ftp.xmission.com

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ ftp.xmission.com / 2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar / ftp.xmission.com / pub / lists / utah-firearms / archive / utah-firearms.200012 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2000-12-21 | 27.8 KB

From: charles hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Anti-self-defense Editorial in Today's SL Tribune Date: 05 Dec 2000 15:07:40 -0700 Well, I knew the well reasoned, pro-freedom editorials from the SLTrib couldn't last forever. The following editorial appeared in today's (Tuesday, 5 December) SL Tribune. While I know there are those who believe an employer's property rights trump an employee's RKBA, I also know there are many who believe otherwise. Bear in mind that most of us who work full time are currently spending upwards of one-third of our time in the workplace. This represents nearly half of all waking hours and easily the VAST majority of all time away from home. How much does your RKBA and your right to defend yourself REALLY mean if it can so easily be abrogated for the majority of time you are away from your house? Now, if you happen to use mass transit, or if your employer happens to extend their anti-gun policy to the parking lot, you are not only unarmed and defenseless while actually at work, but also while commuting to/from work. Also bear in mind that current Workers' Comp law places major restrictions on an employee's (or his/her survivors') ability to sue an employer for injuries in the workplace. Letters to the editor of the SLTrib may be emailed to <letters@sltrib.com>. Opinion pieces may be submitted to <Rfrisch@sltrib.com>. In both cases, emails with attachements will be deleted. Material must be submitted as plain text in the body of the message. Also, postal address, name, and phone number are required. Only name and city and State are published. Full guidelines available at <http://www.sltrib.com/Help/forum.asp> Editorial at <http://www.sltrib.com/12052000/opinion/opinion.htm>. Guns at Work Employers should be able to ban firearms in the workplace, even when such a prohibition conflicts with the state's concealed-carry law. A lawsuit now under way could settle the issue in employers' favor, but the circumstances of the case may not lend themselves to a clearcut resolution, or the verdict could go the other way. Ultimately, the Legislature should amend the concealed-carry law to give employers unambiguous authority to ban firearms on their premises. America Online fired three workers at its Ogden call center for having firearms in their cars at a company-leased parking lot. Two of the plaintiffs are former AOL employees who hold state permits allowing them to a carry concealed weapon. They contend that the state's concealed-weapons law allows permit holders to carry their firearms "without restriction," including at work, except in secure areas of airports, mental-health facilities, jails and courthouses. AOL contends that the former employees agreed to the company's no-guns policy when they were hired. The company also argues that under the state's at-will employment law, the company can fire employees arbitrarily, so long as the termination is not contrary to the public interest, such as in whistle-blower cases. The problem with this case, however, is that it may not be the best vehicle to settle the scope of the state's concealed-weapons law. The three plaintiffs were not fired for carrying concealed weapons into AOL's buildings. Rather, they were fired for possessing unloaded firearms in their vehicles, which is legal, in a parking lot AOL does not own, but leases, and which is used to access other businesses as well, a fact that makes it hardly exclusive to AOL. In this case, the three plaintiffs had unloaded firearms in their vehicles because they were going target shooting after work. This is an innocuous and perfectly legitimate pastime, and the situation was little different than employees having golf clubs or skis in the trunk. There are many Utah employers that have policies prohibiting employees and others from bringing lethal weapons onto their premises. This newspaper has such a policy, but it is silent about employees' private vehicles or where they choose to park. This case may help to clarify the reach of Utah's concealed-carry law in the workplace. But depending on the outcome, the Legislature may need to take another look at the law. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control <utbagpiper@juno.com> ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Fw: Proposed Utah CCW Changes Date: 06 Dec 2000 10:06:19 -0700 Looks like some troubling info... ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control <utbagpiper@juno.com> --------- Forwarded message ---------- I received the following letter from Utah BCI, note that they are considering a requirement that all CCW instructor be residents of Utah. I ask all parties interested in obtaining a CCW to write today, expressing your strong preference for the continued certification of non-resident instructors. There are many non-residents that will simply forego getting a Utah non-resident CFp if they have to take additional time off to travel to Utah. This can only hurt the shal issue CCW effort. quote: ------- **Urgent Notice ** Proposed Rule Changes The Division has proposed several changes to the Concealed Firearm Permit Rule (R724-4) that will directly impact all firearms instructors. Utah law requires the Division to notify all "interested parties" thirty days in advance of the date that the proposed rules would go into effect. Interested parties are given the thirty day period to offer comment on the proposed rule changes. In this case the proposed rules may go into affect on January 3, 2001. Comments on the proposed rules must be submitted to BCI in writing and be received no later than January 2, 2001. Comments should be submitted to: The Bureau of Criminal Identification c/o Nathan Smith 3888 W. 5400 So. Box 148280 Salt Lake City UT 84114-8280. A brief summary of the proposed rule changes is as follows. First, a new section (R724-4- 15) will be added to prohibit the wearing of unauthorized badges by permit holders and firearms instructors. Wearing any badge or identification or making any statements that imply affiliation with Federal, State or local governmental entities will be prohibited. A second change will add a requirement that all firearms instructors be residents of Utah. Next, the proposed rule would require firearms instructor applicants to submit a photocopy of identification with their application. Finally, a provision would be added to require firearms instructors to re-certify every two years at a cost of $5.00. The provision for re-certification will be helpful to the Division for the purpose of keeping the training guidelines current. It will also allow the Division to ensure that all instructors continue to be eligible to possess firearms by requiring a new background check every two years during the re-certification process. A full text of the proposed changes to Administrative Rule R724-4 are available upon request from BCI. Contact Nathan Smith by phone 801.965.4552, fax 801.965.4749 or email nsmith@dps.state.ut.us for a copy of the proposed rules. ------- Regards, James L. Mayhugh GMJ Enterprises http:/www.gmj.com CCW Forums http://www.ccwforums.com ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: FW: Poll on Guns in the workplace Date: 07 Dec 2000 10:56:53 -0700 We're not losing this one by any means, but the support for our ability to defend ourselves isn't as strong as it could be. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control <utbagpiper@juno.com> --------- Forwarded message ---------- Ogden Standard Examiner is conducting a poll on the AOL action of firing three gun owners for having guns in the parking lot. You may want to express your opinion: http://www1.standard.net/se_news/todayed.asp ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Bergeson" <shbergeson@qwest.net> Subject: Stifling Antigun Dems Date: 16 Dec 2000 22:47:47 -0700 Posted on another list: ----- A point that needs to be stressed, the Dems just lost big time. 500 Dem voters in Florida who listened to the NRA lost Gore the election. They need scapegoats now and a push from us might get them to turn on each other. I suggest a letter campaign to the Democratic National Headquarters, or whatever it is called, demanding that they provide us with candidates we can vote for. Mention how much it hurt to have to vote republican this time, but say that you will do it again if you have to, until they get the message. Shut up about Guns. Stop the noisy anti gun nuts in your ranks, stifle them, shut them out, sideline them. They cost you the election. If you have a dem representative/senator, write to him to with the same message. Don't let them forget why they lost, and repeat that the answer is not to attack the NRA, but to get with the majority of the people on this one , and stop trying to ram home unpopular laws. hunter@mva.net wrote: >>Should we have faith that truth will win in the end? Should we work at >>cultural and educational levels? Should we have patience, for generations >>if need be? Well, maybe, yes and I doubt we have that long in this country. >Not as such, perhaps. But ultimately, no matter what happens to the >institution currently known as the united States of America, freedom will >flower again somewhere. Its up to us to coax it to do so again here. ><shrug> >>Perhaps yours is the only formula for the success of the people we identify >>as our side. I doubt it would be a success for our ideas or for freedom. >>Maybe I'm all wet and we can safely use their tools for our purposes. But >>even in victory, I think I would loathe to wallow in their filth. >What is so dishonest about demanding that our employees do as they're told? >This is a simple use it or lose it situation. The gummint exists, this is a >fact which cannot be ignored. They're going to listen to SOMEBODY whether >we like it or not. I'd much rather they be shaking their head and saying >"we'd better keep these gun-nuts happy, damnit, or they're going to cost me >my next election" than saying the same thing about my communist/statist/ >democrat/fascist/socialist opponents. There's a reason GW is making >socialist noises - that's the noise he's hearing. Give him some loud and >unmistakable freedom noises to blend into, and like any other gutless >chameleon he'll take on that coloration. That was the whole point of >electing him, after all - and he might surprise us under those conditions, >who knows? >--- >Hunter's Seventy Seventh Rule: The measure of the menace > of a man is not what hardware he carries, > but what ideas he believes. Ceterum censeo fiscum delendum esse --- >= LIBERTY ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS LIST (http://www.vader.com/lrtdiscuss) >= >= TO POST TO THE LIST: send mail to lrt-discuss@vader.com >= TO SUBSCRIBE TO LIST: send mail to lrt-discuss-request@vader.com >= TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM LIST: send mail to lrt-discuss-drop@vader.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Bergeson" <shbergeson@qwest.net> Subject: Ban a Gun - Go to Jail Date: 20 Dec 2000 19:16:05 -0700 A reminder for the upcoming legislative session. ----- http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/banagun.html Ban a Gun - Go to Jail by L. Neil Smith The Constitution, without qualification, states that the individual right to own and carry weapons will not be infringed. Title 18, U.S. Code, Sections 241 and 242 http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/18usc.html, ordains as a crime the violation of anybody's civil rights. Part of the XIVth Amendment requires removal of any politician who defies the Constitution, barring him (or her) from public office in perpetuity. And, of course, betraying one's oath of office is perjury, which is a felony. By attempting to ban semiautomatic weapons (or weapons of any sort), city authorities in Dayton, Ohio and Rochester, New York have broken all these laws. It's possible that conspiracy and racketeering statutes apply to their illicit activities, as well. We all know how slight the chances are that any of these miscreants will be prosecuted for having violated our natural, fundamental, inalienable human, civil, and Constitutional rights under the current political circumstances. So do they, or they wouldn't have broken the law. However as students of history, we also know that political circumstances change -- a fact they seem to have overlooked. If they can't be prosecuted now, why not a year from now? If they can't be prosecuted a year from now, why not four years from now? And if they can't be prosecuted four years from now, why not twenty? Simon Wiesenthal never gave up on the Nazis. Why should we -- who feel that the Bill of Rights is all that keeps America from becoming the world's biggest banana republic - ever give up on the Dayton or Rochester perpetrators, or on any public servant who introduces, sponsors, or votes for gun control? Perhaps more to the point at the moment: why should we have any more regard for any law they pass than they have for the highest law of the land supposedly governing us -- and them -- already? Von Clausewitz, the eminent Prussian strategist, said you should always give the enemy a way out, so he won't fight like a trapped animal and be likelier to retreat. So what can these criminals in Dayton and Rochester do to avoid weeks, months, and possibly years of looking over their shoulders, waiting for the long arm of the highest law of the land to seize, humiliate, and punish them? Three things: they must repeal the offending legislation; they must resign from office immediately afterward; and they must promise, publicly and in writing, never to seek or hold public office again. Meanwhile, we can offer them a few words of advice: don't listen to the torrent of lies spewed out by Sarah Brady and her fascist front-group. Don't let that pickle-faced harridan and her tent-revival meat-puppet get you into more trouble. Her First Amendment rights are unimpaired by any oath of office to uphold the Constitution and she's not going to jail when the reckoning comes due. You are. L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of 19 books including The Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando Calrissian Adventures, Pallas, and (forthcoming) Bretta Martyn. An NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus, he has been active in the Libertarian movement for 34 years and is its most prolific and widely-published living novelist. Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given. Talk to me!: mailto:lneil@ezlink.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Disbanding of Utah Militia Date: 22 Dec 2000 10:58:50 -0700 While there are, doubtless, changes that ought to be made to our militia law in this State, I don't see how disbanding it completely is a good thing. Thoughts? From today's SLTrib <http://www.sltrib.com/12222000/utah/56055.htm>: Utah May Disband Its Militia Friday, December 22, 2000 BY PAUL FOY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS In 1941, Utah Gov. Herbert Maw created a state militia to defend Utah from "the ravages of foreign enemies within our borders." But Utah never had a need for a militia and nobody was drafted into it. Legislators now are moving to disband the Utah Defense Force. "It was never used. We just felt it was archaic," Rep. Neal Hendrickson, D-West Valley City, said Thursday. "There's always the National Guard the governor can call out. I don't think there would be a need for a militia," said Hendrickson, sponsor of repeal legislation. It's part of a larger effort in the Legislature to clean up the Utah Code. An interim government operations committee has voted to abolish 15 obsolete laws, removing more than 350 dusty pages from the state code. At the time, the Utah Defense Force may have seemed like a sensible precaution. The European War was under way and Japan was occupying Indochina, though Pearl Harbor had yet to be attacked, triggering U.S. involvement in World War II. Maw introduced the idea almost as an aside during a second session of the 1941 Legislature to pay off some debt and take care of unfinished business. In May of that year, Maw waited until the end of an address to the Legislature to bring up the defense force. He asked for a militia "in order that our people and industries might be preserved from the ravages of foreign enemies within our borders and in order that Utah might be in a position to cooperate fully with national government." It played no role in rounding up Japanese-Americans during World War II because that was a federal action, said Max Evans, director of the Division of State History. The Topaz internment camp in Utah's West Desert held nearly 8,000 Japanese-Americans, nearly all from California, starting in 1942. Evans says he knows next to nothing about the Utah Defense Force. "It sounds like a very interesting story," he said. "I suspect we may have some things in our collections." The law gave Maw carte blanche to enlist for a year or more any "able-bodied" Utah citizen for a force that would be in addition to the National Guard but paid similarly to the guard. The job of the Utah Defense Force was to go "in fresh pursuit of insurrectionists, saboteurs [and] enemies or enemy forces," even into other states. Membership in the Utah Defense Force did not exempt men from the U.S. draft. Hendrickson said he expected the Utah Legislature to disband the defense force in January in an uncontroversial vote. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control <utbagpiper@juno.com> ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: FW: Early Christmas Gift for Liberty--Philadelphia suit against gun makers dismissed Date: 22 Dec 2000 11:01:21 -0700 Suit Against Gun Makers Dismissed PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ A lawsuit the city filed against gun makers to recoup the costs resulting from gun violence was negated by an earlier state law, said a judge who dismissed the suit. A 1995 law and an amendment four years later stripped Philadelphia and other municipalities of the power to either regulate or sue gun makers, U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller said Wednesday. The authority to regulate firearms lies exclusively with the state Legislature, he wrote. The city is reviewing Schiller's ruling and is ``quite likely'' to appeal, City Solicitor Kenneth I. Trujillo said. Philadelphia filed its lawsuit April 11, joining more than 30 cities and counties that have sued gun manufacturers. Several of those lawsuits have been dismissed. AP-NY-12-21-00 0349EST ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control <utbagpiper@juno.com> ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Fw: [UTGOA] BCI rules change CANCELLED! Date: 22 Dec 2000 16:31:22 -0700 ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control <utbagpiper@juno.com> --------- Forwarded message ---------- THANKS to all of you who wrote to the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) to protest the proposed rules changes. The good news is that these changes have now been withdrawn, and will NOT go into effect next month! The rules changes included the following: 1. All concealed carry instructors will be required to be Utah residents. <http://www.utgoa.org/>Utah Gun Owners Alliance opposes this rule. It would effectively disarm many Utahns who are living out of state due to school, military, and job obligations. It would also disarm most tourists to our state. 2. All concealed carry instructors will be required to re-certify every two years. Each instructor will have to submit a notarized application form, a copy of photo ID, a copy of a current course of instruction, and $5. Every two years seems excessive, since permits and drivers licenses are good for 5 years. This would also open the door to mandatory government retraining, as we saw during the last legislative session. 3. The proposed rules prohibit an instructor from wearing badges or identification cards, or making any statements that would imply that s/he "is connected in any way with the federal government or any state or local governmental entity". While UTGOA agrees with BCI that instructors should not misrepresent themselves or their qualifications, we believe this rule needs clarification, as it would adversely affect law enforcement officers and others who legitimately teach concealed carry classes. 4. The proposed rules clarify the definition of "violent crime". UTGOA has no objection to this clarification, provided that the legislature remains solely responsible for defining crimes and prohibited persons. 5. The proposed rules clarify that the permit renewal period is five years, includes the fees set by the legislature, and allows payment options other than cash, money order, or cashier's check. UTGOA supports these clarifications, and appreciates BCI's efforts to make permit renewal easier and more convenient for CCW permittees. Concealed carry makes Utah a safer place, and anything that encourages lawful carry benefits everyone - except criminals! UTGOA was especially concerned that our concealed carry instructor laws were being changed, not by the legislature, but by unelected administrators. We believe that all legislation should be enacted by our elected representatives who are accountable to us. BCI received letters and emails from all over the country protesting these rules! (Thanks to the good folks at Sierra Times and KeepAndBearArms.com for their assistance in spreading the word!) UTGOA spoke with Sgt. Ron Stallworth today to follow up on the proposed rules changes. According to Sgt. Stallworth, the proposed rules changes have been withdrawn, and there is no plan to pursue them further this year. Sgt. Stallworth attributes the change to administrative changes at the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and BCI. (BCI is a division of DPS.) Commissioner of Public Safety, Craig L. Dearden, has retired and will be replaced next month by St. George police chief Robert L. Flowers. Sgt. Stallworth has just taken on the job of supervisor in the firearms section, which deals with concealed carry permits and instructors. UTGOA believes your letters and emails helped to convince BCI that the above rules deserve further study, and that any changes should be discussed first with gun rights organizations. Sgt. Stallworth expressed his intention to work with Utah's gun owners, concealed carry permittees, and CCW instructors in a friendly and cooperative manner. He does not believe (nor does UTGOA!) that BCI and gun owners should be "enemies". Utah Gun Owners Alliance and Sgt. Stallworth plan to meet in January to discuss how we can work together more productively. Thanks to all of you who wrote to BCI, and thanks also to the folks at BCI for recognizing that the proposed rules should not be implemented by a new administration without further review and input from gun owners. For more information about BCI, see http://www.bci.state.ut.us/default.html. The site has a lot of excellent information as well as applications for permits that you can download and print. Utah Gun Owners Alliance is grateful for your support during the past year and wishes all of you, and your loved ones, very Happy Holidays! PLEASE SUPPORT UTAH GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE! <http://www.utgoa.org/pages/join.html>JOIN US TODAY! Did someone forward this to you? Please SUBSCRIBE NOW! That way you'll receive our FREE alerts as soon as they're released. During the upcoming legislative session, we will be sending urgent, time limited alerts. Don't risk missing important information because someone else neglected to forward important information. Our alerts are low volume and average less than one alert per day. To subscribe to the UTGOA list, send a blank email to utgoa-subscribe at egroups.com or use the form on our web site, http://www.utgoa.org. For more information, see http://www.egroups.com/group/UTGOA. UTGOA is written and distributed by, Utah Gun Owners Alliance, www.utgoa.org, and Sarah Thompson, M.D. All information contained in these alerts is the responsibility of the author, unless otherwise attributed. This is a one-way list. Please do NOT try to post to the list. It won't work, and repeat violations will result in your removal from the list. Comments may be sent to Director@utgoa.org. Thanks! Permission is granted for distribution of these alerts so long as no changes are made, UTGOA is clearly credited, and this message is left intact. Archives of the UTGOA alerts can be found at: http://www.egroups.com/messages/UTGOA ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. -