home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
- Subject: FW: Gun Control Misfires in Europe
- Date: 01 May 2002 08:41:40 -0600
-
-
- [The Wall Street Journal]
-
- April 30, 2002
- http://online.wsj.com/img/b.gif
- COMMENTARY
-
- Gun Control Misfires in Europe
-
- By JOHN R. LOTT JR.
-
- Sixteen people were killed during Friday's school shooting in
- Germany. This follows the killing of 14 regional legislators in
- Zug, a Swiss canton, last September, and the massacre of eight city
- council members in a Paris suburb last month. The three worst public
- shootings in the Western world during the past year all occurred in
- Europe, whose gun laws are exactly what gun-control advocates want
- the U.S. to adopt. Indeed, all three occurred in gun-free "safe
- zones."
-
- Germans who wish to get hold of a hunting rifle must undergo checks
- that can last a year, while those wanting a gun for sport must be a
- member of a club and obtain a license from the police. The French
- must apply for gun permits, which are granted only after an
- exhaustive background and medical record check and demonstrated
- need, with permits only valid for three years. Even Switzerland's
- once famously liberal laws have become tighter. Swiss federal law
- now limits gun permits to only those who can demonstrate in advance
- a need for a weapon to protect themselves or others against a
- precisely specified danger.
-
- The problem with such laws is that they take away guns from law-
- abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them, leaving
- potential victims defenseless. The U.S. has shown that making guns
- more available is actually a better formula for law and order.
-
- The U.S. has seen a major change from 1985 when just eight states
- had the most liberal right-to-carry laws, which automatically grant
- permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their
- fees, and, when required, complete a training class. Today the
- total is 33 states. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public
- shootings fell on average by 78% in states that passed such laws.
-
- In Europe, by contrast, violent crime is rising. Many factors are
- responsible, but it's clear that strict gun control laws aren't
- helping.
-
- In 1996, Britain banned handguns. The ban was so tight that even
- shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other
- countries to practice. In the six years since the ban, gun crimes
- have risen by an astounding 40%. Britain now leads the U.S. by a
- wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults. Although murder
- and rape rates are still lower than in the U.S., the difference is
- shrinking quickly. Dave Rogers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan
- Police Federation, said that, despite the ban, "the underground
- supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all."
-
- Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning
- most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In
- the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed
- robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%.
- While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.
-
- And both Britain and Australia have been thought to be ideal
- places for gun control because they are surrounded by water,
- making gun smuggling relatively difficult. By contrast gun-
- smuggling is much easier on the Continent or in the U.S.
-
- Another inconvenient fact is frequently ignored by gun control
- advocates: Many countries with high homicide rates have gun bans.
- It is hard to think of a much more draconian police state than
- the former Soviet Union, with a ban on guns that dated back to
- the communist revolution. Yet newly released data show that from
- 1976 to 1985 the USSR's homicide rate was between 21% and 41%
- higher than that of the U.S.
-
- Many French politicians complained during their presidential
- election that the shooting in Paris meant "It's getting like in
- America, and we don't want to see that here." Americans may draw
- a different lesson from the evidence, and hope that they don't
- become more like the Europeans.
-
- Mr. Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
- Institute and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University
- of Chicago Press, 2000).
- URL for this article:
- http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1020116142169084480.djm,00.html
-
- Updated April 30, 2002
-
- Copyright 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
-
- Printing, distribution, and use of this material is governed
- by your Subscription agreement and Copyright laws.
-
- For information about subscribing go to http://www.wsj.com
-
- --
- John T. Wenders
- Professor of Economics
- University of Idaho
- 2266 Westview Drive
- Moscow, ID 83843
-
- Voice: 208/882-1831
- Fax: 208/882-3696
- Cell: 509/336-5811
- Alpine, AZ: 928/339-4342
-
- http://www.uidaho.edu/~jwenders/
-
- http://www.zolatimes.com/V5.27/volunteerism.html
- http://www.zolatimes.com/V5.8/modlib_ideal.html
-
- Idaho Libertarian Activist Conference addresses and sites:
- Post message: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
- Subscribe: idaho_libs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Unsubscribe: idaho_libs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- List owner: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
- Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/
- Libertarian Party of Idaho Web link: http://www.lp-idaho.org/
-
- Shortcut URL to this page:
- http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/idaho_libs
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
- Subject: Chalk one up for the good guys
- Date: 01 May 2002 18:07:47 -0600
-
- From today's desnews. Looks like getting the court gun-locker bill
- passed was a bigger accomplishment than some of us initially thought.
-
- If I may opine for a moment, am I the only one getting really tired of
- EVERYONE in this state claiming to "respect the second amendment as much
- as the next person," or "working harder to protect gun rights than
- anyone," and then felling compelled to ALWAYS follow that statement with
- a "BUT"? How about a few more people willing to say, "I support the
- right to keep and bear arms. PERIOD."?
-
- FWIW, Charles Hardy, Policy Director for GOUtah! and Dr. Sarah Thompson,
- Executive Director of UTGOA worked closely with Rep. Swallow on his bill
- and pushed for and obtained the change from only providing storage for
- firearms carried pursuant to a CCW permit to providing storage for ALL
- legally carried firearms. At this time, that only includes concealed
- firearms carried with a CCW permit and legally "unloaded" firarms carried
- openly as well as firearms carried unloaded and fully cased. However,
- when we achieve true right-to-carry in Utah, this is one section of law
- that will not discrminate between those who carry with a permit, and
- those who carry by right. We originally wanted to change from "firearms"
- to all "weapons" which would include pocket knives, knitting needles, and
- anything else not allowed into secure areas these days. However, that
- would have resulted in such a large fiscal note the bill would have died.
- So we took what we could get this year, gaining a fair bit, but giving
- up nothing.
-
- Thanks to all those who made calls and sent faxes to support this bill.
- Thanks also to Rep. John Swallow for running this bill and getting it
- passed.
-
- Charles
-
- http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,385006999,00.html?
-
- Gun-locker law targeted
-
- Judge says courthouse rule poses a safety hazard
-
- By Linda Thomson
- Deseret News staff writer
-
- A 3rd District judge is calling it "a bad idea" for the state to
- require district courthouses to provide free gun lockers for anyone
- toting a firearm to court.
- Judge Ronald Nehring, the district's presiding judge, said the
- requirement approved by the Legislature this year could present a safety
- hazard.
- "I respect the Second Amendment as much as the next person,"
- Nehring said. "But the fact of the matter is that it creates what I think
- ù and what law enforcement thinks ù is a risky situation. It jeopardizes
- the safety of the public and employees of the court, and their safety is
- important."
- The law requires that all district courthouses in Utah offer
- citizens some place to safely stash their guns, whether the weapons are
- concealed or carried openly. The requirement does not apply to federal
- courts.
- The bill allocates $183,000 for the gun lockers, which technically
- are supposed to be ready by May 6. However, funding won't be available
- until July 1 so there likely will be a transition period.
- "Its intent was that in order to meaningfully exercise their Second
- Amendment rights, court patrons need to carry their weapons to court,"
- said Richard Schwermer, assistant state court administrator for the Utah
- Administrative Office of the Courts.
- But Nehring said that although the Constitution allows people to
- keep and bear arms, there are some places where the presence of guns
- poses a greater hazard than other places.
- "Consider how many angry people leave this building. If what you do
- before leaving this building angry is get your weapon and you're still in
- the building, it certainly isn't going to promote general safety and
- tranquility," Nehring said.
- "I'm a 'small d' democrat, and if the public wants this and their
- representatives want to enact this and think it's a good idea, God bless
- them," Nehring said. "I happen to think, along with my law enforcement
- colleagues, that it's a bad idea."
- The bill was sponsored by Rep. John Swallow, R-Sandy. He said the
- law solves a problem the state has had for several years.
- Legally permitted concealed weapons carriers holders leave their
- guns in vehicles when visiting secure facilities like airports or
- courthouses. "It's easy to break a window or get into the trunk of a
- car," said Swallow, who is running for the GOP nomination to the 2nd
- Congressional District.
- The new law does not apply to many law enforcement officials and
- prosecutors who can carry weapons into a secure area and keep them while
- in court.
- Schwermer said court executives and sheriffs in each county are
- preparing a plan for the best way to handle things at the courthouse in
- their area.
- Those plans probably will be finished in a few weeks, and then bids
- will be prepared for the type of gun locker suitable for each building.
- Some, for example, don't have a big enough place for gun lockers
- without infringing on the "secure area," so some type of structure might
- have to be installed outside the building, Schwermer said.
- "We have to find out what each courthouse needs and how to apply
- the legislation to each courthouse," Schwermer said. "Go to Parowan. It
- doesn't have perimeter security. In Parowan, the Iron County auditor is
- there, the treasurer is there. Those are public facilities, and people
- can bring weapons into the public portions of the building.
- "The only time they can't bring them into court is when court is in
- session," Schwermer said. "Where do you stop them? In the front of the
- building? On the second floor where the court is? That goes back to our
- definition of a 'secure area.' "
- The bill originally applied only to concealed weapon permit holders
- but was revised to cover anyone who is lawfully carrying a firearm.
- Plans are to create gun lockers that can hold handguns, but they
- won't be big enough for rifles or shotguns.
- "The vast majority of traffic we anticipate is handguns. If there's
- a shotgun, the sheriff will have to figure out a way (to store it),"
- Schwermer said. "I don't remember when anybody walked up with a rifle. I
- don't think that's going to be the norm."
-
- ________________________________________________________________
- 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: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNews
- Date: 06 May 2002 16:41:55 -0600
-
- Here is an editorial in Today's DesNews that is against the new gun safes
- at court buildings.
-
- In this case, I might point out the following items for consideration of
- any who may choose to write a letter to the editor of the DesNews.
-
- 1-If this poses such problems, why didn't the judges, courts, or the
- DesNews comment on the bill while it was being debated in the last
- session? It received a full hearing in committee and was debated in both
- houses before being passed. Perhaps the DesNews should devote more
- resources to covering what our legislature is doing. It seems the laws
- passed by that body have a greater effect on our lives than the scores
- and intimitate details of professional, college, and HS sporting events
- that get plenty of coverage in the paper. It's not like this bill was a
- last minute, middle-of-the night measure. Where was the DesNews when the
- issue was being debated?
-
- 2-While the DesNews focuses on defendants in various cases, what about
- the rights of jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others who may be required
- to attend to business at the courts to defend themselves? Besides which,
- if a defendant is too dangerous to have access to a weapon, he shouldn't
- be released to the streets OR at the very least, if he has put his weapon
- into a court controlled lock box, the court could limit his ability to
- retrieve the weapon. If the gun was left in the trunk of a car, NOTHING
- prevents a released defendant from retrieving his gun and returning to
- the court house.
-
- 3-The DesNews asks how many guns have been stolen from cars parked in the
- parking lot so as to diminish concerns about that happening. Having done
- this, may we now count on the DesNews to NOT editorialize in favor of
- more gun control or penalties for gun owners when a gun IS stolen from a
- parked car and used in a crime? Also, what about laws making it illegal
- to have a loaded gun in a car unless you have a CCW permit? There is
- some question about whether leaving a loaded gun unattended in a car is
- even legal (not to mention safe or wise). Would the DesNews prefer to
- have people loading and unloading their self defene weapons in a parking
- lot, or in a controlled environement under the supervision of court
- personnel?
-
- 4-Even if a trunk, glove box, or other area of a car IS a secure,
- prudent, and legal place to leave a loaded gun (and I don't think it is),
- what does this do for those who may choose (or have) to use mass transit
- to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about those who
- walk, or ride a bike? Is the DesNews now reversing its previous
- editorial stance encouraging the use of mass and alternate transit and
- suggesting that only those who drive a private automobile are entitled to
- self defense? After all, if the DesNews had their way, only those who
- drive a private car would have anyplace at all to leave a personal CCW
- weapon while attending to court business.
-
- The DesNews accepts email submission of letters to the editors at:
- (letters@desnews.com). Remember, you must include your full name, home
- address and a phone number to have your letter considered for
- publication. Only your name and city/State will be printed
-
- Charles
-
-
-
- http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,395007331,00.html?
-
-
- Gun lockers in courthouses?
-
- Deseret News editorial
-
- While we're on the subject of guns, it should be noted that
- courtrooms are places where emotions run high. In some cases, a prison
- term may hang in the balance. In others, fortunes may be lost. They are
- not places to which people should be encouraged to bring firearms.
- Earlier this year, Utah lawmakers passed a bill requiring state
- courts to provide gun lockers, free of charge, outside all courtrooms.
- The intent, court officials said, was to allow people to exercise their
- Second Amendment rights. People who legally carry weapons, whether
- concealed or not, have had to leave them in the trunk or glove
- compartment when they pull up to a courthouse. It's too easy to break
- into a car.
- Presiding 3rd District Judge Ronald Nehring had the courage last
- week to speak out against this nonsense, calling it something that
- "jeopardizes the safety of the public and employees of the court." He's
- right.
- We doubt anyone checked to see how often guns are stolen from cars
- while people are inside state court buildings. We are, however, fairly
- certain that the existence of gun lockers will encourage people to bring
- handguns to court with them. That means some people who are angered by
- the outcome of a case will be stopping to retrieve their weapons on the
- way out. It also poses more opportunities for people with ill intent to
- wrestle a firearm away from a law-abiding gun owner.
- Do not forget how, on April 2, 1985, Ronnie Lee Gardner tried to
- escape from his murder trial at the Metropolitan Hall of Justice when he
- used a gun his girlfriend had slipped him to kill an attorney and wound a
- bailiff. Many prisoners are desperate. By inviting more guns near
- courtrooms, the state is increasing the chances that similar tragedies
- might occur.
- The Second Amendment does indeed guarantee the right to bear arms.
- But like all constitutional rights, this can be reasonably constrained
- using common sense. The courts do not provide soap boxes for people to
- exercise their rights to free speech. They do not provide chapels so that
- people may preserve their right to worship freely. It is entirely
- reasonable to declare courthouses off-limits to firearms and to leave it
- at that.
- Unfortunately, the law is in place and the lockers must be built.
- We don't blame Nehring and his colleagues for feeling uneasy about it. We
- only hope the lockers become oddities that are seldom used.
-
- ________________________________________________________________
- 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: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew
- Date: 06 May 2002 17:30:39 -0600
-
- On Mon, 6 May 2002 16:41:55 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote:
-
- >1-If this poses such problems, why didn't the judges, courts, or the
- >DesNews comment on the bill while it was being debated in the last
- >session?
-
- Cuz they're even more out of touch than the DesNews?
- Aren't these the same people who claim "ignorance of
- the law is no excuse"?
-
- >3-The DesNews asks how many guns have been stolen from cars parked in the
- >parking lot so as to diminish concerns about that happening. Having done
- >this, may we now count on the DesNews to NOT editorialize in favor of
- >more gun control or penalties for gun owners when a gun IS stolen from a
- >parked car and used in a crime? Also, what about laws making it illegal
- >to have a loaded gun in a car unless you have a CCW permit? There is
- >some question about whether leaving a loaded gun unattended in a car is
- >even legal (not to mention safe or wise).
-
- Unless the car has a solid safe (making the car unnecessarily
- heavy), leaving a gun in an unattended cars strikes me as
- rather imprudent, perhaps even recklessly negligent.
-
- >to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about
- >those who walk, or ride a bike?
-
- Thank you for considering bikers and peds. I hope the DesNews
- editorial staff can be persuaded to do likewise.
-
- >if the DesNews had their way, only those who drive a private
- >car would have anyplace at all to leave a personal CCW
- >weapon while attending to court business.
-
- There goes fuel economy if we must install safes in our cars.
- (I guarantee you I'm not planning on installing one on my
- bicycle.)
-
- >The DesNews accepts email submission of letters to the editors at:
- >(letters@desnews.com). Remember, you must include your full name,
- >home address and a phone number to have your letter considered for
- >publication. Only your name and city/State will be printed
-
- Too bad that with the NAC monopoly (despite it's being in
- litigation), talking to the advertisers does little good.
- Where else can they advertise; the City Weekly (rabidly
- hoplophobic)? Fwiw, I don't find most letters to the editor
- very persuasive. Seems to mostly be a venting forum for
- nut cases. Perhaps someone on these fora could construct
- a persuasive guest editorial? They run those on Sunday,
- and occasionally on other days. While nut cases submit
- those as well, they are more frequently persuasive.
-
- Scott
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
- Subject: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew
- Date: 06 May 2002 17:56:10 -0600
-
-
- On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:30:39 -0600 Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
- writes:
- > Unless the car has a solid safe (making the car unnecessarily
- > heavy), leaving a gun in an unattended cars strikes me as
- > rather imprudent, perhaps even recklessly negligent.
-
- Actually, I've seen at least one product on the market that looks to make
- a fairly secure storage environment for handguns or other small valuables
- that may need to be left in a car. It is a small lock box made out of
- heavy guage steel. It is fitted with either a key lock (generally an
- "Ace" round key like those used on vending machines) or else a 4 digit
- "simplex" type combo lock meant to be easy to open by touch without the
- need to see the lock. It is intended to be bolted to the floor/frame of
- the car under a seat or within the trunk. At that point, it cannot be
- removed from the car except via very destructive means, unless one has
- the key or combination as the bolts are accessed from inside the box.
- Total weight is only a few pounds. Far to bulkly and heavy for a
- bicycle, but probably completely feasable (though maybe overkill) on
- larger motercycles with exisiting storage boxes on them.
-
- Also, trunks on older cars (without the drop down seats or in car trunk
- releases) are, or could be made, fairly secure. Of course, that is
- assumming the increase in security from the obscurity of no one knowing
- for sure whether anything valuable is in the trunk. Advertise that guns
- are present by being forced to disarm in a public parking lot and someone
- is likely going to be willing to expend a fair bit more energy to get
- into the trunk than if he was just fishing for possible scores.
-
- And, I suspect that the various locking devices used in police cars to
- hold the riot shot guns and such probably offer at least a modest level
- of security.
-
- Finally, while I don't advise leaving a gun in a car if it can be avoided
- I would never suggest it is recklessly negligent. Guns can be used to
- kill or injure. But so to can a car and given that cars kill more people
- than guns, if leaving a gun inside a locked car is negligent, then
- leaving the car unattended in the first place is even more so. It COULD
- be stolen and used in some crime like robbery or kidnapping. The driver
- could be drunk or get into a highspeed chase with police and crash it,
- killing people. These days we should also consider that a stolen car
- could be used to deliver a car bomb. And stealing the car is not much
- more difficult than stealing the contents, especially if those contents
- are in a secure trunk, glove box, or storage safe.
-
- Let's not demonize guns or suggest they need to be treated differently
- than any other potentially dangerous item.
-
- >
- > >to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about
- > >those who walk, or ride a bike?
- >
- > Thank you for considering bikers and peds. I hope the DesNews
- > editorial staff can be persuaded to do likewise.
-
- I encourage you to drop them a letter pointing out the error of their
- ways, from you perspective as a frequent biker. You could, of course,
- leave details about your CCW status in the "theoretical" or implied
- catagory.
-
- > Perhaps someone on these fora could construct
- > a persuasive guest editorial?
-
- You seem to write well and you have a unique perspective as a frequent
- biker. I encorage you to pen something.
-
- 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: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew
- Date: 06 May 2002 17:56:10 -0600
-
-
- On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:30:39 -0600 Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
- writes:
- > Unless the car has a solid safe (making the car unnecessarily
- > heavy), leaving a gun in an unattended cars strikes me as
- > rather imprudent, perhaps even recklessly negligent.
-
- Actually, I've seen at least one product on the market that looks to make
- a fairly secure storage environment for handguns or other small valuables
- that may need to be left in a car. It is a small lock box made out of
- heavy guage steel. It is fitted with either a key lock (generally an
- "Ace" round key like those used on vending machines) or else a 4 digit
- "simplex" type combo lock meant to be easy to open by touch without the
- need to see the lock. It is intended to be bolted to the floor/frame of
- the car under a seat or within the trunk. At that point, it cannot be
- removed from the car except via very destructive means, unless one has
- the key or combination as the bolts are accessed from inside the box.
- Total weight is only a few pounds. Far to bulkly and heavy for a
- bicycle, but probably completely feasable (though maybe overkill) on
- larger motercycles with exisiting storage boxes on them.
-
- Also, trunks on older cars (without the drop down seats or in car trunk
- releases) are, or could be made, fairly secure. Of course, that is
- assumming the increase in security from the obscurity of no one knowing
- for sure whether anything valuable is in the trunk. Advertise that guns
- are present by being forced to disarm in a public parking lot and someone
- is likely going to be willing to expend a fair bit more energy to get
- into the trunk than if he was just fishing for possible scores.
-
- And, I suspect that the various locking devices used in police cars to
- hold the riot shot guns and such probably offer at least a modest level
- of security.
-
- Finally, while I don't advise leaving a gun in a car if it can be avoided
- I would never suggest it is recklessly negligent. Guns can be used to
- kill or injure. But so to can a car and given that cars kill more people
- than guns, if leaving a gun inside a locked car is negligent, then
- leaving the car unattended in the first place is even more so. It COULD
- be stolen and used in some crime like robbery or kidnapping. The driver
- could be drunk or get into a highspeed chase with police and crash it,
- killing people. These days we should also consider that a stolen car
- could be used to deliver a car bomb. And stealing the car is not much
- more difficult than stealing the contents, especially if those contents
- are in a secure trunk, glove box, or storage safe.
-
- Let's not demonize guns or suggest they need to be treated differently
- than any other potentially dangerous item.
-
- >
- > >to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about
- > >those who walk, or ride a bike?
- >
- > Thank you for considering bikers and peds. I hope the DesNews
- > editorial staff can be persuaded to do likewise.
-
- I encourage you to drop them a letter pointing out the error of their
- ways, from you perspective as a frequent biker. You could, of course,
- leave details about your CCW status in the "theoretical" or implied
- catagory.
-
- > Perhaps someone on these fora could construct
- > a persuasive guest editorial?
-
- You seem to write well and you have a unique perspective as a frequent
- biker. I encorage you to pen something.
-
- 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 <scottb@xmission.com>
- Subject: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew
- Date: 07 May 2002 08:09:08 -0600
-
- On Mon, 6 May 2002 17:56:10 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote:
-
- >I've seen at least one product on the market that looks to make
- >a fairly secure storage environment for handguns or other small valuables
- >that may need to be left in a car. It is a small lock box made out of
- >heavy guage steel. It is fitted with either a key lock (generally an
- >"Ace" round key like those used on vending machines) or else a 4 digit
- >"simplex" type combo lock meant to be easy to open by touch without the
- >need to see the lock. It is intended to be bolted to the floor/frame of
- >the car under a seat or within the trunk. At that point, it cannot be
- >removed from the car except via very destructive means, unless one has
- >the key or combination as the bolts are accessed from inside the box.
- >Total weight is only a few pounds.
-
- Fascinating. Effective, yet not much heavier than sheet metal?
- Could you provide more, such as brand name, suppliers, gun
- magazine reviews or a URL?
-
- >I suspect that the various locking devices used in police cars to
- >hold the riot shot guns and such probably offer at least a modest level
- >of security.
-
- Modest, yes. I've been aware of at least one theft from such a device.
-
- >Finally, while I don't advise leaving a gun in a car if it can be avoided
- >I would never suggest it is recklessly negligent. Guns can be used to
- >kill or injure. But so to can a car and given that cars kill more people
- >than guns, if leaving a gun inside a locked car is negligent, then
- >leaving the car unattended in the first place is even more so.
-
- Considering the relative sizes, I'd compare leaving a gun in
- an unattended car more comparable to leaving the keys in it.
-
- >I encourage you to drop them a letter pointing out the error of their
- >ways, from you perspective as a frequent biker.
-
- Heh. Speaking from the nontheoretical, I nearly got arrested at
- the Temple of Set (Scott Matheson courthouse) once when I had a
- roofing gutter nail in my backpack. They let me leave it with
- security and retrieve it later.
-
- >You seem to write well and you have a unique perspective as a frequent
- >biker. I encorage you to pen something.
-
- Sarah Thompson has already done so. I trust you saw her response?
-
- Scott Bergeson
- South Salt Lake
- (Is this really necessary, Jim? Don't the member profiles
- provide this information?)
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
- Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew
- Date: 07 May 2002 11:55:04 -0600
-
-
- On Tue, 07 May 2002 08:09:08 -0600 Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
- writes:
- >
- > Fascinating. Effective, yet not much heavier than sheet metal?
-
- Sorry, I suspect some confusion created by my lack of clarity. The car
- gun safes I've seen are probably 3/16 inch plate steel. However, they
- are only big enough to hold one or two handguns. So total weight is not
- excessive for use in a car. They are simply somewhat modified versions
- of the small safes meant to be mounted to a bed frame or inside a closet
- and opened quickly by touch.
-
- Obviously, a determined thief, with enough time, could breach them, or
- even get them removed from a car (cutting the bolts that mount it to the
- frame or floorboard from the underside of the car) and carry it away for
- final opening later. I wouldn't leave $50k worth of diamonds in one,
- advertise they were there, and then leave the car parked in airport long
- term parking. But for storing a self defense gun (or a modest amount of
- other valuables) where the presence of such items is not generally known
- and for a couple hours in a court house parking lot it probably provides
- plenty of security.
-
- > Could you provide more, such as brand name, suppliers, gun
- > magazine reviews or a URL?
-
- Not off the top of my head. Stop in at Super Dell's gun store on the
- west side. I know they have the models made to be mounted in a closet or
- under a bed. I suspect they could quickly point you to one meant for
- installalation in a car.
-
- > Considering the relative sizes, I'd compare leaving a gun in
- > an unattended car more comparable to leaving the keys in it.
-
- Then I hope you never get elected to the legislature. We've got more
- than enough anti-gunners trying to demonize guns and provide special
- penalties to those who are unfortunate enough to have a firearms stolen.
- We don't need a gun owner making such nonsense sound legit. I don't
- think handguns should be left on a dashboard or deliberately left lying
- around a park or school. Of course, I also don't think leaving a hunting
- rifle in a rear window gun rack of a locked truck should net the owner a
- jail sentence if some punk breaks into the truck, steals the gun, and
- later uses it in some crime. You can bet that no one has ever been
- charged with a crime because their pocket or hunting knife fell out of a
- pocket or scabbard and was later found by some school kid. But if you
- happen to have a self-defense gun come lose you are at risk for some
- serious charges.
-
- Now, I don't condone sloppiness or recklessness. But I do support an
- equal and equitable standard. How many parents lock up their car keys
- when they get home? How many would expect to face criminal charges if
- their 8 year old son managed to get the keys, start the car, and head
- down the street causes various property damage to someone else's home?
- And yet a growing number of these people think that anyone who owns guns
- but doesn't use a gun safe and/or trigger locks 100% of the time ought to
- be sent to prison if anyone ever gets ahold of one of the guns.
-
- As a child I once made the mistake of playing with a spare tire from the
- truck in my driveway. The tire got away from me, rolled the down the
- hill, and ended up destroying a neighbor's front door. It could have
- killed someone. Fortunately, no one was hurt. And my parents paid to
- repair the damages. But with no ill intent on my part or their part,
- criminal charges would have been ridiculous. There are LOTS of dangerous
- items in the world and we can't expect that all of them will be locked up
- all the time and that unfortunate things will never happen.
-
- >
- > Sarah Thompson has already done so. I trust you saw her response?
-
- Yes. And I still encourage you to write a letter to the editor. In the
- amount of time you spend on one of these posts you could easily have a
- letter written. 1 letter to the editor is kook, 100 letters is something
- else and less easy to ignore or discount.
-
- Charles Hardy
- SLCo Utah
-
- ________________________________________________________________
- GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
- Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
- Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
- http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
- Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew
- Date: 07 May 2002 12:55:09 -0600
-
- On Tue, 7 May 2002 11:55:04 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote:
-
- >>Considering the relative sizes, I'd compare leaving a gun in
- >>an unattended car more comparable to leaving the keys in it.
-
- >Then I hope you never get elected to the legislature. We've got more
- >than enough anti-gunners trying to demonize guns and provide special
- >penalties to those who are unfortunate enough to have a firearms stolen.
-
- Special penalties? Unlikely, even in the near-impossible
- situation I were elected to the legislature. More like
- "attractive nuisance". (Look it up.) You don't want to
- arm your enemies or the incompetent.
-
- >You can bet that no one has ever been
- >charged with a crime because their pocket or hunting knife fell out of a
- >pocket or scabbard and was later found by some school kid. But if you
- >happen to have a self-defense gun come lose you are at risk for some
- >serious charges.
-
- So don't engrave your knife with your name or similar
- identifying info, even though that might facilitate its
- return if lost?
-
- >Now, I don't condone sloppiness or recklessness. But I do support an
- >equal and equitable standard. How many parents lock up their car keys
- >when they get home? How many would expect to face criminal charges if
- >their 8 year old son managed to get the keys, start the car, and head
- >down the street causes various property damage to someone else's home?
-
- I won't object if you leave your keys in a reasonably secure,
- out-of-sight safe in your car. Cavers do something similar to
- avoid losing them somewhere in many miles of dark passages.
- However, I would expect the parents to pay the damages.
-
- Scott Bergeson
- South Salt Lake
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
- Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew
- Date: 07 May 2002 13:39:09 -0600
-
-
- On Tue, 07 May 2002 12:55:09 -0600 Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
- writes:
- > Special penalties? Unlikely, even in the near-impossible
- > situation I were elected to the legislature. More like
- > "attractive nuisance". (Look it up.) You don't want to
- > arm your enemies or the incompetent.
-
- True. But no less true, IMHO, if the "weapon" in question happens to be
- a knife, gasoline and glass bottles, or a car or airplane, rather than a
- firearm. I simply want firearms treated like any other object that is
- occassionally used for ill or criminal intent or simply involved in
- unfortunate accidents.
-
- > So don't engrave your knife with your name or similar
- > identifying info, even though that might facilitate its
- > return if lost?
-
- I think you either miss or deliberately obfusicate the point. The point
- is, there is no good reason to treat firearms differently than knives or
- other potential weapons. There are differences between reckless
- endangerment, negligence, and simple accidents. Not every mistake is
- criminal.
-
- > I won't object if you leave your keys in a reasonably secure,
- > out-of-sight safe in your car.
-
- So do you have a different standard for guns, or will you refrain from
- objecting if someone leaves his firearm in a reasonably secure,
- out-of-sight safe in the car? And what about someone who doesn't use a
- safe, but simply keeps the weapons out of sight in a locked trunk, behind
- the seat of a locked truck, or in the glove box or under the seat of a
- locked car?
-
- In short, how much effort must one expend to secure property against
- theft in order to be held blameless if that property is, in fact, stolen
- and used to injure someone? Car windows can be smashed and car ignitions
- can be fairly easily and quickly bypassed. So is locking a car and
- taking the keys sufficient to avoid criminal and civil liability if the
- car is stolen and used to injure? Or must a seperate steering
- wheel/brake pedel lock or car alarm with ignition cut off be installed?
- What efforts must be taken to secure the tire iron or gasoline against
- theft and possible subsequent criminal misuse or accident in order to be
- held blameless in the event one or the other is actually stolen?
- Finally, would you require a higher level of diligence with, and/or
- impose greater punishment for incidents involving, a firearm than with
- gasoline, a tire iron, or even the car itself, and if so, on what basis?
-
- > Cavers do something similar to
- > avoid losing them somewhere in many miles of dark passages.
- > However, I would expect the parents to pay the damages.
-
- Civil liability for the damages inflicted by minor children makes sense.
- Criminal sanctions every time a child gets ahold of something he maybe
- should not have, seems out of line to me.
-
- Charles Hardy
- SLCo Utah
-
- ________________________________________________________________
- GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
- Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
- Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
- http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
- Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew
- Date: 07 May 2002 15:37:55 -0600
-
- Tue, 7 May 2002 13:39:09 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote:
-
- >>You don't want to arm your enemies or the incompetent.
-
- >True. But no less true, IMHO, if the "weapon" in question happens to be
- >a knife, gasoline and glass bottles, or a car or airplane, rather than a
- >firearm. I simply want firearms treated like any other object that is
- >occassionally used for ill or criminal intent or simply involved in
- >unfortunate accidents.
-
- Now you're starting to catch on. Be careful what you wish for,
- as you just might get it. Several jurisdictions have also
- subjected knives to severe restrictions. Perhaps gasoline
- and glass bottles may follow. The Australian Revolutionary
- Movement sent an article in one of its newsletters telling
- how to fight with a broken beer bottle.
-
- >>So don't engrave your knife with your name or similar
- >>identifying info, even though that might facilitate its
- >>return if lost?
-
- >I think you either miss or deliberately obfusicate the point.
-
- Do you really want to be prosecuted if you lose your knife?
- Firearms are already traceable, as they are required to have
- serial numbers, which were recorded on the federal sales forms.
-
- >will you refrain from objecting if someone leaves his firearm
- in a reasonably secure, out-of-sight safe in the car?
-
- I might still object if left in an obscure place for a long
- time, such as at a trailhead, or in a known high break-in area.
-
- >And what about someone who doesn't use a safe, but simply keeps
- >the weapons out of sight in a locked trunk, behind the seat of
- >a locked truck, or in the glove box or under the seat of a
- >locked car?
-
- This reduces defenses in a civil negligence case.
- There are ways to open truck doors without a key,
- and most glove boxes afford little protection
- other than visual.
-
- >Car windows can be smashed and car ignitions
- >can be fairly easily and quickly bypassed. So is locking a car and
- >taking the keys sufficient to avoid criminal and civil liability if the
- >car is stolen and used to injure? Or must a seperate steering
- >wheel/brake pedel lock or car alarm with ignition cut off be installed?
-
- Perhaps so in some places. One could expect a car to get
- broken into eventually in some parts of Wilmington, Delaware.
- Care to buy an ignition cut off?
-
- >What efforts must be taken to secure the tire iron or gasoline against
- >theft and possible subsequent criminal misuse or accident in order to be
- >held blameless in the event one or the other is actually stolen?
-
- In a high security area such as a prison, quite a lot.
-
- >Finally, would you require a higher level of diligence with, and/or
- >impose greater punishment for incidents involving, a firearm than with
- >gasoline, a tire iron, or even the car itself, and if so, on what basis?
-
- Yes. The firearm is more easily used, and requires less
- specialized training to misuse. As I wrote previously,
- it is roughly comparable to the car *keys*. I suppose
- leaving it unloaded would be comparable to leaving the
- keys in a car, but removing the fuel, battery, or spark
- plugs.
-
- Scott Bergeson
- South Salt Lake
- ---
- Smith & Wesson (pre-sellout): the original point-and-click interface
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
- Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew
- Date: 07 May 2002 16:17:40 -0600
-
- My final post on this thread.
-
- On Tue, 07 May 2002 15:37:55 -0600 Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
- writes:
-
- > Do you really want to be prosecuted if you lose your knife?
-
- Quite the contrary. My point was that I don't want to be prosecuted for
- losing my knife AND neither do I want to be prosecuted for losing my
- firearm.
-
- > Firearms are already traceable, as they are required to have
- > serial numbers, which were recorded on the federal sales forms.
-
- That they are traceable does NOT automatically mean that we should
- further punish someone who has his property stolen. Someone who
- accidently loses his property should also not be subject to prosecution
- unless it can be shown he was grossly negligent. Deliberately leaving a
- weapon (of any kind) in a playground seems negligent to me. Having a
- securing strap come undone and a knife or gun falling out on the
- playground, un-noticed by the carrier, is not automatically negligent in
- my book.
-
- The deputy who is the father of the 4 year old boy who shot at his
- neighbors is now charged with both reckless endangerment AND child abuse.
- The abuse charge stems from the fact that the boy was injured by the
- recoil of the gun!! Now, I'm not happy about any child misusing a gun.
- The weapon probably should not have had a shell chambered and the child
- most certainly needed to have received greater instruction in gun safety
- and morals over his short lifetime. But unless there was some history, I
- don't like the idea that a one time, unexpected act on the part of 4 year
- old subjects his father to being charged as a criminal. And I'd say the
- cut hand from the recoil is a far cry from child abuse. Closer to just
- deserts. The gun was put up on a high shelf and it's not like the guy
- handed it to his kid or left it on the kitchen table or in the toy box.
- He wasn't even away from home for any extended period. He was in his
- backyard working at the time.
-
- My question is, if the kid had stolen one of his mother's kitchen knives
- and threatened his neighbors, would the mom have been charged with a
- crime for not keeping her cutlerly locked up? Of course not unless the
- kid had some history of violence involving knives. So why should the
- father get charged for the same thing involving a gun. I'm guessing the
- gun was more difficult to get to and more difficult for a 4 year old to
- use, than one of the kitchen knives would have been.
-
- [Answering whether car owners have a duty to do more than just lock the
- car and take the keys.]
- > Perhaps so in some places.
-
- I disagree. I do not place such burdens on decent law abiding persons.
- The criminal who defeats the locks, breaks the glass, etc, etc, etc, is
- responsible. PERIOD. I do not believe in double victimizing the owner
- who has already had his property stolen.
-
- [Answering what measures should be required to secure a tire iron or
- gasoline in a car.]
- > In a high security area such as a prison, quite a lot.
-
- Not my question at all, and you know it. If some thug steals my tire
- iron from a business parking lot while I've spent 10 hours away from my
- car, I should have NO liability for what he does with it.
-
- > Yes. The firearm is more easily used, and requires less
- > specialized training to misuse.
-
- I disagree. A child can hurt himself much easier with a knife than with
- a gun, especially if the gun does not have a round in the chamber. And
- if specialized training is the criteria, I'm guessing we have FAR more
- people in this country who have received formal training in the use of
- automobiles (drivers ed) than in the use of firearms.
-
- I've made my points. The last word is yours.
-
- Charles Hardy
- SLCo
-
-
-
- ________________________________________________________________
- 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: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew
- Date: 07 May 2002 17:14:29 -0600
-
- On Tue, 7 May 2002 16:17:40 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote:
-
- >The deputy who is the father of the 4 year old boy who shot at his
- >neighbors is now charged with both reckless endangerment AND child abuse.
- >The abuse charge stems from the fact that the boy was injured by the
- >recoil of the gun!!
-
- That seems excessive. While perhaps not politically feasible, I
- should think censuring and prosecuting the prosecutor responsible
- for malicious prosecution would be in order.
-
- >My question is, if the kid had stolen one of his mother's kitchen knives
- >and threatened his neighbors, would the mom have been charged with a
- >crime for not keeping her cutlerly locked up?
-
- It may come to that, but if warranted, inadequate supervision,
- i.e. "neglect", would be more appropriate.
-
- >[Answering whether car owners have a duty to do more than just lock the
- >car and take the keys.]
- >>Perhaps so in some places.
-
- >I disagree. I do not place such burdens on decent law abiding persons.
- >The criminal who defeats the locks, breaks the glass, etc, etc, etc, is
- >responsible. PERIOD. I do not believe in double victimizing the owner
- >who has already had his property stolen.
-
- I'd hesitate to issue you comprehensive automotive insurance.
- IOW, with that attitude, expect higher than usual rates.
-
- >If some thug steals my tire iron from a business parking lot
- >while I've spent 10 hours away from my car, I should have NO
- >liability for what he does with it.
-
- Depends on your contract with the lot owner, but I
- would expect him to suffer most of the liability,
- at least to you for loss of the iron and damage to
- your car during its removal.
-
- >>Yes. The firearm is more easily used, and requires less
- >>specialized training to misuse.
-
- >I disagree. A child can hurt himself much easier with a knife than
- >with a gun, especially if the gun does not have a round in the chamber.
-
- Itself, yes. ("Child" is neuter.) However, the question
- involved harm to others, either negligently such as by
- a naive child, or intentionally when a thug steals it.
-
- >And if specialized training is the criteria, I'm guessing we have
- >FAR more people in this country who have received formal training
- >in the use of automobiles (drivers ed) than in the use of firearms.
-
- At least in Utah, drivers' ed does not typically teach how
- to force entry into or hotwire a car. To take the analogy
- to guns, this would compare to defeating a lock or safe.
-
- Scott Bergeson
- SSL
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
- Subject: World War II -- won the battle, lost the war
- Date: 09 May 2002 12:01:36 -0600
-
- Freedom News provides:
-
- World War II -- won the battle, lost the war
- ----------
- JPFO
- by Aaron Zelman
- "You sacrificed your youth, you saw your buddies die before your
- eyes, you gave up life and family and love as you fought in
- Europe or the Pacific -- all to save the world from fascism [but]
- America is becoming a lot like the countries you fought
- against..." (05/08/02)
- http://www.free-market.net/rd/42968930.html
-
- From 'anti-gunner' to 'firearms instructor' in 4 months
- ----------
- KeepAndBearArms.Com
- by Susan Erline White
- "In December 2001, I was a member of the 'Brady Bunch' and
- a woman afraid of having my father's guns in my home. By April
- 19, 2002, I had applied for a concealed carry license, been
- certified as a pistol instructor, had purchased my own 9mm
- Beretta..." (05/08/02)
- http://www.free-market.net/rd/51299518.html
-
- Liberty Belles
- ----------
- Liberty Belles
- "Putting the Second Amendment first."
- http://www.free-market.net/rd/332699527.html
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
- Subject: Democrats tone down anti-gun stance
- Date: 10 May 2002 10:15:44 -0600
-
- Democrats tone down anti-gun stance
- ----------
- Christian Science Monitor
- After years of publicly opposing the right to bear arms,
- Democrats are falling silent on the issue -- or even switching
- sides. Driving this change is a realization that their anti-gun
- stance has cost them dearly at the polls. (05/10/02)
- http://www.free-market.net/rd/371055011.html
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
- Subject: Judges flaunt law
- Date: 21 May 2002 12:32:47 -0600
-
- Feel free to forward.
-
- From today's SLTrib. What is the world coming to when those charged with
- judging the law flat out refuse to obey the law? I encourage everyone to
- contact their legislators, the governor, and Attorney General Shurtleff
- to demand that these rogue judges be reigned in. Flat out refusal to
- obey a properly passed and signed law really should be grounds for
- impeachment and removal from the bench, IMO.
-
- Contact information for the governor and all State legislators can be
- found on the GOUtah! web page at: http://www.goutahorg.org/ Click on the
- "Legislative Contacts" link on the left side of the page.
-
- AG Shurtleff may be reached at
-
- General Office Numbers: (801) 366-0300, (801) 538-9600
- Toll Free within the State of Utah: (800) AG 4 INFO (244-4636)
- E-Mail: uag@utah.gov
-
- Utah State Capitol Office
- 236 State Capitol
- Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810
- FAX: (801) 538-1121
-
-
-
- http://www.sltrib.com/05212002/utah/738687.htm
-
- Board Says 'No' to Guns In Courts
- Tuesday, May 21, 2002
-
-
- BY DAWN HOUSE
- THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
-
- Setting up a classic separation-of-powers battle, a board
- representing Utah's 70 district judges has voted to ignore a new state
- law ordering all courthouses to install gun storage lockers for holders
- of concealed-weapon permits.
- The Board of District Judges, representing the trial benches
- throughout Utah, announced Monday that its 10 elected leaders unanimously
- declined to install gun lockers, opting instead to continue a longtime
- policy of prohibiting the public from carrying guns in courthouses.
- "Citizens come to us to resolve their most serious and sometimes
- life-altering disputes," said 3rd District Judge Ron Nehring. "We owe
- them as safe of an environment as we can possibly provide."
- Fourth District Judge Tony Schofield said the gun prohibition is "not
- a rural-urban issue. It concerns in the most fundamental way all courts
- of the state."
- The resolution endorses an order issued earlier this month by 6th
- Judicial District Presiding Judge K. L. McIff, who instructed
- administrators in Sanpete, Sevier, Wayne, Piute, Kane and Garfield
- counties to disregard the law in favor of Judicial Council rules that ban
- firearms in Utah courthouses.
- "Security in and about courthouses is an essential and core function
- of the judiciary," wrote McIff, who also heads the Board of District
- Judges.
- "The judiciary's inherent power includes the right to prohibit
- weapons in courtrooms and, where the circumstances warrant, the entire
- courthouse."
- The orders are in response to the Utah Legislature, which
- overwhelmingly passed legislation mandating that all Utah courthouses
- erect gun storage lockers. In March, Gov. Mike Leavitt signed the bill
- into law.
- Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said Monday the "Legislature has
- the right to make laws, and the judges are required to obey them.
- "I call upon the judges to obey the law," he said. "If they don't,
- I'll seek input from the Legislature and the governor before I take any
- action, which could include a lawsuit."
- The district court board, in turn, appealed to the Utah Judicial
- Council to ratify its resolution and asked all state district and
- juvenile judges to adopt similar gun-ban orders. The Judicial Council,
- the panel that makes rules for Utah courts, will consider the gun issue
- next week.
- State Rep. John Swallow, R-Sandy, who sponsored the gun locker bill,
- said judges may not decide unilaterally which laws they will obey.
- "I would be surprised if any judicial rule would supersede state law
- that has been codified by the Utah Legislature," said Swallow, who is a
- 2nd Congressional District candidate. "When there's a question if a law
- is constitutional, right or fair, I would encourage any judge, any court
- or any individual in the state to go through the legitimate process and
- not simply take the law into their own hands."
- Swallow said "appropriate forums" would be for the judges to go
- before lawmakers "for help in solving what they may perceive as a
- problem," asking for a declaratory judgment or filing a lawsuit.
- Yet when University of Utah President Bernie Machen refused to bend
- to the Legislature's demand and filed a friendly lawsuit that seeks to
- uphold a campus gun ban, lawmakers threatened to cut his salary.
- "For anyone to ignore the law without going through the proper
- process doesn't seem right to me," said Swallow. "My bill doesn't open up
- courtrooms for guns. Instead of someone hiding a gun somewhere outside
- the courthouse, people holding a concealed-weapon permit would simply
- have a safe place to store their weapons."
- The rejection by the judges of Swallow's House Bill 82 comes on the
- heels of the Legislature's move this year to exercise greater influence
- on judicial disciplinary matters. Leavitt vetoed HB136 that reorganizes
- the Judicial Conduct Commission, but the Legislature overrode the veto.
-
- ________________________________________________________________
- 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: Re: Judges flaunt law
- Date: 21 May 2002 12:54:45 -0600
-
- On Tue, 21 May 2002 12:32:47 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote:
-
- >What is the world coming to when those charged with
- >judging the law flat out refuse to obey the law? I encourage everyone to
- >contact their legislators, the governor, and Attorney General Shurtleff
- >to demand that these rogue judges be reigned in. Flat out refusal to
- >obey a properly passed and signed law really should be grounds for
- >impeachment and removal from the bench, IMO.
-
- If not imprisonment for treason. Looks like open
- rebellion, by those charged with enforcing the law,
- to me. Send the State Guard to round them up. (Oops,
- Gov. Leavitt disbanded it.) Whatever, looks like the
- AG, the Governor, and the Legislature have their
- hands full. Will they fumble?
-
- Scott
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
- Subject: Apologies for muliple posts
- Date: 22 May 2002 13:37:41 -0600
-
- My apologies for the recent mulitiple copies of the same post from me.
-
- Email handler problems it seems.
-
- 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 <scottb@xmission.com>
- Subject: Re: Bad "compromise" on gun lockers
- Date: 22 May 2002 14:10:29 -0600
-
- Oops. Charles, please correct the posting address of this
- list in your address book.
-
- -------- Original Message --------
- CC: utah-firearms@xmisison.com, Mark L. Shurtleff <shurtlef@xmission.com>,
- Ric Cantrell <rcantrell@utah.gov>
-
- On Wed, 22 May 2002 13:28:53 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote:
-
- >With the greatest of respect
- >to our Attorney General I have some serious concerns about his
- >"compromise" to "fix" HB 82. It seems to me all it does is cave in to
- >judges desire to ban guns without providing any kind of storage.
-
- >I know nobody is anxious to go to court to have a judge determine whether
- >other judges have broken the law, but I hope our lawmakers reject this
- >quick "fix".
-
- Exactly. Fire all the rebellious judges and render them
- incapable of ever again holding any office of trust or
- profit in or under the State of Utah. (Same goes for
- Machen.) Don't even allow them to practice law or lobby.
-
- Scott
-
- >http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,400010032,00.html?
-
- >Shurtleff calls for a 'fix' in gun law
-
- >By Bob Bernick Jr. and Amy Joi Bryson
- >Deseret News staff writers
-
- >"We don't want to go to court," said Shurtleff, who realizes that
- >it would be judges deciding his case.
-
- -
-
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: Charles C Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
- Subject: Ding-dong the witch is dead
- Date: 30 May 2002 17:43:43 -0600
-
- I just received a phone call from SLTrib reporter Dan Harrie. According
- to Mr. Harrie the (misnamed) "Safe-to-Learn/Safe-to-Worship" citizen
- petition initiative is now officially dead. Sometime in the next couple
- of days marks the end of the 4 year window during which signatures could
- be gathered for their petition and they have admitted that they are no
- where close to having the signatures they need. If they wish to start
- again, they will have to start fresh with NO signatures from past
- efforts! They, of course, are claiming that the signature threshold is
- simply far too high to be achieved by ANYONE running a volunteer
- initiative.
-
- Heaven only knows what, if anything, I said, Mr. Harrie will chose to use
- in whatever story I presume he is preparing. However, I made the
- following points:
-
- 1-I'm glad, and not terribly surprised, that they have failed in their
- efforts.
-
- 2-This is proof positive they did not have the "overwhelming" public
- support they claimed they did. If the legislature really were as out of
- touch on this issue as they claimed, or if they had the huge levels of
- public support they claimed, they should have been able to gather the
- singatures needed in just a couple of years, even with volunteers. That
- they failed to do so after 4 years of efforts, proves there isn't any
- where close to the levels of support they have claimed.
-
- 3-They were deceptive in their efforts. They talked about kids bringing
- guns to schools when their petition did not address that at all. It only
- addressed those law-abiding adults who jumped through all the hoops and
- had obtained a CCW permit. And there simply haven't been any real
- problems with CCW permitees that would justify a change in our current
- law.
-
- 4-I suggested that as the people of Utah learned more about the real
- language and intent of the petition, support dropped even lower that it
- started out.
-
- 5-Whether we individually choose to carry a gun or not, we as a society
- and as individuals are all safer when those law-abiding adults who do
- choose to carry guns for self defense are able to do so with the fewest
- restrictions possible. Bad guys are placed in the position of asking
- themselves, "What are the odds my intended victim is going to have a gun
- and be able to shoot me?"
-
- 6-Churches are free to ban guns now and it requires nothing more than a
- small sign, similar to a no-smoking sign, to effect that ban. That so
- few churches have chosen to exercise that peragative is another
- indication that this really is not an issue of concern to most Utahns.
-
- 7-The lack of financial backing from average Utahns (and the subsequent
- need for an all volunteer signature gathering force) is another
- indication that support was mostly from a small number of vocal
- individuals and groups rather than from any widespread majority of
- voters.
-
- 8-The signature threshold is designed to be non-trivial. Whether it is
- too high, too low, or just right, is another question. But the fact
- remains that other petitions which were far more controversial than this
- one claimed to be did manage to get on the ballot. If this petition
- really had the support that its backers claimed, it should have been a
- shoe in. The end of this petition speaks for itself.
-
- I'm no media or PR expert, so as you're giving thanks that this effort
- has finally failed, ask that my comments don't end up making the pro-gun
- community look bad. :)
-
- 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/.
-
- -
-
-
-