From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #194 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 Monday, August 7 2000 Volume 02 : Number 194 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:14:40 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: Crime in Britian Holy smokes Batman, looks like the night janitor took some time and wrote the lead editorial in today's SLTrib. Heaven knows the usual bunch of editorialists isn't responsible for this one. :) While it would be a bit of stretch to call this a pro-gun piece, at least it looks to be factually accurate and ackowledges that the lack of private guns and the resulting inability to put up a fight is a contributing factor in home invasions in England. On the web at Apologies to any who have already read this, but it is too good to not pass along for any who don't regularly read the editorial page of the SLTrib. Crime in Britain When CBS newsman Dan Rather recently reported that Britain is "one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world," the British uprose in vociferous wrath, to borrow a Churchillian phrase. Well they should. Not because Rather is wrong, not because for years the British have liked to imagine the United States to be much more violent and crime-ridden than their own society, but because violent crime is rising in Britain. For many years, Americans and the British have basked in the firm belief that crime is a definite problem in the United States while Britain is peaceful and relatively crime-free. Popular thinking has attributed this difference to the fact that the American citizenry can own firearms, while in Britain this prerogative is severely restricted. It is illegal for a private person to own a handgun in Britain. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned. All legal firearms sales must be registered with the police. Private possession of rifles and shotguns is strictly regulated, and usually is permitted only in conjunction with membership in a government-approved shooting club. No doubt, part of the British reaction to the CBS report is due to the fact that it is inimical to this long-held notion that firearms restrictions prevent violent crime. The fact is, crime is rising in Britain and some of it is quite violent. Home invasion robberies, for instance, are on the rise in Britain. This is due to a variety of factors, chiefly that the pickings are easy and residents tend to lack the means and will to put up much of a fight. One recently did, a farmer in Norfolk who killed an assailant who forcibly entered his home. The government's reaction was to jail him. Such action does not encourage others to defend themselves against intruders. Instead of whining about the effrontery of CBS for suggesting that Britain is not as peaceful and glorious as a Georgian evening on the Thames in the royal barge with Handel in charge of the music, the British should be more worried about finding solutions to their own crime problems. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:10:26 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Appeals Court Rules FBI Can Keep Gun Records - ----- Subject: LPU: FW: Appeals Court Rules FBI Can Keep Gun Records Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 09:09:09 -0600 From: "Jim Dexter" To: "LPUtah Forum" Like I'm really surprised. - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals Court Rules FBI Can Keep Gun Records http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26048-2000Jul12.html Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 12, 2000; Page A21 A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the FBI can hold on to gun purchase records for six months to ensure that a federal computer system that conducts millions of instant criminal background checks is working properly. The 2 to 1 ruling was a defeat for the National Rifle Association, which argued that the practice amounted to an "illegal national registration of gun owners." The NRA contended that the law requires the FBI to destroy records of approved purchases immediately. The instant background checks of potential gun purchasers began in November 1998, fulfilling requirements under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and putting an end to checks conducted under a five-day federal waiting period. Gun dealers are required to submit information about prospective buyers to the computer system in an effort to prevent sales to convicted felons, fugitives and other disqualified buyers. The information includes the customer's name, sex, race, date of birth and state of residence. The computer is supposed to immediately generate a response for gun dealers that approves, rejects or postpones the sale for further investigation. Since the system was put into place, roughly 14 million checks have been performed, Justice Department officials said. About 280,000 purchases have been rejected. The NRA filed suit to challenge a Justice Department regulation that allows the FBI to keep all purchase records for six months for auditing purposes only. The Justice Department contended that it needs the time to spot-check results for quality control, ensure that gun buyers and dealers are not using false identities or other means to thwart the system and determine that the huge database is not being used by anyone to gain confidential information for unauthorized purposes. While the NRA did not object to preserving--indefinitely--the records of buyers who are rejected, it argued that the FBI was required to immediately destroy personal data about those who were approved. The NRA's lawyers pointed to language in the Brady law that called for officials to "destroy" records of approved transactions. The law also warned against using the checks "to establish any system for the registration of firearms." U.S. District Judge James Robertson dismissed the NRA's lawsuit last year, concluding that the Justice Department acted reasonably in establishing auditing standards. The NRA asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Robertson's ruling. Appellate Judges David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland, both Clinton appointees, rejected the NRA's argument. David B. Sentelle, a Reagan appointee, dissented. Tatel wrote that the "audit log" is not a firearms registry. The Brady law contained no timetable for purging records, he said, adding that common sense indicates that Congress wanted to ensure that the system functions properly. Sentelle wrote that the law's instruction to destroy records meant exactly that, prohibiting even temporary preservation. The NRA was among the strongest supporters of instant background checks. James Baker, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said the organization may seek further appellate review. "When you have words in the law like 'destroy,' 'don't record' and 'no system of registration,' it seems fairly obvious to us," Baker said. Attorney General Janet Reno called the ruling "a win for the safety of all Americans," saying it "will allow us to continue to conduct audits that protect individual privacy, ensure system accuracy and deter fraud by corrupt gun dealers." © 2000 The Washington Post Company [Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard] - ------------------------------ A.K. Pritchard http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/ http://rosie.acmecity.com/songfest/189/ To subscribe to "The Republican" email list - just ask! therepublican@ideasign.com "Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. Patrick Henry - Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death March 23, 1775 - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:22:56 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Federal judges created unequal? Excerpted Cato Daily Dispatch July 17, 2000 http://www.cato.org/ http://www.cato.org/dispatch/07-17-00d.html WHAT'S GOOD FOR JUDGES IS GOOD FOR ALL AMERICANS Washington Post columnist Al Kamen writes today about a proposal to allow federal judges to carry concealed weapons nationwide, regardless of state laws. The plan is part of the Federal Courts Improvement Act which passed the House recently on a voice vote. http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54652-2000Jul16.html The idea was pushed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the federal judiciary and would allow about 2,000 federal judges and magistrates to conceal and carry any type of gun they wished. The conference states the law is needed because three federal judges have been killed this century. "[I]f a judge is in danger, the fact that he or she is in one state or the other does not eliminate the danger," said Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger, a supporter of the bill. Congress may also decide that what is true for federal judges is true for the population at large. In "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html an analysis of a 1987 Florida law that allowed citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, Jeffrey R. Snyder found that there was a decrease in violent crime, not the increase many people had predicted. Recently, the Cato Institute hosted the book forum featuring legal scholar John R. Lott, Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime." His updated book presents the most comprehensive analysis ever done on crime statistics and the right-to-carry laws. Video of the forum is available on the Cato Web site. http://www.cato.org/events/000616bf.html To unsubscribe or change your e-mail address, visit http://www.free-market.net/partners/c/cato.html#dailydispatch - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:56:13 -0700 From: Joe Waldron Subject: SAF SUES OHIO AG AND OTHERS OVER CONCEALED CARRY Ohio Gun Law Challenged in Court - Hearing Tuesday CINCINNATI, OHIO (Monday, July 17, 2000) - The Second Amendment Foundation, along with Ohio citizens, filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the law prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. The suit alleges that current law violates numerous federal and state constitutional protections. "It is blatantly unfair to have a law where nobody knows whether he or she is complying with the law, or in violation of the law," stated Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder. "There are no standards, guidelines or common sense under the current statute." The legal action specifically seeks to prevent enforcement of R.C. 2923.12 until a court reviews whether it is constitutional. The complaint calls the current scheme a violation of both the U.S. Constitution (Second Amendment [keep & bear arms], Ninth Amendment [self-defense], and Fourteenth Amendment [Equal Protection, Incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States]) as well as the Ohio Constitution, which reads: Article 1, Section 1: All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety. Article 1, Section 4: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. The Ohio law in question, R.C. 2923.12, bans all concealed carry of firearms with felony penalties for any violations. It is only after a person caught carrying a concealed firearm is incurring the costs and stresses of a criminal trial that the current law allows the possibility of an "affirmative defense" to be made. Such an unjust system must be replaced with reasonable and prudent legislation. In a recent case against a pizza delivery driver, both the prosecutor and the judge stated that the law should be changed or repealed. The defendant was Pat Feely, who was known to carry large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods as part of his employment. He was acquitted at trial, but could face the same charges if found carrying a concealed firearm again. The threat and costs of repeated prosecutions is another reason for declaring the current law unconstitutional. "Even after a defendant wins his or her case based on 'affirmative defense' showing need for carrying a firearm concealed, this does not prohibit dragging the same person into a courtroom again for the very same charge," warned Timothy A. Smith, attorney for Mr. Feely and lead counsel for the pending legal action. "Such unfairness motivated Mr. Feely's employer, James H. Cohen, to step forward as one of the plaintiffs seeking relief from courts against the current law." In addition to SAF and Mr. Cohen, the other plaintiffs include Chuck Klein, Vernon Ferrier and Lea Anne Driscoll. A hearing will take place at 10:00 AM in the Judge Robert Ruehlman's Courtroom this Tuesday, July 18, 2000 with a ruling on the restraining order expected at the end of the hearing. A full hearing on the constitutionality of the law is expected in August 2000. Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate and its consequences. SAF previously has funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners. Current projects include a damage action lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers, an amicus brief in support of the Emerson case holding that the Second Amendment is an individual right and a lawsuit against the Clinton gun and magazine ban. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:33:55 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Live like sheep, die like cows. Dave Hansen elaborates: - ----- Subject: Live like sheep, die like cows. Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:11:57 -0600 From: "D. Hansen" Excerpt: "[I]f a judge is in danger, the fact that he or she is in one state or the other does not eliminate the danger," said Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger, a supporter of the bill. Well, duh! Of course "some are more equal than others", and this clearly seems to apply to Federal judges. Read below also about the Siren Song of the Anti-gunners. Or, "How to live like sheep and die like cows." Dave Cato Daily Dispatch July 17, 2000 http://www.cato.org/dispatch/07-17-00d.html WHAT'S GOOD FOR JUDGES IS GOOD FOR ALL AMERICANS Washington Post columnist Al Kamen writes today about a proposal to allow federal judges to carry concealed weapons nationwide, regardless of state laws. The plan is part of the Federal Courts Improvement Act which passed the House recently on a voice vote. http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54652-2000Jul16.html The idea was pushed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the federal judiciary and would allow about 2,000 federal judges and magistrates to conceal and carry any type of gun they wished. The conference states the law is needed because three federal judges have been killed this century. "[I]f a judge is in danger, the fact that he or she is in one state or the other does not eliminate the danger," said Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger, a supporter of the bill. Congress may also decide that what is true for federal judges is true for the population at large. In "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html an analysis of a 1987 Florida law that allowed citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, Jeffrey R. Snyder found that there was a decrease in violent crime, not the increase many people had predicted. Recently, the Cato Institute hosted the book forum featuring legal scholar John R. Lott, Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime." His updated book presents the most comprehensive analysis ever done on crime statistics and the right-to-carry laws. Video of the forum is available on the Cato Web site. http://www.cato.org/events/000616bf.html Siren Song of the Anti-gunners: Date: 7/16/2000 11:47:00 PM Written By: Robert Waters The Siren Song of Gun Control by Robert Waters http://keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=304 (In Greek mythology, the Sirens had such sweet voices that mariners who heard their songs were lured upon the rocks from which they sang.) On May 24, 2000, it was closing time at Wendy's. As employees worked to finish their chores so they could go home, John Taylor and Greg Godineaux are alleged by police to have entered the restaurant on Main Street in Queens, New York. One of the men pulled a gun on the workers, tied and gagged them, then systematically executed the entire crew. Five employees died, while two survived. In New York City, you see, only the cops and robbers have guns-- employees of Wendy's aren't allowed. Decades of strictly enforced gun laws have bullied most law-abiding citizens into abandoning their best means of self-defense. But, as the Wendy's shootings show, gun control laws don't prevent violence. In fact, statistics have shown that such laws often breed crime. The combined research of Dr. Gary Kleck, Dr. John Lott, Jr., and others make powerful arguments against restrictive firearms legislation. Gun control, however, is an enticing mistress. She promises security, safety, and insulation from those brutal thugs whose faces you see each night on the six o'clock news. She whispers that if you give her your gun, the cops will protect you. In her heart of hearts, she can't stand the thought that a single citizen might be armed. Like the Siren that is, though, her lying lips don't tell you that the Wendy's victims might have been saved. Almost exactly a month after the New York shooting, the McDonald's restaurant at 5301 East Freeway in Houston was getting ready to close. Three robbers burst in wearing masks and brandishing rifles. Threatening employees and customers, they didn't notice Willis Lee. The janitor pulled out a revolver and shot two of the thugs. Because he carried a gun, the maintenance man stopped an armed robbery and possibly a mass murder similar to the one at Wendy's. In New York City, employees are sitting ducks. But in Texas, concealed carry laws give citizens the opportunity to defend themselves. One of the common songs the gun control Siren sings is that if you give robbers your money, you probably won't get hurt. That lie has lured many onto the rocks of gun control. But what the Siren won't tell you is that robbery victims are often successful in fighting off their attackers. On September 3, 1998, Joe Montgomery, an Indianapolis gun shop owner, refused the demands of two robbers who held a gun to his head and ordered him to lie on the floor. During a brutal struggle in which the robbers beat Montgomery, slashed him with a knife, and attempted to shoot him twice, the businessman was able to retrieve a gun he'd hidden. The gun shop owner then shot and killed both robbers. In a recent interview, Montgomery related his reasons for choosing to fight back. "I had seen too many horrible video clips," he said, "of robbers who, after they push somebody to the floor, start shooting while [the victim is] lying face-down. I figured at this point I'm already dead, so why should I lay down and let them shoot me in the back of the head?" The gun control Siren won't mention Joe Montgomery. Nor will she tell you about other intended victims who saved their own lives and the lives of others. She won't tell you about Joel Myrick, the assistant principal of Pearl High School who used his handgun to end a school shooting, probably saving the lives of dozens of schoolchildren. She won't tell you about Jan Hartford, the Philadelphia baker who shot and killed an armed robber. Or the Tucson jogger who shot one of two armed robbers. Or the Charleston, South Carolina woman who shot a burglar after he tore the steel bars off her window in order to break into her house. She won't tell you about the Atlanta housewife who shot and killed a masked intruder in her apartment. Each year, thousands of armed victims fight back and survive. In Jacksonville, Florida, 77-year-old Claude Allen and his daughter, Shirla Menendez, were relaxing at home one Sunday evening. Suddenly a stranger kicked in the the door. Holding the two at gunpoint, he forced Menendez to tie up her father, a World War II veteran. Then the robber looted the house. As he was leaving, he placed his gun to Menendez's head and threatened to pull the trigger. Allen, desperately wrenching at his bonds, finally broke free, The veteran then retrieved his 9 mm semiautomatic pistol and shot the intruder dead. In spite of the evidence, the Siren continues to lure innocents onto the rocks of gun control. Her song causes them to lose their reason, to surrender their senses, and to believe her lies. Under her influence, they learn to live like sheep and die like cows. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:39:33 -0700 From: Joe Waldron Subject: SAF OHIO LAWSUIT--RESTRAINING ORDER GRANTED Ohio Gun Law Blocked By Restraining Order CINCINNATI, OHIO (Tuesday, July 18, 2000) - Judge Robert Ruehlman today issued a restraining order against enforcement of Ohio's law banning concealed carry of firearms as well as the law banning loaded firearms in a motor vehicle. The order affects the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County. Backers of the legal action are very pleased. "These laws are in clear violation of both Ohio and U.S. Constitutions and were ripe for challenges after the Pat Feely decision," proclaimed Alan Gottlieb, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). "We saw a huge opportunity to advance the rights of self-defense and took advantage of it." In addition to blocking enforcement of R.C. 2923.12 (banning concealed carry) the Judge included R.C. 2923.16, (loaded gun in a motor vehicle). The restraining order will be in place until after the preliminary injunction hearing beginning August 11, 2000. Until that time, law-abiding adult residents of Cincinnati and Hamilton County can legally carry a loaded firearm on their person or in their car without risk of arrest or prosecution PROVIDED that they do not violate other laws prohibiting possession in bars, schools, or other specified places. The law preventing felons and other disqualified from possessing guns, R.C. 2923.13, is also still in effect. The restraining order makes Hamilton County unique. The only state with a similar carry law is Vermont, where any law-abiding adult can carry a gun if they have a driver's license or some other form of photo identification. Including Vermont, 43 states allow the lawful concealed carry of firearms. Only 7 states, including Ohio, deny the individual's right of self-defense outside one's home or fixed place of business. The complaint called the current scheme a violation of both the Ohio Constitutions (Article 1, Section 1 [inalienable rights to defending life, liberty and property] & Article 1, Section 4 [bear arms for defense and security]) and the U.S. Constitution (Second Amendment [keep & bear arms], Ninth Amendment [self-defense], and Fourteenth Amendment [Equal Protection, Incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States]). But Judge Robert Ruehlman found yet another problem under current law. "The judge made it clear that the current law treats people as guilty until proven innocent," said attorney William Gustavson. "If this order is upheld, the burden of proof will switch to the Government to show why the person should not be allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense." In a recent case against a pizza delivery driver, both the prosecutor and the judge stated that the law should be changed or repealed. The defendant, Pat Feely, was known to carry large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods as part of his employment. He was acquitted at trial, but could have faced the same charges if found carrying a concealed firearm again unless the restraining order was issued. Such unfairness opened the door for throwing the unconstitutional law out. "For years, Gov. Bob Taft and the anti-self-defense crowd have blocked reasonable standards for issuing concealed carry licenses," stated Dave LaCourse, SAF Public Affairs Director. "Now they have their wish, and Hamilton County allows law-abiding people to carry of firearms without a license. I hope this decision sends a message to them that the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions are still valid and binding." The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate and its consequences. SAF previously has funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners. Current projects include a damage action lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers, an amicus brief in support of the Emerson case holding that the Second Amendment is an individual right and a lawsuit against the Clinton gun and magazine ban. SAF's web site is at http://www.saf.org/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:51:53 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: Federal agent kills his dog? Assumming this "report" is substantially accurate, it will be interesting to see how it is handled. Joe Citizen would almost certainly be charged with animal neglect or even cruelty to animals for such a callous and stupid act as leaving a dog in a car during the summer months. And after all the talk we heard from government "experts" during this last session about how certain misdemeanors--including cruelty to animals--needed to be added to the list of disqualifications for owning a gun because cruelty to animals was a very strong indicator of a likelyhood of future violence against people, should we take bets on whether or not the agent will be stripped of his badge and gun? Well, just try to remember that some people (government agents in particular) are created more equal than others. From today's Rolly & Wells in the SLTrib A narcotics-trained canine working for the Metro Narcotics Task Force in Salt Lake County died Friday after a federal Drug Enforcement Administration investigator left it in his car for several hours during 100-degree-plus temperatures. Don Mendrala, agent in charge of the Utah office of the DEA, confirmed he is investigating the death of Lady, a beagle trained to sniff out illicit drugs. The DEA is a member of the Metro Narcotics Unit, which consists of specially trained investigators from 14 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Because of the undercover nature of the agent's work, his identity is being kept confidential. o ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:34:23 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: MILLION MOM MARCH organizer uses GUN to attempt murder These articles didn't load well for me. - ----- Subject: LPU: FW: MILLION MOM MARCH organizer uses GUN to attempt murder Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:29:24 -0600 From: "Jim Dexter" To: "LPUtah Forum" She'll probably claim that the gun made her do it. Maybe she and Candy Leightner can share a cell and a pint. - ------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Lipscomb, an organizer of the Million Mom March, was charged with assault with intent to kill for shooting a teen who she believed to have caused her son's death. It was later determined (second story) that she had probably shot the wrong person. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40501-2000Jul13.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45741-2000Jul14.html Please circulate this far and wide. BTW, for those who do not remember: The Rocky Mountain News reported shortly after the Columbine massacre that Mark Manes, the man who sold the Tec-9 assault pistol used in the Columbine shootings, was the son of two strong members of Handgun Control, the nation's largest gun control lobbying group. LPUtah LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "lputah@qsicorp.com" LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender. LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: elwell@inconnect.com LPUtah - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:33:03 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: BATF and SSC? Last night I turned on the 10:00 channel 4 news a few minutes late and just in time to catch the tail end of the last sentence of some report. All I caught was "...BATF and Shooting Sports Council." Can anyone shed anymore light on this? Thanks. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:04:30 -0600 From: "Karl Pearson" Subject: Petition To G.W.Bush Freedoms of one group lost create a footpath where all freedom will be trodden under the foot of the elite who are exempt. KLP http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:25:39 -0600 From: Kelly & Miriam Phelps Subject: Re: Petition To G.W.Bush I signed earlier, Karl, even though I don't trust GW. Thanks for forwarding this. Kelly Phelps Karl Pearson wrote: >=20 > Freedoms of one group lost create a footpath where all freedom will be > trodden under the foot of the elite who are exempt. KLP >=20 > http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html >=20 > - - --=20 MZ=90 - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:43:23 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Special Sales Tax for Gun Seller - ----- Subject: LPU: FW: Special Sales Tax for Gun Seller Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:53:18 -0600 From: "Jim Dexter" To: "LPUtah Forum" US-DIN head Clark Aposhian called my show yesterday and laid out a completely surrealistic story about many California communities tacking an additional 4% sales tax on all merchandise sold in a store that also sells firearms. IOW, you buy paper plates at the Sacramento K-Mart, and you'll pay 4% more in sales tax than you would at Albertson's because Albertson's doesn't sell guns. Naturally, I was skeptical because, while I know Clark to be an honest man, such a tax must surely be totally unconstitutional. So I sent a note to Rob Latham, JD, former legal counsel of the LPUtah and now a Bay Area resident. Sadly, he verifies the story and provides additional detail. It is an outrage. - ---------------------------------------------------------- Yep. It's true. As for the constitutionality, the San Leandro case is working its way through the courts. See the story below. I went to Siegle's for the first day of its going out of business sale. The owners hung a big sign over the entrance behind the counter that led to a back storeroom that read "Oakland Sucks." Pretty sad. - --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/07/13/MN89677.DTL Last Gun Shop in Oakland Closing Steep tax ruined profits, owner says Janine DeFao, Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, July 13, 2000 OAKLAND -- Mara Siegle has fired her last shot in her battle against Oakland's increasingly tough gun laws. After 57 years, she is closing the doors to her family's gun shop, the last one standing in Oakland. A few miles south, in neighboring San Leandro, the owner of Traders fears his store, the largest gun outlet in Northern California, could meet the same fate. But Anthony Cucchiara is determined to keep fighting. Yesterday, as Siegle rang up going-out-of-business bargains for a long line of customers under a sign decrying Oakland's ``illegal'' gun tax, an Alameda County Superior Court Judge dismissed Cucchiara's lawsuit over a similar tax in San Leandro. But Cucchiara's lawyers said he will appeal the ruling on the tax, which, they say, was designed to drive Traders out of business -- the same claim the owner of Siegle's Guns makes. Voters in both cities approved special taxes on gun sales and shops in June 1998. City leaders argued that those who sell guns should help pay for their costs to society, an estimated $32,000 for every gunshot wound treated. San Leandro's tax, approved narrowly, requires a seller to pay the city 3 percent of the proceeds from the sale of concealable firearms and their ammunition. Oakland's measure, which was approved by a wide margin, is farther reaching. Any store that sells guns or ammunition must pay the city $24 for every $1,000 made on any merchandise sold, from guns to fishing rods to books. Prior to the tax's approval, such businesses paid $1.20 for every $1,000 in receipts. ``It's a business-destruction tax,'' Siegle said yesterday as customers, new and old, crowded her store on West MacArthur Boulevard at Telegraph Avenue for her three-week closeout sale. The tax measures in Oakland and San Leandro were part of a campaign by officials in East Bay cities to control the sale of guns. Money from the taxes is used to fund gun- violence prevention programs. In addition, many of the cities have approved bans on the sale of so-called junk guns. Earlier this year, Oakland became the first city in the nation to ban the sale of pocket-size handguns known as ``ultracompacts'' -- a move that targeted Siegle's Guns. Oakland has ``strategically and selectively targeted Siegle's,'' said Siegle, who took over the North Oakland sporting goods store after her husband's death seven years ago. He had inherited it from his father, the founder. ``They wanted me gone,'' she said. ``They got their wish.'' City Councilman Henry Chang, who championed the tax, denied that was the city's intent, saying that Siegle's has been a responsible business and never the subject of complaints. ``We didn't do that to hurt her. It's to protect the young people who get hurt by gun violence,'' Chang said. Siegle's was the only store in Oakland subject to the tax because Super K-Mart opted to stop selling ammunition rather than pay it. Chang said Siegle's could have reduced the effect of the tax by opening a second store for nonfirearm sporting goods. But ``if you profit from guns, you need to pay part of the costs, too,'' he said. Siegle's customers called the tax unfair and warned it could backfire. ``If a person really wants a gun, they'll use illegal means to get one,'' said Roland Horn, a San Francisco target shooter. In Traders' lawsuit against San Leandro yesterday, Superior Court Judge James A. Richman threw out the case. Among Traders' arguments was that the city invalidly placed the tax measure on the ballot. Attorney Jack Leavitt, who represents the gun store, said he will appeal to the Court of Appeal in San Francisco. ``With the 2 percent profit margin Traders makes on most transactions, a 3 percent tax can essentially put it out of business. . . . Our position is the city is less interested in raising revenue than in putting Traders out of business,'' he said. San Leandro Assistant City Attorney Liane M. Randolph said the city intends to use the money toward crime prevention and anti-violence programs. But because of the lawsuit, Traders had not paid the city the money owed - -- $110,000 over two years -- until recently. The law does affect an additional six or seven smaller gun sellers, including pawnshops, in the city, officials said. Randolph said city officials do hope the tax will ``discourage the sale of handguns in San Leandro.'' E-mail Janine DeFao at jdefao@sfgate.com. ©2000 San Francisco Chronicle Page A17 LPUtah LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "lputah@qsicorp.com" LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender. LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: elwell@inconnect.com LPUtah - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 09:44:20 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: NRA coup in WP, TX lawsuit - ----- Subject: Wag The Dog Reincarnated Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:50:37 EDT From: "Neal Knox" Reply-To: chris@nealknox.com To: fco@lists.best.com August 6 Neal Knox Report -- Today's Washington Post Sunday Supplement Magazine has an unusual article by Michael Powell, complete with a photo of Wayne LaPierre on the cover and full page photos of Jim Baker and me inside (and a small pic of me standing in front of the Stonewall Jackson statue at the Manassas battleground). What's unusual, for the Post, is that Powell doesn't portray any of us as nutcases. Powell does his best to explain us gun folks, and the ongoing internal wars within NRA. In some ways he succeeded - -- though there are many factual errors. The gist of the piece is that NRA is restored to power through the leadership of Wayne, since getting rid of us harder line folks, but that Wayne is in danger of repeating my mistakes of being too harsh in support of the Second Amendment. For the record, no Federal or significant state gun laws passed during my watch at NRA-ILA. When Powell called me last spring and asked for an interview, I told him I would talk to him as much as he wanted about the gun issue, but wouldn't talk about NRA internal affairs -- my standard answer, which has chased off reporters for the New York Times, Nightline and many others wanting me to give them dirt on NRA. Powell stuck to the deal; we talked only about the history of the "gun control" movement and my role in it. But over the Fourth of July he sent me an email to check a few facts -- such as if the .22 rifle my wife Jay was given when she was nine was the same one she had in her college dorm when we began dating (I'm sure that tidbit will cause many Post readers to brand us as nutcases. However, in that email he told me he had spoken with NRA Director/movie producer John Milius and other board members at the Charlotte meeting. "They were suprisingly open in talking about the plot to save LaPierre's job, install Heston and beat you. Milius claims that (NRA public relations/advertising/fundraising contractor Tony) Makris was behind much of it, that he and Makris met in Hollywood several times to plot strategy. And, Milius further claimed, they accomplished much of their victory by lying for weeks and weeks." Powell sent me the quote from Milius which appeared in today's magazine: "We were facing a genuine and extremely well-organized coup d'etat," Milius told Powell. "So we used our best techniques: lying, cheating and disinformation. I didn't tell the truth for weeks." That's when I broke my rule about not talking about NRA internal affairs. I emailed him back: "Milius was correct about Makris being mainly behind it. Of course he was. He was the one who would have been out of a job. We had too much invested in Wayne to throw him away. "It wasn't a corporate takeover or coup d'etat; it was a mutiny of the (Executive Vice President against a majority of the board), assisted by NRA vendors determined to keep some very lucrative contracts. The same vendors for the same reason ran the expensive and successful advertising and mail campaigns that have succeeded in removing all those who voted against Wayne in '97." It was probably too late for any of that to get into his story, and it's just as well. But since what happened has now been published, thanks to Milius, I figured you NRA members needed to know about it. You remember the movie "Wag The Dog?" About the Presidential political operative who got a Hollywood producer to fake a war to divert attention from his sexcapade with a young woman? The Hollywood guy told the press because he just had to get credit for his production. I guess, being Hollywood, John just had to get a credit line. You now have a better understanding of the reason for the Bylaw I'm co-sponsoring to prohibit NRA employees or vendors from being involved in -- or funding -- NRA elections. BTW -- Michael Powell is going to be talking about this article at 1 p.m. Monday on www.washingtonpost.com/liveonline. - ------------ There's going to be a $10 per plate Civil Liberties Defense Foundation fundraising barbecue and auction at the Lubbock, Texas, Civics Center Thursday night for the lawsuit being brought by Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, former Sen. Jerry Patterson and other legislators against the cities suing the gun industry. The suit is based on two points -- denying Texans their 2nd Amendment rights and violating the Constitution's Commerce Clause. What's different from the gun manufacturers' suit against the cities (also on Commerce grounds) is that this one is brought under Sec. 1983 of the U.S. Civil Rights Act against the mayors, councilmen and other officials responsible for the lawsuits. Sec. 1983 makes those responsible for violating our civil liberties *personally* liable, and unable to get their state or municipal governments to pay their legal fees. Even if it doesn't win -- and lawyers tell me it's highly winnable -- it will hurt the mayors and councilmen fighting the suits in the same way the gunmakers are being hurt by the expense of fighting the cases. It would sure chill the cities' ardor for more gun manufacturer lawsuits. It amazes me that the gun industry isn't supporting this suit. For more info, see http://www.libertydefense.com - -- Help us keep you informed! Send your Firearms Coalition dues to: Neal Knox Associates 7771 Sudley Road, No. 44 Manassas, VA 20109 Suggested dues are the price of a box of ammunition -- $15 - $25. This is the Coalition Alerts list. To subscribe or unsubscribe send mail to fco-request@lists.best.com with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the body. Archives of these messages are stored at http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/. Copyright (c) 2000 Neal Knox Associates. All Rights Reserved. - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #194 ***********************************