From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #16 Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest Sender: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk utah-firearms-digest Wednesday, January 28 1998 Volume 02 : Number 016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:43:27 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: FWD: Gun Confiscation in CA -Forwarded At 07:08 PM 1/20/98 -0700, you wrote: >Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA07600; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:01:08 -0500 (EST) >Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:01:08 -0500 (EST) >Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) > id sma007564; Tue Jan 20 18:00:15 1998 >Message-Id: <2c14d524.34c50dee@aol.com> >Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com >Reply-To: EdgarSuter@aol.com >Originator: noban@mainstream.net >Sender: noban@Mainstream.net >Precedence: bulk >From: EdgarSuter >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: FWD: Gun Confiscation in CA >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list > >Confiscation Comes to California >Lungren fulfills Feinstein's fantasy > > >By Daryl N. Davis > >> They said it would never happen. Any suggestion that it would was derided >as "NRA paranoia." They told us they only wanted "reasonable controls." > > Well, it has happened. Gun confiscation is now the law in California. >Thank you, Dan Lungren! >What Should I Do? > >1. If a law enforcement officer attempts to confiscate your SKS, live to >fight another day. DO NOT RESIST! Do get a receipt, though. > >2. Contact Governor Wilson and firmly but politely express your outrage at >this situation. In addition to infringing the Second Amendment, the AG's >position creates a taking of private property without just compensation >(Fifth Amendment) and an ex post facto application of the Assault Weapons >Control Act (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3). >Gov. Pete Wilson >State Capitol >Sacramento, CA 95814 >Phone: 916-445-2864 >FAX: 916-445-4633 > >3. Become active in your local NRA Members Council. You may call the >Silicon Valley Members Council at 408-235-9175, 24 hours a day, for up to >date legislative information or for information on contacting a Members >Council in your area. More friggin' appeasement! I'm sure the Jews in Germany got "receipts" for their guns, gold, and money too. And guess what? They're all dead, and 50+ years later their grandchildren are still trying to get it back. I would never presume to tell someone else what to do, especially when it comes to matters of life and death. But, as for me, they'll get my guns from my cold, dead fingers, and no other way. And the NRA won't get a penny, unless they want to scavenge it from my cold, dead corpse before the asset forfeiture folks beat them to it. For shame! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - -Winston Churchill - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:23:17 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Jan. 23 column - Horiuchi] The latest from Vin... - ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 23, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'Protecting him, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders ...' What does the Declaration of Independence actually consist of? Sure, from our school days, we may remember that "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States." But that's only the last paragraph. Prior to that, Mr. Jefferson and his co-signers spent 29 paragraphs doing ... what? "Declaring their causes," of course! We did this -- anyone would have the right to do this -- because of a "long train of Abuses and Usurpations," remember? "He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance." Remember? "He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. "He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of Pretended Legislation: "For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us: "For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States. ..." This is not just schoolboy stuff. A message etched in fire from our patrimony, these words tell us how Americans shall know when they are again justified in declaring themselves free of a parasitical tyrant. Fast forward 216 years, to the late summer of 1992. Part-time gunsmith Randy Weaver had failed to show up for a court date, after being entrapped by ATF agents hoping to turn him into a snitch, to spy on a nearby CHURCH. Federal marshals now trespass on the Weaver family's private Idaho property (the marshals carry no warrant this day and are not there to make an arrest), and open fire when they're spotted by the family dog, killing the dog, and also Weaver's 14-year-old son, Sammy. A federal marshal is also killed, either in self defense or by fratricidal fire. (The federals never release any shell casings or autopsy results for independent review - -- but a jury acquits Weaver and family friend Kevin Harris in the death.) The federal government answers by flooding the property with hundreds more trespassers in full combat gear. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi then shoots at Weaver and Harris as the pair races back to his front door, after paying their respects to young Sammy's body in an outbuilding. One of Horiuchi's shots passes through the window of the kitchen door, shooting away much of the brain of Weaver's wife Vicky, for whom there are no warrants outstanding. At the moment prior to her death (which comes after 30 seconds of blood-curdling screams), Vicki Weaver was holding her baby in her arms in her own kitchen, threatening no one. Unaware they have murdered Vicky Weaver, federal agents continue to shout taunting remarks at her dead body, in the full hearing of her children, for days. The federal government eventually pays Weaver -- acquitted of murder and all other major charges -- and his children $3.1 million in damages for these wrongful actions. After a year-long review, the U.S. Justice Department decides in 1994 not to charge sniper Lon Horiuchi with any crime. Like the Germans at Nuremberg, they declare he was "just following orders." But, just before the five-year statute of limitations is due to toll, in August of 1997, Boundary County (Idaho) Prosecutor Denise Woodbury bravely files a charge of involuntary manslaughter against this armed trooper, who has long been quartered among us as part of the 60,000-strong federal "standing army" of FBI, DEA, ATF and other Einsatzgruppen troopers. Here now is the vital test. Will this "king's officer" be allowed to stand trial on the evidence, before a randomly selected jury of Idahoans, in their own state court? Or will the new king "protect him, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which he has committed on the Inhabitants of these States"? Jan. 7, 1998: The Associated Press informs us: "BONNERS FERRY, Idaho (AP) -- A judge today ordered an FBI sharpshooter to stand trial on a state manslaughter charge for the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife in the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge. ... "Magistrate Judge Quentin Harden ... scheduled a Feb. 13 arraignment before state Judge James Michaud." So far so good. But now the inevitable: Jan. 12, 1998: "BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi won his bid today to be tried in federal court on the state charge brought against him in the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife in the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge. ... "Horiuchi, supported by the U.S. Justice Department, petitioned the federal court to take over the case on grounds that the transfer is allowed when federal agents are prosecuted for conduct in their official capacity. "U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge agreed. ... Neither murder nor manslaughter, of course, is a federal crime. State courts have sole jurisdiction to try such cases. Clearly, the federals want jurisdiction here so they can either dismiss the case, or (if a public outcry renders that unwise) so limit the evidence admitted that the question to be decided ends up nothing more than "Was Agent Horiuchi obeying what he believed was a lawful order at the time?" Sort of like letting Martin Borman set the ground rules for the Nuremberg trials. Modern federal judges -- like Judge Smith in the trial of the Waco survivors -- are famous for declaring "The United States government isn't going to be put on trial in my courtroom." As one of my e-mail correspondents puts it: "The test for whether one is living in a police state is that those who are charged with enforcing the law are allowed to break the laws with impunity." This -- along with Janet Reno and her Waco Killers still roaming free, of course -- is the great modern test of whether this Union can long endure. If Lon Horiuchi walks (or even if some untimely "accident" allows him to escape justice) while the surviving VICTIMS of the federal assault at Waco are still serving long prison terms, after being found INNOCENT of all major charges, then what shall we say to the patriot who advises: "If you see a federal agent committing a crime, don't bother turning him in, just shoot him down like a dog. Kill him on the spot, and walk away without giving it a moment's thought." Showing our respect for due process, do we continue to say: "Oh no, that would be wrong. Just turn him in to the proper authorities, and justice will be done"? Do we, really? Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams - ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious." -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:09:57 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Monica Lewinsky -Forwarded Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA19174; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:11:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:11:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma019158; Thu Jan 22 08:11:36 1998 Message-Id: <34C74266.599AD96D@inetnebr.com> Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: lball@inetnebr.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: larry ball To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Monica Lewinsky X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Does anybody have any information on this gal, such as any history of attempted suicide, or indications of being accident prone? Is she given to visiting D.C. area parks after dark or sleeping on railroad tracks? Has she EVER been to Mena, Arkansas? Inquiring minds want to know. Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:43:27 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Rob Bishop Hi all! I've noticed (as probably many of you have too!) that the Trib has published a daily stream of letters condemning Rob Bishop, and has failed to publish even ONE letter supporting him. I suspect that their bigotry is showing once again, but I can't formally complain unless I know that they have actually received letters supporting Bishop. (I know they received mine, but that's not good enough!) If you know of anyone who sent a letter to the Trib in support of Bishop, please let me know. If you're willing to send me a copy of the letter, that's great, but certainly not essential. (If I get enough, I'll batchfile them over and try to shame the Trib into equal time.) Names are helpful, but not necessary. Please include the approximate date the letter was sent if you can. I haven't been following the DesNews. Are they being reasonable or are they engaging in the same sort of chicanery? If it's easier for you to fax info or articles, my fax is 801-566-1625. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANY INTERESTED PERSONS OR NEWSGROUPS! Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com "You should always believe all you read in the newspapers, as this makes them more interesting." --Dame Rose Macauley, author - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 98 21:16:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: AL: Massive Gun Registration Any imminent danger of such an atrocity in Utah? Date: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 2:19 PM Immediate Action Needed: Alabama "Brady" Check 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 Alabama Action Alert: January 21, 1998 A massive new statewide gun control agency is about to be established inside the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (ACJIC) -- unless you act quickly to stop it. This is being done as part of legislation enacting so-called "Brady" checks. The legislation is contained in a twin package of identical bills, H.B. 32 in the Alabama House of Representatives, and S.B. 128 in the Alabama State Senate. Both bills were railroaded (without hearings) through committee just days into the new 1998 session. Floor action could come as early as tomorrow. Under the proposed new law: 1. All retail gun buyers, regardless of the type of gun being purchased, will be registered and have their personal information sent to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. 2. A $15.00 fee (actually a tax) will be imposed on each gun you buy from a dealer. 3. Your right to buy a gun in an emergency can be denied by ACJIC bureaucrats acting on inaccurate information. 4. The state gun control agency will be used to identify citizens with misdemeanors so their guns can be confiscated under the 1996 federal Lautenberg gun ban. GOA has learned that elements of both the House and Senate leadership have signed-off on this horror. They are using their powers to try to ram it through rapidly before an uproar develops that would discourage passage-- this is an election year. [snip] *********************************************************** 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. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 09:31:00 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Rob Bishop -Forwarded Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xvVLZ-0004CA-00; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:43:41 -0700 Received: from mail.xmission.com [198.60.22.22] by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xvVLW-0004Bg-00; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:43:38 -0700 Received: from mars.aros.net [207.173.16.20] by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xvVLV-0006bL-00; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:43:37 -0700 Received: from sarahtho (xm1-0.slc.aros.net [207.173.24.145]) by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP id PAA08762 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:42:48 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980122154327.00d534b0@aros.net> X-Sender: righter@aros.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:43:27 -0700 To: utah-firearms@xmission.com From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Rob Bishop Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Hi all! I've noticed (as probably many of you have too!) that the Trib has published a daily stream of letters condemning Rob Bishop, and has failed to publish even ONE letter supporting him. I suspect that their bigotry is showing once again, but I can't formally complain unless I know that they have actually received letters supporting Bishop. (I know they received mine, but that's not good enough!) If you know of anyone who sent a letter to the Trib in support of Bishop, please let me know. If you're willing to send me a copy of the letter, that's great, but certainly not essential. (If I get enough, I'll batchfile them over and try to shame the Trib into equal time.) Names are helpful, but not necessary. Please include the approximate date the letter was sent if you can. I haven't been following the DesNews. Are they being reasonable or are they engaging in the same sort of chicanery? If it's easier for you to fax info or articles, my fax is 801-566-1625. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANY INTERESTED PERSONS OR NEWSGROUPS! Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com "You should always believe all you read in the newspapers, as this makes them more interesting." --Dame Rose Macauley, author - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:21:56 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [Fwd: (fwd) Impeachment.org] -Forwarded Send your Rep. a message to impeach Clinton @ http://www.impeachment.org/ Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06979; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 20:04:21 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA23248; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:10:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:10:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma023203; Sat Jan 24 22:09:33 1998 Message-Id: <34CAA520.A7D739C4@inetnebr.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: lball@inetnebr.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: larry ball To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [Fwd: (fwd) Impeachment.org] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------1D6CBB37CB91103AA8DBC86D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - --------------1D6CBB37CB91103AA8DBC86D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from oak.zilker.net (daemon@oak.zilker.net [198.252.182.129]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA24889 for ; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:56:06 -0600 (CST) Received: by oak.zilker.net (8.8.5/zilker.1.127) id OAA04309; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:46:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from insync.net by oak.zilker.net (8.8.5/zilker.1.127) id OAA04303; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:46:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from 209-113-28-2.insync.net (209-113-28-2.insync.net [209.113.28.2]) by insync.net (8.8.8/8.7.1) with SMTP id OAA27703; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:46:08 -0600 (CST) From: chasm@insync.net (schuetzen) To: FIREARMS@LISTSERV.UTA.EDU, texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Subject: (fwd) Impeachment.org Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:45:54 -0600 Message-ID: <34d052f7.11274010@mailhost.insync.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by chasm@insync.net (schuetzen) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:19:20 +0000, "ICE" wrote: http://www.impeachment.org/ For those who have the time and inclination to get on the bandwagon. - -- Charles L Hamilton, chasm@insync.net, Houston, TX Moderator of Cast Bullet and Black Powder elists - -------------------------------------------------- X-No-Archive: Yes - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. - --------------1D6CBB37CB91103AA8DBC86D-- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:04:10 -0700 From: Andelain Subject: Re: AL: Massive Gun Registration > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: AL: Massive Gun Registration > Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:57:24 -0700 > From: Andelain > Organization: Burrito Banditos Inc. > To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com > References: <8E7D4FC.01F5007991.uuout@ucs.org> > > SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > > > Any imminent danger of such an atrocity in Utah? > By "imminent" do you mean "how long ago did this > happen here?" > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 2:19 PM > > > > Immediate Action Needed: Alabama "Brady" Check > > > > 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 > > > > Alabama Action Alert: January 21, 1998 > > > > A massive new statewide gun control agency is about to be > > established inside the Alabama Criminal Justice Information > > Center (ACJIC) -- unless you act quickly to stop it. In Utah -> Bureau of Criminal I...er, well it's BCI Background Check International? Whatever, it's the "instant check" folks. > > > > > > 1. All retail gun buyers, regardless of the type of gun > > being purchased, will be registered and have their > > personal information sent to U.S. Attorney General > > Janet Reno. Handgun purchases in Utah go thru the BCI check. > > > > 2. A $15.00 fee (actually a tax) will be imposed on each > > gun you buy from a dealer. Here it's $10? Something like that. > > > > 3. Your right to buy a gun in an emergency can be denied > > by ACJIC bureaucrats acting on inaccurate information. In an emergency, not in an emergency, whatever. Same applies here. I know one guy who was arrested 20-25 years ago for walking past a "crime scene". The charges were dismissed that evening. He had to pay $150 dollars to get the arrest "expunged". After three months from the first denial from BCI, he finally was _allowed_ to purchase his CZ. > > > > 4. The state gun control agency will be used to identify > > citizens with misdemeanors so their guns can be > > confiscated under the 1996 federal Lautenberg gun ban. Misdemeanors, false arrests, traffic ticket warrents, etc. This has been going on in Utah since 1992..... - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:32:47 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: [Fwd: (fwd) Impeachment.org] -Forwarded At 06:21 PM 1/26/98 -0700, you wrote: >Send your Rep. a message to impeach Clinton @ > >http://www.impeachment.org/ I did. I received a letter from Cong. Merrill Cook two days ago. He said consideration of impeachment was premature. If I can find the actual letter, I'll post it. Sarah - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 98 18:17:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ALERT: HB69 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:57:17 -0700 From: Jim Dexter To: LPUtah Forum Cc: Crankee@ix.netcom.com, John Welle Now we have a number for this totally unnecessary legislation. HB69, which says in part: "Private Property Owners and Houses of Worship Right to Prohibit Dangerous Weapons", sponsored by Representative Robert Killpack, "(1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm . . . may not knowingly or intentionally: (a) transport a dangerous weapon into a house of worship; or (b) enter or remain in a house of worship while in possession of a dangerous weapon. (2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person had permission of the church or organization operating the house of worship to possess the dangerous weapon in or to transport it into the house of worship. (3) A violation of this section is: (a) an infraction; or (b) a class C misdemeanor if notice that dangerous weapons are prohibited has been given. . . . - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:35:08 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: ALERT: HB69 At 06:17 PM 1/26/98 -0700, you wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:57:17 -0700 >From: Jim Dexter >To: LPUtah Forum >Cc: Crankee@ix.netcom.com, John Welle > >Now we have a number for this totally unnecessary legislation. >HB69, which says in part: > >"Private Property Owners and Houses of Worship Right to Prohibit >Dangerous Weapons", sponsored by Representative Robert Killpack, >"(1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm . . . >may not knowingly or intentionally: >(a) transport a dangerous weapon into a house of worship; or >(b) enter or remain in a house of worship while in possession of a >dangerous weapon. >(2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person had >permission of the church or organization operating the house of worship to >possess the dangerous weapon in or to transport it into the house of worship. >(3) A violation of this section is: >(a) an infraction; or >(b) a class C misdemeanor if notice that dangerous weapons are prohibited >has been given. . . . Notice in particular that even if you have explicit permission, or even a formal _request_ that you be armed in a "house of worship", you may still be prosecuted, and only after you exhaust your time and money in the legal system may you plead the "defense" so generously offered in (3). It's certainly a good thing Utah has such a strong tradition of religious freedom! The following letter to the editor was sent to the SL Trib on 1/24. I expect that, as always, it will be suppressed. Public Forum The Salt Lake Tribune Historically, Utah has been known for its religious tolerance. Unfortunately, Rep. Killpack intends to bring the very concept of religious freedom to an abrupt end during this legislataive session. Killpack's legislation, HB 69, would prohibit firearms in any house of worship in the state of Utah, regardless of the religion or its teachings, and without exception. It is absolutely not the prerogative of the state to dictate how anyone should worship. The Utah Constitution states clearly: "The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.." My religion commands: "If a man riseth up to kill you, kill him first". My conscience dictates that I be armed and prepared to defend myself at all times, including during worship. Do the state legislature and the people of this state truly wish to infringe my right to worship according to the dictates of my conscience? If we allow the State to prohibit firearms in houses of worship, how long will it be before it bans wine for sacraments or declares that removing shoes to enter a mosque is a "public health hazard"? Any individual house of worship may restrict whatever it chooses, but the state absolutely must not do so. However, any churches, synagogues or mosques that choose to prohibit firearms should realize they are advertising themselves as easy prey. Hate-filled religious bigots will be encouraged to enter houses of worship and murder devout, law-abiding citizens and their children because they may do so without risk of resistance. While HB 69 may have good intentions, it is a flagrant violation of religious freedom and will actually endanger the lives of those who choose to worship in public. It should be opposed by citizens, clergy, and legislators. Sarah Thompson, M.D. Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 98 08:11:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ALERT: HB69 (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:21:13 EST From: JRLinSLC To: lputah@qsicorp.com One may also note that the "I had permission defense" in HB 69 applies only to one section and not the other section. However, a good criminal defense lawyer might be able to make the defense apply to both sections on constitutional grounds. But noting the disparity in committee might slow the bill down. Scooter! - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:29:31 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Know your enemies (and friends) From a recent Rolly & Wells [Image] [Image] [Image] Monday, January 26, 1998 [Image] [Image] Rolly & Wells: Guns Or No Guns? BY PAUL ROLLY AND JOANN JACOBSEN-WELLS GUNS OR NO GUNS? Republican State Chairman Rob Bishop said recently that university officials who ban guns from their campuses are comparable to the racial bigots of the early 1960s who tried to keep schools segregated. Inspired by that statement, we asked elected officials, many Republican, this question: ``Should colleges and universities have the right to ban guns from their campuses? Their responses: -- Gov. Mike Leavitt: ``Yes. The university should set policies to create a safe campus environment just as I set policies to create a safe environment in state government.'' -- Sandy Mayor Tom Dolan: ``I have a problem with people carrying weapons for any reason in an academic setting.'' -- U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch: ``If people have licenses, under the law they have a right to carry a weapon. But it is inadvisable to carry a gun at a university that has a policy against it.'' -- Utah Senate President Lane Beattie: ``No. Colleges and universities are public buildings for public access. Restricting constitutional rights in those institutions crosses the line. But I do believe in restrictions for public [elementary and secondary] schools.'' -- Salt Lake County Commission Chairman Brent Overson: ``Yes. It is a private property rights issue. It is the same thing as posting a sign in your yard that says, `No Hunting.' '' -- Logan Mayor Doug Thompson: ``If they perceive a problem, they should have that right. If the problem isn't presenting itself, I don't see a need to ban guns from campuses.'' -- U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett: ``As a U.S. senator, this is not a federal issue. As a Utahn, I support the right of each university to make its own rules.'' -- Salt Lake County Commissioner Mary Callaghan: ``No. If you do that then you have to start moving into commercial buildings, other public buildings, on the street and eventually in your own home. The ripple effect could be disturbing. We need to focus on crime and the criminal rather than punishing law-abiding citizens.'' -- Murray Mayor Daniel Snarr: ``Yes.'' -- Utah House Speaker Mel Brown: ``No. The Legislature sets state law. We set a law on the use of concealed weapons. Until we authorize somebody else to change that law, our law ought to be abided by.'' -- Salt Lake County Commissioner Randy Horiuchi: ``Absolutely.'' -- Salt Lake City Mayor Deedee Corradini: ``Yes. It is appropriate to set policies to guarantee safety in churches, schools and businesses.'' -- Rep. Chris Cannon: ``Yes. While Americans have the right to bear arms, there is a conflicting right for churches, universities and other private property holders to ban firearms on their premises.'' -- Ogden Mayor Glenn J. Mecham: ``I think that is an appropriate prohibition. There are certain people who are charged with providing security. That is challenging. They should not have to deal with unforeseeable armed people.'' -- Rep. Merrill Cook: ``As a congressman, I am aware of the growing debate on this issue, but it's a state issue. The federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction here, and I hesitate to offer a federal solution to a problem that should be handled by the governor and the Legislature.'' -- Provo Mayor Lewis K. Billings: ``I generally favor less governmental intervention and restriction. Part of what makes this such a difficult debate is that no matter what government does, there will be an interference in free right and choice. If you allow organizations and institutions to restrict individuals from carrying arms, you are interfering with an individual's right and freedom of choice. On the other hand, if you don't allow institutions to enact the rules and policies they choose, you have interfered in their affairs.'' (Our translation: ``Maybe.'') [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. -------------------------------------------------- Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here. - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:37:26 -0700 From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Know your enemies (and friends) Charles Hardy wrote: > > -- Salt Lake County Commission Chairman Brent Overson: ``Yes. It > is a private property rights issue. It is the same thing as posting a > sign in your yard that says, `No Hunting.' '' > -- Rep. Chris Cannon: ``Yes. While Americans have the right to > bear arms, there is a conflicting right for churches, universities > and other private property holders to ban firearms on their > premises.'' [Non-linearity mode ON] Private Property Rights!?!?!?!?!?! When did the U become Overson's or Cannon's Private Property! Arrogant *@^%$*#*&^%'s - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:44:56 -0700 From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Know your enemies (and friends) Will Thompson wrote: > > Charles Hardy wrote: > > > > > -- Salt Lake County Commission Chairman Brent Overson: ``Yes. It > > is a private property rights issue. It is the same thing as posting a > > sign in your yard that says, `No Hunting.' '' Functionary -> "County commission" Me-> "Yes, I just read a quote from Commissioner Overson that banning guns from the university is a private property rights thing..." Functionary-> "yes" Me-> "I'd like to as the commish when the University was deeded over to him? Last I heard, it was _public_ property, paid for by me tax dollars...along with the commish's salary, 'sfar as that goes...." Functionary-> "I'll pass that on to him." Claire? - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:04:08 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Box Elder County Access Plan There is a meeting on Friday January 30th 5p.m. to 8p.m. at the Brigham City Community Center 20 North 300 West. The meeting subject is about land access in west Box Elder county. A group was formed by the county commissioners to study access issues between the public and landowners. One of the members on this committee called to let us know that the proposal submitted is not for access but more for road closure. Everyone who travels out west in Box Elder county for any reason should attend this meeting to see if the roads they use are scheduled for closure. I was told the proposal will close several hundred miles of roads and close off access to public land. The road closures are being proposed under the premise of protecting wildlife during times of high risk and vulnerability. We, as the public and sportsmen, need to attend this meeting to hear the proposal first hand and determine if it addresses the issues. Please let everyone who uses or has used roads out west know about this meeting. This will be our only chance to review this proposal and we need a large number of support. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 23:28:51 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Know your enemies (and friends) >>From a recent Rolly & Wells > > =20 > [Image] [Image] Monday, January 26, 1998 [Image] [Image] > > Rolly & Wells: Guns Or No Guns? > > BY PAUL ROLLY AND JOANN > JACOBSEN-WELLS > > GUNS OR NO GUNS? > Republican State Chairman Rob Bishop said recently that > university officials who ban guns from their campuses are comparable > to the racial bigots of the early 1960s who tried to keep schools > segregated. > Inspired by that statement, we asked elected officials, many > Republican, this question: ``Should colleges and universities have > the right to ban guns from their campuses? > Their responses: and mine..... > -- Gov. Mike Leavitt: ``Yes. The university should set policies > to create a safe campus environment just as I set policies to create > a safe environment in state government.'' And policies should be based on facts. Studies show that ""allowing" concealed carry decreases violent crime. > -- Sandy Mayor Tom Dolan: ``I have a problem with people carrying > weapons for any reason in an academic setting.'' "I have a problem with people exercising free speech for any reason in an academic setting." > -- U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch: ``If people have licenses, under the > law they have a right to carry a weapon. But it is inadvisable to > carry a gun at a university that has a policy against it.'' Licenses? Since when do you need a license to exercise a right.? But in any case, it is inadvisable to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights when others don't like it. > -- Utah Senate President Lane Beattie: ``No. Colleges and > universities are public buildings for public access. Restricting > constitutional rights in those institutions crosses the line. But I > do believe in restrictions for public [elementary and secondary] > schools.'' Which are NOT public buildings for public access? The kiddies are already barred from carrying firearms, anyway. > -- Salt Lake County Commission Chairman Brent Overson: ``Yes. It > is a private property rights issue. It is the same thing as posting a > sign in your yard that says, `No Hunting.' '' Or "No Niggers"? > -- Logan Mayor Doug Thompson: ``If they perceive a problem, they > should have that right. If the problem isn't presenting itself, I > don't see a need to ban guns from campuses.'' Perception isn't reality. And there's no "should" when it comes to rights. They exist or they don't. > -- U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett: ``As a U.S. senator, this is not a > federal issue. As a Utahn, I support the right of each university to > make its own rules.'' Rules, yes. As long as they're within the law. > -- Salt Lake County Commissioner Mary Callaghan: ``No. If you do > that then you have to start moving into commercial buildings, other > public buildings, on the street and eventually in your own home. The > ripple effect could be disturbing. We need to focus on crime and the > criminal rather than punishing law-abiding citizens.'' Brava! > -- Murray Mayor Daniel Snarr: ``Yes.'' No! > -- Utah House Speaker Mel Brown: ``No. The Legislature sets state > law. We set a law on the use of concealed weapons. Until we authorize > somebody else to change that law, our law ought to be abided by.'' Bravo! > -- Salt Lake County Commissioner Randy Horiuchi: ``Absolutely.'' Absolutely not! > -- Salt Lake City Mayor Deedee Corradini: ``Yes. It is > appropriate to set policies to guarantee safety in churches, schools > and businesses.'' See Gov. Leavitt. But are you really willing to _guarantee_ my safety? Even if I slip on the ice? Even if I get food poisoning in the synagogue? Better start raising funds again! > -- Rep. Chris Cannon: ``Yes. While Americans have the right to > bear arms, there is a conflicting right for churches, universities > and other private property holders to ban firearms on their > premises.'' Uh, Chris? You do own a good bit of Utah. But not the University. It's not private property, it's a public institution. And remember back when you took that oath? The part about not prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Believe it or not, that applies to churches. > -- Ogden Mayor Glenn J. Mecham: ``I think that is an appropriate > prohibition. There are certain people who are charged with providing > security. That is challenging. They should not have to deal with > unforeseeable armed people.'' The ones with permits are forseeable. It's the criminals who are unforeseeable. > -- Rep. Merrill Cook: ``As a congressman, I am aware of the > growing debate on this issue, but it's a state issue. The federal > government doesn't have any jurisdiction here, and I hesitate to > offer a federal solution to a problem that should be handled by the > governor and the Legislature.'' Darn! I thought I'd finally escaped the gun issue.! > -- Provo Mayor Lewis K. Billings: ``I generally favor less > governmental intervention and restriction. Part of what makes this > such a difficult debate is that no matter what government does, there > will be an interference in free right and choice. If you allow > organizations and institutions to restrict individuals from carrying > arms, you are interfering with an individual's right and freedom of > choice. On the other hand, if you don't allow institutions to enact > the rules and policies they choose, you have interfered in their > affairs.'' > (Our translation: ``Maybe.'') I hear there may be an opening in the White House soon. Nice try! > =A9 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. Sarah Thompson, M.D. Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com "You should always believe all you read in the newspapers,=20 as this makes them more interesting." --Dame Rose Macauley, author - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #16 **********************************