The latest from USSC. Please note that I believe I have found a problem with SB 108, not mentioned by USSC.
Along with the good that it does in clarifying the primacy of CCW permits over any anti-self-defense school policy, SB 108, also adds Schedule II drugs to the Schedule I drugs that a person is already prohibited from being in illegal possession of while also possessing a gun. Being in "unlawful possession" of a Schedule II drug, makes a person a "Catagory I restricted Person" for whom, possession of a firearm becomes a felony offense. Now before you think I've gone soft in the head for drug addicts, read on.
Along with a lot of commonly abused/recreational drugs, schedule II drugs include some fairly common perscription pain killers like codeine. If I am not mistaken, in Utah, it is illegal to have perscription drug outside its original perscription bottle.
So, under this particular change in SB 108, an arthritis patient who places a couple of his perscrption pain pills into a pocket pill carrier (rather than taking his entire bottle with him to potentially lose or get stolen) and goes out for a day of hunting, is now a "Category I" restricted person and is guilty of a felony for having his hunting gun with him. SB 108 provides an "affirmative defense" to this charge if one had a perscription for the drug or if one had in his possession for legal dispensing to an animal or other member of his household.
HOWEVER, an "affirmative defense" does not prevent being arrested and charged. It is simply a defense that can be presented to the court during trial.
Also, under current statute is section 76-10-503, it is a felony to own, possess, control, OR TRANSFER a firearm if you are under felony indictment. Not conviction, indictment.
So, you happen to be on some pain meds for some reason (illness, neck injury, arthritis, etc). You break State law by placing a couple of your percsription pain pills into a pocket pill dispensor both for convenience and to prevent the risk of loss or theft of you entire bottle, and head out for a day or weekend of hunting. A peace officer asks you for your hunting license. You retrieve it from your pocket and end up digging up your pocket pill dispensor at the same time. The officer sees your pills, recognizes them as a schedule II drug and is now within his proper powers to arrest you for having a gun while being in illegal possession of a schedule II drug (your pain pill outside their original bottle).
You have a legitimate perscription for the meds in question, but you cannot make an "affirmative defense" until your case is at trial. The DA happens to be a hardnose for whatever reason and gets a felony indictment (for the possession of drugs and guns at the same time) to proceed to trial. At the moment the indictment is handed down, you are now guilty of a second felony: being a "Category II" person (one under felony indictment) who owns guns. At this point, it is not only illegal for you to own guns, but it is illegal for you to transfer (IE, sell, gift, lend) your guns.
So the DA sends the police over to seize your entire gun collection including your grandfather's hunting rifle and that civil war collector's piece you're so proud of. You go to trial on the original charge, present your "affirmative defense" and are acquited. However, that doesn't change the fact that you WERE under felony indictment while you owned firearms. The DA/police are under NO obligation to return your collection to you nor even to compensate you for it.
Further, if the DA really has it in for you, he can now charge you with a felony for even owning guns while under indictment. Under current law, you are supposed to see a felony indictment coming, and completely disarm yourself BEFORE the grand jury decides to indict.
So, contrary to the info in the alert below, you may want to consider asking for a small amendment to SB 108 to either remove the schedule II drugs or to include a stronger protection against techincal violations than just an "affirmative defense" clause.
My $0.02 worth.
Charles
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
USSC URGENT ACTION ALERT-
FOR ALL UTAH SHOOTING SPORTS COUNCIL MEMBERS & SUPPORTERS
IMPORTANT COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY---CALL IMMEDIATELY!!!
We apologize for the short notice.
You need to Phone, FAX, or Email---- See info below
TUESDAY MEETING
PLEASE CONTACT SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS IMMEDIATELY
Tell them you support Senator Mike Waddoups' SB 108 and want to see it passed without amendment. Be brief and polite, the committee members are very busy.
Please plan on attending the meeting if you can at 3:00 PM in Room 414 of the Capitol. This bill will be the 4th item on the agenda, so there is always a chance they may not get to it. Dress appropriately (coat and tie is best, or business casual at least).
Senator Mike Waddoups (a staunch supporter of legal self defense) has Senate Bill 108 before the Senate Judiciary Committee TUESDAY. Most people thought this was not going to be a controversial bill since it merely clarifies a minor technical conflict between two sections of the state laws. However, the anti-self defense crowd has been charging it will change the law and for the first time allow guns in schools, spreading their disinformation in the media.
The truth is that people with permits to carry legal self defense weapons have been allowed in schools since 1995, and have been doing so. (Remember, it is a "concealed weapon" permit so no one notices.) With over 51,100 permits issued in the last six years, there is ample proof this is not endangering students or staff. Efforts by the anti-gun crowd to spread rumors about alleged incidents were foiled when USSC used GRAMA requests to get statements from every school district on the issue. Their official responses proved the allegations to be FALSE! There were NONE.
Permit holders are no more likely to commit serious crimes than are educators. Scare stories about permits being revoked (in almost insignificant numbers) need to be balanced by the fact that some educators also commit felony offenses. A few bad apples should not tarnish the reputation of these two groups made up of mainly good, honest, hard working people.
ACTION REQUIRED
SAMPLE EMAIL- Send one to each of the Committee members listed below, or call or FAX them:
SUBJECT- Support SB 108 without changes
Dear Senator- I urge you to support Senator Waddoups' SB 108 (Dangerous Weapon Amendments) as introduced. This is a minor clarification of a technical conflict between two sections of the Utah Statutes. This is not a change in policy concerning guns in schools. ONLY people with permits to carry legal self defense weapons are allowed to have them in schools now (or anywhere else for that matter). It will still be illegal for those without permits to carry a concealed weapon in schools (or anywhere else).
Do not make schools more dangerous by mandating that only unarmed victims will be found there.
Thank you.
Senate Judiciary Committee members (Name, (Party- District), email, phone.
Gregory S. Bell, Chairman (R - 22) gbell@utahsenate.org 801-971-2001
Watch for information on two additional important gun bills coming up for committee hearings Thursday. You will need to call, email, or FAX again. This little bit of work is a small price to defend your rights.
CHANGE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS FOR ALERTS
Go to the USSC website (UtahShootingSports.com) and use the ADD--DROP--CHANGE ADDRESS section. Just "unsubscribe" your old address and "subscribe" the new one, all in about 30 seconds. If this was forwarded by someone, we invite you to sign up for free alerts or USSC membership on the USSC website
USSC WEBSITE-
http://UtahShootingSports.com includes frequent updates of gun related news stories from Utah and around the nation. There will be daily updates on gun related bills during the Legislative Session.
---------- Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> writes:
>>While commonly neglected, one is supposed to have a pharmacy label
on secondary containers such as medisets. If the concern is merely
not to carry one's entire supply on an outing, keep an old pharmacy
bottle (for that schedule II prescription written to you) and put
1 or 2 pills in it.<<
>>I have a defunct monitor. Hazardous waste disposal regulations
currently don't apply to households, so the government hazardous
waste people have told me to just toss it in the trash rather
than paying Lucency a $10 recycling fee. (I'm tempted to return
it to RC Willey.) Should that exemption change, one's "firearms"
could be confiscated for disposal of common household items. My
point is many actual and potential felony violations exist of
which most people are totally unaware. This prohibition on
transfer is just another license to steal (and prosecute ex
post facto). Let the reps know this imposition is unacceptable.<<
And this is the crux of the problem. They talk about "violent felons" and everybody demands that we not let them get guns. But the actual language always applies to a whole host of technical "crimes" that most people don't even realize are crimes. Environmental regs are a huge area of concern in this regard as are the overly complex tax laws. Simply put, it is just far too easy to end up as a convicted felon (which now includes ANY offense in ANY jurisdiction that carried a possible sentence of 1 year or greater, regardless of what it was called at the time) with absolutely no knowledge or intent to ever harm anyone.
>>Or switch to Vioxx or Celebrex. You shouldn't be handling guns
while taking narcotics (or anxiolytics like benzodiazepines,
or even antihistamines) or drinking alcohol anyhow, even though
these may be schedule IV or V or even OTC.<<
I'm not a doctor nor a pharmacist, so I won't claim to know what effect any drug is going to have on any given person. And individuals should certainly give consideration to their mental state before handling a gun. But bear in mind, these legal restrictions do not just apply to hunters in the field or someone CCWing on a public street. They apply just as much in your own home. I don't believe a person should automatically lose the ability to mount a meaningful self defense simply because he happens to be taking one drug or another under a doctor's orders. I have been told that various pain killers have far less of an impairing effect when used by someone who is in pain as compared to when they are abused by someone who is not in pain.
>>Subtly suggest a friend or relative "burglarize" them? (I.e.,
"Here's a spare key. It wouldn't be good were the police to find
guns and ammunition in [place], nor unexplained fingerprints.
I wouldn't notice should that key be misplaced when I come back
into this room.")<<
I'd suspsect that if one doesn't get one's guns seized upon being arrested following the isuance of the indictment that one could find all kinds of ways to get rid of them that would be hard to prove as a crime. But one shouldn't have to over just an indictment. And if one is served with an arrest warrant or one's home is searched immediately upon issuance of an indictment, I'd guess the guns are likely to be seized before one ever has a chance to dispose of them.
In fact, as far as I'm concerned, there should be some reasonable period (say 30 days) for a person newly convicted of a felony to dispose of his otherwise legally owned firearms (maybe require that his "agent"--either attorney, friend, family member etc physically handle the guns instead of the newly convicted felon) before he is guilty of a gun crime and subject to loss of personal property.
I hope everyone has taken a moment to call the members of the Senate Judiciay committee to voice concerns with this one provision of the bill. The rest of bill--dealing with schools--very much needs to be passed.
