From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #20 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 Tuesday, February 10 1998 Volume 02 : Number 020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 2/2 Next, Mr. Dees went on to illustrate exactly how ignorant he is of the 2nd Amendment. Any of you who have read the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), knows that the 2nd Amendment is the simplest of all amendments, consisting of only one single sentence. Mr. Dees couldn't even remember the whole sentence, but instead concentrated on the "well-regulated militia" clause at the beginning. He claims that the National Guard is the "militia", and that the "right to bear arms" is a "collective right", not an individual right. He then said that the Supreme Court had decided that it wasn't an individual right. Well, the National Guard didn't come into existance until 1903, so I am reasonably confident that the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn't have that in mind. And the Supreme Court ruled in July, 1996 (I believe) that "the people" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment were the same "people" mentioned in the preamble, and anywhere else the phrase "the people" was used in the Constitution. In reference to Carol Howe and Andy Strassmeir: I don't know how this happened, but a question got through about Carol Howe and Andreas Strassmeir. Mr. Dees' reply was that anybody concerned about that should "get a life". Thoughout his remarks, Mr. Dees constantly championed the ATF and the FBI, and thought they were doing such a wonderful job with the OKC bombing, etc., but was then noticeably silent about why the Oklahoma Grand Jury has been able to come up with so much additional evidence after the "largest investigation in FBI history". In reference to the biggest threat in America today: He also mentioned that the biggest danger to this country today was the "Christian Coalition". Now, I have to say that I have met many people who call themselves "Christians", and some of them have a pretty screwy agenda. But, regardless of what you think about that remark, keep in mind that Morris Dees made this remark in a PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, and received a STANDING OVATION. One may wonder (and rightly so) why the fiduciaries of this institution allow their facility to be used for this purpose. After the whole thing was over, and the crowd was milling toward the exits, several small discussion groups formed. As I was passing one of these groups, I heard a man trying to explain to an elderly couple why 4,800 pounds of Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil was incapable of destroying 24"-diameter steel-reinforced concrete columns from 16 feet away. I happen to agree with that assessment (and so do a dozen or so explosive experts, including retired Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, and several independent studies conducted by the Air Force), so I stopped to listen to this. It soon drew others, and the whole thing degraded into a shouting match about abortion (as usually happens). At that, everybody was asked to leave. While walking back to my vehicle, I saw crowds of elderly people (some probably Alzheimer's patients) piling onto busses to take them back to the rest home. With that, I couldn't help but wonder if there was anything that they would not have applauded to, if they saw the person next to them doing it. Then I started to think about the demographics of the crowd, and how few of them ever use the Internet, etc. Probably none of them are reading this. In summary, let me just say that Mr. Dees comes across as a well-meaning, soft-spoken bleeding-heart attorney, championing the rights of the under- privileged. That is, if you're either incredibly ignorant or simply incapable of thinking for yourself. The impression I got was that Mr. Dees is somewhat cleverly manipulating these people by telling half-truths and outright falsehoods, for who-knows-what-agenda. Among his remarks earlier in the speech, he discussed how Hitler had manipulated the emotions of his audiences, and then proceeded to do the same thing. He stated very clearly that the "white anglo-types" would be a minority in the United States by the year 2050, and that they would have to share their economic and political power. I think most of us realize that, and I don't really have a problem with it. What I do object to, however, and I think most people do, is that I don't want to be held responsible for supporting couch-potatoes (regardless of their color or national origin), whose only redeeming quality is producing another generation of couch- potatoes, who will live off my taxpayer dollars until they are old enough to rob me. Now I have a problem with that. Does that make me a racist or a neo-Nazi? I don't think so, but then again, Mr. Dees probably has different criteria for defining what I am. I can recognize blatant propaganda when I see it, and I think Mr. Dees does well in front of an ignorant crowd, especially when he has liberal newspaper editors sifting through the written questions ahead of time. What I would really like to see would be Mr. Dees debating someone like, oh, let's see................. Ralph Epperson? - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 08:51:55 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: CONFIRMATION OF DR. DAVID SATCHER Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis - ----------------------- Satcher is one of the chief proponents of "guns as health problem / disease / epidemic." He currently runs the CDC. Enough said. Time for gun owners on this list to call the senators below and tell them why Satcher should NOT be confirmed. Forwarded message: Do not Continue unless you have a strong stomach! From: "CDFupdate" Children's Defense Fund Update February 6,1998 --- URGE CONFIRMATION OF DR. DAVID SATCHER --- The United States Senate will vote on Tuesday, February 10th, on whether to end debate on the confirmation of David Satcher, M.D., to be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 60 votes are necessary to end Senate debate and thus allow a confirmation vote. Please contact Senators Shelby (AL), Specter (PA), Hutchison (TX), Hatch (UT), D'Amato (NY), Bond (MO), G. Smith (WA), McCain (AZ), and Stevens (AK) and urge them to vote to end the Senate debate on the nomination and to support confirmation of Dr. Satcher (U.S. Capitol Switchboard #: 202/224-3121). As Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Satcher has been a champion of efforts to immunize America's children, resulting in the best immunization levels in the history of the United States. - --------- End forwarded message ---------- ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs. ******************** For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA14125; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:13:25 -0700 Received: (qmail 30863 invoked by uid 516); 9 Feb 1998 04:19:42 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 30104 invoked from network); 9 Feb 1998 04:18:48 -0000 Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 1998 04:18:47 -0000 Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2]) by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA19481; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:18:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from 166-93-76-227.rmi.net (166-93-76-227.rmi.net [166.93.76.227]) by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA12562; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:03:41 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199802090403.VAA12562@mail2.rockymtn.net> X-Sender: davisda@rmi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 21:08:34 -0700 To: tonyheck@juno.com From: Douglas Davis Subject: Children's Defense Fund Update Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis - ----------------------- >Satcher is one of the chief proponents of "guns as health problem / >disease / epidemic." He currently runs the CDC. Enough said. > >Time for gun owners on this list to call the senators below and tell >them why Satcher should NOT be confirmed. > >Forwarded message: >> From: "CDFupdate" >> >> Children's Defense Fund Update >> February 6,1998 > >> --- URGE CONFIRMATION OF DR. DAVID SATCHER --- >> >> The United States Senate will vote on Tuesday, February 10th, on >> whether to end debate on the confirmation of David Satcher, M.D., to >> be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. >> Department of Health and Human Services. 60 votes are necessary to >> end Senate debate and thus allow a confirmation vote. Please contact >> Senators Shelby (AL), Specter (PA), Hutchison (TX), Hatch (UT), >> D'Amato (NY), Bond (MO), G. Smith (WA), McCain (AZ), and Stevens (AK) >> and urge them to vote to end the Senate debate on the nomination and >> to support confirmation of Dr. Satcher (U.S. Capitol Switchboard #: >> 202/224-3121). As Director of the Centers for Disease Control and >> Prevention, Dr. Satcher has been a champion of efforts to immunize >> America's children, resulting in the best immunization levels in the >> history of the United States. >-- > >--------- End forwarded message ---------- ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs. ******************** For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 08:53:05 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Jackson; Wy -Forwarded Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA14141; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:46:26 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA26175; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:51:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:51:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma025936; Sun Feb 8 23:51:21 1998 Message-Id: <199802090403.VAA12551@mail2.rockymtn.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: davisda@rmi.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: Douglas Davis To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Jackson; Wy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list >From: klw58@juno.com (K. L. Wandell) > >Maybe there'sa ray of hope out there .... > >whw > >========================================================================== >The following is an indication that hunting is not dying, as the anti's >would like us to believe; > >Seventy youngsters were given the chance to hunt elk, or receive a free >$1000 mountain bike offered by the Fund for Animals. All seventy kids >chose >the elk hunt. The anti-hunting group tried to entice the 12 to 17 year >olds >with bikes if they would turn in their National Elk Refuge special youth >hunting permits, and promise to not hunt any more in 1997.Several kids >cited the role of the hunter in wildlife management as reason to hunt >over >receiving a new bike. The goal of the hunt was to reduce the Elk herd to >7,500 animals. More than 12,000 elk wintered on the range in 1996. > >Source: Hunter Education Journal, winter 1998. > > >Bob Hancock >Eldorado MC > >--------- End forwarded message ---------- ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs. ******************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:38:14 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Des News editorial From Sunday's Deseret News. My letter to the ediotr follows. I encourage others to respond. Feel free to use any ideas in my letter but please change wording enough to make it look original. [Image] [Image] [Image] Pass concealed weapons bill [Image] [Image] [Image] Last updated 02/08/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT Deseret News editorial Utahns have long valued the right to bear arms. They also ought to value the right private property owners and educators have to keep arms away. Utah Senate President Lane Beattie is expected to introduce a measure soon that would allow church leaders, private property owners and public school officials to ban concealed weapon permit holders from bringing firearms into their buildings. Lawmakers, who have waited far too long to act on this issue, ought to move quickly to pass the bill. Not only would it be the right thing to do, it would be the logical thing to do. A Deseret News poll shows that 88 percent of Utahns agree that churches should be able to keep concealed weapons out, while 89 percent believe public schools should do the same. Current laws have generated a lot of confusion. According to one, a citizen's concealed-weapon license is valid without restriction in Utah, except for airports, courts and correction facilities. According to another, weapons can't be carried on or near school property. The LDS Church issued a statement last year saying churches should be free from the cares of the world and that weapons don't belong. Some institutions, such as the University of Utah, already have instituted a ban on concealed weapons. Gun advocates have strongly opposed these bans, claiming they are illegal. Lawmakers need to put an end to the confusion. While gun lobbyists don't have a problem keeping weapons out of churches and private homes, they balk at extending the ban. They promise to fight any attempt to allow public school officials to ban permitted weapons from school buildings. Beattie says his bill would allow properly permitted gun owners to carry weapons into school driveways and parking lots, so they could drop off or pick up their children without having to leave the guns behind. But if permitees go out of their cars and into the schools, the guns would have to be locked in the vehicles. Despite pressure from gun lobbyists, who represent a vocal minority of Utahns, legislators need to listen to the majority of their constituents and pass a new and improved concealed weapons bill. [Image] [Image] [ImageReturn to front page Charles Hardy xxxxx xxx SLC, UT xxxx 588-7200 day Feb. 9, 1998 Dear Editor I'm appalled at your editorial of Sunday, Feb. 8 (Pass concealed weapons bill.) I do commend you for correctly recognizing the rights of citizens to both carry guns (bear arms) and to restrict access to their private (which includes church owned) property. However, nowhere in either the U.S. or the Utah Constitutions can I find any enumerated rights of "educators" to "keep [legally carried firearms] away" from publicly owned and operated schools. Whether law abiding adults should be stripped of their means of self-defense simply because they have legitimate business at one of those schools is a topic for reasoned debate. Most distressing is your call to blindly support a bill that has not even been drafted yet. I'm sure Senate President Lane Beattie has good intentions. And Utah's concealed weapons law propably could stand some clarification to make clear the rights of private property owners. But as with all legislation, "the devil is in the detail." It is one thing to support certain changes to the law and to encourage those changes be made. It is quite another to suggest a specific piece of legislation should be supported without even reading it--indeed when it is not even in existance to be read. I sincerely hope you would not be so lax in your calls to support or oppose specific legislation in other emotional areas such as environmental preservation, tax reform, or affirmitive action. Your editorial was sloppy and shows you are as caught up in the emotions of this issue as any un-informed individual might be. I pray our legislation will subject any and every specific piece of legislation, regardless of the topic it addresses, to much more thorough reading, research, and thought than you have this particular, yet unwritten bill. Sincerely Charles Hardy - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds. I have nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom I have come in contact over the past years. They are, for the most part, sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized person must share. I have, however, come to be convinced that they are barking up the wrong tree." -- James Wright (scholarly research who collaborates with Peter Rossi) - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:01:09 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Judges Opinion re NRA If you're anything like me, your mailbox has been deluged in recent weeks with allegations and couter-allegations about the NRA and its Board of Directors elections. I don't follow these discussions, nor do I get involved. I'm not a member of the NRA, I can't vote, and so it's really not my business. I will not publicly endorse or oppose any candidates. What follows however, is a decision from the Supreme Court of New York which, as far as I can interpret, means that the elections will be conducted in a fair manner, according to the NRA's own bylaws. I consider such a decision important and newsworthy. Whatever one thinks of the NRA and/or its board members and officers, I would hope we can agree that fair elections are essential. Because the court opinion is a bit difficult to read, I asked a few of the plaintiffs to provide me with a short summary of what the court opinion means. Howard Fezell was kind enough to provide the summary which follows the opinion. Because Mr. Fezell is one of the plaintiffs, his analysis of the bill should be considered in that light. He also included a request for funds to support the lawsuit, which I have deleted because it is not appropriate to the purpose of this column. If you're interested in making a donation, please contact Mr. Fezell directly. Sarah Thompson SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY : IAS PART 10 x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x HOWARD J. FEZELL, JOHN C. KRULL, JERRY Index No. 600211/98-001 L. ALLEN, FRANK M. SAWBERGER, LARRY R. RANKIN, JOHN GUEST, WILLIAM DOMINGUEZ, cal. #5 - 1/26/98 EFF KNOX, KIM STOLFER, JOHN H. TRENTES, Plaintiffs, -against- NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Defendant. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x BEATRICE SHAINSWIT, J.: Plaintiffs move, pursuant to CPLR 6301 and 6311, for an order preliminarily enjoining defendant National Rifle Association of America (NRA) from printing any type of designation in the 1998 Ballot Issue of the NRA'S three official journals, and on the official ballot of the NRA, as to whether a candidate for election to the Board of Directors of the NRA (the Board) was nominated by petition of NRA members or by the present Boards Nominating Committee in any form, including paid advertisements. Plaintiffs contend that such designation would be in violation of Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the NRA'S bylaws, and that the NRA'S actions in printing said designations will deny plaintiffs a fair corporate election. Defendant NRA cross-moves to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Pursuant to Article VIII of the NRA bylaws, a candidate for election to the Board can be nominated either by the Nominating Committee or by members petition. The incumbent Board elects the members of the Nominating Committee. The NRA conducts the Board election by paper ballot, sent by U.S. mail to the eligible voting members of the NRA at least 15 days prior to the Annual Meeting of Members. It has been the practice of the NRA to send the ballot for the Board election to the eligible voting members as part of the Ballot Issue of the three official journals of the NRA (American Rifleman, American Guardian, and American Hunter). This year, the 1998 Ballot Issue will be the March issue of the official journals. Plaintiffs rely on Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the NRA bylaws, which states in bold italic typeface: In both the official journal and on the official ballot, no persons nominated by petition nor by the Nominating Committee shall be so designated. (Id. at p. 33). According to plaintiffs, Article VIII, Section 3(e) was actually adopted in 1979, following the amendment of the bylaws in 1977 to allow, for the first time, candidates to be nominated by members petition, if said petition is signed by 250 members eligible to vote. This 1977 amendment had also provided as follows: In addition to the persons selected by the Nominating Committee in accordance with Section 3(c) of this Article, the Nominating Committee shall cause the names and biographical sketches of persons nominated by petition to be published in the official journal; however, in both the official journal and on the official ballot, persons nominated by petition shall be so designated. (Land 1/23/98 Aff., Ex. A; emphasis added). In the 1978 and 1979 Board elections, candidates for election were designated, in the biographical sketches in the official journals and on the official ballot, as having been nominated by the Nominating Committee, with a "1" next to their names, and as having been nominated by petition, with a "2" next to their names. Plaintiffs contend that it was the experience in the 1978 and 1979 NRA Board elections that the Nominating Committee candidates had an advantage over the petition candidates because the members tended to vote for the candidates designated as Committee candidates. Allegedly in direct response to the experience of these two elections, the bylaws were amended to prohibit any designations in the official journals and on the official ballot. On December 19, 1997, NRA Director Ronin Colman sent a letter to NRA Secretary Edward J. Land, Jr., requesting that the report of the NRA Nominating Committee not be printed in the 1998 Ballot Issue of the official journals. Secretary Land denied the request on the ground that the Nominating Committee Report has been published continuously in the Official Journal since 1985, pursuant to a Board resolution adopted in September of 1984. Plaintiffs argue that since, pursuant to Article XV, Section 5, the provisions of Article VIII, Section 3(e) cannot be repealed or amended by Board action, the Board policy of printing the Nominating Committees report constitutes a violation of the NRA bylaws. Plaintiff Howard J. Fezell was nominated to be a candidate for election to the Board of Directors of the NRA by members petition. On December 17, 1997, he wrote a letter to Secretary Land requesting that any designation as to the manner in which plaintiff Fezell was nominated as a candidate be removed from his biography to be published in the Ballot Issue of the official journals. He further requested that the NRA notify all candidates whose biographical sketches contain any reference to the method of their nomination that such designations are not permitted by Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the bylaws. Lastly, he sought an assurance that the report of the Nominating Committee listing that committees nominees would not be printed in the 1998 Ballot Issue of the official journals. When plaintiff Fezell received no response to his letter, this action was commenced. The remaining plaintiffs were nominated to be candidates for election to the Board by members petition in the Fall of 1997, and are all presently candidates for the 1998 election. The complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) a request for judicial oversight of enforcement of corporate bylaws pursuant to Not-for-Profit corporation Law (N-PCL) 618; and (2) breach of fiduciary duty by the officers and Board of the NRA. Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctive relief, attorneys fees and costs. The NRA opposes the motion and cross-moves for dismissal of the complaint. It contends that publication of the report of the Nominating Committee in the official journals does not violate Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the bylaws. This is because it would not constitute a designation within the meaning of the bylaws; rather the word designated in Article VIII, Section 3(e) was adopted only to end the numerical designation (1, 2, or both) of the method of designation in both the official ballot and the biographical sketches. This numerical designation was allegedly disfavored by the NRA membership because they felt that voters were casting their vote based simply upon a number "1" or "2" next to the candidates name, and that the voters should take the time to read the candidates biographical sketch for a more informed vote. Defendant NRA further contends that the biographical sketches in the 1980 election, the first to follow the adoption of Article VIII, Section 3(e), contained words stating the method of nomination of individual nominees. Individual nominees were able to state, nominated by Nominating Committee, without running afoul of Article VIII, Section 3(e), because the prohibition against being designated was well understood to apply only to the numerical designations that first implemented the amendment allowing nomination by members petition. Finally, defendant points out that the report of the Nominating Committee has been published in every succeeding official journal since 1985 without protest. The NRA relies, inter alia, on the following documentary evidence: (a) a copy of plaintiff Fezell's biographical sketch for the 1994 Board election in which he described himself as a Committee nominee; (b) a copy of the biographical sketch of Francis Winters for the 1993 Board election, in which he described himself as both a petition and Committee candidate; and (c) the 1980 biographical sketches for the election of directors, showing that many of the candidates chose to reveal how they were nominated. DISCUSSION Defendants Cross Motion to Dismiss Defendant NRA cross-moves to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), for failure to state a cause of action. The first cause of action states a cause of action pursuant to N-PCL 618, which empowers the Supreme Court to intervene in and oversee elections for the Board of Directors of a not-for-profit corporation as justice may require. (see, Sun Wei Assn. v. Wong, 222 AD2d 203 [1st Dept 1995]; see also, Ohrbach v. Kirkeby, 3 AD2d 269, 272 [1st Dept 1957] [court issued a preliminary injunction to postpone election of directors]). The second cause of action properly states a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty by the present NRA Board as a result of its alleged purposeful and willful violation of Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the NRA bylaws and by impeding plaintiffs right to a fair corporate election (see, N-PCL 102[a][2], 602, 717; see also, Fitzgerald v. The National Rifle Association of America, 383 F.Supp 162, 165 [SDNY 1974]). Defendant argues that the intent behind the adoption of Article VIII, Section 3(e) was only to eliminate the 1, 2 numerical designation system, and that this intent is unequivocally established based on the documentary evidence it has submitted, and thus that the complaint should be dismissed, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). The rules of contract interpretation are generally applicable to the interpretation of corporate bylaws (14 NY Jur 2d, Business Relationships, contract is to be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the unequivocal language employed (Bread v. Insurance Co. of North America, 46 NY2d 351, 355 [1978]; American Express Bank Ltd. v. Uniroyal, 164 AD2d 275, 277 [1st Dept 1990]). It is well settled law of this State that courts may not fashion a new contract under the guise of contract construction (Slatt v. Slatt, 64 NY2d 966, 967 [1985]; see also, 85th Street Rest. Corp. v. Sanders, 194 AD2d 324, 326 [1st Dept 1993]). As the Court of Appeals explained in W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 (1990), when parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms. Evidence outside the four corners of the document as to what was really intended but unstated or misstated is generally inadmissible to add to or vary the writing. (Citations omitted.) Likewise, the conduct of the parties over the intervening years to ascertain their intent with respect to a contract provision is only relevant if the contract provision is ambiguous, of doubtful meaning, or where there is claimed waiver (Slatt v. Slatt, supra, 67 NY2d, at 967 [citation omitted]). Based upon the foregoing principles of law, the court can reach only one conclusion with respect to the bylaw at issue. It says what it says in very unambiguous terms, i.e., that no person nominated by petition or by Nominating Committee shall be so designated in both the official journals of the NRA or on the official ballot. Defendants interpretation of the bylaw as only prohibiting the 1, 2 numerical designation system utilized for the 1978 and 1979 Board elections might be reasonable if the bylaw had prohibited designation of candidates on the official ballot only, thereby forcing voting members of the NRA to read the biographical sketches published in the official journals to learn how a candidate had been nominated. But it is not so limited; rather, it clearly and unequivocally says that candidates cannot be so designated in both the official journal and on the official ballot. Therefore, defendant's evidence of a different intent behind adoption of the bylaw in 1979 and its subsequent interpretation by NRA Boards, members, and candidates for the past 20 years is inadmissible. Preliminary Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction must be granted. Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the grant of an injunction, and a balancing of equities in their favor (W. T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517 [1981]). As to the merits of the case, the language of Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the NRA bylaws is unambiguous and supports plaintiffs claim that the present Board is presently about to disseminate election materials, the content of which clearly violates Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the associations bylaws. The second prong of the test is also easily met since plaintiffs, as petition candidates for election to the NRA Board, will suffer immediate and irreparable injury if this Court does not grant them temporary injunctive relief. Lastly, the balance of equities favors the plaintiffs because, regardless of past construction by NRA Boards, members and candidates, plaintiffs, as duly-nominated candidates for election to the NRA Board, are entitled to participate in an election conducted in the manner chosen by the members of the NRA as expressed in the unambiguous language of its bylaws. The fact that plaintiff Fezell and others described themselves as Nominating Committee candidates in earlier elections should not defeat plaintiffs request for preliminary injunctive relief. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is granted and the parties are directed to settle an order on one days notice directly to Chambers, accompanied by affidavits addressed to the amount of the undertaking to be set by the court. Defendants cross motion for dismissal of the complaint is denied. Dated: February 5, 1998 ENTER: ___________________________________________ J.S.C. Dear Sarah: Having had a decent night's sleep, I can elaborate a bit more on what happened in court New York. As you know, candidates for N.R.A. board are either nominated by the Nominating Committee or by petition. An N.R.A. Bylaw (enacted by the members themselves) expressly prohibits any designation in the Rifleman/Hunter/Guardian of how a candidate was nominated. The Nominating Committee was STACKED in favor of Hammer/LaPierre & Co. N.R.A. management was INTENT ON VIOLATING the Bylaw prohibition against making any mention in the official journal of how candidates were nominated. Among other things, they would have published in or near the ballot a full page containing nothing but the Nominating Committee Report. This would have given candiates mentioned in that report an unfair advantage over people, like myself and the other plaintiffs, who were nominated by petition. We sued ONLY BECAUSE: "plaintiffs, as duly-nominated candidates for election to the NRA Board, are entitled to participate in an election conducted in the manner chosen by the membes of the NRA as expressed in the unambiguous language of its bylaws." (This is what the judge said we have a right to.) THE ONLY WAY TO INSURE A FAIR ELECTION WAS TO GO TO COURT. Yours for the 2nd Amendment... Howard Fezell 2nd Amendment Home Page http://www.2ndAmendment.net e-mail: fezell@fred.net - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 16:27:49 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Legislative Email Addresses For those who would like to contact their State legislators via email, the house lists representative's email addresses at . The senate roster is at . It lists only a few email addresses. However, I'm told that with a few exceptions, almost all legislators have email--at least during the session. Every email I've seen so far is of the form with preferredinitallastname truncated to a maximum of 8 characters. Preferred initial is the initial of their preferred name. This is usually their first name, but sometimes a middle name. For example, Senator L. Alma Mansell's email is (preferred name Al) while Sen Craig A. Peterson's email is (username limited to 8 characters). I don't know how often they read their email, but the server will bounce bad addresses back to you, so with a little trial and error, you should at least be able to send a message to a valid address. I've made a point to individually address the salution to each recipient so that things don't look like some kind of spam. I also include my home address and phone with each email. My last email to the 11 members of one house committee brought responses from 3 members--all of whom agreed to one degree or another with my position. - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "If the text and purpose of the Constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia `for defense of the State,' then the terms `arms' most likely would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by the Colonial Militia Men." -- STATE v. KESSLER, 289 Or. 359, 369, 614 p. 2d 94,99 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1980.) - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:09:23 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Gun Control Poll -Forwarded Received: (qmail 12985 invoked by uid 516); 10 Feb 1998 03:51:22 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 12542 invoked from network); 10 Feb 1998 03:50:40 -0000 Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 1998 03:50:40 -0000 Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2]) by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA00064; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:50:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from 166-93-76-194.rmi.net (166-93-76-194.rmi.net [166.93.76.194]) by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA08125; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:34:48 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199802100334.UAA08125@mail2.rockymtn.net> X-Sender: davisda@rmi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:39:39 -0700 To: tonyheck@juno.com From: Douglas Davis Subject: Gun Control Poll Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis - ----------------------- >Return-Path: >From: brian.beck@usa.net >Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:57:14 >To: davisda@rmi.net >Subject: Gun Control Poll > > > >Found this website (E-Poll) which is conducting a poll on gun control - notably >the Washington I-676 style proposals. I voted today - and joined a 70+% >majority which favors "our" viewpoint. > >The website is: > >http://www.epoll.com/left.html > >Select the topic from that page (they will request some basic demographic >info) > >Go and vote! > > > >____________________________________________________________________ >Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com > > ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs. ******************** For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #20 **********************************