From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #19 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 Saturday, February 7 1998 Volume 02 : Number 019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:11:11 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Possibly of interest.... Hi! I thought you might be interested in the following..... Would you like another take on the guns and bigotry issue? Are you interested in the subject of Jews and firearms? Would you like to see a truly awful photo of me? If so, check out this week's Salt Lake City Weekly, http://www.slweekly.com You'll need to click on "Politics" and then "City Beat". The article itself is entitled "More Shots on Gun Bigotry" and was written by Ben Fulton. Considering the City Weekly's consistently liberal, anti-gun stance, I think they did a reasonably fair job of addressing the issue, even if they did invoke the "experts" at HCI. Thanks, Ben! If you have comments , they may be sent to comments@slweekly.com This article was inspired by an Op Ed I wrote for the Independence Institute, http://i2i.org. Special thanks to David Kopel and the folks at the Independence Intitute for their support and for distributing the Op Ed throughout Utah. Sarah Thompson Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com (under construction!) New! The Righter's weekly column with supplemental mail list. To subscribe send a message to: majordomo@aros.net with the message subscribe righter-list in the BODY of the message. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:03:58 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: SB23 negligent storage of a firearm SB23 Negligent Storage of a Firearm is scheduled to be heard Tomorrow at 3:00pm room 403 State Capital by the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee. Please connact as many of the following as possible and voice opposition to this bill. Members are: Sen. L. Alma Mansell, Chair 6995 Union Park Ctr. #100 Midvale, Utah 84047 H-942-6019 O-567-4200 FAX-567-4201 Sen. George Mantes 185 North Main Suite 201 Tooele, Utah 84074 H-882-4856 SLC-531-8157 Sen. Ed P. Mayne 5044 West Bannock Circle West Valley City, Utah 84120 H-968-7756 O-972-2771 FAX-972-9344 Sen. David H. Steele 3376 West 400 North West Point, Utah 84015 H-825-3033 O-546-7347 email:dsteele@le.state.ut.us Sen. Nathan C. Tanner 6225 Woodland Drive Ogden, Utah 84403 H-479-6442 O-442-3678 FAX-442-5061 Sen. Michael Waddoups 2005 W 5620 S Salt Lake City UT 84118 H 967-0225 O 355-1136 - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government. -- Thomas Jefferson, June 1776 - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:30:43 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Guns and Bigots Quite a few people who saw the article in the Salt Lake City Weekly have written asking to see the original Op Ed that "inspired" the article. (If you couldn't find the article it's because the SLCW changed the website back to the Jan. 29 issue. The issue with the article is dated Feb. 5, so it should be back up sometime Thursday.) Hard copies will of course be available for those in the SLC area. This Op Ed was distributed to all daily and weekly papers in Utah. If you're in Utah, please keep an eye out, and let me know if it appears in your local paper. Thanks! Apologies to those of you who may be receiving duplicates. And thanks again to David Kopel at the Independence Institute and Ben Fulton at the City Weekly. The Op Ed follows..... Sarah Guns and Bigots By Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that Rob Bishop, Chairman of the Utah Republican Party and lobbyist for the Utah Shooting Sports Council, stated that school officials and business owners who wish to exclude residents carrying licensed weapons are "bigots in the mold of former southern governors who denied blacks entry into state schools." The editors of the Salt Lake City Tribune responded that Bishop's analogy is a "silly comparison". They further alleged that "the presence of guns in inappropriate public places can reduce safety of the surroundings" and that Bishop was battling statistics, not prejudice. The Tribune is wrong on all points. Rob Bishop is exactly on target when he states that gun owners are contending with prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance. The Tribune shows its ignorance by claiming that Bishop is battling statistics when those statistics actually support his position. Scholarly research shows that concealed carry decreases violent crime, and the presence of guns increases the safety of the surroundings. Since Utah's concealed carry law was passed in 1995, violent crime in Utah has decreased. This finding is entirely predictable, according to the most comprehensive study of concealed carry, conducted by the University of Chicago's John Lott. Professor Lott found that in the years following enactment of concealed carry, violent crime falls six to eight percent. Everyone, including gun carriers, benefits from concealed carry. Because criminals are unable to tell which persons are carrying firearms, they are less willing to attack any given person. The presence of people carrying firearms thus protects the general public, the children, and even the anti-gun bigots. Persons who accept the responsibility for the defense of themselves, their families, and even total strangers, should be honored, not shunned. Only criminals have anything to fear from an armed populace. Utah's handgun carry permit holders are extremely law-abiding. The record since the 1995 handgun carry law went into effect shows that handgun permit holders are good citizens, who pose no threat to anyone other than violent predators. Unfounded claims that law-abiding gunowners threaten the safety of society are similar to Hitler's unfounded claims that Jews carried diseases and threatened the public health. These malicious claims form a damning indictment of Gov. Leavitt and other government officials who seek to prohibit the exercise of constitutional rights in public places. Although the Tribune would have us believe that prejudice applies only to skin color, prejudice is defined as "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." The Tribune, Gov. Leavitt and officials at the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City School Board have all declared their anti-gun position "without knowledge or examination of the facts." Those facts prove that Utah's licensed gun carriers are law-abiding; and Mr. Bishop is precisely correct in calling anti-gun bigots by their proper name. The real issue is trust. If the editors of the Tribune do not trust their readers with firearms, why should their readers trust them to provide accurate and unbiased news? If Gov. Leavitt does not trust his constituents with firearms, why should they trust him to spend their money, uphold the Constitution, or direct the national guard? If the officials at the University of Utah do not trust their adult students and faculty with firearms, why should anyone trust them to provide sound education? If certain law enforcement officers do not trust citizens with firearms, why should citizens trust them to uphold the law? If my clergyman cannot trust me with a mere pistol, why should I entrust him with my soul? The governor, state and local officials, academicians, and attorneys all claim they have the right to openly flout both state law and the state constitution because it is "the right thing to do." How hypocritical of them to break the law because of their own bigotry towards a group of law-abiding citizens! The lawbreakers in government should realize that their obvious contempt for the law serves as an odious example for the rest of us. Their illegal behavior cannot decrease crime; it can only encourage lawlessness. Dr. Sarah Thompson, of Sandy, UT wrote this op-ed for the Independence Institute, a think tank in Golden, Colorado. http://i2i.org. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:37:09 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [righter@therighter.com: Guns and Bigots] Of interest to some... - ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Quite a few people who saw the article in the Salt Lake City Weekly have written asking to see the original Op Ed that "inspired" the article. (If you couldn't find the article it's because the SLCW changed the website back to the Jan. 29 issue. The issue with the article is dated Feb. 5, so it should be back up sometime Thursday.) Hard copies will of course be available for those in the SLC area. This Op Ed was distributed to all daily and weekly papers in Utah. If you're in Utah, please keep an eye out, and let me know if it appears in your local paper. Thanks! Apologies to those of you who may be receiving duplicates. And thanks again to David Kopel at the Independence Institute and Ben Fulton at the City Weekly. The Op Ed follows..... Sarah Guns and Bigots By Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that Rob Bishop, Chairman of the Utah Republican Party and lobbyist for the Utah Shooting Sports Council, stated that school officials and business owners who wish to exclude residents carrying licensed weapons are "bigots in the mold of former southern governors who denied blacks entry into state schools." The editors of the Salt Lake City Tribune responded that Bishop's analogy is a "silly comparison". They further alleged that "the presence of guns in inappropriate public places can reduce safety of the surroundings" and that Bishop was battling statistics, not prejudice. The Tribune is wrong on all points. Rob Bishop is exactly on target when he states that gun owners are contending with prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance. The Tribune shows its ignorance by claiming that Bishop is battling statistics when those statistics actually support his position. Scholarly research shows that concealed carry decreases violent crime, and the presence of guns increases the safety of the surroundings. Since Utah's concealed carry law was passed in 1995, violent crime in Utah has decreased. This finding is entirely predictable, according to the most comprehensive study of concealed carry, conducted by the University of Chicago's John Lott. Professor Lott found that in the years following enactment of concealed carry, violent crime falls six to eight percent. Everyone, including gun carriers, benefits from concealed carry. Because criminals are unable to tell which persons are carrying firearms, they are less willing to attack any given person. The presence of people carrying firearms thus protects the general public, the children, and even the anti-gun bigots. Persons who accept the responsibility for the defense of themselves, their families, and even total strangers, should be honored, not shunned. Only criminals have anything to fear from an armed populace. Utah's handgun carry permit holders are extremely law-abiding. The record since the 1995 handgun carry law went into effect shows that handgun permit holders are good citizens, who pose no threat to anyone other than violent predators. Unfounded claims that law-abiding gunowners threaten the safety of society are similar to Hitler's unfounded claims that Jews carried diseases and threatened the public health. These malicious claims form a damning indictment of Gov. Leavitt and other government officials who seek to prohibit the exercise of constitutional rights in public places. Although the Tribune would have us believe that prejudice applies only to skin color, prejudice is defined as "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." The Tribune, Gov. Leavitt and officials at the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City School Board have all declared their anti-gun position "without knowledge or examination of the facts." Those facts prove that Utah's licensed gun carriers are law-abiding; and Mr. Bishop is precisely correct in calling anti-gun bigots by their proper name. The real issue is trust. If the editors of the Tribune do not trust their readers with firearms, why should their readers trust them to provide accurate and unbiased news? If Gov. Leavitt does not trust his constituents with firearms, why should they trust him to spend their money, uphold the Constitution, or direct the national guard? If the officials at the University of Utah do not trust their adult students and faculty with firearms, why should anyone trust them to provide sound education? If certain law enforcement officers do not trust citizens with firearms, why should citizens trust them to uphold the law? If my clergyman cannot trust me with a mere pistol, why should I entrust him with my soul? The governor, state and local officials, academicians, and attorneys all claim they have the right to openly flout both state law and the state constitution because it is "the right thing to do." How hypocritical of them to break the law because of their own bigotry towards a group of law-abiding citizens! The lawbreakers in government should realize that their obvious contempt for the law serves as an odious example for the rest of us. Their illegal behavior cannot decrease crime; it can only encourage lawlessness. Dr. Sarah Thompson, of Sandy, UT wrote this op-ed for the Independence Institute, a think tank in Golden, Colorado. http://i2i.org. - - - ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 22:44:28 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: SB23 is DEAD At 06:03 PM 2/4/98 -0700, you wrote: > >SB23 Negligent Storage of a Firearm is scheduled to be heard Tomorrow >at 3:00pm room 403 State Capital by the Senate Transportation and >Public Safety Standing Committee. > >Please connact as many of the following as possible and voice >opposition to this bill. Since I haven't seen it posted yet: SB 23 was defeated in committee today, and is dead for this session. Way to go, troops! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 98 07:20:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them" NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles) by ORAL DECKARD The Vigo Examiner I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.) I was told repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles). Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the Second Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by surprise, and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say something along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word." And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is your job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second Amendment, and you don't even know what it says?" Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they continue trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even embarrassed. This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I decided to have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my NRA membership had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I replied "No, I support the Second Amendment." There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second Amendment and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America (goaslad@aol.com) and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (Against- Genocide@JPFO.org) He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the NRA?" Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV and announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47." I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he took that as a good thing. So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right to keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word." So I simply told him what it says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second Amendment was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now we could buy instant food. A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my wife signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no one needed high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to identify him. Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not this time. So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even spelled it for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February 4th, where are you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas." As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I asked "Is there any need to protect assault high capacity semi-automatic rifles?" He answered "We would like to keep them for matches and things, but they don't have to have those big magazines, and only if they were used just for that purpose. We want to be reasonable." I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor. His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, I introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo Examiner, explained Richard Kuhlman and myself were just discussing the need to protect high capacity semi-automatic rifles, and asked "What's your take on it?" He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered "Both." So he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic rifles were imported from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get rid of them." Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying the NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles ?" He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them." So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow (Feb. 5th, 1998) So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor on the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment, and now, that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of firearms, the class of firearms the Second Amendment was specifically enacted to protect. Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected to their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it, or were determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They both seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This time I didn't get it just from the solicitor, but also from his supervisor. And not just his opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion of the NRA. So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you can support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH the NRA. Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an NRA VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead. One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members over a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the years of refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When you give up a right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable will you ultimately have to become? In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged that they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't hold over two shots. They were reasonable. And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground will you now brace your feet? Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is now no solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That defense must now rest with those who have not compromised the Constitution. After Norville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our time", it then fell to Winston Churchill to defend England. Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting the Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies) to get off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are loyal to the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem too proud of our Constitution. - ------------------------------------- Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner All are free to republish at will this intact document. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:49:11 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: SB23 is DEAD Who voted which way? It is a good idea to thank those who voted our way. On Thu, 05 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: >At 06:03 PM 2/4/98 -0700, you wrote: >> >>SB23 Negligent Storage of a Firearm is scheduled to be heard Tomorrow >>at 3:00pm room 403 State Capital by the Senate Transportation and >>Public Safety Standing Committee. >> >>Please connact as many of the following as possible and voice >>opposition to this bill. > > >Since I haven't seen it posted yet: > >SB 23 was defeated in committee today, and is dead for this session. > >Way to go, troops! > >Sarah > > >Sarah Thompson, M.D. >http://www.therighter.com > >A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police >state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall >not be infringed. > >- > > - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Courage is resistance of fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear." - - Mark Twain - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 18:14:41 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Hatch's Hyprocrisy Thought y'all might like this bit of cognitive dissonance from our own senior senator. Contrast this with S. 10........... Sarah REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS Second Session, February 1982 Senate Document 2807 PREFACE by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, from the State of Utah "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.) "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.) "The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.) "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.) In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and commentators. James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has since been construed in but a single, and most ambiguous Supreme Court decision, whereas his proposals for freedom of religion, which he made reluctantly out of fear that they would be rejected or narrowed beyond use, and those for freedom of assembly, which passed only after a lengthy and bitter debate, are the subject of scores of detailed and favorable decisions. Thomas Jefferson, who kept a veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at Monticello, and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear supposed civil libertarians claim firearm ownership should be restricted. Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying a firearm without a police permit. This is not to imply that courts have totally ignored the impact of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state"--apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia. When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service. The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.:" In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense". The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. Their views are those of contemporaries of Jefferson, Madison and others, and are entitled to special weight. A few years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass. [45] Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms. If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the right to keep and bear arms. Utilizing the research capabilities of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the resources of the Library of Congress, and the assistance of constitutional scholars such as Mary Kaaren Jolly, Steven Halbrook, and David T. Hardy, the subcommittee has managed to uncover information on the right to keep and bear arms which documents quite clearly its status as a major individual right of American citizens. We did not guess at the purpose of the British 1689 Declaration of Rights; we located the Journals of the House of Commons and private notes of the Declaration's sponsors, now dead for two centuries. We did not make suppositions as to colonial interpretations of that Declaration's right to keep arms; we examined colonial newspapers which discussed it. We did not speculate as to the intent of the framers of the second amendment; we examined James Madison's drafts for it, his handwritten outlines of speeches upon the Bill of Rights, and discussions of the second amendment by early scholars who were personal friends of Madison, Jefferson, and Washington while these still lived. What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear--and long lost--proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The summary of our research and findings form the first portion of this report. In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of freedoms to submit their views. The statements of two associations who replied are reproduced here following the report of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee also invited statements by Messrs. Halbrook and Hardy, and by the National Rifle Association, whose statements likewise follow our report. When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I hoped that I would be able to assist in the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, rights which have too often been eroded in the belief that government could be relied upon for quick solutions to difficult problems. Both as an American citizen and as a United States Senator I repudiate this view. I likewise repudiate the approach of those who believe to solve American problems you simply become something other than American. To my mind, the uniqueness of our free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men. Orrin G. Hatch Chairman Subcommittee on the Constitution January 20, 1982 - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 98 18:27:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Response to Morris Dees' remarks at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church 1/2 From: Intel96B@aol.com Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:33:42 EST To: harvest@whitemtns.com, gordphil@gis.net, leroy@ix.netcom.com, eagleflt@eagleflt.com, WKay@aol.com, JerryFolk@aol.com, independence@southtech.net, myfirst@tricor.net Cc: msgdesk@vrmaui.com As many of you have probably already heard, Morris Dees (everybody's favorite alleged homosexual pedophile) appeared at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church (outside Philadelphia) on the evening of February 2, 1998. This guy can draw a crowd, er, should I say flock? Many of you may not be aware of this, but there was an article in "Modern Maturity" magazine about Morris Dees a few months back, written by none other than Col. David Hackworth. Hmmmm....so I read it. With that in mind, I went in with a somewhat open (but skeptical) mind. Well, he was already blabbing when I arrived, and I had to sit way up in the choir loft with some individuals who I knew were affiliated with the Unorganized Militia of Pennsylvania, since they had parked right next to me, and we walked in together. Among Mr. Dees remarks were the usual, nebulous "right-wing" paranoia, and his not-very-well-defined opinions about the "danger from the right", blah, blah, blah. Well, as he was wrapping up his remarks, a few people started gathering up scraps of paper from the audience. These scraps of paper contained questions from members of the audience, and several individuals, at least one of whom was with the Philadelphia Inquirer, busily sorted through the questions, deciding on which questions would be asked of Mr. Dees. I must mention here that many public-forum appearances such as these sometimes are reduced to shouting matches when taking questions directly from the audience, and I suppose this might have been done to help maintain some sense of order, but the first time I saw this technique used was among a Russian audience, I am somewhat suspicious whenever I see this technique used. Some of the questions were asked of Mr. Dees, and he replied to them. Among his remarks were the following (I took some notes): In reference to Ruby Ridge: Dees stated that nobody really knew about Ruby Ridge until after the Oklahoma Federal Building explosion. (Oh, really?) Didn't CBS make a made-for-TV movie about it, starring Randy Quaid and Laura Dern? (Yeah, I guess nobody knew about it). Let me say that I knew about Ruby Ridge as it was happening, and read MANY news stories off the AP wire that were never published. It was immediately obvious that the media was trying to keep the lid on it. Gee, maybe THAT'S WHY so few people were aware of what was initially going on during that dark chapter in law enforcement history. Dees went on to say how Weaver's baby was killed by federal agents while being held by her mother standing in the cabin doorway. THE BABY WAS NOT KILLED. Vicky Weaver was killed while HOLDING the baby (Elishiba). Dees then mentioned about Samuel Weaver, neglecting to mention that he was only 13 years old, and was shot five times in the back! In reference to Neo-Nazi "skinhead" types: The next topic was some K.K.K. guy (former Texas "Grand Dragon") he had been spying on, named Louis Bean (Beam?). I'm not familiar with this man's name. Dees admitted that they (I guess that means the Southern Poverty Law Center, or their affiliate "KlanWatch") had planted a hidden microphone in the building that was to house a meeting of several K.K.K.-type dudes. One might wonder if the microphone eavesdropping was accompanied by a warrant? Probably not, unless there were law enforcement people involved, and this technicality was noticeably absent from Mr. Dees' comments. In reference to the "patriot-militia movement": Mr. Dees stated (correctly) that the vast majority of people calling themselves "militia groups" are not really anything more than disgruntled citizens who have an axe to grind with corrupt government, and they get together to discuss political issues, influence elections, etc., and he certainly agrees that they have a right to do that under our DEMOCRACY (...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...). Mr. Dees also stated that in the first years of our country's history, there was no standing national army (he is correct), and that each state had its own militia (right again). He then went on to say that after the Constitution was written ("right here in Philadelphia"), the militias were replaced by a national army. Wrong. Many of the combatants in the Civil War were state militia volunteers. In fact, the National Rifle Assiciation was formed after the Civil War (1878) by former Civil War officers, to provide civilian marksmanship training to the state militia volunteers, in the event that they were ever again called into federal service (indeed, they were during World War I, World War II, and the Korean War, mostly to guard factories producing military items). Dees then went on to discuss the danger of militias as "private armies", and cited two examples in history "right here in Pennsylvania". He then mentioned the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion. (Shay's Rebellion took place in Massachusetts). - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #19 **********************************