From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #241 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 Thursday, June 5 2003 Volume 02 : Number 241 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 21:04:08 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: RKBA Poll at Daily Herold The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very satisfactory results, but some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be aware of it. http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?pollID=136 ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 22:02:33 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: RKBA Poll at Daily Herold 16 May 2003 21:04:08 GMT Charles Hardy wrote: The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very satisfactory results, but some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be aware of it. http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?pollID=136 - ----- Is this a joke? Neither that document nor billoreilly.com contains any data. Have the conservative Republican fascists blocked connectivity to XMission? Shabbat Shalom, Scott - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 23:47:23 -0600 From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: RKBA Poll at Daily Herold On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 22:02 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > 16 May 2003 21:04:08 GMT Charles Hardy wrote: > > The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very > satisfactory results, but > some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be > aware of it. > > http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?pollID=136 > ----- > > Is this a joke? Neither that document nor billoreilly.com contains any > data. > Have the conservative Republican fascists blocked connectivity to > XMission? well, I use xmisison as my isdn provider and I have no problem. Get rid of the ----- at the end of the URL though and you might have more luck Chad > > Shabbat Shalom, > Scott > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 23:58:13 -0600 From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: RKBA Poll at Daily Herold they seem to have been hacked or something. I was there earlier this evening but now I just get the default apache page that appears when you first install apache... Chad On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 22:02 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > 16 May 2003 21:04:08 GMT Charles Hardy wrote: > > The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very > satisfactory results, but > some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be > aware of it. > > http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?pollID=136 > ----- > > Is this a joke? Neither that document nor billoreilly.com contains any > data. > Have the conservative Republican fascists blocked connectivity to > XMission? > > Shabbat Shalom, > Scott > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 00:54:30 -0600 From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: RKBA Poll at Daily Herold It's back up On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 22:02 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > 16 May 2003 21:04:08 GMT Charles Hardy wrote: > > The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very > satisfactory results, but > some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be > aware of it. > > http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?pollID=136 > ----- > > Is this a joke? Neither that document nor billoreilly.com contains any > data. > Have the conservative Republican fascists blocked connectivity to > XMission? > > Shabbat Shalom, > Scott > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 14:52:00 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Don't try to disarm Iraqis On 17 May 2003 09:33:19 -0500 Jon Roland wrote: Dear Mr. President: This is in response to an Associated Press report that "U.S. military tells Iraqis to turn in all guns or face arrest" http://www.wmtw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1279311&nav=7k6sBu3V . If true, it is a disastrous mistake. You should direct Lieutenant General David McKiernan to rescind the order and apologize to the Iraqi people for even thinking about depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms. Even Saddam didn't have the gall to try to do that. If the Coalition Administration wants to make Iraq a modern republic, it should be issuing already-confiscated weapons to local militia for self- defense and law enforcement, and training them to perform those duties effectively. It is reasonable to confiscate weapons from those individuals who abuse the right, but the citizenry generally should be presumed to be righteous until they prove otherwise. Of course Coalition troops would like to operate in an environment in which they are the only ones armed. That isn't going to happen. And if Gen. McKiernan continues this misguided policy, he will cause the Iraqi people to turn against the Coalition and make our continued operations there untenable. One of the surest ways to provoke armed resistance is to try to disarm good citizens. Just try it in this country and see what happens! A danger to Coalition troops? Of course. They are in the same position that civilians all over the world are in every day. Get used to it. But Gen. McKiernan has no more authority to disarm good citizens than he has to tell them how to speak, publish, worship, or exercise any other right recognized by the U.S. Bill of Rights and the International Covenant of Human Rights. How does he expect the Iraqi people to defend themselves and enforce the law if they lack the means to do it? Indeed, you should go farther than ordering Gen. McKiernan to rescind his order and apologize. He should be sacked, as an example for anyone else who might make a similar mistake. - -- Jon Roland - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org jon.roland@constitution.org - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 17:40:08 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Alaska to get "Vermont Carry" I just received a phone call from Clark Aposhian (USDIN) who told me that NRA lobbyist Brian Judy just let him know that the Alaska Legislature has just passed a "Vermont Carry" bill (overwhelming in the house, virtually no debate in the Senate, it seems) that is expected to be signed by the Governor. Once that happens, Alaska will become the second State in Union to recognize citizens' RIGHT to own AND CARRY weapons suitable for self defense. I do not know any further details at this time. However, I suspect, given NRA involvement and support, that the bill/soon-to-be-law, leaves the CCW permit in place and simply adds permitless, carry-by-RIGHT, as an option. Congrats to Alaska. May Utah's legislature/governor soon see the light and follow in the example of our two northern examples. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 07:59:09 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: CNN rapped over misleading broadcasts http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030519-110144-7123r.htm CNN rapped over gun segment By Robert Stacy McCain THE WASHINGTON TIMES CNN has found itself the target of criticism for misleading viewers about the types of weapons prohibited by a federal law due to expire next year. Two CNN broadcasts last week, which featured firing demonstrations by the sheriff's department in Broward County, Fla., suggested that firearms banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons. Yesterday, CNN admitted that was not true. "In fact, if you fire the same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same impact," CNN's John Zarella told viewers yesterday. One of the Thursday broadcasts incorrectly reported that fully automatic weapons are included in the 1994 ban on 19 types of semiautomatic rifles. The 1994 law - which will expire in September 2004 if Congress does not renew it - banned some military-style rifles that are semiautomatic, meaning they fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Fully automatic weapons, such as machine guns and AK-47s, are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not among the semiautomatic guns prohibited by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The NRA and other gun rights groups say the banned guns are only cosmetically different than many legal types of firearms, and that the news media have consistently confused the semiautomatics with fully automatic weapons, such as the M-16. "Either it was a deliberate attempt to fake the story, or the reporter had a complete ignorance of the story he's covering," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "This whole ban was lied into law 10 years ago, and it seems to me we can do better than lying again," Mr. LaPierre said. Yesterday, CNN aired another broadcast that clarified which weapons are banned under the 1994 law, saying the ban is based on whether the gun has external features, such as a flash suppressor or a pistol grip. In one of the segments, Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne introduced a detective with "an old Chinese AK-47 that has been banned." Mr. Zarella, CNN's Miami bureau chief, then said: "That is one of the 19 currently banned weapons." In fact, that weapon is not covered by the 1994 ban. In the first of the two segments that aired Thursday, a Broward County detective fired the AK-47 in semiautomatic mode, and the camera showed bullets hitting a cinder-block target. The detective then fired a legal semiautomatic weapon, and CNN showed a cinder-block target with no apparent damage. After the detective fired 6 shots, Mr. Zarella said: "OK. Now that was semiautomatic," and Sheriff Jenne said: "Now this is automatic." The detective then fired a machine-gunlike burst at a cinder-block target, prompting Mr. Zarella to exclaim: "Wow! That obliterated those blocks. ... Absolutely obliterated it. And you can tell the difference." On Friday, CNN admitted that the detective had not been firing at the cinder block. In 2000, Sheriff Jenne, a former Democratic state legislator, supported a bill in the Florida Legislature, HB-363, that would have banned several types of rifles under a broad definition of "assault weapons" and also would have prohibited many handguns. The bill died in committee. Some law enforcement officers who saw the Broward County sheriff's presentation on CNN called the NRA to say they were "horrified that a law enforcement official would mislead the public this way," said "NRA Live" host Ginny Simone. A CNN anchor introduced yesterday's segment by saying: "On this program on Thursday, we aired a live demonstration CNN set up with law enforcement officials of a banned semiautomatic rifle and its legal counterpart. We reviewed that demonstration and one on another CNN program, and decided that a more detailed report would better explain this complex issue." "We caught them red-handed, in the act. Now they're backpedaling," Mr. LaPierre said after yesterday's broadcast. ### You can see CNN's and the Sheriff's lies here: http://www.NRALive.com/content/flash/20030516-034801r55.swf You can contact CNN here: http://www.CNN.com/feedback/ You can contact Sheriff Jenne here: http://www.Sheriff.org/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:36:13 -0600 From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: FW: CNN rapped over misleading broadcasts To keep the heat on them, we should write letters to the editors of our local papers and point out the problems and how shameful it is that journalists make up crap in their reports to support their political activism and pass it off as news... Chad On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 07:59 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030519-110144-7123r.htm > CNN rapped over gun segment > By Robert Stacy McCain > THE WASHINGTON TIMES > > CNN has found itself the target of criticism for misleading viewers > about > the types of weapons prohibited by a federal law due to expire next > year. > Two CNN broadcasts last week, which featured firing demonstrations by > the > sheriff's department in Broward County, Fla., suggested that firearms > banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons. > > Yesterday, CNN admitted that was not true. "In fact, if you fire the > same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same > impact," > CNN's John Zarella told viewers yesterday. > > One of the Thursday broadcasts incorrectly reported that fully > automatic > weapons are included in the 1994 ban on 19 types of semiautomatic > rifles. > The 1994 law - which will expire in September 2004 if Congress does not > renew it - banned some military-style rifles that are semiautomatic, > meaning they fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. > > Fully automatic weapons, such as machine guns and AK-47s, are > regulated by > the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not among the > semiautomatic guns > prohibited by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of > 1994. > > The NRA and other gun rights groups say the banned guns are only > cosmetically different than many legal types of firearms, and that the > news > media have consistently confused the semiautomatics with fully > automatic > weapons, such as the M-16. > > "Either it was a deliberate attempt to fake the story, or the reporter > had a complete ignorance of the story he's covering," said Wayne > LaPierre, > executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "This whole > ban was lied into law 10 years ago, and it seems to me we can do better > than lying again," Mr. LaPierre said. > > Yesterday, CNN aired another broadcast that clarified which weapons are > banned under the 1994 law, saying the ban is based on whether the gun > has > external features, such as a flash suppressor or a pistol grip. > > In one of the segments, Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne introduced a > detective with "an old Chinese AK-47 that has been banned." Mr. > Zarella, > CNN's Miami bureau chief, then said: "That is one of the 19 currently > banned weapons." > > In fact, that weapon is not covered by the 1994 ban. > > In the first of the two segments that aired Thursday, a Broward County > detective fired the AK-47 in semiautomatic mode, and the camera showed > bullets hitting a cinder-block target. The detective then fired a legal > semiautomatic weapon, and CNN showed a cinder-block target with no > apparent > damage. > > After the detective fired 6 shots, Mr. Zarella said: "OK. Now that was > semiautomatic," and Sheriff Jenne said: "Now this is automatic." The > detective then fired a machine-gunlike burst at a cinder-block target, > prompting Mr. Zarella to exclaim: "Wow! That obliterated those blocks. > ... > Absolutely obliterated it. And you can tell the difference." > > On Friday, CNN admitted that the detective had not been firing at the > cinder block. > > In 2000, Sheriff Jenne, a former Democratic state legislator, > supported a > bill in the Florida Legislature, HB-363, that would have banned several > types of rifles under a broad definition of "assault weapons" and also > would have prohibited many handguns. The bill died in committee. > > Some law enforcement officers who saw the Broward County sheriff's > presentation on CNN called the NRA to say they were "horrified that a > law > enforcement official would mislead the public this way," said "NRA > Live" > host Ginny Simone. > > A CNN anchor introduced yesterday's segment by saying: "On this > program on > Thursday, we aired a live demonstration CNN set up with law enforcement > officials of a banned semiautomatic rifle and its legal counterpart. We > reviewed that demonstration and one on another CNN program, and decided > that a more detailed report would better explain this complex issue." > > "We caught them red-handed, in the act. Now they're backpedaling," Mr. > LaPierre said after yesterday's broadcast. > > ### > > You can see CNN's and the Sheriff's lies here: > http://www.NRALive.com/content/flash/20030516-034801r55.swf > You can contact CNN here: http://www.CNN.com/feedback/ > You can contact Sheriff Jenne here: http://www.Sheriff.org/ > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 12:26:06 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: The Second Amendment: A Judge's Magnificent Dissent - -------- Original Message -------- From: Tee Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:09 PM Subject: The Second Amendment: A Judge's Magnificent Dissent The Second Amendment: A Judge's Magnificent Dissent In early May, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of California's Assault Weapons Control Act and refused to recognize an individual - rather than a collective - - constitutional right to bear arms. Federal Appellate Judge Alex Kozinski was one of six judges dissenting from this decision - and his passionate and informed dissenting opinion is magnificent. After boldly declaring that some anti-Second Amendment judges deliberately misread the Second Amendment in order to enforce their prejudices, Judge Kozinski finished with these ringing words that cut to the heart of why the Second Amendment is so very important to a free people: "The majority falls prey to the delusion - popular in some circles - that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth - born of experience - is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble. "All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. "My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. "Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough: '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.' "The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion - the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text - refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it - and is just as likely to succeed." Judge Kozinski knows, from personal experience, the helplessness of unarmed people in the face of brutal tyranny - a native of Romania, he fled that country to escape the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu. There are now two circuits in conflict over the meaning of the Second Amendment (the Ninth and the Fifth). The stage thus may be set for a momentous Supreme Court decision. (Source: Full text of Judge Kozinski's dissent can be found here - it starts on page 2, and ends on page 6 of this pdf file: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/019661EF3BAAF4C488256D1D00793D3A/$file/0115098o.pdf?openelement ; Thanks to Joe Williams) - --- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:22:09 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: Chuck Muth's News & Views - May 27, 2003 A few gun items from Chuch Muth's newsletter of 5/27. - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- ****************************************** Judge Decides Gun Battle in NJ "Public schools in Montclair, N.J., can't distribute gun control literature to students, then refuse to distribute materials explaining the other side of the story, a court has ruled," reports CNSNews.com. "This settlement will put school districts around the country on notice that they can no longer prevent both sides of the Second Amendment debate from being heard," said Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Let's hope he's right. ****************************************** Guns, Not Butter, On "Always Right" Tonight Guns, guns and more guns. Did I mention that guns will be our topic of discussion on Always Right tonight? My guest will be the aforementioned Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation. From McCain/Feingold to the Clinton gun ban, from Bowling for Columbine to gun manufacturer lawsuits. Will touch all the bases tonight at 8:00 p.m. EST. The link to listen in is... http://www.theotherradionetwork.com/srv1.asx ****************************************** TSA: Taking Scissors Away "What good is the $5 billion Transportation Security Administration if it can't keep armed impostors from breezily bypassing security checkpoints and boarding planes? "According to U.S. State Department and federal court documents, a man from Brazil was able to con his way onto at least one domestic flight by posing as a U.S. State Department diplomatic security dignitary protection agent. Why bother paying 50,000 TSA screeners at more than 420 U.S. airports to stand around, confiscating scissors and baby nail clippers in the name of homeland security, when any computer geek with proficiency in Adobe Photoshop can sweet-talk his way on board a plane with help from a gullible airline employee?" - - Columnist Michelle Malkin *************************************** ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 22:39:12 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: ADVISORY: Firearms debate planned at Utah Pride celebration This may be one of the more entertaining debates on guns ever held... At least it won't be some "bigoted" heterosexual beating up on the poor transgendered professor. - ---------------- Charles Hardy - --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pink Pistols of Utah To: PinkPistolsUtah@yahoo.com Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 15:33:16 -0700 (PDT) NEWS ADVISORY For immediate release Sunday, May 25, 2003 Contact: David Nelson David Nelson Communications(TM) Post Office Box 112095 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147-2095 (734)661-0667 Facsimile david.nelson22@att.net Tear sheet requested a000 rp ^BC-Gay,000< FIREARMS DEBATE PLANNED AT UTAH PRIDE CELEBRATION SALT LAKE CITY -- With the recent introduction of the new Utah Safe Havens of Learning ballot initiative to ban state concealed-firearm rights at schools, an unprecedented debate about firearms is planned to be included on June 8 as part of the annual state gay and lesbian Pride celebration. The debate will engage the ideas and information of gay political leader David Nelson and transgender university professor Barbara Nash. Utah Pride Celebration Firearms Debate June 8 -- 12:00 noon to 12:30 p.m. Salt Lake City Public Library Amphitheatre 210 East 400 South -- Salt Lake City Nelson serves as the founder of Pink Pistols of Utah (http://www.PinkPistolsUtah.org/). PPU is a group of gender- and sexual-minority firearm advocates and owners in the state, and supporters of the Pink Pistols idea that was described nationally in 2000 by writer Jonathan Rauch for the legal, safe and responsible use of firearms for their self defense and shooting-sport competition, including those of them who are gay and lesbian, and that of their families and friends. The group is the largest such group in the United States with more than 196 members. Nash serves as a representative of Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah (http://www.gvpc.org/). GVPC and its lobbying affiliate Gun Violence Prevention Campaign of Utah were founded in 2001 by a group of citizens who believe that people need to, and can, do far more to protect society from the misuse of guns. They also believe it is possible to accomplish this and still maintain the ability of citizens to own and possess guns for legitimate hunting, sporting and self-defense purposes. The group is the successor of Utahns Against Gun Violence. Both debaters are state Concealed Firearm Permit holders. - -end- ===== David Nelson http://www.PinkPistolsUtah.org/ Salt Lake City ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 21:05:02 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: [LPUtah] Fw: Ten Reasons Why... FYI... (Fundraising effort to help the case at the end.) ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Citizens Of America" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:17 PM Subject: Ten Reasons Why... > ...THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HEAR SILVEIRA V. > LOCKYER and DECIDE THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO > KEEP & BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND & FOURTEENTH > AMENDMENTS > > Some people argue that the U.S. Supreme Court will refuse to hear > the Second Amendment case Silveira v. Lockyer , which will be > appealed from the Ninth Circuit Court in California. Here are ten > (and more) reasons why we think they are wrong, and why you > should support the Silveira case as a rare and important > opportunity for success. > > (1) The Supreme Court has not heard a case on the fundamental > right to keep and bear arms since United States v. Miller in 1939 - > 63 years ago. The Court hears First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth > Amendment cases virtually every year. And if only four of the nine > Justices decide to hear the case, it will be heard. > > (2) There are conflicts of federal circuit courts that need to be > resolved by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court's ruling > in Silveira is directly contrary to the Second Amendment findings > in the Emerson case from the Fifth Circuit Court. Furthermore, > six Ninth Circuit Court judges dissented in Silveira because they > thought Judge Reinhardt's ruling on the Second Amendment was > wrong. Six dissents are rare and a huge factor in the U.S. Supreme > Court deciding to grant certiorari (to hear the case). Those six > votes in Silveira may be the most important votes for the > individual right to keep and bear arms in the entire past one > hundred years. > > (3) The conflict of circuits is long-standing, another factor in > granting certiorari. Emerson conflicts with the First, Second, > Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh federal > US Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court may have refused to > hear Emerson because the certiorari petition (the formal request > that the Supreme Court hear a case) focused on the commerce > clause, instead of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear > arms. > > (4) The certiorari petition in Silveira is thorough and complete. > Hundreds and hundreds of careful hours of research and writing > have gone into this important project. It cleanly presents the clear > Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals to keep > and bear arms for family, home, business, and community defense. > It is a civil case, not a messy criminal defense. And it does not have > wasteful side arguments that clutter other firearms litigation. > > (5) Extensive modern scholarship suggests that Emerson and the > dissenting views in Silveira have the better argument regarding the > meaning of the Second Amendment. The Silveira certiorari > petition references over twenty of the relevant books and articles, > and develops the points succinctly. > > (6) Since 1939 the Miller case has been cited to support negative > decisions in every federal circuit but the Fifth in Emerson. The > Silveira cert petition exposes the poor reasoning of Miller > thoroughly and asks that those parts of it that are historically and > constitutionally wrong be overruled. > > (7) Silveira presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to > write on a clean slate, to overrule Miller, and to overrule Presser v. > Illinois, which refused to apply the Second Amendment to the > States. There is an overwhelmingly powerful argument on our > side: the Fourteenth Amendment, and the fact that most of the > "individual right" amendments have been ruled as applying to the > states. For example, Massachusetts cannot deny its citizens > freedom of the press because they are protected by the First > Amendment; nor Wyoming force its citizens to testify against > themselves because they are protected by the Fifth Amendment. > > (8) The lower court decision in Silveira was written by the most- > reversed federal circuit judge, Stephen Reinhardt, a notorious > liberal activist judge. The dissents, however, were written by > several very well respected circuit judges: Kozinski, Kleinfeld, and > Gould, and joined in by an unusually large group of additional > dissenters. They send a strong message to the Supreme Court to > hear Silveira and reverse Reinhardt. > > (9) Specific detailed issues about different kinds of firearms, i.e., > what the anti-gun crowd mendaciously call "assault weapons", are > reserved for trial by the Silveira cert petition, since there has been > no trial to determine facts as yet. The Supreme Court is not a trial > court and will only hear the fundamental constitutional questions > raised by the Silveira certiorari petition - that is, does the Second > Amendment, like so many other Amendments, apply to the states? > And is it an individual right, like all the other rights spoken about > in the Bill of Rights? These questions have become extremely > important in both legislation and in politics in the last few years. > The Court will have to deal with them - and we believe they will > deal with them now, rather than later. > > (10) The certiorari petition, brief and other materials in Silveira > make a deliberate, carefully crafted effort to persuade all nine > Supreme Court Justices of the need to recognize a strong > individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. > Arguments are being developed that should resonate with the > various viewpoints held by the different Justices. The individuals > working on Silveira have decades of experience in Bill of Rights > litigation before the Supreme Court with a great deal of success in > other very difficult areas of law. Earlier Second Amendment > activists largely slept through the civil rights movement and made > no progress at all for individual rights until Emerson. Every effort > is being made to present the Silveira arguments in ways that > maximize prospects for success. > > One final note: A real danger for us is that some messy criminal > firearms case might get to the Supreme Court first with Second > Amendment issues poorly presented in a horrendous context. > > In contrast, Silveira is a clear, straightforward case that involves > upstanding citizens. It has been very well and thoroughly thought > out. > > KeepAndBearArms.com IS RAISING FUNDS THAT GO > DIRECTLY TO THE SILVEIRA LITIGATION WORK. > > This is your opportunity to MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Your > support is vital now and in the next several months. Please -- give > generously to the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit fund, via credit card > or mail: > > Credit Card > https://www.keepandbeararms.com/donations > > Regular Mail > http://keepandbeararms.com/silveira/mail.htm > > ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 21:08:02 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: Man storms Quantas cockpit with wooden knife; 4 And we thought airport security was a hassle now. Wait until they start strip searching to look for sharp sticks. ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88040,00.html SYDNEY, Australia — A man shouting threats used a sharpened wooden instrument to try to force his way into the cockpit of a domestic Qantas (search) flight Thursday, stabbing two flight attendants in his attempt, the government said. The plane had departed the southeastern city of Melbourne (search) for the southern island of Tasmania when he tried to storm the cockpit, Transport Minister John Anderson told reporters in a hastily arranged press briefing. Two flight attendants with Australia's national air carrier were stabbed and two other passengers were also injured as they overwhelmed the man, who Anderson described as "an individual who was less than stable." Anderson said he did not believe it was a terrorist attack and did not identify the man. "Although it looks premeditated, it doesn't look like it was an act of terrorism," Anderson said. The man was now in custody and being interviewed by police, said Jane O'Brien, spokeswoman for the Australian Federal Police. Anderson said the wooden weapon had gone through security checks unnoticed, calling the oversight a "lesson about unforeseen tools being used." He said the man shouted threats as he attempted to storm the cockpit but did not elaborate. He said there were no sky marshals on board the flight. "We'll leave no stone unturned, plainly we don't want to see a repeat of this," Anderson said. The plane turned around and landed at Melbourne not long after it had departed, where police and emergency services rushed to the scene. Police met passengers in the departure lounge at Melbourne's airport for further questioning. A Qantas spokeswoman told The Associated Press that the national carrier could not make any statement until it had more information. The flight attendants, a man in his late 30s and a woman in her 20s, were taken to a nearby hospital. They were in stable condition with facial injuries, Metropolitan Ambulance spokesman James Howe said. Two passengers were treated by paramedics at the scene for minor injuries, Howe told reporters. ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:29:43 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Anti-gun groups sues over new initiative law This is likely of interest to gun owners, those interested in flouridation, etc. FWIW, while I disagree with the court's so-called "one man one vote" ruling that invalidated Utah's previous geographic requirment on petitions, I think the legislature went too far with the new law. In light of the court's ruling (and with an unwillingness to defend the principle of geographic representation), some majority or even supermajority of Senate districts would have been a workable solution. Reducing the time frame might also have been appropriate. I believe the various meetings and notices, however, will do little or nothing good and really are just an inpediment to petitions. Finally, as much as it harms my favorite cause short term, I do happen to personally side with the victim disarmers in their argument that the new law should not apply retroatively. I don't like ANY rules being changed midgame. That being said, if the court rules with the State on at least the Senate district requirments the petition is probably doomed. However, if the court rules against the State on that and any other major points, we may be in for a real fight this time as I understand the victim disarmers have out-of-State money for paid signature gatherers this time around. Charles From today's DesNews: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,505038158,00.html? State defends its initiative law By Amy Joi Bryson Deseret News staff writer The state is defending recent amendments to Utah's initiative law, saying they pass constitutional muster and should apply to a group seeking to ban guns from churches and schools. Called the Utah Safe to Learn-Safe to Worship Coalition, the group filed suit in 3rd District Court, asserting the "severe" restrictions approved by the 2003 Legislature essentially eliminated the ability of people to put an issue on the ballot. In a response filed late Tuesday, the state argued the changes are not unduly burdensome and meet the "test" handed down in a previous initiative ruling by the Utah Supreme Court. "Their difficulties may also be due to lack of interest, improper presentation, lack of funding or any other various difficulties they may have brought on themselves with regard to their initiative and signature-gathering efforts," Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts wrote, emphasizing the last three initiatives that appeared on the ballot show that sufficient signatures can be gathered. The current dispute over Utah's initiative process stems from legislative "fixes" made during the 2003 General Session after the state's previous initiative law was challenged and ultimately deemed unconstitutional. At the time, the court held the geographic distribution requirement — requiring signatures be collected in 20 of Utah's 29 counties — violated the "one man one vote" tenet because it gave disproportionate favor to rural counties. In response, lawmakers adopted a signature requirement based on Senate districts, not counties, with initiative proponents now required to gather signatures in 26 of Utah's 29 senate districts. Additional changes impose a one-year deadline for proponents to gather signatures and submit them to the Lieutenant Governor's Office for certification, as well as seven public hearings spread throughout the state. The latest challenge says the amendments "burden core political speech," but the state scoffed at that, replying they do not restrict or burden free speech rights at all. "Plaintiff is free to initiate and circulate petitions, engage in political discussion, raise money, campaign and otherwise engage in all their First Amendment freedoms," Roberts wrote, pointing out, "plaintiff confuses its exercise of First Amendment rights with political success, which is not protected under the First Amendment." The coalition is urging the court to declare the amendments unconstitutional, or at the very least deem that they not be applied "retroactively" to their effort. They filed the initiative petition with the Lieutenant Governor's Office in March, two months before the new law went into effect. They say whatever law was in effect at the time of the petition filing should be the controlling guide throughout the process. At the time, only the requirement that 76,180 signatures be gathered statewide had been left standing in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. The state doesn't agree, saying that by the time the signatures will be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor's Office, the new law should apply. A hearing on the arguments is set for 9 a.m. June 16 before Judge J. Dennis Frederick. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #241 ***********************************