ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.200012

Internet Message Format | 2000-12-21 | 29KB

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
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
<[e-mail]>.  Opinion pieces may be submitted to
<[e-mail]>.  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
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
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 <[e-mail]>
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
<[e-mail]>

--------- 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 [phone] or email [e-mail] 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 <[e-mail]>
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
<[e-mail]>

--------- 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" <[e-mail]>
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.

[e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
>= TO SUBSCRIBE TO LIST:      send mail to [e-mail]
>= TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM LIST:  send mail to [e-mail]

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
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:[e-mail]

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
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
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
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 <[e-mail]>
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
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
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 <[e-mail]>
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
<[e-mail]>

--------- 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 [e-mail].  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.

-