ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.200202

Internet Message Format | 2002-02-27 | 96KB

From: scott bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Massachusetts women want guns for self defense
Date: 01 Feb 2002 19:08:12 -0700

Massachusetts women want guns for self defense
----------
CNS
   At Mount Holyoke, a women's college in the anti-self-defense
   state of Massachusetts, the Second Amendment Sisters are
   raising eyebrows by lobbying for students' right to carry
   firearms. "We shouldn't have to depend on others to take
   care of ourselves," says the group's organizer. (02/01/02)
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200201/CUL20020131b.html

Gun rights backers push for reciprocity among states
----------
Washington Times
   Self-defense advocates, having won concealed-carry firearms
   laws in more than a dozen states in the 1990s, are now working
   to try to get states to recognize firearms permits issued in
   other states. (02/01/02)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020201-85287048.htm

-



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

From: scott bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Poll closed
Date: 02 Feb 2002 10:04:23 -0700

The Deseret News poll is closed. The results were:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/poll/history

Utahns who want a concealed-weapons permit have to take a class,
familiarizing them with weapons and Utah's deadly force laws,
and pass a test. Proposed legislation would eliminate those
requirements. Part of the rationale is that the class is
ineffective. What is your position? (01/24/2002)

Keep the class and test               313  13%
Eliminate the class and test          969  41%
Keep and improve the class and test  1077  46%
Total votes:                         2359

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: [goutah] Alert #114
Date: 02 Feb 2002 21:21:23 -0700

The latest from GOUtah!  Please note the hotline number below--give it a
call and see if recognize the voice.

----------------
Charles Hardy
<[e-mail]>

--------- 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

New! GOUtah! Telephone Alert Hotline: (801)296-GUNS

To subscribe to or unsubscribe from GOUtah!'s free e-mail Alerts, send a
blank e-mail message to one of the following addresses:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [e-mail]
______________________________

GOUtah! Alert #114 - 2 February 2002

Today's Maxim of Liberty:
"The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile
and
abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense."
-- Thomas Paine


ASK YOUR REP. TO SUPPORT HB 183

As reported in GOUtah! Alert #113, HB 183, sponsored by Rep. Morgan
Philpot
of Sandy, was forwarded to the floor of the House of Representatives by
the
House Judiciary Committee with a favorable recommendation. The bill will
be
voted on by the House of Representatives in the near future. This bill
would
eliminate the $7.50 fee paid with each gun purchase in Utah to fund the
redundant background check conducted by the Utah Bureau of Criminal
Identification (BCI), and would require that BCI immediately destroy all
records of gun purchase applications as soon as the purchaser passes the
background check.

As we've stated in previous alerts, we support HB 183 as a step toward
eliminating the redundant BCI gun-purchase check altogether. We encourage
you to contact your Utah State Representative and ask him to vote for HB
183. You don't have to make a long-winded speech. You can just say
something
like this: "I live in your district, and I would like you to vote for HB
183. Please let me know afterwards how you voted on this bill. Thank
you."

You can send a fax or a letter to your representative at the Capitol.
Make
sure to put your representative's name on the envelope or on the fax, so
that the people in the mailroom will know to whom it is to be delivered.

Utah State House of Representatives
318 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]

You can also phone, fax, or visit your representative at his home. To
view a
list of representatives sorted according to district number, along with
each
representative's e-mail address and home phone number and fax number,
visit
GOUtah!'s legislative directory at:

http://www.goutahorg.org/address.html

Our thanks to GOUtah! Webmaster Martin Glantz for assembling this
information on a single convenient page.


SB 147 NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT

Sen. Michael Waddoups' bill, SB 147, is not purely a gun bill per se, but
has direct relevance to gun rights. The inspiration for this bill came
from
the blatant refusal of several state colleges and universities to
eliminate
their illegal bans on the carrying of legally concealed firearms on
campus.
Even after being told by the Attorney General's Office that their gun
bans
were illegal, administrators of these schools thumbed their noses not
only
at the attorney general, but at the state legislature, essentially
telling
legislators during a recent hearing that laws passed by the legislature
don't necessarily apply to state-operated institutions of higher
learning.
SB 147 was born out of the dismay experienced by legislators during that
hearing, as a way to encourage state bureaucrats to obey the law. GOUtah!
has decided to support this bill, which will be heard by the Senate State
and Local Affairs Committee on Tuesday February 5 at 8:00 a.m. In room
403
of the state capitol.

This bill would make it easier for the legislature to deal effectively
with
state agencies that violate state law. Of course, the legislature already
has the power of the purse, but has rarely used it to punish rogue
bureaucrats who enact illegal policies, because the current
appropriations
procedures were not designed with this in mind. They were designed at a
time
when it was fairly safe to assume that state bureaucrats wouldn't
blatantly
try to break the law. Mainly, SB 147 would create a procedure whereby any
legislator could call on a state agency to explain a policy that appears
to
violate state law. If the agency does not provide an adequate
explanation,
or if the agency fails to respond, the appropriations subcommittee that
funds that agency is required to convene a hearing into the matter, and
is
given subpoena power. If the subcommittee finds that the agency is
violating
the law, the subcommittee can formally recommend to the relevant
appropriations committee that the administrative budget of the agency be
cut
by as much as 50%. The administrative budget is that portion of an
agency's
budget that is earmarked to pay the salaries and expenses of
administrators
(who are the people responsible for creating illegal gun bans and other
types of illegal rules). Other parts of the agency's budget would not be
affected. Thus, for example, if SB 147 were to pass and the U. of U.
maintained its illegal gun ban, the legislature could cut up to 50% of
that
portion of the U's budget that goes to pay the salaries of the U.'s
administration. Most of the U's budget would be unaffected, including
faculty and staff salaries, infrastructure, etc. Only the administrators
would lose money.

One political commentator has recently remarked that unelected state and
local bureaucrats pose the greatest threat to liberty in the United
States
today. We are not inclined to disagree. Contrary to what opponents of the
bill have been saying, SB 147 does not give prosecutorial or judicial
power
to the legislature. These powers belong to the executive and judicial
branches of government, respectively. SB 147 simply enables the
legislature
to more effectively utilize is existing constitutional power to control
how
much taxpayer money goes to unelected bureaucrats.

Please contact members of the Senate State and Local Affairs Committee as
soon as possible and encourage them to support SB 147. If one of the
committee members is from your district, please let him know that you are
a
constituent. Below is a pre-written letter that you can copy, fill out,
sign, and send if you wish.  Feel free to edit it on your word processor
if
you want to.

Members of the Senate State and Local Affairs Committee:

Carlene Walker (Sen. Dist. 8)
4085 E. Prospector Dr.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121
Phone[phone]

Beverly Ann Evans, Sen. Dist. 26
HC 65, Box 36
Altamont, Utah 84001
Office(435)722-4523 Ext 126
Home(435)454-3719
Fax[phone]

Scott K. Jenkins, Sen. Dist. 20
4385 W. 1975 N.
Plain City, Utah 84404
Phone[phone]

Paula F. Julander, Sen. Dist. 1
1467 Penrose Dr.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
Office(801)538-1405
Home(801)363-0868

Peter C. Knudson, Sen. Dist. 24
1209 Michelle Dr.
Brigham City, Utah 84302
Home(435)723-2035

Al Mansell, Sen. Dist. 10
6995 Union Park Ctr. #100
Midvale, Utah 84047
Office [phone]
Home(801)942-6019
Fax[phone]

Millie M. Peterson, Sen. Dist. 12
7131 West 3800 South
West Valley City, Utah 84128
Home(801)250-5944

******  NOTE: You can also send messages to senators at the State Capitol
*****

Utah State Senate
319 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
__________________________________________
That concludes GOUtah! Alert #114 - 2 February 2002.
Copyright 2002 by GOUtah! All rights reserved.

PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW:


----- Cut Here -------











Dear Senator ________________:

I am writing to encourage you, as a member of the Senate State and Local
Affairs Committee, to support SB 147, the bill by Senator Waddoups which
would enable the State Legislature to more effectively use its existing
constitutional power of the purse to rein in unelected bureaucrats who
implement policies and rules that directly violate state law. I'm tired
of
government administrators and bureaucrats who think that they can
blatantly
violate the law, and I believe that the Utah Legislature should begin to
assert its power in such matters by more vigorously exercising its
budgetary
clout. Thanks for taking the time to hear my opinion.

Sincerely,







----- Cut Here ------



To Subscribe, send a blank message to:
[e-mail]



To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
[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/web/.

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-gun amendment proposed to co-opt HB 183
Date: 04 Feb 2002 12:33:35 -0700

Lamont Tyler (RINO) and the Democrats are proposing and supporting a
floor amendment to Morgan Philpot's HB 183.

HB 183, as you recall, eliminates the $7.50 fee, for the redundant State
"brady" check conducted before you are allowed to exercise your
Constitututional right to purchases a firearms (see Utah Constitution,
Art. 1, Sec. 6).  See previous alerts for arguments and talking points on
why our right to purchase firearms should be subect to special fees or
taxes.

Tyler's proposed amendment (officially titled House Amendment #2) will do
worse than gut the bill, it will co-opt it into a completely different
and anti-gun animal.


The amendment, if passed, will do the following:

1-Remove the requirement that all recods of criminal check be immediately
destroyed for all checks that pass.  BCI will continue to be allowed to
keep records of law abiding citizens' gun purchases for up to "20 days"
before those records are destroyed.  20 days is simply too long and too
much mischief can take place.

2-Changes the title of section 76-10-256 by deleting the specific
exemption for CCW permit holders.  This may well be setting the stage to
require CCW permit holders to undergo the same brady background check on
purchases as non-permit holders.  This is a complete waste of time as CCW
permit holders have not only gone through a criminal background check but
are currently being subjected to daily checks as well.  Further, the way
the amenment is written, CCW permit holders would no longer be exempted
from background check fees.  Under the orginal bill, this language was
removed because there would be no fee.  But if the fee remains, and CCW
permitees are no longer exempt from that fee...your guess is as good as
mine.

3-Instead of eliminating the fee, changes the fees charged each quarter
based on the percentage of purchases that were approved in the previous
quarter.  However, it maintains the same total income to the State.
EVERYONE wanting to purchase a firearm would pay the now MUCH HIGHER FEE
up front.  Those who are approved, would have their fee refunded to them,
at some point, in the future, by the BCI.  Those who are not approved,
would lose their money permanently and presumably, pay the full cost for
the background check system.  No details on how this scheme may affect
those denied wrongly.

The upfront fee would be $7.50 divided by 1 minus the fraction of those
background checks passed the previous quarter.

So, if 90% of brady checks were approved the prior quarter, the fees this
quarter would be $7.50 / (1 - 0.9) = $75.00!!!!!

If 99% of brady checks were approved the prior quarter, the fees this
quarter would go to $7.50 / (1 - 0.99) =  $750.00!!!

And of course, if we ever had a quarter where 100% of all brady checks
were approved, the fees the next quarter would be infinate ($7.50 / 0).

If those numbers do not represent an impediment to gun ownership, I don't
know what does.

BCI would have an indefinate period of time in which to refund this
money.  (Nice interest free loan to the State.)

This amendment will come up for a vote either Tuesday or Wednesday.  It
is critical that you call or fax your Representative today and tell them
to oppose this ill conceived, "poison pill" amendment.

A full list of legislators, along with email and home phone numbers can
be found at http://www.utgoa.org/resources/legcontact02.html

Messages for all Representatives can be left at the main house
switchboard at: 801-538-1029.

Charles Hardy
________________________________________________________________
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: <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Word About Gunnies in Orem
Date: 04 Feb 2002 17:55:40 -0700 (MST)

I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and
have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete
reloading "bench". and at least one handgun.

They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that
firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I
noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter.

I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left at
the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my assumption
was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, I decided I
better call them, especially since I didn't "check in" at the front on my
previous visit because of how absurd I figured it would be for them to think
I should.

The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant ALL guns,
even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for their
safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this request or not.
I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a request that my truck
doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of course, unlike my children, my
truck does whatever I say.

Okay, now that I've put the facts down, can I rant a little? Do they not
trust CCW permit holders? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW permit
holders, in "checking" their guns at the front door, are violating the terms
of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder.

After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at their
store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think she tried
to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to put the phone
on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude and they won't
consider my call very important.

But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at their
obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly, foolishness. I'm
pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so I'll be giving more
of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very polite owner/operator of
Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I live in Utah County.

As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I
doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my decision
because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and I can no
longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust others can't be
trusted" has more often than not been proved true.

In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's
Gunnies info:

Gunnies (mailto:[e-mail])
396 South State
Orem, Utah 84062

801-226-7080 or
800-696-4867

And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all (they
have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at
www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page:

<a href=http://www.gunnies.com>

AOL users click here

</a>

Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like my
daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively speaking.

--
Karl L. Pearson
Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
Senior Consulting Database Analyst
[e-mail]
 My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
 http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml


-



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

From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Word About Gunnies in Orem
Date: 04 Feb 2002 20:04:03 -0500

Thanks Karl

I will avoid them as well whenever I am in Utah.  I have done lots of
business with them as well in the past, but no more.  Anyone with that
kind of mindset just "doesn't get it".  They don't care about my safety
because they want to disarm me.  And it reduces their own safety as well.

Chad

On Monday, February 4, 2002, at 07:55  PM, <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and
> have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete
> reloading "bench". and at least one handgun.
>
> They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that
> firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I
> noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter.
>
> I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left
> at
> the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my
> assumption
> was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, I
> decided I
> better call them, especially since I didn't "check in" at the front on
> my
> previous visit because of how absurd I figured it would be for them to
> think
> I should.
>
> The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant ALL
> guns,
> even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for their
> safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this request or
> not.
> I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a request that my
> truck
> doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of course, unlike my
> children, my
> truck does whatever I say.
>
> Okay, now that I've put the facts down, can I rant a little? Do they not
> trust CCW permit holders? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW
> permit
> holders, in "checking" their guns at the front door, are violating the
> terms
> of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder.
>
> After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at
> their
> store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think she
> tried
> to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to put the
> phone
> on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude and they won't
> consider my call very important.
>
> But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at
> their
> obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly, foolishness.
> I'm
> pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so I'll be giving
> more
> of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very polite owner/operator
> of
> Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I live in Utah County.
>
> As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I
> doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my
> decision
> because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and I can no
> longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust others
> can't be
> trusted" has more often than not been proved true.
>
> In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's
> Gunnies info:
>
> Gunnies (mailto:[e-mail])
> 396 South State
> Orem, Utah 84062
>
> 801-226-7080 or
> 800-696-4867
>
> And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all
> (they
> have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at
> www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page:
>
> <a href=http://www.gunnies.com>
>
> AOL users click here
>
> </a>
>
> Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like
> my
> daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively
> speaking.
>
> --
> Karl L. Pearson
> Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
> Senior Consulting Database Analyst
> [e-mail]
>  My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
>  http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml
>
>
> -
>
>


-



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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: A Word About Gunnies in Orem (fwd)
Date: 05 Feb 2002 11:44:59 -0700 (MST)

I received a response from Gunnies management. I thought you might be
interested in both my response and their email which elicited my response.
Mine appears next. To read them in order, go to the end and start at Dear
Valued Customer.  KLP


I appreciate your response, especially in light of the tone and tenor of my
original email, however, the damage has been done. Your sign, first of all,
was ambiguous and no effort was made to correct the wording before it
offended customers. Second, why did the girl who answered the phone tell me
that yes, the sign does apply to CCW permit holders, too? Your email
indicates that either she lied on the phone, or you are lying now to hope to
cover your original intentions. Yes, I know I'm being tough on you.  But you
are dealing with hundreds of CCW permit holders who know about that sign
now. At the least, you are guilty of not communicating the gravity of the
situation to your employees appropriately or effectively.

I stand by my previous email because in business, actions taken can never be
done hastilly and thoughtlessly. As such, I prefer to believe you knew the
consequences of your ambiguous sign and are now back-peddling. Why wasn't
the consequence of the sign discussed completely with all employees,
especially those who greet the customer? How can you expect to be trusted
where such a tremendous lack of judgement shows such lack of respect for
your customers?

I await your response. Perhaps the prosperity of your business hangs in the
balance. You are, I'm certain, aware that many hundreds of individuals saw
my first email and I'll be sure to pass this communication on to them,
negative or positive.

Thank you,

--
Karl L. Pearson
Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
Senior Consulting Database Analyst
[e-mail]
 My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
 http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml



---------- Forwarded message ----------

Dear Valued Customer:

Thanks for bringing to our attention the poorly written sign on our front
door.  Gunnies respects the rights of CWP holders and has long supported
the Utah CWP program.

Our Store Policy is to have firearms that enter the store for repair, or
trade-in be signed in at the cashier's desk.  This has been necessary
because frankly some people are just not honest.  Hence, we have tightened
control measures for firearms entering and leaving to minimize gunsmithing
losses.

Thanks
Gunnies Management


> [Original Message]
> From: <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Date: 2/4/2002 5:55:43 PM
> Subject: A Word About Gunnies in Orem
>
> I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and
> have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete
> reloading "bench". and at least one handgun.
>
> They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that
> firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I
> noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter.
>
> I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left
> at the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my
> assumption was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the
> doubt, I decided I better call them, especially since I didn't "check
> in" at the front on my previous visit because of how absurd I figured it
> would be for them to think I should.
>
> The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant
> ALLCWPs, even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for
> their safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this
> request or not. I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a
> request that my truck doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of
> course, unlike my children, my truck does whatever I say.
>
> Okay, now that I've put the facts doCWPcan I rant a little? Do they not
> trust CCW permit hCWPrs? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW
> permit holders, in "checking" their guns at theCWPont door, are
> violating the terms of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder.
>
> After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at
> their store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think
> she tried to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to
> put the phone on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude
> and they won't consider my call very important.
>
> But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at
> their obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly,
> foolishness. I'm pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so
> I'll be giving more of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very
> polite owner/operator of Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I
> live in Utah County.
>
> As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I
> doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my
> decision because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and
> I can no longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust
> others can't be trusted" has more often than not been proved true.
>
> In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's
> Gunnies info:
>
> Gunnies (mailto:[e-mail])
> 396 South State
> Orem, Utah 84062
>
> 801-226-7080 or
> 800-696-4867
>
> And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all
> (they have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at
> www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page:
>
> <a href=http://www.gunnies.com>
>
> AOL users click here
>
> </a>
>
> Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like
> my daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively
> speaking.
>
> --
> Karl L. Pearson


-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Potentially OFF-TOPIC PSA
Date: 05 Feb 2002 12:08:22 -0700

This may well be off topic to some of the lists that recieve it, for
which I apologize.

I want to take a moment to air a public service announcement that there
are several areas holding special bond elections today.  In some cases,
if these bonds pass, property taxes will be affected.  I'm not going to
take a position on any of these (especially since 2/3rds of the elections
I know about do not affect me), but I do encourage you to take whatever
time you can today to acquaint yourself with the issues and to make sure
and get to the polls to vote.  It is likely that the polling location for
these bond elections will NOT be at the usual primary/general election
location.

I am aware of two or maybe three bond elections today.

In Davis county, the school board is having a bond election today.  This
has received a fair bit of coverage in the local papers.

I think Washington County School board is also having a bond election
today.

Finally, in SLCo, the Sandy Suburban Improvement District (Sewer and
wastewater folks) is holding a bond election today to upgrade facilities.
 There is only 1 polling location for this election--the Sandy Suburban
Improvement District office building on 700 East 9115 South (east side of
the road, little white building).

Again, I encourage you to take time to vote.  Otherwise, don't complain
about the outcome.

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: <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: A Word About Gunnies in Orem (fwd)
Date: 05 Feb 2002 13:08:42 -0700 (MST)

Hi all. The email that follows is a response from Gunnies. Although this
response seems to placate nicely my concerns, why in the world did the nice
girl who answered the phone tell me the sign meant everyone, including CCW
permit holders?

--
Karl L. Pearson
Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
Senior Consulting Database Analyst
[e-mail]
 My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
 http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Dear Valued Customer:

Thanks for bringing to our attention the poorly written sign on our front
door.  Gunnies respects the rights of CWP holders and has long supported
the Utah CWP program.

Our Store Policy is to have firearms that enter the store for repair, or
trade-in be signed in at the cashier's desk.  This has been necessary
because frankly some people are just not honest.  Hence, we have tightened
control measures for firearms entering and leaving to minimize gunsmithing
losses.

Thanks
Gunnies Management


> [Original Message]
> From: <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
 > Date: 2/4/2002 5:55:43 PM
> Subject: A Word About Gunnies in Orem
>
> I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and
> have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete
> reloading "bench". and at least one handgun.
>
> They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that
> firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I
> noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter.
>
> I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left at
> the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my
assumption
> was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, I decided I
> better call them, especially since I didn't "check in" at the front on my
> previous visit because of how absurd I figured it would be for them to
think
> I should.
>
> The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant ALLCWPs,
> even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for their
> safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this request or
not.
> I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a request that my
truck
> doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of course, unlike my children,
my
> truck does whatever I say.
>
> Okay, now that I've put the facts doCWPcan I rant a little? Do they not
> trust CCW permit hCWPrs? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW permit
> holders, in "checking" their guns at theCWPont door, are violating the
terms
> of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder.
>
> After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at their
> store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think she tried
> to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to put the
phone
> on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude and they won't
> consider my call very important.
>
> But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at
their
> obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly, foolishness. I'm
> pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so I'll be giving more
> of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very polite owner/operator of
> Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I live in Utah County.
>
> As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I
> doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my decision
> because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and I can no
> longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust others can't
be
> trusted" has more often than not been proved true.
>
> In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's
> Gunnies info:
>
> Gunnies (mailto:[e-mail])
> 396 South State
> Orem, Utah 84062
>
> 801-226-7080 or
> 800-696-4867
>
> And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all
(they
> have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at
> www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page:
>
> <a href=http://www.gunnies.com>
>
> AOL users click here
>
> </a>
>
> Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like my
> daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively speaking.
>
> --
> Karl L. Pearson
> Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
> Senior Consulting Database Analyst
> [e-mail]
>  My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:



-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quick Update on SB147 and HB 219S1
Date: 05 Feb 2002 14:08:51 -0700

All,

More details will surely follow this evening or tomorrow, but I wanted to
give a quick update on two bills of particular interest to gun owners.
All in all a good morning to be at the capital.

SB 147, Restriction of Funding on State Entity whose Policy, Rule, or
Action is Contrary to Law , Sen. Waddoup's bill that would make it easier
to cut the ADMINSTATIVE portion of the budget of any agency or department
whose rules, polices, or actions are contrary to State law was heard this
morning in the Senate STate and Local Affairs committee.  I was not there
due to attendance at the house committee hearing mentioned below.  This
bill would put some real teeth into the power of the purse strings and
likely force agencies like the UofU and other colleges to drop illegal
gun bans.  Reports this morning from those who attended indicated that 4
persons spoke to the bill, all in favor.  But then, no one on the
committee offered a motion to pass the bill on to the full senate so the
bill was effectively held having received no action.  However, the
legislative web site indicates the bill was held on a 5-0-2 vote.  More
info later as I can get it.  In any event, this bill appears to be still
very much alive.  Contact members of the Senate State and Local Affairs
committee and ask them to support this bill.

H.B. 219 S1  Firearm Fee Amendments, Rep. Philpot's bill to eliminate
fees for obtaining a CCW permit, was heard in the House Judiciary
Committee this morning.  The bill was last on a very full agenda and
followed another bill that was subject to intense and long debate.  Even
with the meeting starting at 7:00 am, only 15 minutes remained in the
meeting by the time Rep. Philpot was able to begin presenting his bill.

Fiscal Analysis STILL has failed to return a fiscal note for this bill.
Calls of complaint to Speaker Stephens are probably in order on that
point.  To the credit of Chairman Ferrin, the committee chose to hear the
bill and act on it anyway.  Reps. Arent and Daniels were most hostile to
the bill.  Reps. Bennion, Way, Ferrin, and Thompson all either asked very
good questions supporting the bill or made statements in support of the
bill.  Rep. Philpot did an outstanding job of presenting and defending
his bill in the very short time available.

Cudos to Rep. Ferrin for running a very tight ship during the final 15
minutes of the meeting and seeing that this bill was discussed and acted
on.  However, placing such an important bill last on the agenda, and then
allowing all the preceeding bills to run so long is an issue that
concerns me.  Whether by design (on the part of anti-gunners) or simply
by nature, we frequently find good gun bills dying in committee due to
time running out and/or we expend far more energy and time than we should
have to because our bills get held over several committee meetings.

Only a single person spoke agains the bill, Ms. Carbella (sp?) from the
Utah Firearms Violence Preventin Center.  Her commends were poorly framed
IMO, and, thanks to a timely question from Rep. Bennion, did as much to
help our side as anything else.  Due to time constraints, Rep. Ferrin
asked if those in favor of the bill would select two persons to speak to
the bill.  Charles Hardy for GOUtah and Dana Dickson for UTGOA both spoke
very briefly in favor of the bill.  Finally, a spokeswoman from BCI
offered some info and basically spoke against the bill.  She noted that
the fiscal note was of concern AND THAT IF THE FEES WERE DROPPED MORE
PEOPLE WOULD APPLY FOR PERMITS thus increasing the workload.  Rep.
Thompson seized on that comment to say that he was even more convinced
this was the right bill becuase if more people would apply for permits if
the fees were dropped, then clearly SOME number of people WERE be
dissuaded from exercising their rights becuase of the fees.

Rep. Daniels and Rep. Arent attempted some last minute procedural motions
in an attempt to prevent a vote on the bill.  Both failed and the bill
was passed out to the full house with a favorable recomendation on an
8-3-2 vote.  Reps. Arent, Daniels, and one other person voted against.
All Republicans voted in favor except two (Curtis and one other) who were
absent.

Please contact your Representative as well as Speaker Stephens and ask
that they support this bill on the floor while opposing all hostile
amendments that may come.

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: scott bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ban Screwdrivers.com -- Your source for screwdriver activism
Date: 05 Feb 2002 14:40:00 -0700

http://www.banscrewdrivers.com/

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: GOUtah does NOT support Tyler's Amendments to HB 183
Date: 05 Feb 2002 16:18:09 -0700

Last night GOUtah was contacted by one of Rep. Lamont Tyler's
constituents.  This constituent had phoned Tyler asking that he withdraw
his anti-gun amendment to HB 183.

As you will recall, Tyler's amendment would require that all persons
purchasing a gun pay a much increased fee (easily $75.00 and likely as
high as $500+) for the State brady background check  Those who pass the
background check would have their money refunded back to them at some
point.  Of course fiscal records would almost certainly be kept forever
showing a payment of x dollars for refund of brady check to joe gun
owner.  Defacto gun owner list on top of all the other problems.

Tyler had told this constituent that he was running the amendment either
with the support of GOUtah or to make GOUtah happy, or other words to
that effect.  A conference call was quickly arranged to determine whether
Tyler was crazy, or just a bald faced liar.

On direct confrontation with both the constituent and GOUtah on the
phone, Tyler claimed GOUtah supported this amendment due to a comment
made by Policy Director Charles Hardy in answer to a question during
testifying in support of HB 183.  During that testimony, Hardy stated
that it "is particularly repugnant to charge law abiding gun owners in
order to maintain a database of criminals."  Tyler asked whether GOUtah
would support charging only those who failed the background check.  Hardy
responded that such a proposition was more just than charging law abiding
gun owners, and if someone wanted to bring such a bill, we'd certainly
look at it to see whether we would support it, but that we were
supporting HB 183 as is without reservation.

From this exchange, Tyler extrapolated to telling this constituent that
GOUtah supported his amendment.  After a few moments he backed off a bit
and admitted the he had only "gotten the idea for it" during the hearing
on HB 183.

GOUtah made perfectly clear that we do not, in any way shape or form,
support Tyler's amendment and that there was nothing he could do to it to
cause us to support it.  We requested that he withdraw, drop, decline
from offering, or otherwise junk this amendment.

Tyler suggested that HB 219 will certainly die if the fiscal note is not
reduced.  GOUtah made clear that we would rather Philpot's good bill fail
due to fiscal constraints than that the anti-gun monster that would be
created by Tyler's amendments pass.

At the hearing on HB 219 this morning, Tyler visited briefly with GOUtah
and assured us he would NOT be representing his amendment as having the
support of GOUtah.  We hope Tyler is good to his word, but want to
pre-emptively clarify our position once again.

GOUTAH DOES NOT SUPPORT TYLER'S AMENDMENTS TO HB 219.  WE OPPOSE THEM
COMPLETELY.  Tyler voted for HB 219 in committee and did not offer any
amendments in committee.  To offer such an amendment now is clearly an
effort to kill the bill.  To try to claim such an amendment benefits gun
owners and potential gun owners in any way, shape, or form, is either the
height of arogance, or the depths of insanity.

If anyone PERSONALLY hears Tyler or any other legislator making such
false claims in the future, please contact GOUtah or the other affected
pro-gun organization at once to get the truth.

Charles Hardy
Policy Director -- GOUtah

-



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

From: scott bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Urgent News Flash
Date: 08 Feb 2002 13:14:19 -0700


Please take 5 minutes to read this important, one topic, message about
gun confiscation taking place in Chicago.

http://www.privategunsale.com/urgent_pgs_newsflash.htm

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Air marshalls too far undercover
Date: 12 Feb 2002 10:11:38 -0700


From today's SLTrib.

Certainly, air-marshall cannot look like air marshalls until such time as
they are needed.  But once they are needed--especially for anything short
of a head shot--I would hope they would immediately identify themselves
in such a way as to be credible and convincing.

Gee, Sept. 11 happened because of a generation of conditioning to not
resist and everything will be ok.  I sure hope the next hijacking isn't
made easier by conditioning to immediately submit to anyone claiming to
be a cop and carrying a badge.

Charles


======================

Suspect Says He Doubted Marshals

http://www.sltrib.com/02122002/utah/utah.htm
BY MICHAEL VIGH
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

    Richard Bizzaro claims that when three young men in
street clothes took control of a commercial airliner bound
for Salt Lake City, he believed they were hijackers posing
as sky marshals. And he wasn't going to let them get away
with it.
    "I believed I was witnessing a hijacking of our
airplane," Bizzaro said Monday in his first public
statement since he was charged two days earlier with felony
interference with a flight crew.
    But when the Park City man's Delta Air Lines flight
from Los Angeles touched down Saturday night, he was the
one arrested by the same trio of federal agents, who had
taken over the flight after Bizzaro improperly left his
seat.
    "I believe the situation was aggravated by my and other
people's attitudes prompted by the Sept. 11 attacks where
we are all fearful of one another," Bizzaro said in a
written statement in which he apologized for his actions.
    About 30 minutes before landing, Bizzaro, who happened
to have appeared on an in-flight video feature about his
business, left his first-class seat and went to the
restroom. Under Olympic security rules, passengers on
commercial flights into Salt Lake City may not leave their
seats during the final half-hour in the air.
    Bizzaro, a frequent traveler, said he had never heard
the restriction announced before, and no one stopped him
when he stood up. When he exited the restroom, Bizzaro said
he was confronted by a flight attendant, whose comments he
interpreted as rudeness.
    "I now know she was just doing her job," Bizzaro said.
    Federal prosecutors say he intimidated the attendant
with his stares and his size -- 6 feet, 2 inches and 235
pounds.
    After he finally sat down, Bizzaro was seen giving a
"thumbs up" to a pair of passengers, an FBI agent alleges.
Bizzaro, 59, vehemently denies that allegation and says the
three air marshals looked young enough to be his
grandchildren and may have had fake badges. One marshal was
wearing a baseball cap backward, he added.
    "They did not give the appearance they were law
enforcement officers and I did not pay them the proper
respect," Bizzaro said. "I overheard conversations between
the young men that they were observing something going on
at the back of the plane. It did not occur to me that I was
seen as the problem until I was informed afterwards."
    The agents said Bizzaro continually looked at the coach
cabin, making his behavior appear suspicious. Bizzaro's
attorney, Max Wheeler, said his client looked back because
"he thought a hijacking was going on in the back of the
plane."
    After he demanded a closer look at the badges, he
realized they were real and began to comply, Wheeler said.
    Until that time, he said, Bizzaro was thinking he may
have to take action against the trio as the passengers
appear to have done on the plane that crashed in
Pennsylvania on Sept. 11.
    U.S. Attorney Paul Warner wasn't sounding mollified on
Monday, two days after he charged Bizzaro with a federal
crime that could net him up to 20 years in prison and a
$250,000 fine.
    "This is an important point: We're taking a heightened
look at anything that appears to have an impact on the
safety and security of the Games," Warner said.
    Bizzaro is CEO of Unicity Network of Orem, a multilevel
marketing company with $100 million in annual sales of
herbal supplements. The company was featured in an
in-flight CNN news segment.
    Bizzaro found it "kind of surreal," Wheeler said. "He
was arrested just after seeing his business featured on the
flight."
    _________

   Tribune reporter Kevin Cantera contributed to this
report.

________________________________________________________________
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: 'Have gun, will boycott,' group warns
Date: 13 Feb 2002 10:09:54 -0700

'Have gun, will boycott,' group warns
----------
The Roanoke Times
   "Valley View Mall management has never seen such a flurry of
   negative feedback. More than 20 gun-rights activists have called,
   written e-mails or sent letters vowing to boycott the mall until
   it reverses its policy forbidding guns." (02/11/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/757753110.html

-



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

From: scott bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pro-gun Amendment Vote Today!
Date: 13 Feb 2002 14:17:43 -0700

Gun Owners of America's alert


Contact Your Congressman! -- Tell him or her to support the
Pickering amendment to the Incumbent Protection Bill

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org

(Wednesday, February 13, 2002) -- Late tonight, the U.S. House of
Representatives will consider the anti-gun Incumbent Protection Bill
(H.R. 2356).

Shays-Meehan (so-called Campaign Finance Reform) is particularly a
dagger at the heart of pro-gun groups. Groups like GOA would be
prohibited from engaging in many forms of communication to the
public which mention the names of incumbent legislators within 60
days of an election.

This would give anti-gunners a decisive advantage. For instance,
if anti-gun groups were prohibited from broadcasting ads depicting
pro-gun candidates, they would have little trouble getting the
Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Enquirer, L.A. Times,
etc., (all of which are exempt from the legislation) to run the ads
as Editorials.

Pro-gun groups rarely receive any positive attention from the major
media outlets. Thus, GOA members and supporters often rely on our
advocacy to inform them of how their Representatives in Washington
are voting -- and to alert them when important votes are pending,
no matter how close to an election such votes may occur.

To protect the right of groups like GOA to communicate to the public,
an amendment to Shays-Meehan has been offered by pro-gun Rep. Chip
Pickering (R-MS), which would:

exempt Second Amendment groups from the bill's requirements.

In addition to protecting the rights of groups like GOA to communicate
with the public, the Pickering amendment draws a line in the sand in
reaffirming that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. The
Pickering amendment would also:

declare that the Second Amendment applies to ALL AMERICANS and NOT
just to the National Guard.

As you know, there are many politicians who pretend to support the
Second Amendment in order to secure your votes, but sabotage gun
rights once they are elected.

Today's vote on the Gun Owners Protection amendment will distinguish
our friends from our enemies. NO POLITICIAN WHO VOTES TO LIMIT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL GUARD -- BY OPPOSING THIS AMENDMENT
-- SHOULD EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS ANYTHING BUT ANTI-GUN.

ACTION: Please e-mail or call your congressman IMMEDIATELY. Tell him
or her to support the pro-gun amendment to the Shays-Meehan Incumbent
Protection Bill.

You can call your Representative at 202-225-3121. To identify your
Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the
Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
on the GOA website.


----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Congressman,

An amendment to the Shays-Meehan Incumbent Protection Bill to protect
the right of Second Amendment groups to communicate effectively to
the public is being offered today.

I cannot count on the major media to inform me of what's going on
concerning my gun rights. I must rely on GOA and other groups to
inform me of pending legislation or congressional votes, no matter
how close to an election these issues arise.

In fact, the primary concern of the First Amendment is to protect
exactly the type of political communication Shays-Meehan is trying
to destroy.

The Pickering amendment reaffirms that the Second Amendment is an
individual right, not one reserved to the National Guard.

I urge you to support the Pickering Gun Owners Protection amendment.

Sincerely,


****************************

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address
may also be made at that location.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
mailto:[e-mail] is at your disposal. Please do not add
that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages
per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.

END OF GOA ALERT

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: [UTGOA] Pro-gun Amendment Vote Today!
Date: 13 Feb 2002 14:33:33 -0700

I personally believe that the entire campaign finance reform bill is
unconstitutional and full of hypocrisy.  Apparantly the Senate (McCain
Feingold) version specifically exempts Indian Tribes from the rules
imposed on the rest of us.  I'm sure it is only coincidence that the
number one recipient of Indian Tribe money just happens to be Sen.
McCain.

Normally, I'd have some reservations about putting in a special exemption
for gun groups.  For, while I value the 2nd amd very highly, I am no less
attached to the first amd.  I do want and need to hear what the GOA,
UTGOA, GOUtah, and other gun groups have to say about who has really
supported or betrayed my gun rights.  However, I cannot support silencing
the CATO Institute, HCI, the Sierra Club, SUWA, gay/lesbian groups, or
anyone else regardless of the issues the track or which side they take.
To do so is to allow the first amd to die a death by a thousand cuts.

However, in this case, the exemption being proposed below is likely to be
a "poison pill" amendment that will doom the entire bill if it is
attached.  And even if it isn't attached, the vote on it may well expose
who really supports the 2nd amnd.

Last night on MSNBC, Alan Keyes discussed this very topic.  It was
amazing to see how those who support this piece of "incumbant protection"
refused to debate the specifics.  Everytime the discussion turned to the
limits placed on grassroots organizations, the anti-free-speech camp
shifted into talking about "soft money," "Enron," or some other topic not
related to the issue of gagging grassroots groups prior to elections.

Charles

The latest from Ut-GOA:

--------- Forwarded message ----------


Due to the urgency of this message, we are forwarding Gun Owners of
America's alert to you, rather than writing a new one.  Apologies to
those
of you who receive duplicates.


Contact Your Congressman! -- Tell him or her to support the Pickering
amendment to the Incumbent Protection Bill

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org

(Wednesday, February 13, 2002) -- Late tonight, the U.S. House of
Representatives will consider the anti-gun Incumbent Protection Bill
(H.R.
2356).

Shays-Meehan (so-called Campaign Finance Reform) is particularly a dagger

at the heart of pro-gun groups.  Groups like GOA would be prohibited from

engaging in many forms of communication to the public which mention the
names of incumbent legislators within 60 days of an election.

This would give anti-gunners a decisive advantage.  For instance, if
anti-gun groups were prohibited from broadcasting ads depicting pro-gun
candidates, they would have little trouble getting the Washington Post,
Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Enquirer, L.A. Times, etc., (all of which
are
exempt from the legislation) to run the ads as Editorials.

Pro-gun groups rarely receive any positive attention from the major media

outlets.  Thus, GOA members and supporters often rely on our advocacy to
inform them of how their Representatives in Washington are voting -- and
to
alert them when important votes are pending, no matter how close to an
election such votes may occur.

To protect the right of groups like GOA to communicate to the public, an
amendment to Shays-Meehan has been offered by pro-gun Rep. Chip Pickering

(R-MS), which would:

exempt Second Amendment groups from the bill's requirements.

In addition to protecting the rights of groups like GOA to communicate
with
the public, the Pickering amendment draws a line in the sand in
reaffirming
that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.  The Pickering
amendment
would also:

declare that the Second Amendment applies to ALL AMERICANS and NOT just
to
the National Guard.

As you know, there are many politicians who pretend to support the Second

Amendment in order to secure your votes, but sabotage gun rights once
they
are elected.

Today's vote on the Gun Owners Protection amendment will distinguish our
friends from our enemies.  NO POLITICIAN WHO VOTES TO LIMIT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL GUARD -- BY OPPOSING THIS AMENDMENT -- SHOULD
EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS ANYTHING BUT ANTI-GUN.

ACTION:  Please e-mail or call your congressman IMMEDIATELY.  Tell him or

her to support the pro-gun amendment to the Shays-Meehan Incumbent
Protection Bill.

You can call your Representative at 202-225-3121.  To identify your
Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the
Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the

GOA website.


----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Congressman,

An amendment to the Shays-Meehan Incumbent Protection Bill to protect the

right of Second Amendment groups to communicate effectively to the public

is being offered today.

I cannot count on the major media to inform me of what's going on
concerning my gun rights.  I must rely on GOA and other groups to inform
me
of pending legislation or congressional votes, no matter how close to an
election these issues arise.

In fact, the primary concern of the First Amendment is to protect exactly

the type of political communication Shays-Meehan is trying to destroy.

The Pickering amendment reaffirms that the Second Amendment is an
individual right, not one reserved to the National Guard.

I urge you to support the Pickering Gun Owners Protection amendment.

Sincerely,


****************************

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may

also be made at that location.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
[e-mail] is at your disposal. Please do not add that address

to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists
associated with issues other than gun rights.

END OF GOA ALERT


Copyright 2002, Utah Gun Owners Alliance, Inc. and Sarah Thompson
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091
801-566-1625
http://www.utgoa.org
[e-mail]

PLEASE SUPPORT UTAH GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE!  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
legislative session, we send 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
[e-mail] or use the form on our web site,
http://www.utgoa.org. For more information, see
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/UTGOA.

Utah Gun Owners Alliance is completely dependent on your generosity to
cover our operating costs.  Please consider joining us or sending a
donation.  Membership information is at:
http://www.utgoa.org/pages/join.html  Donations may be sent to: PO Box
1185, Sandy, UT 84091  Checks should be made payable to Utah Gun Owners
Alliance, Inc. or UTGOA.  Thank for your support!

UTGOA is written and distributed by, Utah Gun Owners Alliance, Inc.
www.utgoa.org, and Sarah Thompson, M.D.  All information contained in
these
alerts is the responsibility of the author, unless otherwise attributed.

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.utgoa.org/cgi-bin/alerts

Utah Gun Owners Alliance, Inc. is a Utah non-profit corporation.
________________________________________________________________
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: UPI Report Links Kmart Money Woes To Pro-Gun Boycott
Date: 14 Feb 2002 10:31:46 -0700

http://www.sierratimes.com/02/02/13/argw021302.htm

UPI Report Links Kmart Money Woes To Pro-Gun Boycott

Sierra Times/GunWeek.com

Gun Week.com : 02.13.02

United Press International (UPI) has not exactly been friendly to gun
rights over the years, but on the heels of Kmart's announced bankruptcy
filing in January, UPI carried a news item that seemed a bit surprising.
The UPI report suggested that a boycott of the department store chain by
"Pro-Second Amendment activists . . . because of the vocal anti-gun
activity of Kmart spokesman (sic) Rosie O'Donnell" had an impact on
Kmart's collapse.

UPI failed to also mention Kmart's equally foolish moves in pulling
handguns and ammunition off the shelves, which was also seen by
gunowners as a bigoted slap in the face toward firearm civil rights and
the hunting tradition. Gun Week heard from countless gunowners and
hunters who, in the wake of the announced firearms and ammo sales
policy changes, simply said they would shop elsewhere.

The bigger impact, of course, apparently was in reaction to O'Donnell's
appearance as a Kmart spokeswoman. After O'Donnell used her afternoon
television program to attack actor Tom Selleck for appearing in an
"I'm the NRA" advertisement, Kmart was flooded with angry calls and
mail, and gunowners mounted a boycott.

O'Donnell eventually parted ways with Kmart (or vice versa), with both
the ultra-liberal talk host and the store claiming it had nothing to do
with the boycott.

UPI noted: "Outraged firearms owners have been encouraging people to
shop at WalMart instead."

That may change, too, apparently because some WalMart stores are
also now pulling some guns and ammunition from their inventories.


In accordance with Title 17 Section 107 of the United States Code, all
material contained herein is distributed for educational purposes, and
for other fair use purposes including, but not limited to, criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and/or research.

-



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

From: Karl Pearson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Concealed_Carry] Recap: Legally armed citizen shot 8 times in
Date: 15 Feb 2002 19:19:31 -0700 (Mountain Standard Time)

FYI:


http://www.indystar.com/article.php?shot15.html

Authorities haven't reviewed shooting of citizen

Man who was attempting to help officers apprehend suspects in deputy's
slaying was mistakenly targeted.

By Vic Ryckaert
[e-mail]
February 15, 2002 When police shoot an innocent civilian, an outcry usually
follows. But Stephen Flynn was shot in the midst of a virtual war zone, an
injury eclipsed by the death of a Marion County sheriff's deputy slain
moments before by suspects toting assault rifles.

Four months after the Near- Northside incident, police have yet to review
and make public the evidence that suggests two officers mistakenly fired on
Flynn amid the chaos and confusion of Sept. 17. Two men died that night --
the 24-year-old deputy and a 20- year-old suspect. An officer, another
civilian and Flynn were wounded. Flynn was shot eight times in the legs and
hips and left partially blind by a round that hit near his right eye. All
that shooting usually requires extensive study by each agency's firearms
review board. A killing by police requires a grand jury review. So far, in
the case of Sheriff's Reserve Deputy Lawrence Conley and Indianapolis Police
Officer Brandon Mills, no such steps have been taken. In part, that's
because Police and Sheriff's department officials say there's no sign of
impropriety in the shootings. Flynn had been helping police on the night
Deputy Jason Baker was slain. Flynn gave several officers information about
where the suspects fled. But when two other officers came upon Flynn -- to
them an unidentified man carrying a gun -- they shot him. Marion County
Prosecutor Scott Newman has barred police from discussing the incident, but
he concedes that someone might have made a mistake that night. "I'm
extremely sympathetic to any citizen or police officer who is injured in
friendly fire," Newman said. "Things like that happen in the chaotic
atmosphere that's created when police are being fired upon by suspects with
assault rifles." Flynn, who carries two police bullets in his body and an
inch-long scar on his nose near his right eye, said, "I wasn't trying to be
a hero. That was the furthest thing from my mind." Flynn, 36, saw the
suspects flee after crashing their car behind his home. He told several
officers where the men ran and pointed to where the one carrying an AK-47
was hiding. Neither officer involved in the Flynn shooting was suspended or
placed on administrative leave after the incident. Sheriff's Col. Larry
Logsdon said he has no reason to believe his deputy fired the shots
unjustly. Indianapolis Police Department spokesman Lt. Paul Ciesielski said
the same goes for the officer involved. But Flynn believes there's no
question about who was wrong that night. The hospital security guard was
identified in early news stories as a bystander caught in the crossfire. But
even the Indianapolis Police Department recognized that's not the whole
story -- the department awarded Flynn a Certificate of Appreciation in
December. Flynn said he was following the orders of an Indianapolis police
officer who told him to crawl toward better cover. That officer, Frank
Wooten, was awarded a Purple Heart and Medal of Valor during a Dec. 11
ceremony. During that ceremony, Ciesielski told the audience that Wooten was
shot in the leg as he attempted to protect an "innocent civilian." The
shotgun pellet that hit Wooten has been described by some officials as
"friendly fire." Newman, the prosecutor, said it is not proper for police to
speak publicly about this high-profile case before trial. Michael Shannon,
accused of murdering Baker, could face the death penalty if convicted, and
Newman fears publicity would make it harder to select an impartial jury.
Allen Dumperth, the armed man whom Flynn saw jump the fence, was killed that
night by two members of the sheriff's SWAT team -- Deputies Charles Deblaso
and Larry Stipe. Flynn intends to sue the two departments. Marion County
Sheriff Jack Cottey refused to dispute Flynn's claims and said the courts
will have to sort out the facts. "I'm not going to try to second-guess Mr.
Flynn or second-guess the officers," Cottey said. "There were a lot of shots
being fired. Any evidence of what happened that night will be presented in
court." Elder Lionel T. Rush, pastor of Greater Harvest Institutional Church
of God in Christ, said the incident shows there was a breakdown in
communication between the officers on the scene. "I wish (Flynn) had stayed
with the police officers instead of being somewhere in no-man's land," Rush
said. "With that many officers approaching, I could see room for confusion,
but the onus is still on the officers to shoot (or) don't shoot." Rush, a
vocal police critic, said the departments need to provide better training on
the use of deadly force and ought to practice working together in the event
of this kind of crisis. They also need to take responsibility for the damage
and pain Flynn suffered, Rush said, and they need to compensate him "without
hesitation." "They have to say they made a mistake," Rush said. "If they
don't say they made a mistake, some of us won't be so generous with our
statements."

Call Vic Ryckaert at 1-317-635-7592.


-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Larry Elder
Date: 18 Feb 2002 18:17:11 -0700

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:53:58 -0500 TJC <[e-mail]> says:

Okay, everybody who's surprised about the way the media treated this,
raise your hand.

http://NewsAndOpinion.com/cols/elder1.asp
--

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Original Intent - The National Firearms Act
Date: 20 Feb 2002 19:30:36 -0700

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 11:37 PM

Here's an interesting write up of the basis of the federal claim to the
regulation of firearms. It never seemed right to me that they should be
able to write so many regulations when the Constitution says that the
federal government may not infringe the right to bear arms. This article
makes some very interesting claims.

Jed
[][][][][][][]

http://www.originalintent.org/chapter44.shtml

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: RLC News & Views - February 21, 2002
Date: 21 Feb 2002 14:11:22 -0700

Excerpted

Gun-Grabbers On the March Again

"Representatives of the self-evidently named National Campaign to Close
the Newspaper Gun Ad Loophole are scheduled to release a study this week
that purports to show that classified ads are "a potential source of guns
(including assault weapons) for terrorists, criminals, and the mentally
illÆ"

"The group says such sales permit gun purchasers to avoid mandated
background checks in the 16 states surveyed -- where more than 75 percent
of the surveyed newspapers allow guns to be sold through classified ads.
"Sales of guns through newspaper classifieds offer the anonymity and ability
to avoid law enforcement checks, which make them a potential source of guns
for terrorists,Æ John Johnson, executive director of the Iowans for the
Prevention of Gun Violence, said in a release."

- UPI's "Capital Comment" 2/20/02

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: WARNING:  Project Safe Neighborhoods comes to Utah
Date: 22 Feb 2002 14:30:36 -0700

This is from today's SLTrib.  West Valley City is getting Project Safe
Neighborhoods.  While it sounds nice at first glance, there are many
problems with this program including the federalization of local crime
issues.

Charles


http://www.sltrib.com/02222002/utah/713679.htm


Grant May Toughen Gun-Crime Penalties In West Valley City
Friday, February 22, 2002


BY IRENE HSIAO
SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE

    WANTED: A new West Valley City prosecutor who will collaborate with
the U.S. Attorney's Office in imposing stiffer sentences on criminals
illegally possessing guns or using them in violent crimes.
    The city received a three-year, $120,000 grant from the federal
government in January to hire a "street savvy" prosecutor who will
prosecute West Valley City cases in federal court, said John Huber, West
Valley City chief enforcement attorney.
    The "Project Safe Neighborhoods" initiative is part of a nationwide
effort to charge criminals with federal gun offenses. President Bush and
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft have declared the gun project second
in importance only to terrorism, said Paul Warner, the U.S. attorney for
Utah.
   "This is an anti-criminal program, not an anti-gun program," Warner
said. "This isn't against the Second Amendment or anything else."
    The West Valley City program will emphasize domestic violence and
drug abuse cases involving guns. About 40 percent of West Valley City
homicides are in the home, much higher than the national average of 11
percent.
    "We want to find those cases and pluck those people out of our
neighborhood," Huber said.
    West Valley City wants to prosecute the cases in federal court
because sentences there are generally tougher than in state court, he
said. That will help keep the criminals off the streets longer, Huber
added.
    "Project Safe Neighborhoods" is an expansion of a similar state
initiative called Project Criminal Use of Firearms by Felons, said
Warner. Project CUFF has filed charges in 389 federal cases statewide in
the past two years.
    The context of the crime will determine whether it can be brought to
federal court, Warner said.
    West Valley City is the only city in Utah that will have a special
prosecutor for such crimes.
________________________________________________________________
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: BAD substitute to HB 219
Date: 25 Feb 2002 10:43:47 -0700

Friends,

Scott Daniels
((home) 801-582-8080
(office) 801-583-0801
(fax) 801-583-0802
E-mail Address: [e-mail])

has offered a substitute bill to HB 219.  HB 219 is Rep. Philpot's bill
that would eliminate fees for CCW permits.  Rep. Daniels' substitute
would raise fees from $35 (plus $24 for fingerprints to the FBI) to $53
(plus the $24 for the FBI).  This is a 51% increase!!  It also increases
renewal and replacement fees by 1/3 from $10 to $15.  It then provides
for a waiver of fees for those who cannot afford to pay them.  The bill
requires the disclosure of all income, assets, etc, but provides no
qualifications other than completing the form.  My guess is he plans to
make the form so onerous and intrusive to fill out, that no one will fill
it out.  Any future attempts to reduce or eliminate the fees will be met
with him retorting, "Anyone who can't afford a permit can get one for
free now by filling out the waiver.  No one has (or Only x number have
and the average income among those was a million dollars a year) so
obviously there is no problem."

This is a typical liberal class-warfare type approach.  "From each
according to his ability..." for those who enjoy Marx.  It completely
misses the point of the bill which is "we should not charge for rights"
even IF someone can "afford to pay."

I suggest alerts to your respective groups about this clearly anti-gun
substitute to a very good, principled bill.

While I (and BCI--recall the testimony offered during the hearing on HB
219) believe that current fees DO keep some number of people from getting
a permit to CCW, that is NOT the point of HB 219.  Under the Utah
constitution, we enjoy an individual right to BOTH OWN AND CARRY (eg
"keep and bear") weapons for self defense.  We should not charge to
exercise a right.

And even if CCW is not a right, there is no reason why those CCW holders
who can pay, should subsidize those who cannot.  Welfare should be
explicitly labeled and tracked as such so we can keep track of how much
of it there is.

On the plus side, the existance of such a substitute may help HB 219 move
up the calander for a vote at a quicker pace than otherwise.  And we've
got to give the anti's credit for knowing and using the process.  They've
been completely shut down in committee hearings the last few years.  So
now they're trying to use our good bills to advance their statist agenda.
 Not only do they avoid a committee hearing, they also stand some chance
of derailing our good bills.

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: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Feb 2002 14:24:11 -0700 (MST)

Below I've excerpted from an article that appeared in the Washington Times
on the 21st. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan hopes you won't read it and
it's also one the establishment media won't likely be letting you know
about.

"Assault rifles for Annan guards investigated" by The Washington Times,
2/21/02

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020221-14729320.htm

The article can be viewed for the next six days free.  It will be available
afterwards for $1.95 from the Times' archives.

--
Karl L. Pearson
Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
Senior Consulting Database Analyst
[e-mail]
 My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
 http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml



Assault rifles for Annan guards investigated
By Stewart Stogel
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

     NEW YORK -- The U.S. government is investigating whether the United
Nations illegally imported and issued paramilitary assault rifles to
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's security detail.

     Sources in the U.N. Security and Safety Service say that the members of
Mr. Annan's personal protective detail have been using the German-made MP5
submachine guns since 1998, despite an apparent failure to obtain U.S.
clearance for their use.
     U.N. officials say that the use of the highly restricted firearm has
been cleared with U.S. authorities.
     But Mike Campbell, a spokesman for the Treasury Department's Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, confirmed in an interview that an inquiry
into the U.N. personnel's use of the weapon was initiated two weeks ago.
     The dispute is made even more sensitive by the fact that Mr. Annan
himself led a U.N. effort last summer to stem the production and sale of
small arms around the world, an effort that drew criticism from U.S.
gun-ownership groups and from the Bush administration.
     "There is no single tool of conflict so widespread, so easily available
and so difficult to restrict as small arms," Mr. Annan told a special
meeting of the Security Council in July.
     The MP5, described by its German manufacturer Heckler and Koch GmbH as
a "paramilitary assault rifle" commonly used by police SWAT squads, is just
one of several varieties of assault weapons currently in the possession of
the United Nations, said one U.N. official who spoke on the condition of
anonymity.
     America's use of the MP5 is normally limited to law-enforcement
organizations, Mr. Campbell said. Importation of the submachine gun is
tightly controlled, he said.
     The United States does not consider the U.N. security service a
law-enforcement organization and thus deems it ineligible to possess weapons
such as the MP5, according to a State Department official.
     "If the United Nations had applied for permission to obtain these guns,
most likely it would have been rejected" again, said the official, who
requested anonymity.
     The State Department official said the United Nations first approached
the U.S. government for permission to purchase the MP5 in early 1998 and was
refused. Just how Mr. Annan's security detail obtained the weapons is the
focus of the U.S. government probe.
     Michael McCann, who has directed U.N. security operations since 1994,
refused to comment on the issue, but U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard denied any
wrongdoing.
     Mr. Eckhard said he had checked with the security service and was told
that all the necessary licenses for the weapons carried by U.N. personnel
had been obtained.
     "I flatly reject the notion any laws have been broken," he said.
     An American citizen and a veteran of the New York Police Department,
Mr. McCann has been a frequent target of criticism by both U.N. diplomats
and staff over security at the New York site.

< start deletion >


-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Never disarm!
Date: 26 Feb 2002 11:14:57 -0700

Warlord's men commit rape in revenge against Taliban
----------
Boston Globe
   The ouster of the Taliban by the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance
   did not stop the use of rape as a way to demoralize and dominate.
   Pashtun families make easy targets because they were disarmed
   when Dostum's troops, assisted by US special forces, drove out
   the Taliban. (02/24/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/863655264.html

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: HB 82 -- CCW storage bill to be heard in the morning
Date: 26 Feb 2002 16:14:48 -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_58c6.16ff.2004
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

HB 82,  Storage of Concealed Firearms on Facilities with Secure Areas --
Swallow, J. will be heard in the house standing Judiciary Committee, in
room 405 starting at 7:00 am.  This bill is first on the agenda.  The
bill is simple and straightforward.  It clarifies existing law and
specifically requires that IF a courtroom or courthouse establishes a
"secure area" then it MUST provide free, on premise storage for those
legally carrying a concealed weapon may safely store their weapons prior
to entering the secure area.

The bill is not perfect, in that it does not apply to legally carried
weapons carried without a permit--open carry, or pocket knife or other
items that a court may not allow into a secure area--especially now that
EVERYTHING is a weapon for pursposes of airplanes--but for which a person
does not need a permit.  We hope we can ammend that, but even if we
can't, I believe the bill moves us in the right direction as many courts
throughout the State have secure areas but do not provide storage.

Please contact committee members today at the legislature: 538-1029 or
tonight at home. I would suggest focusing on those who are at least
nominally pro-gun.  Ask members to ATTEND the hearing AND to support this
bill while opposing all anti-gun amendments, substitutions, or procuderal
tactics that might be used to derail the bill.

If at all possible, please attend the hearing tomorrow morning.  With the
time and schedule, most of us should be able to attend and still get to
work at least close to on time.  Public Parking is on street or in the
northwest parking lot.  For those using I 15, I find 600 North to be a
nicer route than 600 So.

Charles


Committee members:

Rep. Glenn L. Way, Chair         801-798-2295

Rep. James A. Ferrin, Vice Chair   (home) 801-224-6823 (office)
801-224-9867
Rep. Patrice M. Arent
Rep. Chad E. Bennion   (home) 801-281-1607  (office) 801-468-2876 (fax)
801-288-2144
Rep. Ron Bigelow  801-968-4188
Rep. Katherine M. Bryson  801-226-2061
Rep. Greg J. Curtis  (home) 801-943-3091 (office) 801-942-7464
Rep. Scott Daniels
Rep. Ben C. Ferry   (home & office) 435-744-2997 (fax) 435-744-2999
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson
Rep. Eric Hutchings
Rep. Mike Thompson  (home) 801-226-5032 (office) 801-223-9044
Rep. A. Lamont Tyler Committee
----__JNP_000_58c6.16ff.2004
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 http-equiv=3Dcontent-type content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Dus-ascii>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=3D0 leftMargin=3D3 topMargin=3D0 rightMargin=3D3>
<DIV>HB 82,  Storage of Concealed Firearms on Facilities with Secure =
Areas=20
-- Swallow, J. will be heard in the house standing Judiciary Committee, in =
room=20
405 starting at 7:00 am.  This bill is first on the agenda.  The =
bill=20
is simple and straightforward.  It clarifies existing law and =
specifically=20
requires that IF a courtroom or courthouse establishes a "secure area" then=
 it=20
MUST provide free, on premise storage for those legally carrying a =
concealed=20
weapon may safely store their weapons prior to entering the secure area.</=
DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The bill is not perfect, in that it does not apply to legally carried=
=20
weapons carried without a permit--open carry, or pocket knife or other =
items=20
that a court may not allow into a secure area--especially now that =
EVERYTHING is=20
a weapon for pursposes of airplanes--but for which a person does not need a=
=20
permit.  We hope we can ammend that, but even if we can't, I believe =
the=20
bill moves us in the right direction as many courts throughout the State =
have=20
secure areas but do not provide storage.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Please contact committee members today at the legislature: 538-1029 or=
=20
tonight at home. I would suggest focusing on those who are at least =
nominally=20
pro-gun.  Ask members to ATTEND the hearing AND to support this bill =
while=20
opposing all anti-gun amendments, substitutions, or procuderal tactics=
 that=20
might be used to derail the bill.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If at all possible, please attend the hearing tomorrow morning.  =
With=20
the time and schedule, most of us should be able to attend and still get to=
 work=20
at least close to on time.  Public Parking is on street or in the =
northwest=20
parking lot.  For those using I 15, I find 600 North to be a nicer =
route=20
than 600 So.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Charles</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Committee members:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><!--StartFragment -->Rep. Glenn L. Way,=20
Chair        <!--StartFragment --> =
<FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">801-798-2295</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rep. James A. Ferrin, Vice Chair  <!--StartFragment --> <=
FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(home) 801-224-6823 (office) 801-224-=
9867=20
</FONT></DIV>
<P></P>
<DIV>Rep. Patrice M. Arent</DIV>
<P>Rep. Chad E. Bennion  <!--StartFragment --> <FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(home) 801-281-1607  (office)=20
801-468-2876 (fax) 801-288-2144</P></FONT>
<P>Rep. Ron Bigelow <!--StartFragment --> <FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">801-968-4188</P></FONT>
<P>Rep. Katherine M. Bryson <!--StartFragment --> <FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">801-226-2061</P></FONT>
<P>Rep. Greg J. Curtis <!--StartFragment --> <FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(home) 801-943-3091 (office)=20
801-942-7464</P></FONT>
<P>Rep. Scott Daniels</P>
<P>Rep. Ben C. Ferry  <!--StartFragment --> <FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(home & office) 435-744-2997 (fax=
)=20
435-744-2999</P></FONT>
<P>Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson</P>
<P>Rep. Eric Hutchings</P>
<P>Rep. Mike Thompson <!--StartFragment --> <FONT=20
face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(home) 801-226-5032 (office) 801-223-=
9044=20
</P></FONT>
<P>Rep. A. Lamont Tyler Committee</P></BODY></HTML>

----__JNP_000_58c6.16ff.2004--

________________________________________________________________
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: update on HB 82   Storage of Concealed Firearms on Facilities with Secure Areas (Swallow, J.)
Date: 27 Feb 2002 16:04:40 -0700

HB 82   Storage of Concealed Firearms on Facilities with Secure Areas
(Swallow, J.)  was heard in the house Judiciary committee this morning.
While turnout from the pro-gun side was sparse, thanks to those who did
turn out.  Thanks also to any and all who made phone calls or otherwise
contacted the committee members ahead of time.

HB 82 was passed out of committee with a favorable recommendation after
it was substituted by the sponsor.  Under the substitute bill, the bill
only affects courts that have secure areas.  Airports and Olympic venues
were excluded.

We had hoped for a minor amendment so that the bill would apply to all
items prohibited inside the secure area (pocketknives, guns, kniting
needles, mace, etc) rather than just concealed firearms carried under a
state issued CCW permit.  However, fiscal concerns in committee prevented
that amendment from being offered.  We hope to see a limited amendment
offered on the floor to have the bill cover all "legally carried weapons"
while still omitting other items.  The hope is to make the requirement to
store items as broad as possible while not increasing the current fiscal
note.

Only two Reps voted against the bill in committee, Daniels and Arent.
However, several were not present.

Please contact your own rep, house leadership, and the house rules
committee and ask them to give this bill their full support.

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: FW: Dell Computers becomes anti-gun.
Date: 27 Feb 2002 16:51:40 -0700

I've made no attempts to verify the following, but assuming it is
accurate, it looks like Dell computers are not a good place for gun
owners to spend money.

--------- Forwarded message ----------
Not to be confused with Superdell and Totally Awesome.

----------
>
> Subject: To all of my friends
>
> I am writing this because I feel every Firearms owner should know this
> story.
>
> I placed an order for a Dell notebook computer on February 13 on line
> with Dell. I was given a tentative delivery date of February 21st. I
was
> watching the order through the Dell on line tracking system; I also
> opted for the automatic email notification of when the machine was to
be
> shipped.
>
> Well the 21st came and went, I am a Pistolsmith I know things
> can happen. I made a phone call on the 25th, did a voice mail message
> for my salesman to get back to me and I was looking for the delivery
> date.
>
> The 25th came and went with no callback. On the 26th I placed
> another call this time to cancel the order. After a few hours I got a
> call back, with this amazing reason for the delay. It seems someone in
> Dell had already canceled my order, when I asked why I was told Dell
was
> afraid I was going to use the machine for illegal purposes.
>
> When I askedwhy someone would think that I was told
> it was because of the name of my business "Weigand Combat Handguns
Inc.".
> Because I am involved in firearms I might be doing something illegal.
Now
> keep in mind I was never called or informed of this decision the order
was
> just canceled.
>
> Many of you know me personally and know I run my business about as
> squeaky clean as possible. In addition being the President of the
> American Pistolsmiths Guild I am under additional scrutiny as to how I
> run my business, if I am not clean how can I be the President of an
> organization that promotes just that! I was informed by a Dell
> supervisor not long after all of this the reason I was refused was
> because of their post September 11th policy of screening buyers.
>
> I would like to respectfully ask the firearms community to do the
> following. If you intended to buy a Dell and because of this letter you
> do not, email Dell and let them know why. Feel free to distribute this
> account to all you know in the Firearms community, I think they need to
> know.
>
> I for one am sick and tired of people assuming just because we are
> involved with firearms that we are doing something illegal. I also do
> not believe Dell deserves our business if this is how they intend to
> treat us.
>
> God Bless
> Jack Weigand
> President
> American Pistolsmiths Guild Inc.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
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: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Dell Update (fwd)
Date: 28 Feb 2002 01:58:42 -0500



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Bill Vance <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wed Feb 27, 2002  10:31:31  US/Eastern
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Dell Update (fwd)
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
>
> -------------------- begin forwarded message from Neal
> Atkins --------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:43:46 -0600
> From: Neal Atkins <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Dell Update
>
> Update 2/27/02
>
> After fielding hundreds of emails and dozens of phone calls today my
> heart felt thanks to all who responded.
>
> I was contacted by a Dell representative this morning a Mr. John Hood.
> John made the following remarks.  He extended Dells sincerest apologies
> for
> the incident.
>
> He said Dell would review and possibly change the screening policies to
> prevent this from happening again.
>
> Dell offered to ship the machine I ordered to me at no charge, I
> respectfully
> declined the offer.
>
> John told me he would have a statement sent to me sometime Thursday
> morning
> the 28th stating Dells position on this issue for me to post here for
> all to
> see.
>
> I will post the statement as soon as I receive it.
>
>
> I thank the Firearms community as a family for being so willing to come
> to my aid.
>
>
> God Bless
> Jack Weigand
> President
> Weigand Combat Handguns Inc.
>
> http://www.jackweigand.com
>
> -------------------- end forwarded message from Neal
> Atkins --------------------
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> RKBA!      *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
> 4-19!
> ----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------
> An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath
> no
> weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
> hand = Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and
> buy a
> on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus
> Christ
> ----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------
>
>      Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -
>
>


-