletes and visitors enjoying a safe Games that leaves a positive impression of Utah ``without compromising the lifestyle valued by its citizens.'' -- Receipt of a $40 million legacy fund to operate Olympic facilities after 2002. To bring that about, recommended studies should: -- Identify state services necessary for the Games and ways to fund those services. This includes making sure that revenue generated by the Olympics goes to governments facing greater expenses providing services. -- Detail SLOC revenues and expenditures and track its ability to pay state and local governments $160 million for the sales-tax reimbursement, legacy fund, and contributions to the Olympic Village and Rice-Eccles Stadium at the University of Utah. -- Review ways the state and local governments can coordinate their approaches to the Games. -- Examine the impacts of taxing several aspects of SLOC's operations. -- Consider what, if any, services, goods or volunteers the state should provide to help SLOC welcome visitors and involve Utahns in cultural or educational events. © 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. "All military science becomes a matter of simple prudence, its principle object being to keep an unstable balance from shifting suddenly to our disadvantage and the proto-war from changing into total war." -- Clausewitz (From the book "On War" by Raymond Aron, Doubleday, New York, 1959). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: [Fwd: The John Birch Society Email Alert - Impeachment Date: 19 Nov 1998 17:30:42 -0700 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:44:33 -0700 Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24472; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:31:38 -0700 Received: (qmail 30259 invoked by uid 516); 19 Nov 1998 23:41:21 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 29906 invoked from network); 19 Nov 1998 23:40:43 -0000 Received: from ns2.rockymtn.net (HELO mail2.rockymtn.net) (166.93.8.2) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 1998 23:40:43 -0000 Received: from helmetfish (166-93-82-128.rmi.net [166.93.82.128]) by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA00399; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:39:53 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3654AC48.51D2@rmi.net> Organization: Global Neighbourhood Watch, (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; U) Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Posted to rkba-co by "C. F. Inston" ----------------------- The John Birch Society wrote: >=20 > The John Birch Society Email Alert - November 19, 1998 >=20 > Judiciary Committee hearings >=20 > The Judiciary Committee is holding impeachment hearings based solely on = the Starr Report despite overwhelming evidence linking President Clinton = to such serious scandals as "Chinagate" and "Filegate." >=20 > Contact the Judiciary Committee immediately at 202-225-3951 or Judiciary@= mail.house.gov and urge them to act upon the information found in the = Judicial Watch Interim Report, entered into the official record of the = committee on October 5, 1998. >=20 > Full Judiciary Committee contact information available off the A.C.T.I.O.= N. homepage at http://www.impeachment.org >=20 > Let's send a clear message that no politician is above the law. >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list go to http://www.jbs.org/email= frm.htm > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= > The John Birch Society > P.O. Box 8040 > Appleton, WI 54913 > 1-800-JBS-USA1 > http://www.jbs.org --=20 Charles 'Chuck' Inston "American patriotism is unique in history; it consists of devotion to=20 the rule of law, rather than personal allegiance to a ruler, institutional=20 loyalty to a ruling party, or blind support of a government. America's=20 Founding Fathers understood that a free society would require that=20 government be bound by "the chains of the Constitution"; Americans were to=20 be ruled by law and not by the transitory whims of men." -Uncertain 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: Institutional Perjury 1/2 Date: 20 Nov 1998 21:15:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batflies.html Abuses of the BATF Institutional Perjury... Article by James H. Jeffries, III [Note: The author is a retired U.S. Department of Justice lawyer and a retired colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve practicing firearms law in Greensboro, N.C. He is a 1959 graduate of the University of Kentucky and a 1962 graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Law, where he was Note Editor of the Kentucky Law Journal. He is a life member of the North Carolina Rifle & Pistol Association and does not think much of the BATF.] On October 18, 1995, Thomas A. Busey, then Chief of the National Firearms Act Branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereafter "BATF") made a videotaped training presentation to BATF Headquarters personnel during a roll call training session. "Roll call training" is weekly or periodic in-house training for BATF officials -- a routine show-and-tell whereby bureaucrats learn about each other's duties and functions. Busey's national Firearms Act Branch administers the National Firearms Act of 1934,1 the taxation and regulatory scheme governing machine guns, silencers, short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices, etc. In his capacity of NFA Branch Chief, Busey was the official custodian of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer record (NFR&TR) mandated by 26 U.S.C. (S)5861. Busey's presentation was anything but normal, routine or customary. In describing the NFR&TR, Busey made the startling revelation that officials under his supervision routinely perjure themselves when testifying in court about the accuracy of the NFT&TR. Every prosecution and forfeiture action brought by the United States and involving an allegedly unregistered NFA firearm requires testimony under oath by a duly-authorized custodian of the NFR&TR that after a diligent search of the official records of which he/she is custodian, no record of the registration of the firearm in question was found (or was found but showed a different registrant than the person being prosecuted.2) An alternative method of proving the same facts is by admission into evidence of a certified copy under official Treasury Department seal of a similar written declaration by the custodian.3 This is a critical element of the government's proof and, according to Busey, occurred 880 times in 1995 alone (presumably Fiscal Year 1995). Busey began his roll call presentation by acknowledging that "Our first and main responsibility is to make accurate entries and to maintain accuracy of the NFRTR...." Moments later Busey makes the astonishing statement that "...when we testify in court, we testify that the data base is 100% accurate. That's what we testify to, and we will always testify to that. As you probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true." Busey then goes on for several minutes describing the types of errors which creep into the NFR&TR and then repeats his damning admission: "So the information on the 728,000 weapons that are in the database has to be 100 percent accurate. Like I told you before, we testify in court and, of course, our certifications testify to that, too, when we're not there to testify, that we are 100 percent accurate." How bad was the error rate in the NFR&TR? Busey again: "...when I first came in a year ago, our error rate was between 49 and 50 percent, so you can imagine what the accuracy of the NFRTR could be, if your error rate is 49 to 50 percent." Does anyone recall the phrase, "Hey, close enough for government work"? Consider this matter in its starkest terms: a senior BATF official lecturing other senior BATF officials at BATF national headquarters in Washington, D.C., declares openly and without apparent embarrassment or hesitation that BATF officers testifying under oath in federal (and state) courts have routinely perjured themselves about the accuracy of official government records in order to send gun-owning citizens to prison and/or deprive them of their property. Just who is the criminal in these cases? All this was too brassy for even some BATF officials to stomach. Acting on tips from several BATF officials (there are honest men and women in government, even in BATF), I promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act4 demand precisely describing the Busey tape. The first reaction was predictable. After reviewing the incriminating tape, BATF officials discussed whether they could get away with destroying it. Wiser heads prevailed; obviously any outsider who knew of the tape probably would learn of its destruction -- and I would have. Or perhaps all the official shredders were on loan to the White House. After much to-ing and fro-ing with a dismayed Department of Justice a transcript of the Busey tape was sent to me in February 1996. The Department of Justice was dismayed because the Busey tape was clearly Brady material. Every defense lawyer knows that under the Supreme Court's 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, the government is required in all criminal prosecutions to provide the defense, in advance of trial, with any evidence tending to show the defendant's innocence. Failure to do so can result in dismissal of an indictment, reversal of a conviction, or other sanctions. Willful failure to produce Brady material can constitute contempt of court, professional misconduct, or even a crime. The Busey tape was clearly exculpatory and clearly implicated every National Firearms Act prosecution and forfeiture in living memory. Worse yet, Busey was only the tip of the iceberg. When the fog had cleared Justice learned that the NFT&TR inaccuracy problems had been the subject of internal BATF discussion since at least 1979. BATF's files were replete with minutes of meetings, statistical studies, memoranda, correspondence, etc admitting the problem. The only thing missing was any attempt to correct the problem, or to reveal it to anyone outside the agency.5 Justice has now commenced the painful chore of advising every NFA defendant in the country of the situation. It did this with a recent mass mailing by United States attorneys to defense lawyers and defendants of relevant BATF documents, including the Busey transcript. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Institutional Perjury 2/2 Date: 20 Nov 1998 21:15:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] The direct consequences of this institutional perjury are just now beginning to occur. In Newport News, VA, on May 21, 1996, United States District Judge John A. MacKenzie, after reviewing the Busey transcript, promptly dismissed five counts of an indictment charging John D. LeaSure with possession of machine guns not registered to him.6 LeaSure, a Class II NFA manufacturer, 7 had received BATF transfer approval for the five guns, but then decided to void the transfers and keep the guns, as he was legally permitted to do. He promptly faxed the voided Forms 3 to NFA Branch.8 BATF subsequently raided LeaSure and charged him with illegally possessing the five NFA firearms which, according to the NFR&TR, were registered to someone else. The government ignored the fact that on the date LeaSure said he voided the transfers there was a 21-minute call on his toll records from his fax number to NFA's Branch's fax number -- at a time when he could have no idea he would one day be prosecuted for continuing to possess the guns. Rather, the prosecution produced NFA Branch firearms specialist Gary Schaible to testify as custodial of the NFR&TR that the government's official records did not show any voided transfers and therefore LeaSure was in illegal possession of the guns.9 In essence Schaible was testifying that "We can't find an official record and therefore the defendant is guilty." What we now know is that Schaible should have testified that "We can't find half our records -- even when we know they're there -- and therefore we're not sure if anyone is guilty." The government's case was not aided when Schaible was forced to admit on cross-examination that two NFA Branch examiners were recently transferred because they had been caught shredding NFA registration documents in order to avoid having to work on them.10 Note that they were "transferred." Not disciplined. Not fired. Not prosecuted. Not destroyed in place. Transferred. Just who is the criminal in these cases? And it is too early to predict how many new trials, appeals and habeas corpus actions will result from this affair. Also of importance is the number of convicted felons presently suffering legal disabilities11 from flawed firearms convictions and what effect the Busey disclosures will have on their situation. The indirect consequences of BATF's conduct will not be so readily apparent but are potentially devastating. All across the country assistant United States Attorneys, United States District Judges, and other federal and local law enforcement officials are going to learn what most defense lawyers and gun dealers have known for years and what the aftermath of Waco and Ruby Ridge starkly illustrated: BATF officers and agents lie, dissemble and cover up on an institutionalized basis. These are not aberrations; they are an institutional ethic, an organizational way of life. Just who is the criminal in these cases? Lawyers and defendants in NFA cases who have not received the "Busey" package from the United States Attorney should be making prompt demands -- both for the package and for an explanation of why it was not timely produced. I am acting as an informal clearing house for these matters. Those lawyers or dealers with questions or problems, or with new information, involving the Busey phenomenon, or its continuing aftermath, are invited to contact me at (910) 282-6024. End Notes: 1. Public Law No. 474, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236-1240 (Act of June 6,1934), 26 U.S.C. ss 1132-1132q; as amended by Act of April 10,1936, ch. 169, 49 Stat. 1192; as codified by chap. 736, Act of August 16, 1954 (Internal Revenue Code of 1954), 68A Stat. 721-729; as amended by Public Law No. 85-859, Title II, s203, 72 Stat. 1427,1428 (Act of September 2, 1958); as amended by Public Law No.86-478, ss 1-3, 74 Stat. 149 (Act of June 1, 1960); as amended by Public Law No. 90-618, Title II, s 201, 82 Stat. 1227-1235 (Act of October 22, 1968); as amended by Public Law No. 94-455, 90 Stat.1834 (Act of October 4, 1976); as amended by Public Law No. 99-308,s109, 100 Stat. 449, 460 (Act of May 19, 1986); and as amended by Public Law No. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330 (Act of December 27, 1987); Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Title 26 United States Code, ch. 53,26 U.S.C. ss 5801-5872 (Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968). 2. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 27 and Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 44. See also Rules 803(8), 901(b), 902(1), (2),(4) , and 1005 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 3. Ibid. 4. 5 U.S.C. S552. 5. The first rule of a bureaucrat is "Never disturb a body at rest." The second, "If I don't do anything, I can't do anything wrong." The third, "When in doubt, mumble." 6. United States v. LeaSure, Criminal No. 4:95CR54 (E.D. Va., Newport News Div.) 7. "Special Occupational Taxpayers" under 26 U.S.C. s5801 fall into one of three categories: Class III dealers can possess, sell, and transfer NFA firearms; Class II manufacturers can, in addition, manufacture and register them; Class I importers can, in addition to all the forgoing, import them. All SOTs are also required to possess Federal Firearm Licenses, which themselves come in six different classifications. Throw in the import and export licenses and permits required, the various taxes imposed, and the state and local licensing and registration schemes involved, the mandatory record-keeping required, and the shipping and transportation limitations concerned, and you have a lawyer's paradise. 8. BATF forms 3 are used to authorize tax-exempt dealer-to-dealer transfers and to re-register the firearm(s) involved to the transferee. There are numerous other transfer and registration forms used depending upon the nature of the transaction, the status of the parties involved, and the type of firearm and its origin. 9. Violations of the NFA are all 10-year, $10,000 felonies. See 26 U.S.C. s5871. NFA firearms, which carry some impressive sticker prices, are also forfeit, if used in any violation of the NFA. See 26 U.S.C. s5872. 10. We are left to conjecture where the NFA Branch shredder is located in relation to its fax machine. 11. In addition to the loss of civil rights imposed on convicted felons by the laws of most states, felons permanently lose the right under the federal law to possess firearms, as well as being potentially debarred from service in the armed forces, civil employment in government, receiving security clearances, bidding on federal contracts, etc. If you have any comments on the material in these Web pages or if you have a BATF incident to contribute, send email to croaker@access.digex.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Hizzoner's Gun Grab Date: 23 Nov 1998 07:22:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Although Richard J. Daley was "only" the mayor of Chicago, he knew that he wielded the clout to run the entire state from his office on the fifth floor of City Hall. (Recently-defeated U.S. Senatrix Carol Moseley-Braun, during her time in the state senate, was floor leader for Harold Washington ---ensuring that *his* policies got considerably more than a "fair hearing" in Springfield.) What Hizzoner wanted, Hizzoner usually got. The old man's gone now, but his son, current mayor Richard M. Daley (not-so-affectionately known by the patronizing sobriquet "Richie", to distinguish him from "the *real* Mayor Daley"), understands that, as Chicago's El Supremo, he can pretty much have his way in the remainder of Illinois. That's unfortunate for gun owners. Chicago already prohibits gun shops and requires owners of handguns to register them with the city, but Chicago stopped accepting registration applications in August of 1983---fifteen years ago. Since that time, many pistols have been purchased at suburban gun shops by city dwellers and brought back to their Chicago residences. All of them are illegal, since they violate the city ordinance requiring registration---which Chicago is no longer allowing (Joseph Heller, phone your office!). Several years ago, Cook County--in which Chicago is located--passed its own version of the so-called "assault weapons ban (AWB), prohibiting sale and possession of semi-automatic rifles. This measure had the full support of Hizzonerdamayor. Ditto the "upgrading" of carrying a weapon in public from a misdemeanor to a felony. (This means that if Mr. Honest Businessman slips his pistol into his pocket while he carries the weekly receipts to the bank's night depository, he risks a year in the state penitentiary and revocation of his right to own a firearm and to vote!) Recently, Hizzoner crafted legislation--which he is demanding that the state assembly pass--which would: * require new state licensing and regulation of gun shops--all Illinois gun shops, regardless of location--to include BATF-style inspection of sales records * prohibit gun shops from selling handguns to customers whose state-required firearm owner identification card (FOID) shows a Chicago address (thus creating [text missing in original] and this little beauty, slipped in amongst the rest: * create a state-wide computer registry of ALL firearms, to be maintained at state police headquarters [!] During a heated Saturday-morning debate on Chicago's WLS-AM 50,000-watt talk-radio blowtorch, a Democratic (natch!) state senator, presented with the possibility that police might come to people's homes to confiscate guns not turned in after firearms were made illegal declared, "That's what the law is *supposed* to do!". [I have it on tape.] He also came up with *this* stunner: "No matter what anybody says about the Second Amendment...we're now in 1998, and we have to look at what guns look like and what they're used for!" (Emphasis added) ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ There it is, folks---a declarative statement of intent: first they'll register your guns (it's For The Children, after all!), next they'll ban them, and, finally, they'll conficscate them--Second Amendment or no Second Amendment--because of the way they look (scary)! David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte Wheeling, Illinois Replies/Abuse: gonzalez@mcs.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Weapons Date: 23 Nov 1998 07:22:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com (Ignition Point), pin@majordomo.pobox.com (PIN), PRN@airgunhq.com (PRN) Message-ID: Conquerers agree: the subjects must be disarmed. Weapons are the tools of those who use power to control resources, and therefore wealth. A Free People, making their own determination, are sovereign to themselves and must, therefore, be armed. The subjugation of the Free People of these united States has been progressing gradually. The Civil War, Reconstruction Acts and the 14th Amendment established the Federal Judiciary as the supreme law of the land. The 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act established absolute Federal control over money in The United States. And the 17th Amendment canceled the authority of the States in the United States Senate. The "New Deal" and a mountain of subsequent legislation establishing Federal bureauracies with financial control over anything and everything has effectively established socialism in our nation. Our enemy has done everything EXCEPT tell We the People what he has done. I don't think there is any plan for that. We are left to discover whatever our circumstances may be. Kinda like getting cheated in a card game: We know we lost, but we can't remember which which hand it was we got cheated on. -- North American Patriots Free Network www.net-link.net/~napfn/homepage.htm "Righteousness through Communications" ~~~~~Pastor Mike Acker~~~~~ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: California Ban-A-Thon Date: 24 Nov 1998 11:08:14 -0700 This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_FBAC9A09.0E6F0221 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline This could happen in Utah, too! --=_FBAC9A09.0E6F0221 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:06:04 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA28670; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 02:53:06 -0700 Received: from (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id FAA15361; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 05:02:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.net Reply-To: BludyRed@aol.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline In the event that some folks STILL do not understand why we should vote for people who may not be as "pure" as we would like them to be, or the possible dangers inherent in "sending a message", this article may help clear things up. We can now all take heart that California will become a "model for the nation" and that Dan Lundgren and the Republicans have been taught a lesson. Regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------- Monday November 23 4:10 PM ET California Liberals See Opportunity By SCOTT LINDLAW Associated Press Writer SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Like a morgue for legislation, a climate-controlled vault down the street from the Capitol contains hundreds of bills vetoed over the years by two Republican governors. The bills include legislation banning certain guns and increasing protections for consumers, laborers and the environment. But they died on the desks of Gov. Pete Wilson and his predecessor,=20 George Deukmejian. Now, with Democrat Gray Davis about to take office as governor in January, interest groups whose proposals have been bottled up for 16 years by GOP vetoes are drafting wish lists and hoping to see their legislation wind up on the books. ``It's kind of like they've taken the padlock off the Capitol and instead of simply banging at the gates, we are now at the table passing papers,'' said Jamie Court, one of Wilson's fiercest critics as advocacy director = for the liberal Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. Wilson vetoed nearly 1,900 bills during eight years in office. Some he said would be a burden on businesses, others would raise taxes, or infringe on constitutional rights, or result in endless litigation. Some simply failed to make the improvements sought, he said. If the Democratic-controlled Legislature passes some of these measures and they are signed by Davis, California could immediately position itself as = a national leader on several new fronts, just as its air quality laws have been the model for other states. Davis is known as exceptionally cautious and has repeatedly promised moderate leadership. He has said he would sign several pieces of previously= vetoed legislation, including measures dealing with air pollution and gun control. One of those bills would make California's assault weapons ban the most restrictive in the nation, said Luis Tolley, Western director for Handgun Control Inc. Another would outlaw cheap guns that don't pass safety tests, shutting down the California manufacturers who produce 80 percent of the country's so-called junk guns. Others would bolster tough smog-fighting laws, help businesses and local governments replace polluting diesel truck engines with new low-emission engines, and broaden patients' rights in suing HMOs. Wilson has no apologies, whether his vetoes dealt with pollution or health care. ``We already have the toughest clean air standards and water standards, and the most comprehensive medical coverage of practically any state in=20 the union,'' said Wilson spokesman Sean Walsh. ``We're a very forward-looking, progressive state, but there are extremists for whom too much is never enough. You get to a point where you have to decide, where do we strike a balance between economic development and the broad-based needs of special interest groups.'' The Legislature elected with Davis earlier this month will have the same Democratic leaders as last year, but they will command even bigger majorities in both the state Senate and Assembly. Wilson vetoed a litany of HMO-related bills, including legislation that would have required HMOs to cover mental illness, contraceptives and vaccines for children, and required doctors, not corporate cost-cutters, = to decide how to treat patients. ``We house, as a state, the largest HMOs in the nation,'' Court said. = ``The policies we set here in reforming HMOs will affect most Americans because the companies must play by California rules if they are California companies. We pioneered managed care and=20 mismanaged care, and the brakes we put on here will prove to=20 be a bellwether for the rest of nation.'' But even some advocates for change warn against pushing too hard. ``Let's just hope that our eyes aren't bigger than our stomachs,'' said Jerry Meral, executive director and lobbyist for the environmentalist Planning and Conservation League. --=_FBAC9A09.0E6F0221-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: USA TODAY media hoax (fwd) Date: 25 Nov 1998 13:26:31 -0700 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:56:52 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00492; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:43:55 -0700 Received: from (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA25724; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:50:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <9811251838.10rd@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.net Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Nov 25, Tom Cloyes wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------= -] The other message was truncated, here's the complete one. Sorry for the waste of bandwidth. Tom >From: jpfo@dbeatty.worldweb.net >Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 19:29:56 -0500 >To: Tom Cloyes >Subject: USA TODAY media hoax > > >Dear e-mail subscriber, > > Due to a memory allocation error (stupid programmer) this message >was previously truncated (cut off). Please accept the humble apologies = of your >webmaster (flames to root@dbeatty.worldweb.net) and read the whole >message below: > > > USA TODAY REFUSES TO PUBLISH JPFO REBUTTAL TO ONE-SIDED "DEBATE" ON = NEW > FIREARMS REGULATIONS > =20 > USA TODAY does not want you to read this letter, when you do, you > will be aware of the part > they play in the "media hoax". Please forward this to everyone you = can > think of. > =20 > Offering two articles that agree with one another, and calling it a > "debate," is a classic technique of propaganda. USA Today joined the > ranks of master disinformers on its November 6, 1998 editorial page = when > it published two pieces calling for more firearms regulation. It was = a > case of Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee, to which JPFO objected promptly = and > clearly. > =20 > To date, USA Today has not printed JPFO's letter, even though the > letter fell within the length limits of their op-ed section and was = sent > almost immediately. We can surmise that the editors could not abide = the > embarrassment of the truth. The text of JPFO's letter follows below = in > its entirety. > =20 > The latest assaults on the right to keep and bear arms focus on "gun > safety" as the key issue. Watch how glibly the anti-gun rights > lobbyists will mix rhetoric about criminal misuse of firearms with = calls > for trigger locks and other "safety" devices designed to prevent > accidental discharge. The American public who are as increasingly > unfamiliar with firearms as they are with detecting propaganda, may = be > fooled by this latest trick. > =20 > Take action right now! Every person reading this alert must send an > e-mail now to the editor of USA Today. Use the online form at: >=20 > http://survey.usatoday.com/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi >=20 > or call USA Today at (703) 276-3400. > -- ask why they refuse to acknowledge JPFO's message and > publish JPFO's response to its editorials. Ask why USA Today is = apparently > afraid to publish JPFO's views. Urge USA Today to call on JPFO for = truly > opposing views on "guncontrol" issues. We need thousands of people > to respond, please post and repost this message! >=20 > The text of the JPFO letter, sent via email on November 9, follows: > =20 > November 9, 1998 > =20 > Letters to the Editor > USA Today > 1000 Wilson Blvd. > Arlington, VA 22229 > =20 > Dear Editor, > =20 > USA Today's November 6 "Today's Debate" column used an old propaganda= > trick: put up two articles that take the same view and call it a > "debate." The USA Today editorial argued that the federal government > should require trigger locks on all firearms. The "opposing view" = came > from New Orleans Mayor Morial who thinks suing firearms manufacturers,= > dealers, and trade associations is a good idea. > =20 > Both articles were united in saying that the firearms suppliers are > responsible for people's misuse of guns. Both articles twisted > statistics to make their points. USA Today said: "14 children under = age > 19 are killed each day of the year." The stat is silly: "children > under 19" includes 18-year old adults, and most of the deaths are of > elderly teenagers, not toddlers. USA Today's editorial wanted = federally > mandated trigger locks on guns -- but most of these deaths were > intentional killings. Trigger locks don't stop gangs and murderers. > =20 > Mayor Morial pulled the same statistical stunt. He wrote: "we don't > want to ban guns; we want guns made safer." He cited a single case = of a > child killed by another child who found a loaded gun. All of his = other > data was about criminal use of firearms, but he mixed it with = rhetoric > about airbags and car bumpers. His proposal, to sue the suppliers, > won't stop gangs and murderers. > =20 > To help prevent future one-sided "debates," our organization hereby > volunteers to provide a truly "opposing" view when the "Today's = Debate" > feature next visits the "gun control" debate. > =20 > (signed) > =20 > Richard Stevens > Firearms Sentinel Editor > Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. > 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. > Milwaukee, WI 53207 > =20 > (414) 769-0760 > =20 > JPFO is America's most aggressive defender of your second amendment > rights. If you are not a member, why not join right now? Call JPFO = at > (414) 769-0760 or visit our website for details, just > click on http://www.jpfo.org You can even use our secure online > membership form at : > =20 > https://ssl.worldweb.net/jpfo/membrssl.htm > =20 > Won't you join us in the fight to destroy "gun control"? [------------------------- end of forwarded message -----------------------= -] -- - ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------= - An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand =3D Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy = a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus = Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------= - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jurist" Subject: Good News! Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) to bid for 2000 Presidency [?] Date: 24 Nov 1998 12:53:36 -0500 GOA - You should have this in your alerts! You may all recall how Sen. Smith did his best to save us from the ill effects of Brady II by creating a private cause of action against the FBI in the event they abused the 'instant check' by creating a gun owner registration database. Against the warnings of the so-called Republican (death-by-compromise) "Leadership," he championed the Smith Amendment, which passed in the Senate by an overwhelming 69 votes -- only to have it killed by Gingrich in committee. Smith may be running for President in 2000! Please send a letter of your support and encourage him to run! THIS is what we need to do NOW to protect our rights! Write him at: http://www.in-search-of.com/frames/government/members/senate/NHSR.shtm http://www.senate.gov/~smith/ Smith, Bob (R) opinion@smith.senate.gov l http://www.senate.gov/senator/membmail.html#n Here is the Washington Times story: Washington Times 11/25/98 at A6 SMITH READY TO ROLL Sen. Robert C. Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who narrowly won re-election in 1996, said yesterday he was leaning strongly toward making a run for the presidency in 2000. The two-term conservative said he would make his decision on a White House bid by the end of the year, Reuters reports. Mr. Smith said his years on Capitol Hill had given him greater experience with domestic and international issues than some of his possible rivals. Speaking by telephone from his Washington, D.C., office, Mr. SMith told the wire service he could inspire and lead within his party and would be a "visionary" president. Some background on Senator Smith www.gunowners.org Mar 1998 Pro-gun Senator Bob Smith Puts Hold on Hatch's Horror Bill! http://cgibin1.erols.com/crfields/a030698.htm Senator Smith stands up for gun owners http://www.gunowners.org/nws9807.htm "After the FBI draft regulations were issued, Senator Smith took to the Senate floor to express his outrage. "There is no reason whatever why the FBI would need to retain private information on a law-abiding citizen for any time at all, let alone for eighteen months," said Smith. Thus, Sen. Smith put the FBI on notice regarding his intentions to get an amendment placed in an upcoming appropriations bill. The Smith amendment would defund any attempt by the FBI to use the Brady instant check as a mechanism to keep gun owners' names, and requires the "immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever." Smith amendment lets citizens "police" the FBI The Senator from New Hampshire has also added a new wrinkle to his amendment. Other proposals in Congress that seek to prevent the FBI from registering gun buyers, leave the "policing" of the FBI to Attorney General Janet Reno. Not the Smith amendment. His proposal specifically allows for aggrieved private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorney's fees. The amendment also defunds the ability of the FBI to collect a tax on gun owners." Things You Can Do To Defend Your Gun Rights http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/cdn-firearms/Kopel/defend.your.rights In Liberty, Rick Vaughan, Esq. -- The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: End of Gunshows Nov 30 Date: 25 Nov 1998 23:12:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- www.pokerface.com & www.klang.com <- GREAT MUSIC gopher://gopher.well.sf.ca.us/11s/Politics/activist.tools/how.to.win gopher://shamash.org/00/judaica/answers/missionaries/mythj.txt "ENEMY of the STATE" A DISNEY movie: BOYCOTT IT!!!!!! NOTICE: A&E will expose ADL infiltrated $cientology 12/14/98 9PM EST TODAY's COMMUNIQUE By Authority of Ephesians 5:11, Mark 12:38 ------------------ Keep your eye on the EURO CURRENCY & GOLD WHEN GUNS are BANNED, CITIZENS SUFFER [NOTE: THERE are only 5 days left in USA before ALL GUN PURCHASES will be TRACKED in a FEDERAL COMPUTER, spread the word, GUN SHOWS are to be severely encumbered] There are lessons to be learned from history: Outlaw governments have you at their mercy when you surrender your firearms. SPOTLIGHT FIREARMS PREPAREDNESS SUPPLEMENT BY RICHARD STEVENS Novemeber 1998 When heavily-armed government troops invaded the small village, most of the unarmed men hid in the nearby woods. The troops moved into the forest, flushed the men out, then rounded them up in a garden and shot every one. One young man survived to tell the story. In another town, the troops had driven unarmed women, children and old people into a gully, where the troops shot them or cut their throats. No survivors. These were just the latest of over 800 victims of a Serbian government "crack-down" against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, Yugoslavia. [in 1998] [Palestinian Christians and Muslims were treated the same way at the hands of "Israelis", in 1945, 1967, and today. Same way Christians were slaughted by the atheist "Jewish" Bolsheviks in 1917 by the MILLIONS, as were many Chinese under communism, as were many jews who were sold out by psuedo jews in the NAZI party, see http://204.107.208.2/~ralph/hitlerfounderofisrael.html] This is not ancient history, not the Nazis or the Soviets, not in a distant benighted land - these atrocities are taking place in Europe in 1998. Nine hours and a change of planes, and you could see them for yourself. When government goes bad, unarmed people die. Old folks, men, women, and children are so easy to massacre, when they are first disarmed. "Gun Control" laws disarm the people in peacetime when there is little resistance. When riots or civil war come, the people are unarmed, inexperienced with firearms, and therefore defenseless. We must teach our American and Canadian friends, neighbors, family members and kids how "gun control" kills. Buy a bundle of "Gun Control Kills Kids!!" booklets and send or give them out. It's easy and effective. We must win the hearts and minds of tomorrow's patriots. Let's get armed with the truth. Buy a bundle of 50 booklets ($20 post-paid), and you can fire 50 shots of intellectual ammunition, to hopefully make sure that we will never have to use real bullets to defend our lives and liberty. To order on the Internet, go to JEWS For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership at http://www.jpfo.org or call (414)769-0760, or fax (414)-483-8435. [The reason to get some from the JPFO is that it will reach out to the many honest JEWS who are being duped by their "pseudo jewish" hypnotists. We need to help release the honest jews and everyone else for that matter from the control and spell of the Zionist/Atheist/Pharasee/Khazarian/Talmudic/Rabbinical/Psuedo Jews and ultimately bring everyone to Jesus.] ---- END This segment came from the FIRE ARMS and PREPAREDNESS SUPPLEMENT of the SPOTLIGHT NEWSPAPER. This group JEWS For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is to be commended for their sober and honest efforts. I would encourage other groups such as the GUNOWNERS of AMERICA to adopt a similar tactic of providing low cost materials to the public for citizens such as you and me to distribute. It really is a battle for the hearts and minds of the public and the cattle who think they are public. Heck why don't you come up with your own pamphlets too, and distribute them yourself. YOU HAVE ONLY 5 DAYS LEFT before ALL GUN PURCHASES WILL BE TRACKED in A FEDERAL COMPUTER. It is an oft repeated 3 step, registrate, confiscate, annihilate. HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO YOU CATTLE NEED TO SEE THIS HAPPEN. CATTLE IN THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE BEHAVE THE SAME WAY, I GUESS THEY THINK IT WON'T HAPPEN TO THEM. Look what happened in Rwanda. ALWAYS REMEMBER the WHOLE IDEA of GUNS is to NEVER have to use them! If enough have them you won't have to use them. Having them, or the uncertain knowledge of WHO has and who does not have keeps people "honest" who otherwise might not be. We must not tempt those who are morally challenged/weak and might be tempted to steal pillage and destroy and enslave us were it not for the fear of our resistance. If people cannot be trusted, then how can we trust only the government to bear lethal force when it too is composed of people???????? Am I getting through? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jurist" Subject: Re: End of Gunshows? - ONLY IF WE LET IT! Date: 25 Nov 1998 20:26:05 -0500 SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:27:35 -0500 > From: ralph@teaminfinity.com > Subject: TIME is a wasting... November 30, 1998 and the END of GUN SHOWS? Jurist responds: ONLY IF WE LET IT! Guys and Gals, There are about 65 tp 80 million gunowners in the USA. Let's not bitch and moan to each other; let's not attack and flame each other.. Let's make our numbers be felt and our voices be heard! We are a MASSIVE voting block. We need to pull together. DO SOMETHING! This Monday call ALL of your Congress-types! (1(800)361-5222, ext 90001 if expense is what is standing between you and defending your freedom while you can do it peacefully) ... cc: letters to the media in faxes to your Representatives. DO IT! How are we different from the Left? 1) We are not organized; 2) We don't take EFFECTIVE ACTION; 3) Here's how! Links below. Now get to work! In Liberty, Rick V. Take Action! (Not RKBA, but info & contacts very useful) MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD. MAKE A DIFFERENCE. "There is no guarantee of success in the fight for individual rights and freedom. There is a guarantee of failure if you do nothing and remain silent." http://www.FatalBlindness.com/take_action.htm#TAKE Mr. Smith E-mails Washington and the Media http://www.mrsmith.com/ THE ELECTRONIC ACTIVIST - An email address directory of congresscritters, state governments, and media entities. http://www.berkshire.net/~ifas/activist/ Senators with Constitutent Contact E-mail Addresses http://www.senate.gov/senator/membmail.html Contact Capitol Hill - Congress, White House http://congress.org/main.html -- The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jurist" Subject: [Fwd: ANNOUNCEMENT] UN WATCH Date: 26 Nov 1998 04:43:53 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------26321F0A48F8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit UN WATCH - UN WATCH - UN WATCH - UN WATCH - UN WATCH - UN WATCH While the local and State RKBA organizations fight regional anti-gun laws and ordinances, we have to be aware of what is going on - hidden from the scrutiny of network news and legal reporting services. Treaties... the Law of the Land on the same level as an Act of Congress, have been used by the Clinton administration to outflank a balky Congress. Remember a $50 billion loan made to Mexico -- against the will of the Congress? Remember Clinton's appointment of Bill Lan Lee -- against the will of Congress? Clinton's recent signing of the Tokyo Global Warming Treaty -- against the will of Congress -- even though no treaty is *supposed* to go into effect without the advice and consent of the Senate? Remember Clinton's Executive Order banning the import of foreign semi-autos -- against the ineffectual protests of the Republicans as a gross abuse of executive office? Ladies and Gentlemen of the RKBA, I urge you to pay attention to what is going on with the UN, as Clinton is using this route to outflank the normal checks and balances against presidential power. Donna Ferolie is our woman on the job on UN Watch. Here is her press release. In liberty, Jurist -- The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA --------------26321F0A48F8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline >From donnaferolie@sympatico.ca Fri Nov 27 22:06:49 1998 Received: by mail.amdyne.net from localhost (router,SLMail V3.1); Fri, 27 Nov 1998 22:06:49 -0500 Received: by mail.amdyne.net from smtp11.bellglobal.com [204.101.251.53] (SLmail 3.1.2948 (Release Build)); Fri, 27 Nov 1998 22:06:48 -0500 Received: from LOCALNAME (ppp3844.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.218.4]) by smtp11.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA19220; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 22:05:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <365F93AA.7564@sympatico.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-SYMPA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: sentiger@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, afn62971@afn.org References: <3653027E.13FB@amdyne.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ANNOUNCEMENT I am scheduled to attend the next United Nations workshop in Vienna for this coming January 1999. I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to the NRA for allowing me to attend under their banner. Donna Ferolie ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'' [ the following is a condensed version of the Breitkreuz press release ] Dennis Young , Garry Breitkreuz's assistant sent over the most interesting news release last week - pertaining to " DEPART. DENIES EXISTENCE OF AXWORTHY'S OPEN LETTER ON GLOBAL GUN CONTROL ". He commented on the denials by officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs of the existence of an " Open Letter " which Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy delivered at " The Olso Meeting on Small Arms ". Reuters even quoted from Axworthy's " Open Letter " in a wire story titled " Small Arms reductions theme of new Olso talks " and now they say it doesn't exist ? asked the incredulous MP. Breitkreuz was forced to file an Access to Information Request in a last ditch attempt to get the Open Letter. The Reuters article said, " These are the weapons that cause the most death and injury. Small arms and light weapons designed and manufactured for defense or internal security purposes should be restricted to military and police organizations only, and then only in such quantities that can be justified for legitimate defense or security needs f those countries, " Axworthy wrote. Breitkreuz said, " The Liberal Government's gun control agenda was made clear last November by Deputy Herb Grey." Grey was in Washington signing an international arms control agreement when he said, " This could be the start of a global movement that would spur the development of an instrument to ban firearms worldwide similar to our land-mines initiative." Breitkreuz asks, " If they are so proud of their plans to ban firearms worldwide, why go to all the trouble of keeping it a secret from the Canadian people ? With the passage of C68, the Liberal Government gave themselves the absolute power to ban all guns in Canada. Now it seems they want the United Nations to have this same type of power over the rest of the world, " concluded Breitkreuz. [ Our many thanks to Dennis Young who continues to belt out this kind of material on a regular basis. ] --------------26321F0A48F8-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Waldron Subject: What road rage? Date: 29 Nov 1998 08:49:29 -0800 Read the excellent article in today's (11-29) Washington Post debunking the myth of rad rage. Like "cop killer bullets" and "assault weapons," this is the type of media feeding frenzy that passes gun control laws. FYI, the Washington legislature two years ago declined "road rage" legislation that would have made careless drivers (two improper lane changes within five miles) guilty of a felony. Some may consider this off topic. If so, I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. The article is available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-11/29/203l-112998-idx.html Iif that doesn't work, go to the Post web site at http://www.washingtonpost.com and check the "Metro" section. Joe Waldron List lobbyist - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jurist" Subject: Re: PA-RKBA!Report: 40 Pct of Crime Guns Legal Date: 27 Nov 1998 11:07:02 -0500 Guys and Gals, First: PLEASE CALL YOUR CONGRESSCRITTER! http://congress.nw.dc.us/governet/search.html http://www.mrsmith.com/ Political & Media e-mail addresses a) Stiffen the spine of your squishy CongressCritter INSIST ON IMPEACHMENT (Even if it doesn't result in conviction, it cuts off his ability to pardon all his co-conspirators. That and it will look great for the 2000 elections). b) While you've got him on the line, give him your constituent input, tell him to vote against ANY anti-gun legislation and seek repeal of Brady II. Counter-sue the Bastards Second, gun manufacturers should seek to join as necessary parties those who have been attacked by criminals or whose loved ones have been killed by criminals who have used weapons after having been released to parole BY THE SUING CITIES' ATTORNEYS after those criminals have already established a history of violence. Lastly, does anyone have access to information refuting the 40% figure? If so, please post it. Thanks, Rick V. Larry Riegel wrote: > > Don't you just fed up with this irrational and skewed BS? We can claim anything we want to and take someone to court over any issue. Will the gun industry then file suit if the win? I hope so. > > -----Original Message----- > From: N4QFW@aol.com [SMTP:N4QFW@aol.com] ... > > Report: 40 Pct of Crime Guns Legal > > c The Associated Press > > NEW YORK (AP) -- Nearly 40 percent of the handguns used to commit crimes were purchased from federally licensed dealers within the previous three years, The New York Times reported today. > > The research, which could sharply influence lawsuits against the gun industry, defies the long-held view that most guns used in crimes are stolen, the newspaper said, citing new federal law enforcement data. > > The data also contradicts the gun industry's argument that its dealers are not the source of an illegal black market for weapons. > > But gun industry spokesmen questioned the data, saying that the relatively short length of time between the sale of a handgun and its use during a crime is an inaccurate measure of whether a weapon has been stolen. > > The new data will be tested in January, when a federal suit brought by the families of victims of gun violence against the weapon's manufacturer begins in federal court in New York City. > > The plaintiffs contend that gun makers jeopardize public safety by flooding the market with their products without establishing necessary controls to ensure criminals can't become easily armed. > > Disclosure of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms data comes just days before the expiration of the Brady Law, which requires a five-day waiting period before buying a handgun. > > On Nov. 30 the Justice Department is to implement the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This system will give law enforcement officials access to a wider array of records than is now available and will require background checks before customers can purchase rifles, shotguns and firearm transfers at pawn shops. > -- The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jurist" Subject: In 1690, John Locke foretold of Clinton... he called it "Tyranny" Date: 27 Nov 1998 15:36:57 -0500 In 1690, John Locke laid the philosophical foundation, along with the likes of Adam Smith, upon which the Framers would build our Constitution. How powerfully these men wrote! They recognized that human nature does not change with the ages and that Natural Law* is what governed Man in a free state, regardless of time or nation or People. > John Locke: An Essay concerning the true original, extent and end of civil Government (1690) >XVIII - Of Tyranny >"199. As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion." http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1651-1700/locke/ECCG/governxx.htm Please call, write or fax your representative and urge them to vote for impeachment! In Liberty, Rick V. * >"Non erit alia lex Romae, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthac; sed et omnes gentes et omni tempore, una lex, et sempiterna et immortalis, continebit." >* [There will be not different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times.] 3 M. CICERO, 210 DE RE PUBLICA (C. Keyes trans., 1928). -- The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: THE FOLLY OVER GUNS 1/3 Date: 30 Nov 1998 06:47:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.fatalblindness.com/8.htm#8 8 THE FOLLY OVER GUNS As the blight of crime, brought to us by statism, leaves its ugly mark on more and more lives, the cries for gun control grow and grow. Many, in their desperation about crime and in their ignorance of its causes, have been driven to support gun control but, in doing so, they have been sent on a fool's errand by statists. Do you possess the right to self-defense? Do you have the right to defend and save your life if it is threatened? If you do, then you have the moral right to possess a weapon to defend yourself against physical assault by some criminal and that includes the right to possess a gun. If you do not have the right to defend your life, this means you have no rights at all and that your life has no value, that it is worthless. Are these the ideas you wish to promote and sanction? If so, you might as well walk around with a sign on your back, declaring: "My life is worthless. I am defenseless. Kill me." An obliging criminal will take you up on the invitation soon enough. If these statists, mostly the liberals, succeed in outlawing the possession of guns by honest, law-abiding citizens, we will witness a furious explosion of criminal behavior burst forth in this country, bringing even more mayhem and terror than we have today, even though the alleged purpose of this control of guns is to reduce crime. As with everything statists seek to prohibit, statists know that the abolition of the right of the individual to own and possess a gun will not stop the crimes committed with the use of guns. If statists were so concerned about guns, why aren't they simply advocating we make it illegal for criminals to own guns? They would laugh at this, saying it wouldn't work and, for once in their mindless lives, they would be right: it would not work. Criminals are not going to surrender their guns, they will still keep their guns even if guns are made illegal. Criminals do not obey the law. Since criminals are the only ones who commit crimes, since only criminals are the ones who use a gun in the commission of a crime, since criminals will continue to keep their guns even if their possession is made illegal, then just how would crime be reduced by making it illegal to possess a gun? It wouldn't be reduced: criminals would still have their guns -- and statists know this. If statists know this, and they do, if they know outlawing guns will not stop armed assault, and they do, what are they really after? What is accomplished when honest, law-abiding citizens have their guns taken from them by statists? Who stands to gain the most when guns are removed from your home? Criminals and statists. Criminals will suddenly have a field day: they will know that almost all of their potential victims have been disarmed -- defenseless, unless police can be summoned in time to protect them. Now, the criminal who might have been afraid to break into your home for fear of being shot has little to fear from you. And this is precisely why we will see a violent, bloody increase in crime, once guns are abolished. The removal of guns from honest individuals will provide an incentive to encourage even more criminal attacks against you, bringing us an outbreak of violence, the likes of which we have never seen. Statists will gain on two fronts. First, as noted earlier, the increase in crime which will come with disarming honest citizens will spur even more demands on the part of individuals for the government to "do" something, leading to further statist measures which gobble up even more liberty. Second, they gain a crucial instrument they need to make it easier for them to eventually accomplish what they have in store for you. When statists make their final thrust to plunge this country into tyranny, they will be faced with overcoming a disarmed citizenry, which is obviously easier to overwhelm than an armed citizenry. And if this night of despair descends upon this country, how will you defend yourself when some armed agents of some future Gestapo arrive at your door? You won't be able to do so. And if you want a gauge to measure just how close we are to crashing into the ground of tyranny, just listen to and watch the demands by statists to outlaw guns: the louder, more frenetic the demands become, the closer statists will be getting to making their final push to have absolute power over you. Fifty years ago, there were few calls for gun control. Why not? After all, back then, criminals used guns in the commission of crimes, just as they do today. Back then, guns were all over the place, yet crime was low compared to what we have today. Back then, it was virtually unheard of to hear about some psycho opening fire on a group of individuals, killing a score of them. Now it has become an increasingly common occurrence. In my small town of around 2,500, there were probably as many guns in town as there were people. Virtually every adult in town owned a couple of guns and many of them owned automatic weapons, yet no one murdered anyone and no one committed armed robbery. Most teenage boys in town owned a shotgun, given to them by their fathers as a rite of passage into approaching adulthood, yet none of these boys ever took their guns to school to terrorize students and teachers. Why do we now have so many more crimes involving guns than back then? Why this difference? Well, we have already answered this question. Back then, statism did not have the cultural and political dominance it has achieved today. Back then, the doctrine of statism was not widespread enough to give birth to the wave of crime which is now inundating this country. Back then, a liar was severely condemned by most adults. Back then, most adults did discriminate against liars: they held it against a liar for lying. And any youngster who lied, who was on the verge of going bad and taking the first steps to becoming a future criminal, found little encouragement from the adults around him or in the media. Back then, it would have been unthinkable to most to vote for a bald-faced liar and send to their children the kind of message children are receiving today. Yes, even back then, there were politicians who dissembled, but few lied about factual matters, as we have today, few were blatant liars, few would stand before an audience and tell them that a budget increase is a decrease, that an increase is a cut, that more is less, as we now have from the person who holds the highest elected office in this land. Back then, even most liberals morally condemned liars. And back then, unbelievably enough, even the mostly liberal media would have nailed such a shameless liar. If you are a young woman asleep in your apartment and you are suddenly confronted by a 250 pound brute, wouldn't you be grateful to have a gun at your bedside to shoot this monster who seeks to rape and murder you? Unless you have a death wish, you would. Do a bunch of statist politicians have the right to prevent you from owning a gun to defend yourself? Must you die because you have been forcibly prevented from owning a gun? Yes, if these statists have their way. If your life were of any concern to statists, they would not seek to forcibly deprive you of owning the means of defending it. No, these statists are not concerned about the preservation of your life or the life of anyone else (except their own). [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: THE FOLLY OVER GUNS 2/3 Date: 30 Nov 1998 06:47:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] In the ceaseless efforts of statists to abolish your freedom, they continuously bring confusion to the minds of many by corrupting the meaning of words. Look at the controversy which has been stirred up by these statists when it comes to so-called "assault weapons." For an honest person, an automatic weapon is a self-defense weapon, not an "assault weapon," as it has been deceitfully dubbed by statists. Honest individuals do not assault others, only criminals (and statists) assault others. If a criminal uses an automatic weapon, or any other kind of weapon, then it has become an assault weapon. Again, if these statists are so concerned about "assault weapons," why aren't they simply outlawing the possession of these weapons by criminals? They aren't because their goal is not to disarm criminals, their goal is to disarm you, to leave you helpless to defend yourself in an emergency situation when you are attacked by criminals, those soul mates of statists. Mercifully, a significant majority in this country still support your right to own a gun and it will likely take years of statist propaganda to convert this majority into a minority. However, the greatest threat to your right to own a gun comes from the confusion created by statists regarding the right of private individuals to own military weapons -- and this confusion has enabled statists, as confusion always does, to drive a wedge of doubt into the minds of many about the right of gun ownership. Do private individuals have the right to possess military weapons of any kind? Yes, they do. What if your neighbor is some sort of deranged millionaire who has enough money to purchase a nuclear bomb and places it in his basement? Does this individual have the right to do this? No. In a free society, the state would properly act to prevent this individual from putting such a bomb in his basement. In order to understand the alleged problem with individuals possessing military weapons, such as a nuclear bomb, you must fully understand the following: no individual has the right to initiate force against another individual, either directly or indirectly -- and this includes the threat of force, even if it is only implicit. For instance, if your neighbor went out and purchased a military cannon, loaded it and pointed it toward your house, this would be the implicit, if not explicit, threat of force. If his action is accidental, simply unthinking carelessness, then you can ask him to unload the cannon and not point it at your home. If he refuses to do this, then he is explicitly threatening you with the initiation of force. In pointing the loaded cannon toward your house, your neighbor has put your property and life in danger of being destroyed. You have a right to live your life without the threat of force, whether it be intentional or accidental. Your neighbor does not have the right to threaten you, even implicitly, with the initiation of force. In a free society, police would properly act to prevent your neighbor from threatening you with this cannon. However, if that same neighbor simply put the unloaded cannon in his front yard, he has the right to do so and is not endangering or threatening anyone. Now, the same is true with the hypothetical case of your neighbor putting a nuclear bomb in his basement. Your right to own a gun is, in principle, the same as your right to own a car (if you have earned the money to pay for it and someone is willing to sell you one), the same as your right to any thing or service you can pay for, as long as your use of that thing or service does not threaten another individual with the infliction of force. In the case of a nuclear bomb, this is not a weapon of self-defense, except in the case of a nation defending you and every other individual from an attack against foreign aggressors -- if you detonated a nuclear bomb to protect yourself from someone who has broken into your home you would kill yourself, not defend yourself. Since there is no reason to own a nuclear weapon by an individual for the purpose of self-defense in one's own home, its possession by your neighbor can only be for the purpose of implicitly threatening you with destruction. Even if it is not the intent of the neighbor to threaten you and he is simply stupid, the fact is his possession and use of such a bomb is, in fact, a threat to you: its accidental discharge would kill you and destroy your home. This is the implicit threat of force against you and this must be outlawed in a free society. It is very important to not be confused on this issue: it is not the possession of a nuclear bomb as such which is being outlawed, it is the threat of force which is being outlawed. It is not the possession of objects which must be outlawed, it is the act of using of an object in a threatening manner, the threat or actual use of the initiation of force through the use of an object which must be outlawed. To further clarify this point, consider another example. Suppose you and your neighbors pool your money together to create a company which is going into the business of building military weapons which will be sold to the United States military forces and all of you have decided you will build and sell nuclear bombs. In this case, these nuclear bombs are owned by the individuals who own the company. Their possession of these nuclear bombs at their manufacturing facility does not constitute a threat (unless they build their plant too close to your home), not even implicitly, to anyone, and in this case their possession and use of nuclear bombs should not be illegal. Only certain acts are properly made illegal, acts which involve the initiation of force or its threat. The possession of an object, one an individual has earned, should never be made illegal. McDonnell Douglas, the military contractor, has a manufacturing facility only a few miles from my home. They manufacture F-15s and F-18s, as well as other military aircraft. This company is owned by a collection of individuals, its stockholders, and their ownership and possession of these weapons is not wrong. By owning these weapons and selling them to the military, they are threatening no one. If the president of McDonnell Douglas suddenly lost his mind and instructed some crazed pilot to fly over my home in a menacing manner, then I am being threatened and this should be stopped. Again, it is the threat or actual use of the initiation of force which must be illegal, not the possession of objects. Those who produce certain types of movies either purchase or rent military weapons of all sorts, such as tanks, automatic weapons, cannons and so forth. They have the right to own and use these weapons so long as they do not use them in such a way as to threaten the life and property of another individual, as long as they do not threaten to use them as an instrument of force. Statists bamboozle many in their talk about so-called weapons of destruction in their drive to outlaw guns. Almost any object can be a weapon of destruction. In mankind's history, innocent individuals have been destroyed by the use of all sorts of objects. Individuals have been murdered by the use of baseball bats, knives, metal pipes, heavy stone statues or any other [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: THE FOLLY OVER GUNS 3/3 Date: 30 Nov 1998 06:47:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] kind of blunt object. You could beat someone to death with a large, heavy, hardcover book or with a block of ice. You could strangle someone using a nylon stocking, a rope, piano wire or any other similar thing. Is the solution to the death brought to the victims of murderers to outlaw the ownership of books, baseball bats, knives and other objects which may be used to murder someone? No, the solution is to outlaw the threat or actual use of the initiation of force, to outlaw this kind of act, not the possession of objects as such. If an individual stands before you and threatens you with a baseball bat, it is not his possession of a baseball bat which is wrong, it is his threatening you with force that is wrong. And the same is true of a gun: if he stands before you threatening you with a gun, it is the threat of force that is wrong, not the possession of the gun as such. Now what about these militia groups which have sprouted up in this country? These groups are a product of the advance of statism. Most who join such groups likely sense this country is heading toward some sort of tyranny, and they are right. In training themselves in the ways of the military, they are attempting to prepare themselves to be able to defend themselves and their families in the future. They have the right to do so, as long as they do not physically threaten or initiate force against another individual -- and this includes any representative or employee of government. If there are lunatics in these militia groups who are plotting to bomb government buildings and kill government employees, they must be stopped. True enough, our government has inflicted many injustices on various individuals, but we are not at the point in this country where it is time for an armed insurrection. The fight against the injustices of statism must be fought by ideas, not guns. The only time it is proper to physically fight against a tyrannical government which rules you is when you are no longer free to speak, when you no longer have the freedom to fight by means of spreading the right ideas. Military battles have been fought, throughout the centuries, against statism and those battles have only gotten rid of statists for an all-too-brief period of time. Statists keep resurfacing, every generation or so, because their ideas have never been defeated. The proponents of freedom must have the right ideas on their side to win, and once they do, statist politicians will quickly retreat. The criminal acts by some members of these militia groups are contributing to the breakdown of law and order in this country and, therefore, hasten the move toward some future tyranny, the very thing they apparently oppose. Their acts are also being used by statists to smear gun owners by declarations, mostly in the media, which vaguely or overtly suggest gun owners are somehow responsible for the criminal acts of these militia members, inspiring even more frenzied effort by statists to outlaw guns, to remove from you the means to defend your life. Criminals, including those among militia groups, are not the product of those who seek to have the means to defend themselves against the initiation of force, they are the product of those who advocate the initiation of force. It is the doctrine of statism which promotes the initiation of force and it, not gun owners, is responsible for the creation of criminals, including those in militia groups. In a free society, guns would be controlled by private property owners exercising their right to control the use of their property. An individual could forbid the possession of weapons on his property. In a free society, the overwhelming majority of owners of property where there are public gatherings would, in most cases, forbid the possession of firearms on their property. They would be free, like private schools testing students for drugs, to check anyone entering their property for weapons. This could include screening each individual with metal detectors if they thought that was necessary. In the case, for instance, of airports and planes, rather than having the state forcing such screening, it would be left to the property owners to set the rules: the airport owners and the airlines. Since these owners would have to be responsive to the desires of their customers and since almost all passengers do not want weapons on a plane they are flying, you can be sure airports and airlines would forbid weapons onboard planes or in airports. This would be accomplished without the state mandating anything and without the violation of individual rights by the state's initiation of force. In a free society, the role of the state would be to enforce the rights of the property owners. If an individual attempted to defy the wishes of airlines and airports, by bringing a gun onto their property, then the police should properly take action to enforce the rights of the airlines and airports. An individual does not have the right to carry a weapon, concealed or not, onto the property of another individual without that individual's permission. Those liberals who are loudest in their support of outlawing guns are the first to sympathetically embrace some foreign dictators, such as the rulers of communist China. And if it is the violent loss of life brought about by some lone gunman that is their concern, where is their outrage over the millions who have been slaughtered by statist dictatorships in totalitarian countries? Where is their outrage over the killing of thousands by the Castro regime, the millions in communist China? Their silence and hypocritical inconsistency is revealing. It reveals the loss of human life is not their real concern. A tragedy such as we had in Tasmania, in 1996, in which some crazed gunman killed over 30 people is cynically used by statists to increase their power over you. They care not about the loss of life in Tasmania. If they did, they would be screaming their heads off about the loss of life which occurs on a daily basis under the dictatorships which cover a large part of this planet. We urgently need gun control, but not the kind that's being talked about today. We must control the government gun, which is the statists' assault weapon of choice. Government must never be allowed to initiate force against a single individual. The government gun can bring -- and has brought -- more loss of life and property than a single AK-47 can ever bring in the hands of a solitary individual. Many individuals have been forcibly prevented by statists from using certain drugs which might have saved their lives. How many have died? No one knows and there has been scant mention, if any, of this loss of life on the nightly news. In a free society, one which protects the right to life and liberty of each and all, the initiation of force is abolished. The guns of the state must only be used in defending you against the initiation of force, not inflict it upon you. Your life is important, it is yours and you have the right to defend it with a gun, a knife or any other means at your disposal. If you surrender your right to own a gun, you surrender your right to your life -- and if this is surrendered by a majority in this country, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what will lie ahead for you in the future. TAKE ACTION! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Hypothetical incidents? Try real ... Date: 30 Nov 1998 08:23:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Limits on guns may pass in 1999 By Bob Bernick Jr. Deseret News political editor editor Another attempt will be made during the Legislature's 1999 general session to give church congregations and public school administrators the power to ban all weapons - permitted or not - from their property. House Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake, will make the latest run at changing Utah's concealed-weapons permit laws. Current law says people who get concealed-weapons permits can carry them without restriction except for several specific areas - such as prisons, courtrooms and airports. He's optimistic that a change in House leadership will give his gun-banning side a better shot at success. "So what else is new?" says Elwood Powell, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, which has battled this issue for several years. Such banning of weapons to law-abiding, permit-carrying citizens "is a violation of the Utah Constitution's guarantee of the right to defend ourselves," says Powell. Jones says it is "overwhelmingly clear" from any number of public opinion polls that most Utahns want guns banned from churches and schools. A Deseret News poll conducted earlier this year shows that 93 percent favor concealed weapons being banned from public schools, 90 percent want them banned from churches. "It has been a lack of political will - not public support" that has doomed the concealed-weapons changes before, says Jones. House Speaker Mel Brown, R-Mivale, is stepping down from that leadership role in the 1999 Legislature. While Brown denies it - and Senate President Lane Beattie won't say it either - it is generally believed that Brown's opposition to a similar bill drafted by Beattie in the 1998 general session was the reason Beattie pulled his bill before it was even given a public hearing. Beattie, R-West Bountiful, said at the time only that the bill had little chance of passage in the House, so why waste time on the controversial measure. A speaker has the power to hold a bill or send it to a standing committee where it may have little chance of passage. "I'm encouraged" that the new House GOP leaders will judge his bill on a reasonable basis, Jones said. To give "these two exemptions to the (concealed) weapons law is just plain common sense," says Jones. Why should the place where "we take care of the most vulnerable among us - our children - and the house of the Creator" not be protected from handguns? Jones asks. But Powell looks at it differently. If a constitutional right is denied, someone must step up to ensure that the right is not needed. And someone must pay the costs if that right is denied. He asks who is going to pay the cost of a life-long suffering if persons threatened by others can't defend themselves and are harmed? "Who is going to pick up the social cost" of someone paralyzed for life when they could have fought off an aggressor? "Will it be the state, the taxpayers? I believe people should think about that one." A number of school districts have already issued personnel rules that ban all weapons from schools. Exceptions are usually made for law enforcement officers, and Jones says his bill will allow officers to carry guns on school grounds. Gov. Mike Leavitt - through his personnel department - has also issued regulations banning state employees from carrying weapons, including properly permitted concealed weapons, from state buildings, grounds and vehicles. Again, state law-enforcement officers are exempt. And the State Hospital, where mentally ill people are confined and treated, this year issued new rules and guidelines on carrying weapons there. No one has challenged churches that may want to ban weapons from their buildings. Some legislators are saying nothing really has to be done - that offended citizens who don't like state personnel guidelines, school policies or actions by churches can go to court. But Jones believes the matter should be clearly outlined in state law. "Anyone can create a hypothetical incident for any situation - a woman teacher is attacked by an abusive husband in school or whatever. But why in the world do we need guns in schools and churches? It makes no sense at all to say that guns should be allowed to be taken anywhere." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Good News! Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) to bid for 2000 Presidency [?] Date: 30 Nov 1998 08:23:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message In a message dated 11/27/98 21:45:31 Eastern Standard Time, Scott.Bergeson@m.cc.utah.edu writes: << You may all recall how Sen. Smith did his best to save us from the ill effects of Brady II by creating a private cause of action against the FBI in the event they abused the 'instant check' by creating a gun owner registration database. Against the warnings of the so-called Republican >> Wouldn't it be wise to try and sue HCI and put them out of business, by making them responsible for the deaths of those who they take guns away from? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Rise to your mantles of leadership Date: 30 Nov 1998 09:59:50 -0700 Interesting editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune on Nov 29, 1998. Salt Lake Tribune Article: Do Your Duty http://www.sltrib.com/1998/nov/11291998/public_f/63873.htm=20 Do Your Duty =09 =09 If the electorate truly thought William Jefferson Clinton should = be above the law, and be allowed to dictate the ``punishment'' he will = accept, the Republicans would have been swept out of office in a Democratic= landslide this past election.=20 Those Democrats who did manage to unseat or replace Republicans were very = few. The media and Democratic leadership would have us believe this = ``victory'' indicates a public mandate to retain Mr. Clinton in office. = =20 Does it really? I think there are millions of us who voted Republican, = expecting our majority members in the House and Senate to assume their = sworn responsibility of upholding and protecting the Constitution by = impeaching President Clinton.=20 Democrats want to waive constitutional law to retain him as leader of our = country. The fact that a few Democrats won seats in Congress on local = issues is not the mandate the Democrats and media want us to believe, but = is clearly our final call to the Republican majority to do their duty. = Fail our country this time around, and I believe the electorate will = abandon the Republican Party in droves. =20 What sinister powers do the Democrats have that have managed to hold the = Republican majority hostage? The consequences of maintaining this power = are so far-reaching in the future behavior of our citizenry. Leaders lead. = Can our armed forces be held to standards their commander-in-chief = despises? If this husband is allowed to perjure himself because his = personal life (adultery) is only a private matter, we will further strip = legal protection and further injure our national family structure. =20 In the past we were forced to accept the Chappaquidic affair, then O.J. = Simpson's acquittal, and now President Clinton's behavior. What virtue = will be left to defend by shouldering arms in case of war? Could Congress = even raise an army? When law becomes meaningless to the man on the street, = and there is nothing to hold dear, we can expect chaos to follow. =20 Hello, Republican congressmen! Rise to your mantles of leadership. We have = put our trust and hope in you. Be courageous and boldly re-establish the = rights of truth and justice to our beloved country. =20 GLORIA BARNES Lindon, Utah =09 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: New directions Date: 30 Nov 1998 10:29:51 -0700 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:22:25 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04118; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:09:20 -0700 Received: from (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA07056; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:20:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1299681135-894393976@coe.ufl.edu> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.net Reply-To: dloftus@edu15.coe.ufl.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline This is from a story on Nando News about the NICKS check: (snip) Federal law bans gun purchases by people convicted or under=20 indictment for felony charges, fugitives, the mentally ill, those with dishonorable military discharges, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, illegal aliens, illegal drug users and those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or who are under domestic violence restraining orders. State laws add other categories.<<<<<< Once again I bring up the idea of a class action suit against the BATF,=20 FBI and other Federal agencies if criminals are not charged with these=20 offenses. We must get them (lawyers, judges, prosecutors, etc.) from=20 plea bargaining these charges away. Another thought. Now that we have the NICKS system, we need to get a=20 Congress person to introduce legislation that would repeal the Gun=20 Control Act of 1968. Since we will be checked at a national level,=20 there is no reason why we should only be able to buy a firearm only in=20 our home state. These are two things that gun owners could do to=20 refocus the debate on gun control. Don Loftus Gainesville, FL - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Clinton and gun shows Date: 30 Nov 1998 17:09:04 -0700 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:28:52 -0700 Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04125; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:15:51 -0700 Received: (from mail@localhost) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA06041; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:20:45 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com using -f Received: from arl-img-6.compuserve.com (arl-img-6.compuserve.com [149.174.217.136]) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA06037 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:20:44 -0800 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.16) id MAA07329; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:20:21 -0500 (EST) "INTERNET:CWRHOADES@aol.com" , "INTERNET:NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com" , Warren B Jones Message-ID: <199811301220_MC2-61F5-DDB@compuserve.com> Reply-To: NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com Sender: NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com Precedence: list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline The following alert was forwarded to me from another list. As you are = well aware, the Clinton Administration wants to strangle gun shows using the federal agencies.=20 BATF is seeking public comment on gun shows. Please take a moment to = write a well-thought, concerned letter to the BATF. The address and other information is listed below. David Adams NRA-ILA-EVC, VA 7th http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/ wingedmonkey@compuserve.com ___________________________________________________________________________= _________ The Clinton-Gore administration has set its sights on gun shows, and they will use every means at their disposal to eliminate the rights of gun owners in America. The BATF has recently issued an open letter requesting comments from "interested parties concerning gun shows." It reads as follows: "On November 7, 1998, the President expressed his concern about the = numbers of firearms sold at gun shows and elsewhere without Brady background = checks being conducted or the ability to trace the firearms being sold...The President has asked that the secretary and the Attorney General provide = him with recommendations by January 6, 1999. "The BATF would like your comments and suggestions concerning this matter. For your input to be considered please include your name and address. We request that your reply be returned to this office by December 7, 1998. We appreciate your time and input. Please mail comments to: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Attn: Gun Shows ' 650 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 7400 Washington, DC, 20226" Of course, BATF's expansion of the President's statements to include regulating gun sales "elsewhere" raises more questions about the ultimate goals of the Administration. Time is short, so please be sure to submit your comments as soon as possible if you would like to have them considered= by the December 7 deadline. If you would like more information on how protect your Second Amendment Rights, please contact the NRA member = Council of King County, WAshington, at (206) 764-0778, or come to one of our meetings, The second Friday of every month, 7:00PM at Weapons Safety = Indoor Range in Bellevue, 13215 SE 30th St., Bellevue. Please forward this message to any interested parties- Ken Houghton ****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege**** The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20 official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20 a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20 NRA-1st@telebyte.com *********** Victory 1998! *************** -