Original link

From: (utah-firearms-digest)
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #153
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Precedence: bulk

utah-firearms-digest Wednesday, August 18 1999 Volume 02 : Number 153


Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:39:45 -0600
From: charles hardy
Subject: Re: Fwd: Gun Rights Rally

Ken was bcc'ed the same post that went to utah-firearms.

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:13:03 -0600 "Leo Huber"
> Maybe you should send your remarks to Dr. Larsen Also!
> I intend to be there, if only to support Our 'right to keep and bear
> arms'
> Leo R Huber
> Satellite Engineer
> Utah State University
> Http://
> Gun Control is NOT Crime Control!!!
> >>> charles hardy 08/17/99 01:59PM >>>
> I sincerely wish Dr. Larsen the greatest success in this endeavor.
> However, for all of our sakes I hope and pray he has both the good sense,
> finacial reserves, and other resources to mount a serious, credible case
> with EXTREMELY competant and top notch professional legal
> counsel--someone of the caliber of Gerry Spence or David Hardy at
> least.
> The last thing any of us need is for a hostile judiciary to be able to
> easily set an anti-individual-RKBA precedent--and a hostile media to have
> that precedent to trumpet about--because the "pro"-gun side failed to
> mount a credible and serious case. "Miller" should and could have been a
> slam dunk for the pro-RKBA side--an end to gun control acts of
> prohibition and another safety wedge against the gun control of the 60's
> to today. However, Miller's failure to appear at the Supreme Court
> allowed the anti-gun government to offer lies and falsehoods unchallenged
> and we ended up with a ruling that appears, too easily to the masses,
> as a loss for our side.
> This case is too important and has the potential to adversely affect too
> many of us too directly for anyone to show up in a tinkerbell hemp
> goddess outfit, a Brigham Young costume, to start babbling about fringe
> on the courtroom flag, U.N. conspiracies, insist on representing himself,
> or otherwise do or say anything that looks or sounds crazy or easily
> discounted. In this day and age, unfortunately, simply asserting that a
> person has the right to buy, own, and carry guns without asking for
> governmental permission or providing ID makes a person sound crazy and
> radical all by itself. Anyone making such claims had better, IMHO,
> appear, act, and be 110% sane, credible, and down-to-earth in EVERY other
> regard--at least until after the case is won. He better have not only
> absolutely irrefutable case law, constitutional intent, and modern
> studies, but also present those data in a completely credible and
> compelling manner.
> My $.02 worth.
> On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:01:59 -0600 "S. Thompson"
> writes:
> >
> > >X-Sender:
> > >Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:28:04 -0700
> > >To:
> > >From: "Dr. Ken Larsen"
> > >Subject: Gun Rights Rally
> > >
> > >I am suing for my right to keep and bear arms (RKBA). All RKBA supporters
> > >are invited to attend the press conference Wednesday, August 18th at 10:00
> > >a.m. in front of the Federal Court house at 350 South Main (not the new
> > >Matheson Courthouse).
> > >
> > >Also, if you are willing, please repost this widely. Those who are
> > >inclined are invited to call talk radio tomorrow (Tuesday) and announce
> > >this gun-rights rally. Let's show the media I'm not standing alone for
> > >RKBA.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Ken
> > >
> > >*****************
> > >
> > >& Request for Coverage
> > >CONTACT: Dr. Ken Larsen
> > >at 533-8658
> > >
> > >Mayoral Candidate Sues Government Over Right To Keep and Bear
> Arms
> > >
> > >SALT LAKE CITY (August 16, 1999) -- While other mayoral
> candidates
> > debate
> > >the details of gun control, Candidate Dr. Ken Larsen is suing for his
> > >Constitutional right to keep and bear arms after his attempt to purchase a
> > >handgun was refused.
> > >
> > >Dr. Larsen will be on the east steps of the U.S. District Court
> > House, 350
> > >S. Main Street, at 10 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18, to address the media and
> > >respond to questions. Then, he will file a civil rights lawsuit against the
> > >city, county, state and federal governments in Federal Court.
> > >
> > >Dr. Larsen visited Capitol Jewelry and Loan on Monday, Aug. 16, to pay cash
> > >for a handgun without surrendering any personal information. He was
> > >informed that he could not buy a gun without waiting for an FBI background
> > >check and giving his name, address, birthdate, Social Security number, sex,
> > >height, weight, eye color, hair color and two forms of identification.
> > >
> > >"This requirement violates my Fourth Amendment right to be secure in my
> > >personal papers. It makes gun ownership a government privilege, rather than
> > >an inalienable right," Larsen said.
> > >
> > >The Utah State Constitution begins with, "All men have the inherent and
> > >inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties."
> > >It further states that "The individual right of the people to keep and bear
> > >arms for security and defense . . . shall not be infringed; . . ."
> > >
> > >"Just what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't they understand?" Larsen
> > >asked. "The Constitution is what We, the People, established, not what
> > >they, the government, say it is. Now is the time for us, the people, to
> > >take back our Constitutional civil rights."
> > >
> > >"If I had a piece of cloth with fringe on the edges, how much of the fringe
> > >could you trim without cutting the fringe?" Larsen asked. "Furthermore, how
> > >much of my right to keep and bear arms can you infringe without infringing
> > >my right to keep and bear arms?"
> > >
> > >Speaking of the government, Larsen said, "They punish us for violating
> > >their laws so I am asking a jury to punish them for violating our
> > >Constitution. I will sue for $100, attorney's fees and whatever punitive
> > >damages the jury decides."
> > >
> > >"No government official can advocate any form of gun control without first
> > >proposing a constitutional amendment," Larsen said. "Otherwise she/he is
> > >violating his/her oath of office and should be removed and forever banned
> > >from government service."
> > >
> > >For further information, contact Dr. Ken Larsen at 533-8658, or attend the
> > >press conference on the east steps of the U.S. District Court House, 350 S.
> > >Main Street, 10 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18.
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> ==================================================================
> Charles C. Hardy
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> Try Juno Web:
> -

Charles C. Hardy

Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web:

- -


Date: Tue, 17 Aug 99 15:08:00 -0700
Subject: FW: [2ndamendmentnews] Congress Ignores Facts in Gun Grab Bill

- -----
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 20:04:48 -0400
From: Weldon Clark
Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Congress Ignores Facts in Gun Grab Bill


Professor Lott and 290 scholars from institutions as diverse as Harvard,
Stanford, and Northwestern have informed Congress that gun laws make
matters worse. But Congress will not hear until they feel the heat.
It's up to you and your friends to turn up the heat while Congress is
home during the August recess. Call your Congressman and Senators, and
the offices of the so-called Republican leaders, and complain. Defeat
the anti-gun provisions including the "registration" of sales in the
Juvenile Justice Bill.

You can call your representatives at the toll-free number 888-449-3511.
You can also call them using the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
Here's an e-Mail Link To Congress.
For the latest happening at NRA go to
For legislative updates contact and go to
"Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line"

More Gun Controls? They haven't worked in the Past.

By John R. Lott

Everyone from President Clinton to the hosts of the Today Show
attributes the recent wave of school violence to the greater
accessibility of guns. Gun-control groups claim that today
"guns are less regulated than toasters or teddy-bears."
Proposed solutions range from banning those under 21 from owning
guns to imprisoning adults whose guns are misused by minors.
Today the House will consider yet another measure, this one
requiring a waiting period and background check for anyone
wishing to make a purchase at a gun show.

Such legislation might make sense if guns had indeed become
easier to obtain in recent years. Yet the truth is precisely
the opposite. Gun availability has never before been as
restricted as it is now. As late as 1967, it was possible for
a 13-year-old virtually anywhere in the U.S. to walk into
a hardware store and buy a rifle. Few states even had age
restrictions for buying handguns from a store. Buying a rifle
through the mail was easy. Private transfers of guns to
juveniles were also unrestricted.

But nowhere were guns more common than at schools. Until 1969,
virtually every public high school in New York City had a shooting
club. High-school students carried their guns to school on the
subways in the morning, turned them over to their homeroom teacher
or the gym coach and retrieved them after school for target practice.
The federal government even gave students rifles and paid for their
ammunition. Students regularly competed in city-wide shooting
contests, with the winners being awarded university scholarships.

Since the 1960s, however, the growth of federal gun control has
been dramatic. Federal gun laws, which contained 19,907 words in
1960, have more than quadrupled to 88,413 words today. By contrast,
in 1930 all federal gun-control laws amounted to only 3,571 words.

The growth in state laws has kept pace. By 1997 California's gun-
control statutes contained an incredible 158,643 words -- nearly as
many as the King James version of the New Testament -- and still
another 12 statutes are being considered in this legislative session.
Even "gun friendly" states like Texas have lengthy gun-control
provisions. None of this even begins to include the burgeoning local
regulations on everything from licensing to mandatory gun locks.

The fatuity of gun-control laws is nowhere better illustrated than
in Virginia, where high-school students in rural areas have a long
tradition of going hunting in the morning. The state legislature
tried but failed to enact an exemption to a federal law banning guns
within 1,000 feet of a school, as prosecutors find it crazy to send
good kids to jail simply because they had a rifle locked in the trunk
of their car while it was parked in the school parking lot. Yet the
current attempts by Congress to "put teeth" into the laws by mandating
prosecutions will take away this prosecutorial discretion and produce
harmful and unintended results.

But would stricter laws at least reduce crime by taking guns out of
the hands of criminals? Not one academic study has shown that waiting
periods and background checks have reduced crime or youth violence.
The Brady bill, widely touted by its supporters as a landmark in gun
control, has produced virtually no convictions in five years. And no
wonder: Disarming potential victims (those likely to obey the gun
laws) relative to criminals (those who almost by definition will not
obey such laws) makes crime more attractive and more likely.

This commonsense observation is backed by the available statistical
evidence. Gun-control laws have noticeably reduced gun ownership
in some states, with the result that for each 1% reduction in gun
ownership there was a 3% increase in violent crime. Nationally,
gun-ownership rates throughout the 1960s and '70s remained fairly
constant, while the rates of violent crime skyrocketed. In the 1990s
gun ownership has grown at the same time as we have witnessed
dramatic reductions in crime.

Yet with no academic evidence that gun regulations prevent crime,
and plenty of indications that they actually encourage it, we
nonetheless are now debating which new gun control laws to pass.
With that in mind, 290 scholars from institutions as diverse as
Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, and UCLA released an open letter
to Congress yesterday [Wednesday June 16] stating that the proposed
new gun laws are ill-advised: "With the 20,000 gun laws already on
the books, we advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to
investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed
to the problem we currently face."

It thus would appear that at the very least gun-control advocates
face something of a dilemma. If guns are the problem, why was it that
when guns were really accessible, even inside schools by students, we
didn't have the problems that plague us now?

Mr. Lott, a fellow in law and economics at the University of Chicago
Law School, is author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of
Chicago Press, 1998).

The way to protect your own rights is to protect the rights of others.
Our right to own and use firearms is under attack. This list was created
in a hurry due to the emergency presented by anti-gun politicians and
the media dancing in the blood of those who died in the Colorado massacre.

To subscribe please send a reply to or

Cordially Yours,
The 2ndAmendmentNews Team

2ndAmendmentNews is published by volunteer activists who support the
full original individual rights intent of the 2nd Amendment and oppose
any appeasement on gun rights. The moderators include Chris Behanna,
Weldon Clark (an NRA director) and Steve Cicero.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia
State House, August 1, 1776.

- -


Date: Tue, 17 Aug 99 11:50:00 -0700
Subject: FW: FYI - "Reasonable" gun control

- -----
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:38:42 -0600
From: "Jim Dexter"
Subject: FW: FYI - "Reasonable" gun control

Keep in mind that whenever gun-grabbers say, "Let's be reasonable," the
first victim is reason itself which is quickly replaced by their paranoid
phobias and, as the following points out, lies.
- ---------------------------------

Excellent article with some good talking points and valuable information.
- --------------------------

Independence Institute Feature Syndicate Opinion-Editorial


On July 29, 1999, Mark Barton, armed with 2 handguns, went on a shooting
rampage at two Atlanta brokerage firms. When the shooting stopped, 10-people
lay dead, including Morrow from self-inflicted wounds. Thirteen more lay
wounded. Earlier that morning, Barton bludgeoned his wife and two children
to death with a hammer.

On July 31, the Los Angeles Times reported that, "Against the backdrop of
the latest horrific killings to transfix the nation, Congress broke a
months-long logjam and took a step toward passing gun control legislation
before children return to school this fall".

Less than 2 weeks later, Buford Furrow, a neo-Nazi sympathizer "with racist
views and a nasty temper", shot up a Los Angeles Jewish community center,
wounding 3 children and 2 adults. President Clinton called for the
tightening of gun restrictions.

An all-too-familiar story, with a wholly predictable response: new,
"reasonable" gun-control laws needed, "for the children".

We are told by Bill Clinton that "every day in America, 13 children are
killed by guns". It's virtually the same claim made repeatedly by other
politicians, and by groups advocating firearm-prohibition like Cease Fire.
And the sense of urgency to enact new legislation, calculated to result from
such a sound bite, is almost irresistible.

But the claim is bogus. The source cited by Cease Fire is the National
Center for Health Statistics. Anyone who bothers to check the figures will
quickly find that claims like "13 children are killed each day by guns" are
true only if one counts 20-year old armed robbers shot by the police, and
19-year old drug dealers shot by rivals, as "children". For those taken in
by the vision of babies, toddlers and pre-teens caught in the crossfire, the
scam worked as expected.

If gun-control laws are so "reasonable", why the need to deceive Americans
in order to win support for them?

We are told that "reasonable" trigger-lock laws are the cure for firearm
accidents and gun thefts. What we are not told is that, in 1994, fatal gun
accidents reached the lowest annual level since record-keeping began in
1903. They dropped again in 1995, lower still in 1996, and even lower,
again, in 1997.

In 1997, with an estimated 240 million guns in America, there were 22 fatal
gun accidents among children aged 0-5. More children under the age of 5 die
from drowning in buckets than die from gun accidents.

Trigger-locks won't stop 10-year olds, much less 20-year old "children" or
determined criminals. So just who is the target of these "reasonable" gun
laws, and what's their real purpose? Why is it "reasonable" to mandate
trigger-lock use when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest they'll
perform as billed?

How "reasonable" is it to destroy what's left of our Constitution - for how
else could trigger-lock use be enforced, other than by house-to-house

Every year, guns are used to thwart criminal attack 2.5 million times, or
more.. But every manufacturer of trigger-lock devices warns against using
them on a loaded gun. To defend against an attacking intruder requires
locating the key for the lock, unlocking the gun, then loading it - all
before it can be used in defense of one's family. That's not firearm safety
- - that's costing lives by removing guns from the realm of self-defense.

Rather than saving lives, could it be that trigger-lock laws are intended,
instead, to condition Americans into believing that firearms aren't
acceptable for self-defense, or worth the bother?

We are told we need "reasonable" legislation to close the "gun-show
loophole" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But how "reasonable"
is it to pass new laws, when previous ones go ignored and unenforced? Case
in point - the Clinton Administration's track record on prosecution for
violation of existing firearm laws:

* Federal prosecution of felons who used guns in the commission of a crime
dropped 47% since Bill Clinton took office.

* Of 6,000 students caught at school with guns in the past 2 years, the
Clinton administration prosecuted only 13.

* During the last 2 years, the Clinton administration prosecuted only 11
juveniles for illegal possession of handguns, 11 persons for illegally
transferring handguns to juveniles, and 37 persons for illegally
providing firearms to felons.

How "reasonable" is it to premise public policy on fraud and deceit? And
just how "reasonable" is it to entrust the lives of our families to those
who play politics with them, all the while playing the game of victim

Paul Gallant is a dentist, and a Research Associate with the Independence
Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden,

- -


Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:07:43 -0600
From: charles hardy
Subject: Re: Fwd: Gun Rights Rally

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:17:24 -0700 "Dr. Ken Larsen"

> Dear Charlie,

Dr. Larsen,

On this side of the Atlantic that form of Charles is not only far too
familar a way to address someone to whom you've never even been
introduced, it is also generally viewed as at least somewhat
condensending when used to address someone who does not refer to
themselves in that manner. I have given you the respect of your degree.
I'll ask that you offer the respect of civilized society and address me
as either "Mr. Hardy," or simply "Charles," unless you can speak and type
with a Scottish brogue in which case "Charlie" will be acceptable to me.

> Two men were standing together in their fox hole. The first was busy
> repairing a beautiful rifle. The second had only a rusty old single-shot
> pistol. The enemy charged and the man with the rifle was killed in his
> hole while getting ready. The other man came out of his hole, screamed
> with enthusiasm and killed an enemy. He wounded two others with his pocket
> knife before finally dying. Would you have him wait and die with his buddy
> because he was insufficiently armed for the battle?

You write a good story. Unfortunatly, it is a poor analogy to the
situation at hand. Let me offer a better one.

An entire army is quietly and steadily moving into position for a
surprise attack on the enemy. Everyone is dutifully doing his part. Not
all of those parts are glamorous. Infantry is making ready their rifles.
Cooks are making sure everyone is well fed. Medics are preparing for
the inevitable casulties. Mechanics are tuning up jeeps, tanks, and
planes. Pilots sit in briefing rooms going over flight plans. Hundreds
of miles behind the lines non-combatants are making countless sacrifices
to support the army at the front. Suddenly, a lone sodier gets a hero
complex and takes it upon himself to single-handedly charge the enemy

Not only does he not inflict any damage whatsoever, he is captured. On
his person the enemy find detailed notes of radio frequencies and call
signs used, code books, lists of the various units assembled for battle
along with their strengths and weaknesses, maps of current camps, mine
fields, and escape routes, and finally detailed plans of how the upcoming
battle will be waged. The enemy makes use of this information and
easily defeats the army before they every launch the attach and
ultimately the enemy conquers the entire nation.

Would you or any other sane, thinking person call the lone soldier a
"hero" or speak of his "selfless sacrifice?" Of course not. At best
you'd consider him a grossly misguided fool; at worst a traitor to his
army and nation.

Our judicial system is, for better or worse, greatly influenced and even
bound to some degree by precedence. If you wage a weak fight and allow a
bad precedent to be set you don't do any harm to yourself but you do a
great harm to the cause. In fact, I don't see that you have any heroic
risk at all here. You've not gone out and commited an act of "civil
disobediance" by sawing off a shotgun or converting a rifle to full-auto
in defiance of current law. You're no marytr. Not even a potential
marytr at this point. You face nothing worse than possibly paying some
government attorney fees for wasting their time with bad arguments. You
can, however, potentially, raise the bar even higher for those future
suits that might otherwise stand a chance of doing some good.

You showed guts and leadership when you got the anti-cruising ticket.
Fight and win that case before handing the enemy such an easy victory.
The evil is sufficient for the day. Wage one battle at a time. Wage it
well. Win. Then and only then move on.

> If you think anything
> about my person should be relevant to my case, then nobody can fight for
> freedom because we are all flawed. Would you tell a fellow Minute Man to
> go home because his sling shot was inferior to your rifle? Or would you
> welcome everyone to the battle? This is not about professional warfare.
> It's about ordinary people like me with all their quirks and weaknesses
> just having enough and throwing whatever they have at the enemy, rather
> than suffer another minute of tyranny.

Judges (and juries if you get that far) are human. A lot about your
person is, implicitly, relevant to the case. It may not be right, but it
is the way it is. Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows it. No
defense attorney allows his client to stand trial for murder while
wearing the clothes in which he was arrested. Suits and ties and clean
hair cuts all around. Rants and raves and bad anologies and quotes from
the founding fathers (acurate as they may be) are not going to cut it in
today's courtroom. By and large the judiciary is hostile to guns to
start with. If you want to do more good than harm, you must go in wisely
and with every advantage rather than going off half-cocked like our lone
soldier above.

> I will win for the same reason that Gideon won. God reduced
> Gideon's
> forces to show that no human could have done what Gideon did without
> the
> help of God.

Ironic that you would ask me if I wouldn't welcom everyone to battle in
and then 3 sentences later mention Gideon. Gideon, at the command of God
did not welcome everyone to battle. He only welcomed those who
demostrated, via the tests God prescribed, they would be an asset rather
than a detriment. Who would argue that our army above would not have
been infinately better off if the would be hero had not stayed home?

>God will show that even Ken Larsen can strike a blow for
> freedom, so nobody else needs to hold back because of personal failings or
> inadequate legal assistance.

Are you hereby claiming to have received direct revelation from God on
this point directing you to your present course of action? If so, I'll
not offer another word of protest or concern. If not, I believe it may
be time to exam your personal interpretations, feelings, faith, and ego
and make sure that one or more of them are not guiding you astray this

> If I can enter this battle, even you,
> Charles, can participate.

The cooks and mechanics and supporting civilans did far more good by
abiding their station than did the single would-be hero who choose to
"enter the battle" inprudently.

Sad that I should feel compelled to remind a Dr. to "First, do no harm."

> Ken
> PS Please come to the rally if you can, even though you will be wearing a
> bag over your head.

I do not make a habit of going places where I would be so ashamed as to
have to disguise myself. If I were to attend (and I won't be) I'd not
hide my appearance. But thanks for the invite.

And for my sake even more than for yours, I do wish you success.

Charles C. Hardy

Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web:

- -


Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:31:36 -0600
From: charles hardy
Subject: Re: Fwd: Gun Rights Rally

On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:03:48 -0700 "Dr. Ken Larsen"
> Believe me, Mr. Charles Hardy, no offense was intended. Although "Dr." is
> on my official address, you will see that I always sign as "Ken." It never
> occurred to me that such familiarity would be offensive. Consider yourself
> the recipient of whatever proper respect is expected. If I wanted to
> offend, I would never consider calling you "Charlie." I would use some
> less friendly term, such as "Asshole."

Thank you.

> Show me that army and I will instantly join. Are you suggesting it's the
> NRA, the LP, or some other such group?

Not the NRA for sure. They've helped write more unconstitutional gun
laws than HCI. The LP has the correct principles on the issue, but isn't
really in much of a position to influence yet. However, JPFO, GOA,
GOUtah, and WAGC are all working to turn the tide of legislation and/or
public beliefs which have allowed the bad legislations. The growing
conservative movement within the Utah GOP is also making strides.
Nationally I believe there is even a group known as Democrats for the 2nd
Amnd. There are also countless individuals who work to persuade friends,
family, and co-workers of correct principles in this area. Many make a
point to take some number of non-shooters out to the range each year,
exposing them to guns, shooting, and dispelling, one-on-one, media myths.
There are also some very compentent lawyers who work on well-thought out
challenges. Locally David Harmer did great work in the Texas case where
the federal judge ruled in favor of individual right. Sherrif Mack who
won against certain aspects of Brady is running for office in Utah county
and could surely use campaign assistance. You are running for mayor.
Natinally, Gerry Spence and David Hardy have done tremendous legal work,
while John Lott and others have done serious and credible academic work.

All of these organizations and individual actions help to further freedom
without giving our enemies an easy open door to get favorable court
rulings and precedencts set. They don't do it as some kind of cheap
side-show campaign stunt. They do it with thoughtfullness and
intelligence. Most of the work isn't nearly as glamorous as charging
single handed into battle. It is not at all exciting attending mass
meetings, county and state conventions, calling legislators, manning
booths at gun shows, donating time or money to help a good person get
elected or to help a well-conceived court challenge to move forward,
doing serious, credible, peer-reviewable studies in econimics,
statistics, or medicine, or even taking a gun-phobic friend shooting.
There is your army. Feel free to jump on board. There is no single
silver bullet I'm afraid. It will take a lot of work on a lot of fronts.
Legal challenges are one part of that. But they must be good, solid
challanges if they are to do more good than harm.

> Personally, I think any citizen who waits for someone else to defend his
> Constitutional rights, doesn't deserve them.

Any citizen who takes it upon himself to speak for others--in this case
gun owners--ought to at least know whereof he speaks. In your complaint
you posted last night you cite "federal, state, county, and city" laws
that prevented you from buying a gun without providing personal info.
Now, I'm well aware of the federal laws that require that information.
There are some State laws that require the same thing--especially in
complying with federal laws. I firmly believe those laws violate the
federal and State constitutions. A *credible*, well-conceived challenge
to them would be well in order. But I've never seen a county or city law
in this State that required it. Indeed, the preemption portion of State
law firearms law leads me to firmly believe no such county or city law
exists--or would be allowed to exist under statute--in this State. How
do you expect me, or a judge, to take you or your suit seriously when you
try to sue over a law ("county and city") that doesn't even exist?

> John the Baptist attacked the government of Herod by himself. He lost. He
> was, in fact, a hero whose selfless sacrifice will forever be celebrated.

John the Baptist attacked Herod's iniquity as a prophet called of God by
proper authority. Are you claiming to be such a prophet? Or do you just
go around comparing yourself to the Lord's annointed? I'm also unaware
of any great harm caused to his fellow Jews by his actions. John
suffered greatly, but he didn't inflict any great harm on his fellows.

> That's funny, I don't remember reading in my copy of the Constitution where
> it says it can be amended by precedent. I'm not citing any previous cases,
> because doing so would be an acknowledgement that previous cases and court
> rulings are relevant. Officers of the government, including jurors, are
> required to take an oath to support the Constitution. They are not
> required to consider any previous case and it's outcome. My whole case
> will be presented on the premise that the Constitution is in English and
> anyone can read and understand it and it is clear and I should win!

Trust me, if you incist on going forward I hope you do win. Or, in the
almost certain case that you don't, I hope your case is at least laughed
out of court BEFORE any nasty precedencts with which the rest of us would
have to live are set. It may not be right, but the way it is is the
Supreme Court has taken it upon themselves to "interpret" the
Constitution. Media lies to the contrary, virtually every on-point
Supreme Court decision does support the individual right to bear arms (at
least those useful to military endeavers) view. A properly researched
case could stand a very good chance. But trying to tell some local judge
he ought to ignore higher court precedence will get you nowhere. Current
judical rules may not be proper or fair, but you are not in a position to
change them. You don't win at football by trying to invoke the rules of

> >You showed guts and leadership when you got the anti-cruising ticket.
> >Fight and win that case before handing the enemy such an easy victory.
> >The evil is sufficient for the day. Wage one battle at a time. Wage it
> >well. Win. Then and only then move on.
> Next, I'm going to challenge the marriage laws by taking another man to the
> County Clerk and asking for a marriage license. When it is denied on the
> basis of sex, I will sue again for violation of civil rights under color of
> law. I'm not about cruising, guns or homosexuality. I'm about rights and
> you know I'm right.

What happened with the cruising ticket case? Have you sued? Where does
it stand?

> By and large the judiciary is hostile to guns to
> >start with. If you want to do more good than harm, you must go in wisely
> >and with every advantage rather than going off half-cocked like our lone
> >soldier above.
> I'll put more credence in your advice when you show me, rather than
> telling me.

I trust the court will show you by negative example.

> Your conclusion from your story is correct. So?

So if my story is a better analogy to our current situation than your
story--and I believe it is--then you should clearly see the potential
damage that can be caused by running around half-cocked waging
ill-conceived suits that are not only doomed to fail but provide an open
door for judges to set bad precedence that will be followed in the

> I believe my inspirations are as valid as yours or those of John the
> Baptist. Yes, I believe God has inspired me to enter this case as I have
> done. His miraculous assistance will not be unnoticed. I have seen it
> too many times to dare deny His participation in my life.

First, I've never claimed any revelations or inspiration in this area.
And true to my word, given your religious convictions, I'll not offer any
further critiques of your actions. I will merely wish you well and abide
my own convictions to see what fruits are brought forth from your
actions. By those fruits I shall know whether your inspiration, and
actions relative to them, are from God, or some other source. Please let
us all know how things turn out.

Best of luck.

Charles C. Hardy

Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web:

- -


Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:54:21 -0600
From: "David Sagers"
Subject: Fwd: Senator Bennett's schedule for town meetings, please forward

Received: from wvc
by; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:22:46 -0600
Received: from THIOKOL.COM by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id NAA16880; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:01:07 -0600
Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM
with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:11:25 -0600
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:10:57 -0600
From: "Neil W. Sagers"
Subject: Senator Bennett's schedule for town meetings, please forward
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Senator Bennett has scheduled the following town meetings. Please attend
and let him know that no gun control or erosion of civil rights is
accepeable and that he must vote no on any form of S. 254

August 18 Cedar City, SUU campus Sharwan Smith Ballroom 6:30
August 19 St George, Dixie College Cox Auditorium, 7:00
August 20, Kanab, Kanab Library, 6:30

Please attend and spread the word!

Below is a message from GOA:

Neil Sagers
Telephone 435 863-6116
Fax 435 863-6282

>>> Gun Owners of America 08/16 4:06 PM >>>
GOA Alone Is Fighting To Kill All Anti-Gun Measures
-- your contacts this month are the only thing that will stop the
gun grabbers

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

The NRA, duplicating the approach it employed during the gun
debates in June, will not oppose new trigger locks or a ban
on the possession of assault weapons by most people under
the age of 18. -- Roll Call, Aug. 12, 1999

(Monday, August 16, 1999) -- For several months now, GOA has been
fighting the so-called "Juvenile Justice" legislation, as currently
embodied in S. 254. The bill is in a joint House-Senate conference
committee-- despite the efforts of Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and her
ilk to blast it out earlier this month, S. 254 will remain there
until Congress reconvenes in September.

It is during this traditional August recess that the fate of gun
control in the 106th Congress will likely be decided. Legislators
are back in their districts, scheduling town meetings, and
interacting with constituents. It is absolutely imperative that gun
owners contact their Representative and Senators this month.

Consider that Roll Call (the newspaper of record covering Washington
political activity) had the following to say about lobbying efforts
regarding the Juvenile Justice legislation:

The NRA... has been too quick to compromise and too slow to
mobilize its troops to defeat anti-gun legislation in the
House and the Senate, GOP leadership sources and gun
activists say.... "Gun Owners [of America] is much smaller,
but much more active. They moved quickly and we heard from
their people," said one leadership source close to the issue.

No-compromise Is The Key To Victory. Sen. Bob Smith (I-NH) showed
last year that we do not have to succumb to defeatism on the eve of
a battle. Smith was told that there were only 40 votes in support of
his proposal to cut off FBI funding for their registration of Brady
Instant Check gun buyers. When the smoke cleared, Smith got 69
votes. From "no way will this pass" to a veto-proof majority, the
Smith amendment proved that the People, not the vote-counting
insiders, determine the fate of legislation in America.

Preemptive Concessions Are Not Only Wrong, They Can Backfire.
Another telling quote from the Roll Call article shows what happens
when gun owners give up without fighting:

The [NRA]... is willing to allow several provisions, such as
the so-called Juvenile Brady proposal, to sail through,
according to its top lobbyist, James Baker. Baker's
strategy, which reflects a belief inside the NRA that some
gun control measures will pass in the wake of recent shooting
sprees, has ticked off many pro-gun Members and activists who
deplore any talk of a compromise.... Another senior GOP
leadership source added: "They have told us all along that
it would be fine to support Juvenile Brady and other
proposals and their membership would not care. But they did
[care], and [Republican leaders] are not happy about that."

Here's What To Do. Make certain that you contact your Members of
Congress while they are home on break. You can get their home office
phone numbers from the government pages of your phone book, or call
the Capitol toll-free at 1-888-449-3511 and request them. It is
specifically asked that you do not use e-mail as a contact method
this month. This is a time to directly confront legislators. Ask the
local office if there are any town meetings scheduled. If so, be
sure to attend and make gun rights a central part of the discussion.
Have a friend seated away from you to "follow up" on your point when
the politician tries to duck your question. And above all, spread
the word. Get other pro-gun friends and family to make calls as
well. The message is simple: THERE IS NO GUN CONTROL THAT IS

Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if
you use to enter their online

Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to
date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail
Alert Network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the
volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to and include the state in which you live, in
either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert
and ask to be removed.

- -


End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #153