ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.200111

Internet Message Format | 2001-11-27 | 27KB

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPFO releases 'Death By Gun Control'
Date: 15 Nov 2001 09:47:21 -0700

JPFO releases 'Death By Gun Control'
----------
JPFO
   "Death By Gun Control" points a finger at the real motives
   behind victim disarmament: the utter subjugation of the
   American people to statist authority. Jews for the
   Preservation of Firearms Ownership Executive Director Aaron
   Zelman, in collaboration with attorney Richard W. Stevens,
   has produced a work to be reckoned with. (11/14/01)
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20011113.htm

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Capital security during games
Date: 15 Nov 2001 14:34:17 -0700

The article below is from today's desnews.
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,345008103,00.html?>

While the situation is not perfect as it does not allow for un-licensed
open carry by right, it is a huge improvement over what many of the
gun-phobes both in and out of the legislature wanted.

This article does not address how CCW permited weapons wil be treated
during those short periods when Bush, Cheney, etc may be addressing the
legislature.

Charles


Capitol security would cost $710,000

                After Sept. 11, lawmakers seek extra troopers

                By Zack Van Eyck
                Deseret News staff writer

                      If state lawmakers want the Capitol to be more
secure on a regular basis, they're going to have to find the money to
fund it.
                      With a current-year shortfall approaching $200
million and economic projections far from rosy, that could be a
challenge.
                      Department of Public Safety Commissioner Robert
Flowers and Lt. Jim Keith of the state's Dignitary Protection Program
told a legislative committee Wednesday it
                would cost $710,000 the first year and $470,000 in
subsequent years to fortify protection at the Capitol.
                      That money would buy eight additional state
troopers who would be posted at the Capitol full-time, and two
control-room operators. The amount for the first year is
                higher because of equipment purchases, Keith said.
                      "That brings us to a level where we can have
exterior security during the daylight and evening hours," Keith told the
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim
                Committee.
                      The upgraded security proposal is in response to
the Sept. 11 attacks on America and the country's war against terrorism.
                      Flowers and Keith said the plan for securing the
Capitol during the 2002 legislative session, which begins Jan. 8, is
still being developed. But more troopers will be
                assigned to the building then, and a few other things are
known for sure, they said.
                      "During the session, the Capitol is not going to be
a gun-free zone," Keith said.
                      Some lawmakers said last month they wanted metal
detectors at every door and hoped concealed-weapons permit holders would
be required to hand over their guns
                before entering.
                      While that won't happen, Keith said Capitol
security will have the ability to narrow the building down to two
entrances ù the east and the north ù and run everyone
                except lawmakers and staff (who can enter with
pre-approved identification cards) through magnetometers.
Concealed-weapons holders would have to show
                documentation that they are licensed before being allowed
to carry their guns into the building, Keith said.
                      The Capitol's east doors have been designated as
the main public entrance for the session and during the 2002 Winter
Games, Keith said.
                      Flowers and Keith said during the Games there will
be 24-hour security coverage at the Capitol, paid for from Olympic funds.
                      Keith said the idea of putting a fence around the
Capitol has been discussed but is likely to happen only after the
Olympics as part of the permanent, beefed-up
                Capitol security plan ù assuming lawmakers can find a way
to finance it.

-



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

From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phyllis Schafly weighs in
Date: 16 Nov 2001 19:17:30 -0700

Second Amendments Rights In Reality and In Court

October 31, 2001
by: Phyllis Schlafly

If the hijackers had used guns for their crimes on 9/11, we would
surely now be caught up in a frenzy of demands that this "lesson"
calls for tough gun-control legislation. But they didn't use any
firearms, just easily purchased box-cutters.

The real lesson of 9/11 is that, if any pilot or off-duty policeman
had had a gun on board, he could have averted supreme tragedy by
doing what all our powerful FBI, CIA, and Armed Services could not
do. That's why individuals, not government, are the ultimate
protectors of a free society.

The American people understand this. The 9/11 events have led
to a big increase in gun purchases and the taking of courses at
shooting ranges.

Against the stunning reality of 9/11, the federal Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just issued a landmark decision in
United States v. Emerson, affirming the constitutional right of
individuals to own a gun. The Founding Fathers understood this,
and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment.

The Emerson case tackled the meaning of the right "to keep and
bear arms" in the Bill of Rights. At issue was whether the Second
Amendment defines an individual right, protecting defendant Emerson
and all law-abiding citizens, or a collective right available only
to government groups such as the National Guard.

This disagreement about the meaning of the Second Amendment has
been a matter of intense debate for many years. Unfortunately,
federal court decisions in several circuits over the last several
decades have muddied up the issue.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." For many years, the
anti-gun lobby and some lower court decisions have touted the notion
that the Second Amendment is limited to firearms carried in actual
military situations rather than by civilians in peaceful self-defense.

The Emerson decision thoroughly rejects that theory. The Court ruled:
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it
is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited
to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a
member of a select militia such as the National Guard."

The court concludes: "It appears clear that `the people,' as used in
the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, refers to individual
Americans." This is consistent with the use of the term "the people"
in all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

As the Tenth Amendment shows, the Founders clearly understood the
difference between "the states" and "the people." The Emerson decision
also cites the renowned Black's Law Dictionary definition for "carry
arms or weapons" as "being armed and ready for offensive or defensive
action in case of conflict with another person."

At stake in the gun control debate is whether we control government
and defend freedom, or government controls us. Should our defense
against hijacking terrorism be limited to government fighter planes
shooting down hijacked planes, killing everyone on board, or extended
to allowing airplane crews and qualified passengers (such as off-duty
law enforcement officials) to take defensive measures without fear of
litigation or prosecution?

The Emerson decision disposed of arguments that only formal state
militias have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. As the
Supreme Court explained over 60 years ago in United States v. Miller,
the framers of the Constitution used the term "militia" to mean "all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

It still does mean that. Current federal law (10 U.S. Code 311)
states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age. . . . The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of
the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the Naval Militia."

The males on board the hijacked airplanes constituted a militia, and
some courageously acted, forcing one hijacked plane down in rural
Pennsylvania instead of allowing it to continue to the terrorists'
target. A disarmed public cannot protect a free society against
terrorists' assaults.

In Cuba, Castro first required all guns to be surrendered before he
could impose his brutal dictatorship. After England banned private
gun ownership, violence using guns against persons rose sharply and
politics turned sharply left.

Strict gun control creates vulnerable targets for the enemies of a
free society. The Fifth Circuit's upholding of the constitutional
right of individuals to keep and bear arms is a welcome development
in our continued defense of freedom.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column online:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2001/oct01/01-10-31.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eagle Forum

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clark Aposhian to debate anti gunners at noon on channel 2
Date: 19 Nov 2001 11:19:41 -0700

Sorry for the late notice many will not get it until it is past due, but
Rod Decker just barely called Clark and myself on this issue.

Clark will appear opposite the anti-gunners during the 12 noon Channel 2
newscast today (Monday, Nov 19).  The antis are, yet again, calling for
Brady Checks on all sales at gun shows.  Of course, this call only
affects private sales since dealers must do a background check on every
sale regardless of where it takes place.  But they don't say that, they
just talk about the "gun show loophole."  Make no mistake, the "gun show
loophole" is just good cover for requiring that EVERY private sale
require a background check or even take place via a licensed dealer as in
California.  And we all know Cali's crime rate is sooo much lower than
Utah's.  NOT!

We don't know how much air time this issue, or each side might get, so
"debate" may be a little strong.  It may end up being nothing more than
two sound bites.  In any event, if you have the chance, tune in and let
us know how things turn out.

Charles
________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-gun Utah State personnel policy to be rescinded...for now
Date: 20 Nov 2001 11:49:22 -0700

From today's DesNews.

Good news as far as it goes, but we and pro-gun legislators need to be
vigilant to avoid some new policy, worded differently but with the same
end effect, from ever being enacted.  We also need to push this issue
with the UofU, school districts, and other government entities that are
still in violation of the law.

I, for one, would hope that non-LEO government employees at such places
as water treatement plants, sewer plants, and other infrastructure that
could become targets for terrorism would be allowed, if not encouraged,
to get trained and carry a weapon for defense of both themselves and the
facilities at which they work.

My thanks to Mark Shurtleff, Sarah Thompson, Clark Aposhian, and
others--including legislators who worked on this issue in various ways
over the last couple of years--who have worked to bring about this much
needed change in our State.

Charles

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,355007191,00.html?

Concealed weapons are OK for state staff

                By Bob Bernick Jr.
                Deseret News political editor

                      State employees with concealed-weapons permits will
be allowed to carry their guns to work.
                      Utah state personnel officials, following an
opinion written by Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, will soon rescind an
internal rule that prohibits state
                employees from packing their legally permitted guns while
on the job.
                      The process of rescinding the rule starts Dec. 1,
state human-resources spokesman Con Whipple said. Whipple said the change
comes after Gov. Mike
                Leavitt's office brought up the issue after getting
Shurtleff's opinion, which was apparently sent to them several months
ago.
                      Shurtleff spokesman Paul Murphy, citing
attorney/client privilege, said he can't release the opinion. "But Mark
wrote it himself" without being requested to
                do so by any state agency ù not the governor's office,
not state personnel officials, Murphy said. Shurtleff "is, as you know, a
strong supporter of gun rights"
                and decided to look into the controversy himself, Murphy
added.
                      Whipple said, "We received a request from the
governor, made after a legal opinion ù which is covered by
attorney/client privilege ù saying that the rule is
                probably in conflict" with the state statute.
                      The rule to be rescinded reads: "Employees shall
not carry firearms in any facility owned or operated by the state, or in
any state vehicle, or at any time or
                any place while on state business." Law officers or those
who must carry weapons as part of their jobs are exempt from the rule.
                      Likewise, there are exceptions to the
concealed-weapons law ù all weapons are banned in airports, jails and
courts of law. They can also be banned from
                churches and private residences, but the owners of the
property must somehow tell visitors all weapons are banned. Some Utah
churches have posted "no
                weapons" signs at their doors.
                      But outside of those exceptions, a law-abiding
citizen with a concealed-carry permit can carry weapons almost anywhere ù
even though a number of state
                and local entities and school districts still have
policies against firearms on their properties. Gun-control advocates say
Utah has one of the most liberal
                concealed-carry laws in the nation.
                      Elwood Powell, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports
Council, a Second Amendment rights group, said it's about time the state
recognized that its personnel
                rule violated state law and got rid of it. "We always
thought it was in conflict, and a legislative attorney's opinion said
that more than a year ago," Powell said.
                      Maura Carabello of the Gun Violence Prevention
Center of Utah said she's disappointed by the change. "I and other Utahns
have to interact with
                government in state offices, and we should be able to
presume that those places are safe" from those carrying concealed
weapons. Her group is running a
                citizen initiative petition seeking to ban all weapons
from public schools and churches.
                      There's no way to determine how many of the state's
16,000 employees hold concealed-weapons permits or would bring guns to
work if they did. The list of
                permit-holders is secret, known only to law enforcement
officials. Across the state, just over 42,000 adults have concealed-carry
permits.
                      Whipple said there have been only a handful of
problems with state workers bringing their concealed weapons to work. In
cases where they were caught,
                disciplinary action was taken, starting with putting a
letter of reprimand in the offender's personnel record.
                      Whipple said after the rule is officially
rescinded, "we will look at the alternatives" in controlling weapons in
state buildings, state cars and on state
                employees who are engaged in state business.
                      Other state entities, such as the University of
Utah, have independent policies that ban all weapons from their
facilities, whether carried by staff, students
                or visitors.
                      If a new anti-weapon rule for state employees is
adopted by state personnel officials, it won't be until next July, after
the review is finished, Whipple said.
                      Powell, an attorney, said he had no advice to give
state officials should they try again to ban legally permitted concealed
weapons from employees on the
                job. "Except I'd say if someone (in a state building) is
harmed by some loony(who attacks them), then the state should pick up all
the social and medical costs
                for denying the constitutionally protected right of
self-protection."
                      Leavitt, over the past two years, has often found
himself on the political wrong side of Second Amendment rights advocates,
many of them in his own
                Republican Party. Leavitt originally wanted action to
clearly ban all guns ù including those carried by law-abiding
concealed-weapon permit-holders ù from
                public schools and churches. A series of Deseret News/KSL
public opinion polls shows most Utahns agree with that stand.
                      GOP legislative leaders two years ago refused
Leavitt's attempt to call a special legislative session to deal with some
gun violence issues following two
                high-profile shootings in downtown Salt Lake City.
                      Gun-rights advocates formed the core of an
anti-Leavitt movement within the Utah Republican Party that saw Leavitt ù
popular among Utahns at large ù
                denied renomination outright in the 2000 state GOP
convention. Leavitt was forced into a primary with an unknown challenger
from the right wing of his
                party. Ultimately, Leavitt won re-election to a third,
four-year term in 2000.
                      Shurtleff, a Republican who says he supports Second
Amendment rights, helped out earlier this year when it appeared the State
Republican Convention
                would ban concealed-weapons holders from packing their
sidearms during a speech by Vice President Dick Cheney. The Secret
Service routinely bans guns at
                events attended by the president and vice president.
Shurtleff arranged for gun lockers to be set up outside the Sandy
convention center and about two dozens
                conventioneers checked in their guns during Cheney's
appearance.
________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: WTC Hijackers Obeyed Our Laws Until
Date: 21 Nov 2001 09:03:34 -0700

-------- Original Message --------

The U.S. Government's response to the 9/11 attacks has been
much like a hand grenade, exploding in all directions at once
in order to (hopefully) catch the perpetrators or make new
laws that will prevent future terrorism.

But even a cursory analysis of the hijackers' behavior reveals
that the political class still fails to recognize the ONE ACT
OF DEFENSE that could have PREVENTED the hijackings, and to
implement the proper remedy.

The hijackers apparently obeyed all of our laws - until the
final moment when they took over the planes.

They immigrated LEGALLY. They lived within the law, renting
apartments and motels, and paying their bills. They even got
Social Security Numbers and credit cards. And they passed
successfully through the airport checkpoints. So the INS,
DMV, banks and credit agencies, and airport screeners, are
NOT to blame for the 9/11 disaster. The hijackers also PAID
for their own tickets, so the AIRLINES are not to blame.

By obeying our laws, the hijackers made themselves INVISIBLE.

So where did the breakdown come?

The pilots are the LAST LINE OF DEFENSE against a hijacking.
They are at the controls and must be captured, overcome, or
neutralized.

Once everyone is on-board, the doors shut, and the craft
underway, everyone is at the mercy of any person(s) on-board
who is willing to initiate aggression against others.

Fortunately, pilots and crews just want to do their jobs. And
passengers just want to reach their destinations. So there is
seldom any conflict.

But this time, a small group of dedicated terrorists, trained
in stealth and cunning, and "armed" only with knives, but filled
with intense determination, had a clear field of operation
because everybody else had been disarmed.

Thus the one act of defense that could have prevented the
hijackings is ARMED RESPONSE by the pilots, crew and/or
passengers.

They were NOT armed, because of FAA policy. Thus the FAA is
the one single, solitary culprit that deserves the final blame
for the hijackings and subsequent catastrophe.

FAA officials who implemented the 'no-arms' policy, should all
be FIRED, then charged with dereliction of duty, manslaughter,
and violation of the crew's and passengers' 2nd Amendment
rights.

The FAA, an unconstitutional agency anyway, should be
PRIVATIZED asap and taken away from the government.

Pilots should be armed. Crew members should likewise have tools
of self-defense, whether they be guns, scissors or letter
openers. And passengers should be allowed defensive tools, as
well.

The current policy of disarming people to the point of
confiscating knitting needles, fingernail clippers and
umbrellas, is insanity squared and cannot possibly prevent
a repetition of 9/11. Writing more laws won't catch future
terrorists, either, because they will just obey those laws,
too-until they are ready to act.

Even if government were competent, it couldn't protect everyone
everywhere all the time. Each of us needs to be able to protect
ourselves. We have a moral right to self-preservation.

Instead of conquering the government, let the terrorists try to
conquer 200 million individuals.

The 2nd Amendment needs to be recognized IN THE AIR as well as
on the ground.

   Don Hull
   Costa Mesa, CA

***
  Mr. Hull submitted this article for the JPFO Unpopular Speech
  page at http://www.jpfo.org/unpopularspeech.htm.



NEVER AGAIN UNARMED....    LET FREEDOM FIGHT!
---
>           PROJECT: SAFE SKIES MAILING LIST
>  PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org
>           List Moderator: [e-mail]
> TO UN/SUBSCRIBE: send blank email with command as subject

-



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

From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises, Inc & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: chalk one up for the dummies
Date: 23 Nov 2001 18:43:52 -0500


http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=401645


Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC
Web and Macintosh Consulting -- full service web hosting
Chad Leigh
[e-mail]            [e-mail]


-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: SLTRIB editorial
Date: 28 Nov 2001 10:58:10 -0700

From today's SLTrib.  Forwarded without comment other than to suggest it
would probably be a very good use of time to be in attendance at and
offer well-thought out written comments during whatever public comment
meetings are held regarding the gun ban.  With any luck, the exact same
reasoning that has applied to the governor's illegal gun ban can and will
be applied to the illegal gun bans at other goverment agencies like the
University of Utah, public school districts, etc.

Charles

http://www.sltrib.com/11282001/opinion/152767.htm


Release Gun Opinion
                                                              Wednesday,
                                                              November
28, 2001





          So why all the secrecy?
          Utah Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff wrote an unsolicited opinion to
Gov.
      Mike Leavitt declaring that a rule banning state employees with
      concealed-carry permits from bringing their weapons into the
workplace
      violates state law. The opinion, apparently, reiterates what
legislative
      attorneys had already said three years ago. Yet, Shurtleff refuses
to
      release his opinion, citing attorney-client privilege.
          Attorney-client privilege only applies when litigation is
pending.
      Shurtleff has not mentioned any official challenges to the rule, so
why not
      let the public know what legal reasoning supports public employees
      packing heat? The issue is particularly important since the next
step
      toward withdrawal of the rule is a public comment period. The
public
      can't make informed comments without knowing the legal reasoning
      behind the rule change.
          The attorney general is legal counsel for the governor. He has
a general
      duty to protect his client's confidentiality. But he is also an
elected official
      whose records are public information under the Government Records
      and Management Act. Shurtleff issued an unsolicited opinion. That
      opinion is reviewable by the public under GRAMA unless it is
related to
      litigation.
          The opinion is, similarly, not protected by the attorney-client
privilege.
      Moreover, whatever harm the attorney general fears from releasing
his
      opinion must be minimal given the general consensus between the
      attorney general and the legislative counsel regarding the ban on
      weapons.
          Since the Legislature also has asked the attorney general for
an official
      opinion, which will be public information, Shurtleff's original
opinion for
      the governor hardly merits the claimed confidentiality.
          The issue is an important one for the public. Whatever side a
person is
      on in the gun debate, the public has a right to know if its
employees are
      permitted to carry concealed weapons to work. There is no
legitimate
      excuse for hiding the legal reasoning of the state's counsel from
those who
      will be impacted: public employees and the public at large.
          The news is out, the rule banning weapons is on the path to
deletion. If
      the public is expected to comment on the change in a meaningful
manner,
      Shurtleff must explain the reasons for the change. Release the
original
      opinion to the public.
________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

-