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.200112 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2001-12-20 | 54KB

From: "Scott Bergeson" <shbergeson@qwest.net> Subject: A doctor's comments Date: 03 Dec 2001 09:38:02 -0700 This article is in Issue #150 of _The Libertarian Enterprise_ which can be found at: http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/ TERRORISM VS. TYRANNY - WHICH IS MORE DANGEROUS? by Andrew Johnstone, RPh/MD Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws http://www.dsgl.org Special to TLE Americans are certainly up to the task of getting back to our normal lives - I'd trust any U.S. citizen to unfailingly choose the best option for long-distance phone service, or the best accessory package on a new minivan. As far as our ability to respond intelligently, rationally, or effectively to terrorism, I have my doubts. We lost nearly 4,000 innocent citizens on September 11th, but our spoiled and historically clueless culture seems oblivious to the well-documented fact that consistently, an average country the size of the U.S. will use its police and military to murder that many of their own citizens every three weeks. According to R.J. Rummel ("Death by Government" ISBN 1-56000-145-3), other nations have killed an average of 4,635 innocent civilians per day for the past 100 years - at about 1/25th the world population, our "share" would be 67,671 deaths every year. In "Death by Gun Control," (ISBN 0-9642304-6-1) Zelman & Stevens point out that such genocides only happen in countries where "reasonable" gun laws like "registration" were instituted "to fight crime and terrorism." Thus, governments are considerably more dangerous to their own citizens than crime, gun accidents, and suicide combined, and yes - even terrorism. Their weapon? - gun control. Other than the warm and fuzzy feeling we get when we compromise, what wonderous benefits of gun control could possibly offset such irreversable dangers...? Overall suicide rates do not vary with gun laws (switching methods saves no lives), gun accidents are at an all time low despite an enormous increase in gun ownership, and most criminologists now feel that strict gun laws tend to increase murder rates, if they affect it at all. Fortunately, perhaps because more states are making it easy for ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons, murder rates are also on the decline. It is also obvious that tough gun laws aren't going to stop terrorists using ordinary boxcutters to overpower crew and passengers already disarmed by useless, symbolic gun laws. We have been spared genocide, because the authors of our Constitution were wise enough to stifle the seeds of tyranny with a Bill of Rights which specifically prohibits "gun control." In a series of amendments dealing with the timeless balance of power between government and citizen, only a blithering idiot could interpret the Second Amendment as meant simply to arm a federalized National Guard, which as a standing army is the antithesis of a "well-regulated militia," or that alongside the other lofty rights of citizens our founders decided to assure deer hunters a successful season by allowing merely those types of firearms "suitable for legitimate sporting purposes." Our founders wrote the Bill of Rights during a time when terrorism very much existed, in the form of roving bands of guerilla fighters who would kill innocent civilians, in return for bounties paid for their scalps, and biowarfare consisted of sealed barrels of smallpox-victims' blankets presented as "peace offerings" to kill off the mercenaries and their families after they had served their purpose. The Bill of Rights contains no "exceptions" to any of the first ten amendments during times of "national crisis" or "terrorism" or whatever else might panic our pusillanimous politicians into passing "antiterrorism" bills they admit they've not even read. Neither terrorism nor corrupt political leadership are new concepts, so as we celebrate Bill of Rights Day, let's keep that in mind, and maybe instead of buying another flag to wave, spend the dime calling congress and reminding them why Americans have guns. (Hint - it's the same reason citizens living under the Taliban regime didn't have them). - - - Andrew Johnstone, RPh/MD Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws - http://www.dsgl.org/ 8921 Southpointe # C-1 Indianapolis, IN 46227 317-881-3725 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. <chad@pengar.com> Subject: History Channel: Firing Ranges Date: 04 Dec 2001 13:36:17 -0500 Hi All I don't know about Utah cable since I am not in Utah any longer but, at least in NH, tonight on Modern Marvels on the History Channel there is a feature on "Firing Ranges." In NH it is at 10pm. I suspect you can check historychannel.com for your local area. Chad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: The good gal wins Date: 11 Dec 2001 13:55:05 -0700 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----__JNP_000_6f16.687f.629b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bookstore assailant gets shelved Owner shows pistol -- end of story Thursday, December 06, 2001 By Matt Miller Of Our Carlisle Bureau CARLISLE -- When a would-be robber walked into Erin Moul's used-book store and demanded that she open the cash register, she told him, "no." When the man persisted on Tuesday, she showed him why she wasn't going to open it -- the 9mm pistol she pulled from her purse. Yesterday, Moul, owner of Cover to Cover Books in the 100 block of North Hanover Street, still had all her cash. The man accused of trying to rob her, Charles W. Hinton Jr., 35, of Carlisle, was in Cumberland County Prison on charges of robbery, simple assault and criminal attempt. He was being held in lieu of $50,000 bail. "He came in about 10 minutes before 6," Moul, 34, of Shiremanstown, said as she recounted the foiled robbery attempt. "He walks in and says, 'Do you sell any comic books?'" She said she told him she did not but the man kept "meandering" around the store. That gave her the feeling something was up, she said. "I didn't think he was going to rob me," Moul said. "I thought he was going to knock over a display." Finally, she said, the man came around the back of the counter -- as she backed away toward her purse -- and he said, "I need you to open the cash register." "I was like, 'I don't think so!'" Moul recalled. She said that when the man repeated his demand, she replied: "No. And I have a really good reason not to open my register. You want to see why?' "So I pulled out my 9mm and I said, 'Here's why.'" "I held it up and showed it to him," Moul said, demonstrating by pointing the weapon -- which she said was loaded at the time of the attempted robbery -- at the ceiling. "Then I said, 'Why don't you try robbing somebody who doesn't have a gun?' "That just freaked him out," said Moul, who has a permit to carry her pistol. "He apologized. He said, 'I'm sorry. Some of my friends put me up to this.'" When the man left the store, Moul said, she immediately called Carlisle police. Officers were at her door while she was still on the phone with the dispatcher. Within 40 minutes, they had a suspect -- Hinton -- for her to identify, she said. "I was absolutely stunned at how fast they moved," Moul said. Police said Hinton was arraigned before District Justice Harold Bender and sent to the prison. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Dec. 12. Cumberland County Court records show Hinton has served jail time in the county on convictions for drug, assault and terroristic-threat offenses. Lt. Barry Walters of the Carlisle force said he could not remember a case like Moul's in his 22 years with the borough police. Moul, who said she would have fired if the man had come any closer to her, admitted to a mix of emotions about the incident. "It was the funniest thing," she said of the look on the would-be robber's face when she pulled her pistol. "It was terrible, but it was kind of humorous." Matt Miller may be reached at 249-2006 or mmiller@patriot-news.com. ----__JNP_000_6f16.687f.629b Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 http-equiv=3Dcontent-type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2869" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY bottomMargin=3D0 leftMargin=3D3 rightMargin=3D3 topMargin=3D0><FONT=20 face=3DARIAL,SANS-SERIF size=3D2> Bookstore assailant gets shelved Owner shows pistol -- end of story Thursday, December 06, 2001By Matt Miller Of Our Carlisle= =20 Bureau CARLISLE -- When a would-be robber walked into Erin Moul's used-book = store=20 and demanded that she open the cash register, she told him, "no."=20 When the man persisted on Tuesday, she showed him why she wasn't going = to=20 open it -- the 9mm pistol she pulled from her purse. Yesterday, Moul, owner of Cover to Cover Books in the 100 block of North= =20 Hanover Street, still had all her cash. The man accused of trying to rob her, Charles W. Hinton Jr., 35, of = Carlisle,=20 was in Cumberland County Prison on charges of robbery, simple assault and=20 criminal attempt. He was being held in lieu of $50,000 bail. "He came in about 10 minutes before 6," Moul, 34, of Shiremanstown, said= as=20 she recounted the foiled robbery attempt. "He walks in and says, 'Do you = sell=20 any comic books?'" She said she told him she did not but the man kept "meandering" around = the=20 store. That gave her the feeling something was up, she said. "I didn't think he was going to rob me," Moul said. "I thought he was = going=20 to knock over a display." Finally, she said, the man came around the back of the counter -- as she= =20 backed away toward her purse -- and he said, "I need you to open the cash=20 register." "I was like, 'I don't think so!'" Moul recalled. She said that when the man repeated his demand, she replied: "No. And I = have=20 a really good reason not to open my register. You want to see why?' "So I pulled out my 9mm and I said, 'Here's why.'" "I held it up and showed it to him," Moul said, demonstrating by = pointing the=20 weapon -- which she said was loaded at the time of the attempted robbery --= at=20 the ceiling. "Then I said, 'Why don't you try robbing somebody who doesn't = have=20 a gun?' "That just freaked him out," said Moul, who has a permit to carry her = pistol.=20 "He apologized. He said, 'I'm sorry. Some of my friends put me up to this.'= "=20 When the man left the store, Moul said, she immediately called Carlisle= =20 police. Officers were at her door while she was still on the phone with the= =20 dispatcher. Within 40 minutes, they had a suspect -- Hinton -- for her to=20 identify, she said. "I was absolutely stunned at how fast they moved," Moul said. Police said Hinton was arraigned before District Justice Harold Bender = and=20 sent to the prison. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Dec. 12. Cumberland County Court records show Hinton has served jail time in the= =20 county on convictions for drug, assault and terroristic-threat offenses. </= P> Lt. Barry Walters of the Carlisle force said he could not remember a = case=20 like Moul's in his 22 years with the borough police. Moul, who said she would have fired if the man had come any closer to = her,=20 admitted to a mix of emotions about the incident. "It was the funniest thing," she said of the look on the would-be robber= 's=20 face when she pulled her pistol. "It was terrible, but it was kind of = humorous."=20 Matt Miller may be reached at 249-2006 or mmiller@patriot-news.com.=20 </BODY></HTML> ----__JNP_000_6f16.687f.629b-- ________________________________________________________________ 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 <shbergeson@qwest.net> Subject: Optics expert rebuts Waco standoff report Date: 11 Dec 2001 16:34:22 -0700 GUNFIRE CALLED LIKELY Optics expert rebuts Waco standoff report http://www.azstarnet.com/star/fri/11207WACOOPTICGS.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <shbergeson@qwest.net> Subject: Arm the co-eds Date: 11 Dec 2001 18:12:05 -0700 Arm the co-eds ---------- LewRockwell.com by Walter Block and William Barnett II "There has been a spate of robberies and sexual assaults aimed at university coeds in uptown New Orleans." Block and Barnett have a solution. Let the students carry guns and, for the sake of their safety, get rid of signs advertising "gun-free zones" on campus. (11/10/01) http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block10.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Tribune report on rules committee meeting Date: 12 Dec 2001 15:05:49 -0700 Why the Tribune continues to interview the anti-gunners for articles like this--when they weren't even in attendance (or at least did not take the chance to speak)--is beyond me. Also, there is at least one factual error. Under State law, schools may NOT ban guns carried persuant to a state issued CCW permit. Private home owners and churches can ban such weapons. However, it does appear I was quoted more or less correctly. Charles PS, Yes, I am currently doing double duty. I help Janalee with the wagc email list and I am also policy director for GOUtah. http://www.sltrib.com/12122001/utah/157447.htm State Agencies Ordered to Revise Concealed-Weapons Rules Wednesday, December 12, 2001 BY DAN HARRIE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Officials at many state agencies will soon be busy writing new rules to clarify that legally concealed weapons are exempt from dozens of regulations banning guns at locales ranging from child-care centers to state parks. Utah lawmakers called a parade of agency representatives before the Administrative Rules Review Committee on Tuesday and ordered them to revise their rules to comply with state law granting near-universal access to concealed weapons licensees. The action came on the heels of a legal opinion by Attorney General Mark Shurtleff that many state gun rules are illegal, and thus "null and void." State personnel officials, with the consent of Gov. Mike Leavitt, already have agreed to scrap anti-gun rules that now bar legally concealed weapons for all state employees, effective Jan. 1. It appears many agencies will follow suit. The only legislatively authorized bans on concealed weapons are in "secure areas," including airports, courts, correctional facilities, mental health facilities and Olympic venues. Schools and private residences also can bar concealed weapons if they post signs or otherwise notify visitors. Among the more controversial of the doomed gun regulations are those imposed by the state Department of Health on licensed child-care facilities. While Shurtleff acknowledged Tuesday that his initial analysis was wrong and anti-gun rules in place for child-care providers are legal, they still do not apply to legally concealed weapons. House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, said the committee was not arguing whether the state's gun laws were right or wrong. "All we look at is whether you [agencies] have statutory authority for these rules." Concealed gun "permit holders can carry anywhere that is not designated a secure area," said Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville. "Schools [and child-care centers] are not designated as secure areas." The Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah is attempting to change that through a citizens' petition proposing to ban legally concealed weapons in houses of worship and all schools, including child-care facilities and colleges. "Places dedicated and set aside for children are places guns should not be allowed," said Maura Carabello, center executive director. "Most average people would say 'why would you need to take a gun in there -- why do you need to take a chance of an accident.' " Carabello said legislators appear to be "responding to special interests" and not to the majority will. Several gun-rights activists attended Tuesday's meeting to urge lawmakers to crack down on agencies flouting gun laws. "We are deeply concerned about the number of rules that continue to be in violation of state law," said Charles Hardy, policy director of Gun Owners of Utah. Hardy and others were particularly upset at the University of Utah, which has a strict anti-gun policy, including banning legally concealed weapons for faculty, students, employees and visitors. "The University of Utah continues to thumb its nose at the Legislature and the laws it has passed," Hardy said, adding a citizen in such clear violation of the law would expect harsh punishment. During a separate meeting with Salt Lake County Republican legislators last week, Hardy suggested state fines or penalties against the university, or alternate legislation making school administrators personally liable for violations of law. Other gun activists have suggested enlisting someone to deliberately violate the university's rules in order to provoke enforcement action, then using that as grounds for a lawsuit. Shurtleff said in an interview he intends to meet with university administrators in the next few weeks and discuss his legal opinion regarding anti-gun regulations. He declined to speculate what the consequences might be if they do not back down from their current regulations. U. spokesman Fred Esplin said the school's gun rules will stand "in the absence of some authoritative declaration to the contrary." Esplin said he is not sure why the school is being singled out because "most of the campuses [in the state] have the same, or similar policies." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: DesNews Report on rules meeting Date: 12 Dec 2001 15:17:56 -0700 This is from today's DesNews. This article did not track down anti gunners to comment on a meeting they didn't bother to attend. OTOH, no direct quotes from any progun folks either. Basically, far less info than in the SLTrib article. Please note this sentence carefully and begin to respond appropriately to your legisltors. Utah's gun laws are not broken; we do not need to start adding to the list of places gun can be banned; and the fact that a bad rule has been in place is no excuse to make that rule legal by changing the law. Note that it appears Ure said this before the meeting, but he did hold out distinct possibility of more gun control legislation. "Ure said before the meeting that it appears legislators will take some action on the questionable rules, perhaps repealing some, perhaps including some in the law where guns are restricted by the Legislature." http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,355011800,00.html? Debate begins over Utah gun rules By Bob Bernick Jr. Deseret News political editor The long, and sometimes emotional, debate over reworking or repealing dozens of state rules that "illegally" control the use of firearms started Tuesday. Several state agencies appeared before a legislative oversight committee after Attorney General Mark Shurtleff wrote an informal opinion a month ago finding state agency rules restricting gun possession violated state law. House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, said it is not the committee's responsibility to decide if the rules are "right or wrong," rather whether the state agencies had the authority to write the rules in the first place. Clearly, Stephens and Rep. Dave Ure, R-Kamas, the co-chairman of the Administrative Rules Committee, questioned the agencies' authority to do so ù as did Shurtleff. One agency may have dodged a bullet, so to speak. Shurtleff wrote a letter to Rod Betit, executive director of the State Health Department, saying it appears that hundreds of state licensed day-care centers in Utah are defined in state code as "schools," which can make certain rules defining gun use. However, Shurtleff added, day-care licensees must take into account the broad 2nd Amendment rights of legally-permitted concealed weapons owners. That appears to mean the health department can restrict loaded weapons in day-care centers but can't ban concealed weapons from the premises. After hearing several assistant attorneys general speak on behalf of the health department, Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said he wrote the state's concealed weapons law and he knows its intent. "The intent is that concealed carry permitholders can carry (their weapons) in any area that is not 'secure.' A school is not a 'secure' area" like a prison, courtroom, mental hospital or airport, Waddoups said. "Why don't you have an exemption in your (day-care) rule for concealed-carry permitholders?" asked Rep. John Swallow, R-Sandy. Health Department officials said they didn't include one because, in writing the rule, they were just listing firearms as another hazard to children's health, like having access to poison or other dangerous materials. The rule says no day-care operator will allow children access to loaded weapons. That's understandable, said Swallow. And department officials said the rule will likely be rewritten to specifically allow legally permitted concealed weapons owners to carryguns into licensed day-care centers. Division of Wildlife Resources officials tried to explain to legislators why they have dozens of rules that ban certain types of guns on certain hunts of animals. But lawmakers didn't want to debate that, saying they are only concerned about whether the division can control permitted concealed weapons on those hunts. Lawmakers will have higher education institutions testify in January to justify policies or rules that ban all guns including legally permitted concealed weapons on state college and university campuses. Ure said before the meeting that it appears legislators will take some action on the questionable rules, perhaps repealing some, perhaps including some in the law where guns are restricted by the Legislature. A month ago Shurtleff issued an informal opinion that said around two dozen rules adopted by various state agencies controlling gun use are illegal. Only the Legislature has the power to regulate guns in Utah, Shurtleff said, a view Stephens and other legislators echoed Tuesday morning. Shurtleff later issued a formal opinion that said the state personnel rule is illegal that prohibits state employees with concealed weapon permits from bringing their guns to work. Gov. Mike Leavitt and his personnel officials agreed and that rule will be rescinded Jan. 1, legislators were told Tuesday. In a gun-related issue, Shurtleff told the Deseret News Monday that rules set up by state Olympic officials that declare the Capitol "gun free" during the February Games are also illegal. The Legislature specifically amended gun control law several years ago to say official Olympic venues can be kept gun free during the Games ù and metal detectors and other security will keep guns out of those venues, SLOC has decided. But lawmakers rejected a bill later that would have made the Capitol itself an Olympic venue. And so, Shurtleff said, state officials can't bar legally-permitted concealed weapons from the Capitol. The Legislature will recess during the two-week Games, but a number of Olympic-related and public events are scheduled in the Capitol at that time. State Olympic officials said they had no plans to ban guns from the Capitol except during visits by President Bush, who is expected to give a speech in the building the night before the Games open, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who may also attend the Games and visit the Capitol. ________________________________________________________________ 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 <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Weapons bills proposed so far Date: 18 Dec 2001 12:19:53 -0700 From the legislative web site, here are the weapons bills officially requested so far: Gun Education Safety Courses in Public Schools Thompson, M. JLW Gun Show Background Check Daniels, S. JLW Repeal of Weapons Law Daniels, S. JLW Restriction on Purchase of Certain Shotgun Ammunition Bowman, D. JLW "JLW" is the drafting attorney. No language is available on the web site yet, however, a Sunday article in the Trib authored by anti-self-defense fanatic Steve Gunn indicates that Daniels is sponsoring a bill to require private sellers at gun shows to do a background check before selling their weapon. Given that, it lookes like three of the above bills are solidly anti-rights while Rep. Thompson's education safety bill is a pro-gun bill. Here are some other bills of potential interest or concern. Those with bill numbers been recommended by one of the interim committees. Those without are just bill requests. Not all of these are directly related to guns, but are of significant enough importance to the system that I included them here. There are also many other bills that could end up affecting self-defense, hunting, or other gun rights but are not obvious from the title. SB0008 Repeal of National Guard Advisory Board Peterson, M. JLF HB0033 Certification and Testing of Voting Equipment Buttars, C. JLF Provisional Ballot Hickman, J. JLF Restriction of Funding on State Entity Whose Policy, Rule, or Action is Contrary to Law Waddoups JLF HB0195 Protection of Sports Officials from Violent Abuse Hogue SCA Anti-terrorism Amendments Ray SCA Children's Product Safety Act Shurtliff, L. CJD ________________________________________________________________ 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 <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Fw: GOUtah! Alert #104 Date: 18 Dec 2001 15:42:33 -0700 The latest from GOUtah. If at all possible, please try to attend this public hearing. If you are a State employee on your lunch hour, you will be given first preference on speaking. If you are more comfortable with written comments than with public speaking, if you cannot attend the hearing, or if you'd simply like to present written comments in addition to your verbal statements you may do so either at the hearing itself, via email to Mr. Conroy Whipple at <cwhipple@utah.gov>, via fax at 801.538.3081 (Salt Lake area) or via snail mail at: Department of Human Resource Management 2120 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Please be courteous in all communications on this topic, whether written or verbal. Mr. Whipple and the Department of Human Resource Management ("Human Resources" is apparently a social service department so make sure and get the full, correct title on any letters) are required by law to hold this public hearing. The facts and law are solidly behind us on this issue. But we do need to make our voices heard so that there is not pressure or justification to try to skirt the law in any way shape or form. I encourage all those attending the hearing to wear your "urban camouflage" aka, business attire, business casual, or even a polo shirt with nice jeans. Please do not wear military cammos,or T-shirts or hats with slogans or quotes on them. Signs and banners are also not appropriate in these types of hearings. Let's present ourselves as respectable, mainstream members of the community. Charles --------- Forwarded message ---------- GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. GOUtah! Website: http://www.goutah.org Mirror Site: http://www.goutahorg.org To subscribe to or unsubscribe from GOUtah!'s free e-mail Alerts, send a blank e-mail message to one of the following addresses: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com To receive GOUtah! Alerts free of charge via fax, send a fax to: (801) 944-9937 (Note: Fax Alerts must sometimes be transmitted late at night, so you'll need a fax system that doesn't make your home telephone ring) Send comments to: goutah@goutahorg.org ___________________________________ GOUtah! Alert #104 - 18 December 2001 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING ON THURSDAY Tuesday morning's edition of The Salt Lake Tribune informs us that the Department of Human Resource Management of the State of Utah (which we, being somewhat old-fashioned, will henceforth refer to as the "state personnel office") will hold a public hearing at noon on Thursday December 20 in room 403 of the State Capitol. The topic of the hearing will be the proposed removal of the illegal ban on the carrying of self-defense weapons by state employees. State law says that the only governmental entity in Utah (besides the Federal Government) which can regulate the possession and carrying of firearms is the state legislature. The state personnel office, which is a government agency that is not part of the state legislature, has a rule which prohibits all state employees (except for state law enforcement agents) from carrying firearms while on the job. As reported in previous alerts, the Attorney General's Office looked into the matter recently and informed the personnel office and the governor that the ban is illegal. The personnel office proposed to remove the ban on January 1, 2002. However, the office stated that a public hearing on the matter would be arranged prior to the proposed removal of the ban, at the request of any interested parties. Thursday's hearing is being held at the request of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. According to the personnel office, all comments made by members of the public during the hearing will be taken into consideration. This hearing is not like a legislative committee hearing. Legislative hearings sometimes give a few private citizens a chance to make brief statements, but the main purpose of legislative hearings is for legislators to debate and vote on legislation. Thursday's hearing will be a completely different type of ballgame, and you should definitely plan on showing up if you can. This is not a legislative hearing. It is an executive-branch hearing, the sole purpose of which is to hear comments from members of the public. The media will likely be there in large numbers. Please be prepared to make a brief statement. There will probably be a signup sheet outside the door of the room, or else one that will be passed around during the hearing. If so, please put your name on it. You might also have a chance to be interviewed by a news reporter after the hearing. If you make a statement at the hearing, please do not ramble on and on. Be brief and to the point. It is important to give MANY pro-self-defense people a chance to speak. This is a meeting in which numbers really count. If a whole bunch of pro-self-defense people get up one at a time to speak, and each of them makes a 30-second statement, this will be much more effective than if only a few pro-self-defense people stand up, each of whom rambles on for 10 minutes. The people running the hearing simply need to know how many of those in attendance are in favor of allowing state employees to defend themselves against violent crime. They don't need to hear long rambling arguments about the Second Amendment and so forth. Even if you just get up and say "My name is so-and-so and I am in favor of allowing state employees to be able to exercise their right to self-defense," this will be enough. The bureaucrats will know which side of the issue you're on, and that's what's important. It is especially important to attend this meeting if you are an employee of the state government. If this is the case, you should mention the fact that you work for the state government when you make your statement. There are plenty of good points you can make during your statement at the hearing, or if you happen to be interviewed by the media afterwards. In either case, choose a single point and make it, instead of trying to give a lecture on the meaning of the Second Amendment. A single BRIEF sound bite is the way to go. Here are a few examples to help give you some ideas: "Self-defense is a good thing. The biggest heroes of Sept. 11 were the handful of passengers of Flight 93 who fought back against the terrorists. Yet some bureaucrat out there is telling me that if I'm a state employee, I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself against thugs and hoodlums. Could somebody please explain to me how this is supposed to make sense?" "I've taken responsibility for my own safety. People who are employed by the state should be able to do this too." "If a woman who works for the state wants to be completely helpless and unable to defend herself when she walks to her car after work, that's a decision that she should make by herself. The state shouldn't make it for her." "State law says that the police have no legal obligation to protect anyone, including state employees. Yet the state personnel office prohibits state employees from being able to protect themselves. Is this fair?" "The ban on self-defense weapons for state employees is illegal. If I were to do something illegal, I would go to jail or pay a fine. Why, then, should state bureaucrats be able to flagrantly violate the law year after year without suffering any consequences?" _______________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #104 - 18 December 2001. Copyright 2001 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. ________________________________________________________________ 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 <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Pro-gun (or at least pro- rule of law) editorial from the Deseret News Date: 19 Dec 2001 15:37:51 -0700 Ok, 'fess up. Which one of you sneaked into the press room and got this editorial printed? :) From today's Deseret News opinion page. Charles -------------- http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,355013406,00.html? Gun rules need re-evaluation Deseret News editorial What would the holidays and upcoming legislative session be without a lively debate about gun control? That emotional issue was revisited earlier this month when several state agencies appeared before a legislative oversight committee. Their appearance followed an informal opinion written by Attorney General Mark Shurtleff that found state agency rules restricting gun possession violated state law. The issue was properly defined by House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, who said it wasn't the committee's responsibility to decide if the rules are "right or wrong," but rather whether the state agencies had the approval to write the rules in the first place. A month ago Shurtleff raised the issue when he issued his informal opinion wherein he said that about two dozen rules adopted by various state agencies controlling gun use are illegal. That's because only the Legislature has the power to regulate guns in Utah, Shurtleff said. Later, Shurtleff issued a formal opinion that the rule prohibiting state employees with concealed weapons permits from bringing their guns to work is illegal. Gov. Mike Leavitt and his personnel officials agree. Legislators were told that the rule will be rescinded Jan. 1. In reality, the Legislature needs to review a number of rules that may be questionable legally, particularly regarding concealed weapons. For example, there is confusion regarding day-care centers. Shurtleff wrote a letter to the executive director of the State Health Department, Rod Betit, saying it appears that hundreds of state licensed day-care centers in Utah are defined in state code as "schools," which can result in various ramifications regarding gun use. While there isn't an exemption now for concealed-carry permitholders, it would appear, as Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, noted during the oversight committee's deliberations, that since a school is not a "secure" area like a prison, courtroom, mental hospital or airport, the day-care centers cannot therefore ban concealed weapons from their premises. Health Department officials indicated the rule will likely be rewritten to specifically allow legally permitted concealed weapons owners to carry handguns into licensed day-care centers. The rules of that department and others, as well as a thorough study of the exemptions allowed under the various gun control provisions, need to be scrutinized. ________________________________________________________________ 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 <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Reminder--Rules hearing today Date: 20 Dec 2001 10:44:09 -0700 This is a last minute reminder about the Department of Human Resource Management's public hearing today regarding the repeal of their illegal and pro-victimization, anti-gun employment policies. The hearing is at 12:00 noon, in room 403 of the State Capital. If you are a pro-self-defense State employee, it is very important for you to attend this hearing if at all possible. We fear this may turn into a dog and pony show with lots of anti-gun employees making it look like the "gun lobby" is forcing something on them that no State employees want. If you are (or personally know) a State employee who would like to testify in favor of your self-defense rights, but believe doing so could cause you problems with your superior(s), please let me know. I certainly understand the need (particularly in these economic times) to protect your livelyhood and means of providing for your family and will respect any wishes to remain anonymous. OTOH, if intimidation or abuses of your rights to speak out on political issues are taking place, it needs to come to light in some manner, if at all possible. If you are unable to attend the hearing, please submit written comments. The following written comments have been submitted in the name of GOUtah. Comments can also be emailed to <cwhipple@utah.gov>. Please do be courteous in all communications. Charles ================ Charles Hardy Policy Director, Gun Owners of Utah (GOUtah!) xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx December 18, 2001 Public Comments on Employee Firearm Restriction c/o Conroy Whipple Department of Human Resource Management 2120 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Fax: 801.538.3081 Dear Mr. Whipple, As Policy Director for Gun Owners of Utah, I am pleased to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change at the Utah Department of Human Resource Management concerning employee possession of weapons pursuant to a government issued concealed weapons permit. Gun Owners of Utah strongly supports the complete elimination of all policies, rules, and other restrictions on individualsÆ rights to possess the tools of effective self-defense including restrictions on possession of concealed weapons pursuant to a government issued permit. First and foremost, Utah law is clear that no agency, department, or political subdivision may promulgate nor enforce any rules concerning weapons unless the legislature has granted specific authority to do so. The Utah Legislature has not given any such grant of authority to the Utah Department of Human Resource Management. Both a legislative counsel opinion and now an opinion from our State Attorney GeneralÆs office clearly indicates that current rules restricting the possession of weapons are contrary to State law, illegal, and unenforceable. For government agencies to disregard, break, or attempt to skirt the clear letter and/or spirit of the law, in any way, shape, or form, can only degrade general respect for all laws. Second, we believe that self-defense is the first law of nature and a natural, inalienable right of all persons. Police and other security forces, dedicated as they are, simply cannot provide protection to every State employee, every minute of every working day nor during their travels to/from work. By very definition, self-defense cannot be delegated. The State of Utah has some very hardworking employees, many of whom work irregular hours, serve in remote and/or crime prevalent locations, or in various jobs where they may be at special risk to criminals or even terrorists. And any person--regardless of employment--is subject to threats or violence from disgruntled former spouses, stalking, or plain old-fashioned random acts of violence and crimes of opportunity both in the workplace and during travel to/from work. State employees have as much right to protect themselves as any other citizen of Utah. Next, current policy creates opportunities for weapons to be accessible to criminals. Forcing employees to leave weapons in automobiles not only denies those persons access to an effective self-defense, it also leaves weapons vulnerable to theft. Also, the State of Utah actively encourages the use of mass transit and anyone using mass or alternate transit will be left disarmed and defenseless from the moment they leave home as they have no place to store a weapon. Further, despite emotional and irrational fears and predictions of carnage from those who oppose private ownership, possession, and use of firearms, UtahÆs concealed weapon permit holders have proven to be among the most law-abiding members of our society. With six years of history and nearly 40,000 persons with current permits to carry a firearm, verified acts (as opposed to unverified, unreported, urban myths) of criminal violence or even negligence on the part of permit holders can literally be counted on the fingers of your own hands. Statistically speaking a concealed weapon permit holder is far less likely to commit an act of criminal violence than is a person without such a permit. And, as surprising as it may sound, nationwide data strongly indicate that a concealed weapons permit holder is even less likely than a sworn police officer to be involved in a questionable shooting. Finally, while we completely reject any notion that fears, prejudices, phobias, or bigotry on the part of some employees are justification for denying basic human rights to other employees, even these are not a real issue in this case. The entire idea behind carrying a concealed weapon is that it is concealed. No employee, no matter how bigoted or phobic is going to have to work next to someone knowing that person is carrying a weapon. As a matter of security, prudence, and common courtesy the vast majority of those with permits to carry concealed weapons do so in a highly discreet manner. Again, six years of history and 40,000 permit holders have shown that lawfully carried concealed weapons do not create any problems or disturbances whatsoever in the workplace. There are immeasurable differences between an employee legally carrying a concealed weapon in the workplace for legitimate self-defense and a criminal using a weapon illegally and immorally. GOUtah urges you to keep those differences firmly in mind as you listen to those who would deny their co-workers or subordinates the right to self-defense. We look forward to a complete repeal of all employment rules, including restrictions on legally permitted concealed weapons, that violate, in either letter or spirit, the statutes of the State of Utah. Please forward to us, at the above address, a copy of all rules on the subject of weapons as soon as any new rules become effective. Sincerely Charles Hardy Policy Director, Gun Owners of Utah ________________________________________________________________ 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 <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: In house counsel issue makes Rolly & Wells Date: 21 Dec 2001 13:29:18 -0700 The following is from today's SLTrib. Asside from being another case of State agencies disobeying State laws, in-house counsel has been a sore spot for our gun rights. Our AG has issued a clear opinion on various gun bans. But State agencies with in-house counsel (most notably the UofU) simply ask their in house counsel for another opinion and then hide behind that opinion rather than complying with the opinion of the duely elected AG. Please let your legislators know you want this issued resolved and the way to do that is to enforce existing laws. The AG's office is the largest law firm in the State of Utah. The head of that office is, rightfully, elected by and accountable to, you, the voters. For individual State agencies to hire their own lawyers not only wastes money, but it subverts our representative government. Charles ===================== http://www.sltrib.com/12212001/utah/160485.htm ROLLY & WELLS: State Lawyers Overlooked a Crucial Rule Friday, December 21, 2001 BY PAUL ROLLY and JOANN JACOBSEN-WELLS Twenty-four attorneys acting as in-house lawyers for state agencies are doing so illegally. A legal opinion signed by Legislative General Counsel Gay Taylor and Associate General Counsel John Fellows this week concludes that 24 of 36 state agency attorneys were hired illegally because state law requires those agencies to be represented by the Utah attorney general. The other 12 either work for agencies that have specific statutory permission to hire their own counsel or their functions do not strictly fit the definition of legal adviser. The in-house legal counsels are paid out of the individual agency's budgets and the practice has occurred for years, but first-term Attorney General Mark Shurtleff raised the issue after he took office in January and a legal opinion was sought. Shurtleff says in order to keep government running smoothly, he will make the employees in question "special assistant attorneys general" for a few months until the problem can be remedied legislatively. That means either changing the law to allow for independent in-house lawyers or make them attorney general employees. ________________________________________________________________ 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 <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: FW: RLC News & Views - December 21, 2001 Date: 21 Dec 2001 13:36:20 -0700 A couple of items of interest on guns... Charles --------- Forwarded message ---------- ******************************** Gun-Grabber Back Up to Old Tricks "Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants the Department of Justice to keep personal data on law-abiding gun buyers from the National Instant Check System (NICS), and to offer the information for unlimited use by state and local agencies. National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called the move 'gun owner registration, plain and simple.' "Making good on a promise he made during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing December 6, Schumer introduced the 'Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act' (S. 1788) after Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to allow the FBI access to NICS records of lawful gun purchases. Schumer introduced the bill one day after Ashcroft explained that he was merely obeying the law Congress had passed." - CNSNews.com, 12/17/01 *********************************** Gun Hysteria Still Running Rampant "Steve Decker, a social-studies teacher at Kansas' Wellsville High School, has been suspended without pay for 60 days. His crime? He had a disassembled hunting rifle, in a case, under the seat of his locked pickup truck, which was parked in the school parking lot. 'A search dog hired by the school nosed down' the gun, the Lawrence Journal-World reports, and Decker was suspended under a Kansas law prohibiting firearms on school property. - OpinionJournal.com, 12/19/01 ________________________________________________________________ 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/. -