ftp.xmission.com

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

/ ftp.xmission.com / 2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar / ftp.xmission.com / pub / lists / utah-firearms / archive / utah-firearms.200204 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2002-04-28 | 51.9 KB

From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: NRA-ILA Fax Alert Vol. 9, No. 13 3/29/02 Date: 01 Apr 2002 08:57:30 -0700 NRA FILES SUIT AGAINST SHAM CAMPAIGN FINANCE "REFORM" Hours after campaign finance "reform" - officially known as the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" (BCRA) - was signed into law on Wednesday, NRA made good on its promise to launch a legal challenge to this attack on the First Amendment. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker issued a joint statement announcing the filing of the NRA suit, stating, "When the federal courthouse opened for business today, NRA was there - we have filed suit to invalidate this unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment rights of the NRA and our four million members nationwide." The statement went on to say, "We are proud to be the first plaintiff to formally ask the federal court to invalidate these new limits on the political speech of ordinary citizens because we believe that this law cannot be allowed to stand - not even for a moment. Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) said on the floor of the United States Senate during the campaign finance debate that it was his intention to silence the NRA. As a direct and intentional target of this law, NRA has no choice but to protect our right to be heard." "Through this law," the statement continued, "Congress has essentially granted speech licenses to giant corporate conglomerates such as Viacom, Disney Corporation and General Electric Company by allowing those corporations unlimited rights to spend money talking about issues and candidates, while silencing the voices of ordinary citizens and citizens groups such as NRA. Why should corporations such as these media conglomerates, all of which own multiple non-news business enterprises and spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress - why should those corporations be allowed to spend whatever they wish, whenever they wish, saying whatever they wish regarding any issue or candidate - when a non-profit citizens organizations such as ours is prohibited from even responding via the broadcast media?" For a complete copy of Wednesday`s joint statement from LaPierre and Baker, those on the Internet can go to http://www.NRAILA.org/. Also of interest is one of the attorneys who has been selected to defend this legislative attack on the First Amendment. Former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman will be an integral part of the legal team chosen by Congressional proponents of the BCRA to defend the new law. Waxman, you will recall, was the Solicitor General under Bill Clinton who wrote the now infamous letter that confirmed the Clinton-Gore Administration`s belief that law-abiding citizens have "no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun." Perhaps his argument will now be that law- abiding citizens and the organizations that represent them have no personal constitutional right, under the First Amendment, to exercise political free speech! The overturn of campaign finance "reform" provisions that restrict our rights will continue to remain a top priority for NRA, and we will report further developments on this front. <snip> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: ACLU college chapter being formed at USU. Pro-RKBAers may want to check it out. :) Date: 08 Apr 2002 14:46:03 -0600 The following article from the current on campus paper of USU indicates that an ACLU chapter is being formed there to safeguard our essential liberties and inviting interested persons to atttend a meeting. If there are any pro-RKBA folks in those northern parts whose schedules will allow it, it might be interesting to attend and see if the individual, college chapter can count to 10 without skipping 2. Certainly the RKBA is an essential liberty that is subject to being infringed if not carefully guarded. Charles <http://utahstatesman.com/news/230672.html> The Statesman - Opinion Issue: 04/08/02 LETTER: ACLU guards civil liberties Dear Editor, In order to safeguard civil liberties, a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has been established at Utah State University. At this critical time it is imperative that people understand their rights and the current efforts by our government to assuage these rights. It is in the interest of everyone for the citizenry to become informed about the anti-constitutional action of the current Congress and president. Also it is important to become involved in keeping these rights that are so essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If your rights are important to you and you wish to know more about the ACLU and what it stands for, visit www.aclu.org and/or come to the first meeting of the USU chapter. We will be meeting Thursday on the third floor of the Taggart Student Center at the tables across from the Multicultural Student Center. Also stop by our booth at Pride! Day. Eagan Kemp USU chapter of the ACLU ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Hardy and Tobias independantly quoted in SLTrib Date: 10 Apr 2002 11:48:02 -0600 I know many here regularly read the local papers and don't care to have too much posted from them. However, in this case, it seems worthwhile. And I'll give Dan Harrie credit for writing what looks like a well balanced piece with solid quotes from three pro-gun people, including yours truly and Janalee Tobias. As for the case itself, I am concerned about the outcome. A decision expanding the legislature's power to define the "use" of guns at the expense of the guaranteed right to "keep and bear" arms would not be good for us at all. However, a good decision would go a long way towards eliminating a lot of unconstitutional anti-gun laws on the books. Even if the courts rule against him, it would sure be nice if they limited their ruling to those currently on parole. Charles http://www.sltrib.com/04102002/utah/727084.htm Felon Argues For Gun Rights Wednesday, April 10, 2002 BY DAN HARRIE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Convicted felon Wade L. Willis is waging a legal battle for gun rights that makes even the most strident Second Amendment activist flinch. In a case pending before the Utah Court of Appeals, Willis says the law prohibiting felons from possessing guns violates the Utah Constitution's sweeping guarantee of self-defense rights. Much broader than the U.S. Constitution, the state version specifically recognizes an "individual right" to keep and bear arms. While the Utah Constitution acknowledges the Legislature's authority to regulate firearms, Willis argues that that legislative power is limited to "the lawful use of arms," and does not extend to mere possession. "Willis asserts that the plain language of . . . the Utah Constitution prevents the Legislature from limiting or restricting an individual's right to possess and keep firearms," says the brief written by defense attorney Margaret Lindsay. Because Willis was not convicted or charged with any offense involving discharge, brandishment or any other use of a gun, his conviction -- for escaping police custody and for possessing a gun when he was a restricted person -- and the state law should be thrown out, Lindsay says. State attorneys disagree, arguing Willis' interpretation of the Constitution defies logic. "The narrow interpretation urged by defendant should be rejected because it would yield absurd and contradictory results -- results that could not have been intended by Utah lawmakers," wrote Brett DelPorto, assistant attorney general. "Under defendant's view, criminal background checks required for the purchase of a gun would be useless against the felon who represents that he wishes to merely 'possess' a weapon, but not 'use' it," said DelPorto. "Metal detectors at courthouses, government offices and airports would be pointless if citizens have the unencumbered right to 'possess' firearms. Perhaps even prison inmates could claim a right to possess guns. In short, a would-be gunman could not be legally penalized or even confronted until he actually began to 'use' the gun, by which point the damage would be done." Jared Eldridge, a public defender who helped develop Willis' argument, agrees society would be ill served by overturning the ban on felons' possession of guns. But he added that the law is the law, flaws and all. "I don't advocate that convicted felons should be able to possess firearms," Eldridge said. "I don't advocate that, but the plain language of what the Legislature adopted [in a 1984 constitutional amendment] seems to provide their protection." Gun-rights lobbyists who have fought for relaxed concealed-weapons and other pro-firearms laws in recent years are cautious about jumping to Willis' defense. "You are going to have a hard time finding anyone who believes felons, particularly violent felons, should be packing guns around," said Charles Hardy, policy director for Gun Owners of Utah. But he said he does oppose lifelong gun-rights bans for nonviolent felons. "As a matter of principle and policy and logic, it simply doesn't make sense to deny people their right to keep and bear arms if they're not convicted of anything involving violence." Willis, a 22-year-old Utah County resident, seems to fit that description. A search of court records and interviews with attorneys indicate his only felony convictions were for escaping police custody and gun possession. He had a history of nonviolent misdemeanor convictions and charges, including shoplifting and, when he was a minor, illegal possession of alcohol and drugs. "To suggest a druggie and a thief ought to have guns is not a popular position," said Hardy. "But once his parole is ended, if he can't be trusted with a gun, he probably shouldn't be trusted with a lot of other rights. . . . Gun rights are not different from freedom of religion or freedom of the press." Janalee Tobias, founder of Women Against Gun Control, agreed there should be some connection between crime and punishment. "If you're a convicted felon for writing bad checks, take your pens away, but don't take away your guns," said Tobias. "It really depends on whether he's a violent offender." Utah Shooting Sports Council Executive Director Elwood Powell usually believes there is little room for restricting gun rights. "That's one of our God-given rights and that's to defend ourselves," said Powell. But he adds that felony convictions are one big exception. "Anybody that's committed a felony ought not to be walking the streets with a firearm. He's already thumbed his nose at the ordinary rules that decent people live by." The Court of Appeals has given Willis until May 3 to file a second brief in the case before it decides whether to hear oral arguments. In a ruling two years ago, the court upheld the statute prohibiting gun possession or use by a convicted felon. But that case was somewhat different in that it involved a defendant who was involved in a "shoot-out," not mere possession. ________________________________________________________________ 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 <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: OHIO COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT TO CONCEALED CARRY Date: 11 Apr 2002 10:32:24 -0600 Cato Daily Dispatch April 11, 2002 http://www.cato.org/ http://www.cato.org/dispatch/04-11-02d.html <snip> OHIO COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT TO CONCEALED CARRY A state appeals court yesterday declared Ohio's decades-old ban on carrying concealed weapons unconstitutional because it violates the right to self-defense, according to Fox News. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49994,00.html ) The framers of the Ohio constitution "put the citizens' rights up front," said Mark Painter, presiding judge of the 1st Ohio District Court of Appeals. "We believe they meant what they said." Ohio's attorney general asked the state Supreme Court for an immediate delay of the ruling to hear an appeal, said spokesman Joe Case. Lawyers for Cincinnati, Hamilton County, and the state had argued that government has the right to regulate the manner in which weapons are carried. In "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," ( http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html ) an analysis of a 1987 Florida law that allowed citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, Jeffrey R. Snyder found that there was a decrease in violent crime, not the increase many people had predicted. The Cato Institute hosted a book forum featuring legal scholar John R. Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime. His updated book presents the most comprehensive analysis ever done on crime statistics and the right-to-carry laws. Video of the forum is available on the Cato Web site. ( http://www.cato.org/events/000616bf.html ) Jerry Brito, editor, jbrito@cato.org - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: MMM - The Time Out Chair Date: 12 Apr 2002 08:34:40 -0600 A moment for the idiots: ----- http://www.millionmommarch.org/features/timeout/index.asp The Time Out Chair features people, organizations and corporations who put sensible gun practices on the back burner in favor of the out of touch gun lobby. Mom's know who's been bad and who's been good and we want to make sure that everyone knows who is in the time out chair and why they deserve it. Time Out Chair 1. John Lott 2. Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) 3. John Ashcroft 4. Eddie Eagle Program 5. Lowe's Hardware 6. Michigan Governor John Engler 1. Pro-gun "scholar" John Lott gets a seat in the Time Out Chair for using the September 11 terrorist attacks to call for more guns on airplanes. Lott, who authored the widely-discredited book "More Guns, Less Crime," suggested in a September 28 column in the Wall Street Journal that, not only should pilots be armed but that passengers should also be allowed to carry guns on planes. He then exploits a national tragedy even further by saying our nation would be safer if more people carried hidden handguns everywhere, not just on planes. Lott fails to recognize a simple fact: more guns equal more violence. America is safer when steps are taken to prevent terrorists from getting weapons in the first place, not when citizens are engaged in gunfights on airplanes or on our streets.... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: FW: Don't Flinch at Felons With Firearms Date: 15 Apr 2002 10:11:14 -0600 My latest column http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Eldred/eldred2.html Includes a link to P:SS NEVER AGAIN UNARMED.... LET FREEDOM FIGHT! --- > PROJECT: SAFE SKIES MAILING LIST > PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org > List Moderator: hunter@mva.net > TO UN/SUBSCRIBE: send blank email with command as subject - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: FW: Gun Hysteria Slides Into Lunacy Date: 15 Apr 2002 13:24:17 -0600 Just how far things can go. --------- Forwarded message ---------- ********************************* Hostile Learning Environment by Stephen F. Hayes Washington Times, 4/12/02 For 15 years, Patrick Washburn has displayed a Reconstruction-era rifle on the wall of his office at Ohio University (OU). The firearm, a family heirloom passed down from his great-grandfather, seemed to be an appropriate antique for Mr. Washburn to hang there: Mr. Washburn is a journalism professor specializing in the history of wartime press. But now, he's the one doing battle with Ohio University administrators. Although Mr. Washburn is one of the nation's foremost media historians and is the incoming president of the American Journalism Historians Association, campus bureaucrats apparently feared he might dust off the relic and shoot up the campus. So on Jan. 25, they dispatched campus police to Mr. Washburn's office and ordered him to remove the 1878 Springfield rifle. Mr. Washburn was stunned by what he rather diplomatically calls their "ridiculous" demand. But facing threats of disciplinary action, he took the rifle home at the end of the day. (The police officer also asked Mr. Washburn to remove a spear he had received as a gift from a former student.) In a letter the next day, Mr. Washburn protested that the gun A) is inoperable, B) has been touched only once - when he changed offices - since he mounted it, and C) likely hasn't been fired for more than 100 years. But OU officials wouldn't budge. They told Mr. Washburn they had received several complaints from members of the OU community who felt "threatened" by the antique. Removing it, they reasoned, was the only way to end "all the distress it is causing." When Mr. Washburn asked what rule he had violated, school officials pointed to the school's "Workplace Violence Policy," which, they claim, had been implemented some 18 months earlier. The policy focuses on "threats, violent behavior, or acts of intimidation." But it also clearly forbids "carrying or displaying weapons of any kind, including but not limited to firearms, martial arts devices, bows and arrows or other archery types of devices, sling shots, blow darts, blackjacks, stun guns, lasers or other kinds of submission devices." Mr. Washburn says this incident was the first he had ever heard of these rules, a contention supported by several of his colleagues, and confirmed by the school in a letter from the OU legal affairs director, John Burns. "As to the Workplace Violence Policy, you are certainly probably correct that you or others have not heard of it before this matter arose." But ignorance of the policy is no excuse, Mr. Burns argued. And although it has hung for 15 years without any objections, that "does not 'grandfather' a permission for you to have a gun in you[r] office, decoration or not; and there is no provision for an exception for you in the policy." Fortunately, Mr. Washburn is a tenured professor who can afford to fight back. He also has a sense of humor. "The purpose of this note is to formally request that the cannons that are fired when Ohio University scores at football games not only never be fired again as long as the present Workplace Violence Policy is in effect, but that they be removed from campus," he wrote in a note to Mr. Burns and OU President Robert Glidden. "I go to the games, and I feel threatened by them." If Mr. Washburn has a sense of humor, administrators at Ohio University apparently do not. Gary North, vice president of administration, fired back at Mr. Washburn, first belittling his "illogical" complaint about the "noisemaker" - actually, a functioning replica of an 1841 Howitzer cannon - and then dismissing it. And while Mr. North concedes that the policy "clearly needs revision for greater clarity," that is a curious admission considering what the school did next. Ohio University filed a formal "Unacceptable Behavioral Incident Report Form" against its own professor. While that will allow them to revisit their prohibition on antique guns, they will also investigate the "underlying behavioral issues" of Mr. Washburn. The last point is particularly amusing because, as Mr. Washburn points out, in displaying his gun he "didn't behave in any fashion." The gun just sat there. The subsequent investigation of Mr. Washburn's behavior becomes a bit less humorous, though, if the administrators are referring to Mr. Washburn's protest. Either way, they've threatened to make the report a part of his permanent record. The school has told Mr. Washburn that he will know by April 15 whether he is allowed to put the rifle (and spear) back on his wall. If they say no, of course, Ohio University will not only invite further ridicule for this silly policy; the school risks becoming the go-to example of the law of unintended consequences. The theater department will have to gut the performance of "Goodnight Desdemona," scheduled for later this spring, because of the play's elaborate fight scenes. Physical education classes will put down their bows and arrows, putting an end to archery lessons. The school's library will be required to take down its display of Indo-Asian spears and weapons. Even the chemistry department, with all the talk these days about chemical weapons, will have to work only with harmless chemicals. And then there's that cannon. [Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at the Weekly Standard.] # # # Note: According to my "google" search, you can contact Ohio University President Robert Glidden at: president@www.ohiou.edu ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Gun debate on campus Date: 15 Apr 2002 15:35:30 -0600 It would probably be nice to have as many solidly pro-gun supporters in the audience for this debate as possible. Charles ----- Forwarded Message ----- campus > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Group Gun Rights Advocates > To: Students; All Faculty; All Staff > Sent: 4/11/2002 1:40 PM > Subject: Professor Flynn and Mark Shurtleff to debate guns on campus > > Please plan to attend the debate between Professor John Flynn and Utah > Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. > > Professor Erik Luna will be moderating the debate. > > They will be debating (1) the legal question of the University's > authority to ban guns on campus even when carried by concealed carry > permit holders with permits issued by the state and (2) and the policy > question of whether guns belong on campus at all. > > Wednesday, April 17th > Noon > Moot Court Room > > Hope to see you there. Please forward to anyone who might be interested > in attending. > ________________________________________________________________ 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: "Larry" <larsenl@infowest.com> Subject: recognize other states CCW permits, not Date: 15 Apr 2002 17:26:22 -0600 Can anyone help out on this, http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/recip.htm Utah does not recognize other states CCW permit, how come? Larry - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. <chad@pengar.com> Subject: Re: [mormon-libertarian] 2d amendment Date: 16 Apr 2002 05:31:19 -0400 On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 10:47 , Scott Bergeson wrote: > Reply to Le. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [mormon-libertarian] 2d amendment > Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:26:25 -0700 (PDT) > From: Le Sellers <lesellers@rocketmail.com> > To: mormon-Libertarian@yahoogroups.com > > I'm not a 2d amendment expert (I can usually hold > > my own in ordinary circumstances, but it's not > my forte). But I am in a discussion regarding > the libertarian position of owning and bearing > arms and would like a few pointers if any can > supply them. > > One of the pariticapants poses the hypothetical > extreme position, that a person, transporting > handgrenades cannot be taken into custody unless > or until he acutally uses one againt the > policeman who stops him for a traffic infraction. > (Going to the issue of traffic laws here won't > advance the discussion.) Why does the policeman want to take the guy into custody? Has he done anything wrong? How does the cop know he has the hand grenades? Did the policeman illegally search the guys car? Another, less helpful argument, is that hand grenades are NOT protected by the 2A, not being arms. Grenades are ordnance, not arms. I don't like that argument though. Some people do make the distinction. Things like Atomic Bombs and stuff are also ordnance and not arms in case someone makes that dumb argument. best Chad > > Any help out there? > > Lehi > ==== > Please sign the proclamation at > www.sepschool.org/proclamation. > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Re: Gun debate on campus Date: 16 Apr 2002 11:07:15 -0600 For those interested in the Debate regarding guns on campus between Prof. Flynn and Utah AG Shurtleff, here is some more info on the location and time. Time: Noon Place: Moot Court Room Which is on the north side of the foyer in the Law School Building 300 South University Street (about 1340 East) Please attend if possible and feel free to pass this info along to others who might be interested. 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 <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Re: recognize other states CCW permits, not Date: 16 Apr 2002 10:56:58 -0600 On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:26:22 -0600 "Larry" <larsenl@infowest.com> writes: > Can anyone help out on this, > http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/recip.htm > > Utah does not recognize other states CCW permit, how come? > > Larry Larry, Maybe I can be of some help. Utah DOES recognize CCW permits from other States--all of them, in fact. Utah also recognizes permits issued by any city or county in the U.S. It recognizes these permits on exactly the same basis as a Utah State issued CCW permit, BUT with one restriction. Utah only recognizes these out-of-State permits for 60 consequtive days. If a person physically remains in the State of Utah for more than 60 days, their out of State CCW permit is no longer valid. Any time they leave the State (and no minimum time frame is given in statute for how long they need to remain outside the State) the 60 day counter resets. As a practical matter, unless a person is under 24/7 surveillance, the only way this restriction could be enforced would be self-incrimination or testimony from someone (or enough various persons) to establish that s/he had not left the State, even momentarily, in the last 60 days. After all, Utah does not issue visas at the border and so has no way, generally, to determine how long it has been since someone crossed the State line into Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, etc. However, in the strictest legal sense, the limitation does prevent a full and complete reciprocity agreement with other States. You can thank the NRA and USDIN (Utah Self Defense Instructors Network -- a group of some of the CCW instructors) for the 60 day limitation. Last year a bill was introduced that would have changed Utah law such that Utah would recognize any CCW permit from any jurisdiciton in the nation. Previously, Utah had only recognized permits issued by other *STATES* and only if we had a formal reciprocity agreement with them. In several States, it is the county or city or chief of police who actually issues CCW permits rather than some State agency. Under our old law, we could not recognize those permits. Thus, a permit from California, which is much more difficult to obtain than a Utah permit could not even be considered for reciprocity because in California, it is the local police chief or sherrif who issues permits. Also, we found that our Department of Public Safety, which is charged with issuing permits and establishing reciprocity agreements was really not working very hard at getting those reciprocity agreements. UTGOA was spearheading the bill to simply recognize ALL valid permits knowing that many States would automatically recognize Utah's permits if we recognized theirs. Also the principle of the matter was correct. GOUtah supported those efforts. And the bill was advancing nicely. However, at the 11th hour, the NRA's paid lobbyist, Brian Judy, arrived in town and along with the head of USDIN, Clark Aposhian, cut a deal with several legislators to amend the bill by adding the 60 day limit. Other pro-gun organizations were not informed of the meeting or the plan and, in fact, the head of UTGOA, Sarah Thompson, and her husband have claimed, with a fair bit of credibility, IMO, that they and others were deliberately shut out of the meeting where the compromise was made. NRA and USDIN claim that was not the case. Regardless, UTGOA and GOUtah were opposed to the limit and predicted that it may cause certain States to stop recognizing our permits. NRA and USDIN said we were being paranoid and claimed the limit was the only way to pass the bill. UTGOA and GOUtah believe the bill would have passed without the amendment, but the damage was done, and the amendment was added and the bill, as amended, passed. I've not checked, but it is possible that one or two States in the east or midwest are now willing to recognize Utah's permits based on Utah's limited acceptance of their permits. But, obviously, for most Utahns, losing Arizona hurts a lot more than gaining Florida or some other State east of the Mississippi might help. GOUtah, and I'm sure UTGOA, will be working to have the 60 limit eliminated next session. USDIN and NRA claimed, at the time of the amendment, that it was their version of incrementalism and we could "come back and fix the bill later." However, to the best of my knowledge, neither organization did anything to get the 60 day limit removed this just concluded session. GOUtah and UTGOA attempted to find a sponsor for the bill, but were unable, though we did get several other pieces of pro-gun legislation sponsored and some passed. We hope to have their support next session and with the loss of Arizona we may be able to persuade at least one legislator to sponsor the needed bill. If nothing else, I am running for the Utah House from District 41 (Sandy - Bluffdale) and plan to sponsor several pro-gun-RIGHTS bills if elected, including one to remove this limitation. GOUtah and UTGOA would be pleased to have the support of like minded individuals in fixing this problem. Contact info for them is at: http://www.goutahorg.org and http://www.utgoa.org Members of the NRA and members of USDIN may wish to contact their respective organizations to ask them to support these efforts next year. Finally, ANYONE with a Utah CCW permit should contact their instructor and determine if s/he is a member of USDIN and if so, ask her/him to push for USDIN support to fix this problem. My ultimate goal and pledge as a candidate for the legislature is nothing less than full RIGHT to carry which would not require any permits at all. I would leave Utah's CCW permit system in place both for those who derive some benefit from the permit (such as travel to States that recognize it) as well as to avoid having the NRA or USDIN oppose me. Utah should offer permits to those who will benefit from them, but should not require permits to exercise our Constitutioally protected right to both keep and bear arms. Charles Hardy Policy Director GOUtah! Candidate, Utah House #41 ________________________________________________________________ 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 <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: Can the 2nd Amendment and Social Security coexist? Date: 17 Apr 2002 09:48:36 -0600 Can the 2nd Amendment and Social Security coexist? ---------- JPFO by Claire Wolfe & Aaron Zelman "Is the much-discussed coming collapse of the Social Security system one reason politicians want to eliminate citizen gun ownership? Do they fear that, when the 70-year-old house of cards -- the SS system -- comes tumbling down, citizens might resort to violence?" (04/16/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/129700743.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: U. Prof Flynn threatens to resign if criminals not protected Date: 18 Apr 2002 09:33:03 -0600 http://www.sltrib.com/04182002/utah/utah.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. <chad@pengar.com> Subject: Re: U. Prof Flynn threatens to resign if criminals not protected Date: 18 Apr 2002 12:17:20 -0400 Does this bozo Prof have an email address? best Chad On Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 11:33 , Scott Bergeson wrote: > http://www.sltrib.com/04182002/utah/utah.htm > > - > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: Re: U. Prof Flynn threatens to resign if criminals not protected Date: 18 Apr 2002 10:46:07 -0600 On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:17:20 -0400 Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. wrote: >Does this bozo Prof have an email address? Sure; mailto:flynnj@law.utah.edu Scott >>http://www.sltrib.com/04182002/utah/utah.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: Netscrape-AOhelL Promotes Gungrabber Rosie O'Donnell's book Date: 19 Apr 2002 12:22:58 -0600 I hope she's questioned he gun-grabbing ways, but I doubt it. Javascript link from https://ww2.literaryguild.com/mybookclub/halfoff/bookclubs/lga/JoinFast/c55/c55_coupon.htm?src=AOL_05_em_57_001_D074 [May break, but I've included most of the info.] FIND ME by Rosie O'Donnell The Beloved Entertainer Shares The Story Of An Encounter That Changed Her Life Forever! Yours Now For 40ó The Literary Guild - Netscape FIND ME ù by Rosie O'Donnell Emmy«-Award winning "Queen of Nice" TV talk-show host, Rosie O'Donnell admits, "I like to help. I need to help. I help a lot, sometimes too much." Now, as she closes the door on her stunningly successful show, Rosie reveals an extremely personal and traumatic true story about how helping a stranger forever altered her life. For this brazen, unabashed comedienne, the whole world changes with just one phone call. Through the NJ adoption agency she helps run, Rosie is put in contact with a 14-year-old pregnant rape victim named Stacie Davis and her mom Barb. Rosie and Stacie bond instantly. Despite warnings from her friends and colleagues, Rosie talks with Stacie late into the night, nearly every night, sharing things she's shared with no one else--her boredom with the talk show, the excitement of Rosie magazine and heart-breaking memories of her mother, who died when Rosie was 11. As she calls the mother and daughter more and more, Rosie finds herself plunging deeper into their lives...until she discovers a startling secret about Stacie that will make Rosie question everything in her own life. "I used to spend a lot of time wondering why I worry about the things I do," Rosie confides. In this deeply touching memoir in the tradition of Girl, Interrupted, Rosieùand her many fansùdiscover the surprising answer. "I like to help. I need to help. I help a lot, sometimes too much."ùRosie O?Donnell Pub. Edition: $23.95 Mem. Edition: $11.97 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: Should felons have guns? Date: 23 Apr 2002 11:09:19 -0600 Should felons have guns? ---------- Armed Females of Texas by Kathryn Graham "Let me duck down behind some cover here. Yes! I think that felons should be allowed to purchase -- and carry -- firearms." (04/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/82981938.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: permit to own a gun Date: 23 Apr 2002 11:35:24 -0600 Puckett responds to L. A. Times Article ---------- KeepAndBearArms.Com by Brian Puckett "I would never apply for a permit to own any gun, any more than I would apply for a permit to own a Bible, or Torah, or printing press, or to obtain legal counsel, or to assemble with other citizens." (04/22/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/323322436.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: Utah House 41 Debate Tonight Date: 23 Apr 2002 12:34:30 -0600 Just a reminder that Grassroots is sponsoring a candidates' debate for the Republican Candidates in Utah House 41. District 41 includes parts of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, South Jordan, and Bluffdale. The two Republican Candidates are Charles Hardy and Todd Kiser. The Debate is from 7:00 pm (prompt) to 8:30 pm TONIGHT, Tuesday, April 23, in the Riverton Library. The Library is 12860 So. Redwood Rd. Arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to mingle with the candidates before the debate begins. The debate is intended primarily to allow GOP SL Co Delegates to get to know the candidates before casting votes at the convention this Saturday. However, all interested parties are invited. Voters living in (the new) District 41are especially invited. Come find out where the candidates stand on the issues you care about: Taxes, property rights, the role of State Government; Educational Funding and Tuition Tax Credits; the right to keep and bear arms, civil forfeiture, or any other burning issues. Charles Hardy Republican Candidate, Utah House 41 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com> Subject: unSafe to learn/worship at it still. Date: 23 Apr 2002 13:33:36 -0600 From today's Desnews. Some counter efforts and educational outreach at some of their collection venues might be in order. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,380014580,00.html? No-guns petition revived Group's 'do or die' effort targets churches, schools By Amy Joi Bryson Deseret News staff writer A grass-roots citizens' coalition is picking up where it left off two years ago in its failed attempt to ban permitted concealed guns in churches and schools. Although the Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship petition started out strong, collecting more than half the necessary 67,188 signatures, the effort faltered due to lack of cash to spread the word. "This is our do or die here," coalition spokeswoman Maura Carabello said, adding collection points for signatures have been established at the Delta Center during every home game of the Utah Jazz as well as PTA headquarters and the Catholic and Episcopal dioceses. This second drive gives the group a step up because it can use the 32,000 signatures it collected the last time. State law allows a petition drive to take four years if necessary to collect enough signatures for the ballot. Their deadline is June. "We are much more focused, much more organized, and we've had great support," Carabello said. "We are feeling very good about our coalition." The issue the group will pose to voters is a revision in the state law dealing with concealed weapons and where they are permitted. Unlike a couple dozen other states that provide specific bans, Utah's law allows people with concealed weapons permits to carry their guns on school campuses and in churches. "There are places that guns don't belong, and at the top of the list are schools and houses of worship," Carabello said. "These are unique environments, with one being the environment of learning and the other a religious sanctuary." Carabello said she believes University of Utah President Bernie Machen's recent stand against allowing concealed weapons on campus will bolster the coalition's efforts. "The U. battle has sort of helped focus the issue. The coalition does solve the university's problem, and this is the best way for people to help the university." Machen ran afoul of lawmakers in the 2002 general session when he refused to budge from the school's policy of banning guns despite its apparent conflict with state law. In March, he filed a "friendly" lawsuit to force a definitive court ruling on whether the school's prohibition can withstand constitutional scrutiny. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is defending Utah's law and says institutions can't adopt policies that are in conflict with current gun laws. He also hopes the coalition's efforts fail. "It would be a bad law," he said. "It does nothing to protect kids. This would send a message to every maniac out there that they can come in our schools and wreak havoc without fear of anyone shooting back at them." But Carabello and other coalition members say it should be a "no brainer" that schools and churches be allowed to outlaw guns. "The Utah PTA is not against the right to own and bear arms; however, this is a safety issue," PTA President Susan Dayton said. "This is a position that has long come from our membership that guns do not belong in schools." Dayton said she believes, in contrast to the sentiment that dominates the Legislature, that the majority of Utahns would agree with the coalition's position. "This needs to be something the citizens of Utah have a chance to vote on. Unless it is on the ballot, we won't hear from them." Dayton said the PTA has been focusing its attention on training its members to educate the public about what the initiative will accomplish. "We have done some training to tell people what it is and what it is not," she said. "It is not an anti-gun initiative." But one coalition critic ù an outspoken state senator who has battled the U. and its gun policy ù predicted a doomed petition drive. "The more people who understand this, the fewer people there are who are interested in this initiative. If people hear the debate, even if they do collect the signatures, it will still fail," Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said. Waddoups conceded he, too, is against the basic premise of guns in churches and schools. "But this initiative simply stops the law-abiding citizens, the permit holders. The criminals can still do what they want. This doesn't stop who we want to stop." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: FW: Safe Skies to travel Agents Date: 25 Apr 2002 22:19:04 -0600 -------- Original Message -------- Hello Safe Skies Volunteers and list members, The new letter is aimed at your local travel agents. You can track down your travel agents by using the following link: http://www.icta.com/findagen.htm Attached are the files for this letter in both MS and Apple readable format. [Gnope] The letter itself is below. I suggest that you delete this header, put your own name at the bottom, and forward it by e-mail directly to your travel agent, or copy the attachment and distribute paper copies. I would be interested to hear of the responses you receive. Post any to the Safe Skies list. safe-sky@vader.com Tom Bridgeland Dear Sir/Madam, Has business been good recently? The entire travel industry is hurting, and we all know the reason. Since the tragedy of 9/11 nothing has been the same. Some people say that it is fear, that many people are afraid to fly now because they are afraid of terrorism. That may have been true in the days immediately after the event, but now more than a half year later? Do you believe it? I do not. The cause of the continued slump in air travel is simple. It takes too long and is just too much trouble getting through an airport these days. Any flight less than about four hours just isn't worth the hassle, it is easier and even quicker just to drive. Even the time factor isn't the whole story though. Every time we read in the paper about some ignorant goon groping the women travelers, or bullying crippled old men just because they can, it takes away our desire to fly. Nobody likes to be humiliated and treated as an inferior or a criminal, just to exercise the right to travel. I used to like flying. Not anymore. Now I have to worry about how I will react if I see my wife wand raped. Or my five-year-old daughter strip searched. It didn't used to be like this. Security checks prior to the first wave of skyjackings in the sixties were by our standards non-existent. Things were so relaxed that what is unthinkable now was commonplace. Even firearms, those evil guns politicians love to rail at, were perfectly acceptable as carry-on luggage, along with their ammunition! Every hunting season planes would fill up with hunters heading to their favorite spots, every one with a high powered rifle or repeating shotgun and a box or three of ammunition right in the overhead compartment! Can you imagine that today? That is what I am asking. Skyjacking in the sixties was the direct consequence of changes to the law that banned common passengers from carrying arms on the plane. Within a few short years audacious criminals saw their opportunity and began to strike. Armed sky marshals put an end to that in the seventies, but the skyjackers are back now, in a new and much more deadly form. These new ones just want to kill. There is a response we could make that would solve both the problem of how to deal with terrorists and how to eliminate the overbearing goons at the airports who are driving away your customers. We must return to a successful, proven policy. When security was unknown but passengers were armed, crime in the skies was unknown. No skyjackers. No terrorists. Not even very many violent drunks. Check up on it. You will find that what I am saying is true. Sociologists have shown conclusively that in societies that ban guns crime skyrockets. Just read the recent crime stats for Britain or Australia, both once considered the safest of travel destinations. The exact same conclusions apply on planes. Gun-free zones are deadly places to be, happy hunting grounds for the violent. It is a proven fact. There are a lot of possible objections to this idea of returning to armed passengers. Some may be reasonable but most have no basis in fact, are merely hysteria. Bullets do NOT cause a plane to decompress, for example, the evidence, from uncounted military craft shot nearly to pieces and not decompressing, is clear. No American airliner in that era was ever shot down by a passenger. In fact no records can be found of ANY negative events due to armed passengers! We have checked. I don't ask you to take my word on it. If you will search the web site: http://www.projectsafeskies.org you can find a wealth of factual information covering these and other concerns you might have. If your business is hurting due to loss of flying customers, you should consider petitioning your representatives in Congress to allow airline companies to make the decision whether to permit armed passengers or not. Some will and some won't, and your clients can choose which they prefer. That is the true American way. Let people choose the risk they wish to take for themselves. I know which choice I will make given the chance! Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to read this. I hope that business will be picking up soon in the travel industry. Yours sincerely, (name) (address and phone)http://www.projectsafeskies.org - Safe Skies to Travel Agents NEVER AGAIN UNARMED.... LET FREEDOM FIGHT! --- > PROJECT: SAFE SKIES MAILING LIST > PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org > List Moderator: hunter@mva.net > TO UN/SUBSCRIBE: send blank email with command as subject - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: Flynn dissembles Date: 26 Apr 2002 08:35:48 -0600 Why wait for him to quit? (If only!) The Utah public is paying this criminal prevaricator's salary. Scott Bearing Liveries http://www.sltrib.com/04262002/public_f/731554.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: Seven states failing to protect 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' Date: 29 Apr 2002 10:08:52 -0600 Seven states failing to protect 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' ---------- Cybercast News "Seven states do not have clauses in their constitutions allowing citizens the right to keep and bear arms, an attorney and research director of the Colorado based Independence Institute warned Friday at the opening of the National Rifle Association's annual convention." (04/26/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/246006078.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> Subject: Re: Seven states failing to protect 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' Date: 29 Apr 2002 10:46:39 -0600 Brad Barnhill responds: Reply-To: bradbva@mindspring.com Mr. Burns, I have received this link to your article: Seven States Failing to Protect 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms,' Says Lawyer While I will agree that it would be very difficult to amend the constitutions of these states in the present climate preferential to those advocating victim disarmament, I would offer the following: Each state constitution has a clause in its declaration of rights known as the "reservation of non-enumerated rights." This essentially reserves to the people all of the rights that are not enumerated in the state's declaration of rights. Let's take California for an example. Is there any doubt that the majority of people in California at the time of the original ratification of this state's constitution wore pistols at their hip? Or take Maryland. If you look at the issue as to whether the founders of Maryland, such as Mr. Carroll of Carrollton, or Mr. Paca deigned that the people's right to be free to arm themselves against tyranny, you will find that they are the ones that instituted and led the militia of Maryland under the notion that they would inevitably be going to war against England. The issue that I would raise in such a state as California or Maryland is a legal principal known as "pari-marteria." If you take a look at the rights of the people in the other states of the Union that were contemporaneous with Maryland, you find, for example, that Pennsylvania's constitution states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned." Using the non-enumerated clause from the Maryland Declarataion of Rights, I can point to the right that the people of Pennsylvania's expressly reserved as my own. So, just because the state does not explicity restrain the legislature from trampling the right of the people to keep and bear arms, does not mean that such a right was not inherent at time that their constitution was ratified. Quite the reverse. The founders of Maryland thought that this right was so obvious and fundamental that they did not feel it necessary to enumerate. I thank you for your attention. Brad Barnhill Systems Analyst and patriot >From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> >To: Utah Firearms <utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com> >Subject: Seven states failing to protect 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' >Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:08:52 -0600 >Seven states failing to protect 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' >---------- >Cybercast News > "Seven states do not have clauses in their constitutions allowing > citizens the right to keep and bear arms, an attorney and research > director of the Colorado based Independence Institute warned > Friday at the opening of the National Rifle Association's annual > convention." (04/26/02) >http://www.free-market.net/rd/246006078.html -