ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.200205

Internet Message Format | 2002-05-29 | 64KB

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
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: [phone]
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: [e-mail]
Subscribe: [e-mail]
Unsubscribe: [e-mail]
List owner: [e-mail]
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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:
([e-mail]).  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 <[e-mail]>
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:
>([e-mail]).  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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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: [phone], [phone]
Toll Free within the State of Utah: (800) AG 4 INFO (244-4636)
E-Mail: [e-mail]

Utah State Capitol Office
236 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810
FAX: [phone]



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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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: [e-mail], Mark L. Shurtleff <[e-mail]>,
 Ric Cantrell <[e-mail]>

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 <[e-mail]>
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/.

-