Sen. Bramble's SB 103 which eliminates the 60 day limit on out-of-State CCW permits passed the Senate's third reading today on a vote of 25 to 0 with 4 absent. Those absent were Dmitrich, Hickman, Hillyard, Mansell.
It now moves to the house of Representatives. Please encourage your Representative to support SB 103 without amendment.
My thanks to Sen. Bramble and all those who voted in favor of this bill.
Subject: Latest on SB 38 and HB 178 --Contact Senate Judiciary Committee member
Date: 05 Feb 2003 21:11:49 GMT
Here are some updates on a couple of bills, clarification on history, etc. These are my personal opinions and best recollections.
Sen. Julander's latest assault on the right to a meaningful defense, SB 38 that would impose significant criminal and civil penalties if a child manages to get ahold of one of your guns and injures himself or someone else, has been released from the Senate rules committee and assigned to the Senate Judiciary committee. This is the now proverbial "lock up your protection" bill that essentially requires you to store your weapons under lock and key under most circumstances.
Sen. Julander is trying to blunt some of the most emotional critisism of her bill by including a few meaningless bones such as a provision "encouraging" police to be sensitive about the timing of any arrests, "encouraging" prosecutors to be sensitive in decisions about prosecuting someone who has had a child injured or killed due to an accidnt, and including a 1/2 million dollar cap on civil awards--still more than enough to bankrupt your average gun owner.
The fiscal analysis of this bill completely fails to consider the financial impact to individuals required to either buy a gun safe (expensive) or use "external locking devices" (proven to be inneffective and even dangerious).
I'm also at a loss as to why firearms should be treated fundamentally differently than any other useful and potentially dangerous item around the home such as chemical cleaners, medications, empty 5 gallon buckets, or kitchen cutlery.
Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary (listed below) and encourage them to oppose this bill.
Rep. Ty McCartney's HB 178 has also been sent to the Senate Judiciary committee. This bill adds various attempts or agreements to obtain a gun to the list of things that a Catagory I restricted person (convicted violent felons, those on parole or probation from ANY secure facility--regardless of the underlying orginal offense--and those on probation for any felonies) can be prosecuted for along with actually possessing a gun.
Initially, GOUtah! offered no opposition to this bill and it sailed through committee. Upon further reading, we become concerned that the new langauge was so broad as to create a hazard for entrappment of those who unknowingly or unwittingly agreed to take possession of a firearm without even realizing that is what they were doing. We spoke with Rep. McCartney and asked him to add a minor modification to his bill so that a crime is committed only if a person "knowingly or intentionally" agreed or arranged to possess a gun. While Rep. McCartney was proffessional and civil, he dismissed our concerns and request for minor change as unfounded and unneeded.
We also discovered a serious problem in current statute within the same section of code as that amended by HB 178. Under current law, if a person is indicted for any felony (not convicted, but only indicted), he may not possess NOR TRANSFER (IE give away, sell, lend, etc) any firearm or he is guilty of a felony. This is a real catch-22. You cannot own guns, but you cannot legally dispose of them either. In other words, if you are indicted for a felony your entire gun collection can be seized immediately and even if the orginal indictment is eventually thrown out or you are acquited, you are still guilty of a felony for having owned a firearm at the moment you were indicted.
So GOUtah! also asked Rep. McCartney to make a very minor amendment to his bill to correct this gross injustice in current law. Again, he refused, not wanting to "muddy the waters" on his current bill. He did offer to support a seperate bill to correct this problem. Of course, offering to support a seperate bill or to "work together in the future on this issue" is a favorite ploy of politicians to get constitutents and activists to go away happy without having actually recieved anything they needed.
After getting the word out about our concerns on this bill and gun owners started calling their representatives, the bill that had thus far flown through the House, failed handily on its third reading. At that point, Rep. Curtis (who voted against the bill) moved to reconsider and that motion passed, which placed the bill back on the 3rd reading calander.
Rep. Curtis amended the bill by adding the words "intentionally or knowingly" to both the new offense of a Catagory I person attempting to obtain a firearm as well as to the existing offense of a Catagory I person actually possessing a firearm. The bill then passed the 3rd reading in the house and is now in the Senate Judiciary committee.
As it currently stands, this bill is more or less benign, and may even be a bit of an improvement in that a Catagory I person must "intentionally or knowingly" possess a firearm before a crime is committed. Parking a friend's car, not knowing there is a gun under the seat would no longer constitute a crime for a Catagory I restricted person. Ironically, a Catagory II person (presumably less dangerous than a Catagory I person) does not currently have this same protection extended to him.
Unfortunately, the current gross injustice of potentially losing an entire gun collection (likely to never get it back) AND be guilty of a felony (not likely to be prosecuted as that would highlight the insanity of the current law and maybe lead to a judge ordering your guns returned) simply because you owned guns at that moment a felony indictment (could be for a tax problem, an environmental offense, or maybe even an Olympic case) is handed down and regardless of the eventuall outcome of the case, remains in the law.
Due to various rules and procedures in the legislature, using an existing bill (such as HB 178) that is already modifying this section of code is our best bet to correct this problem this session.
Please contact gun friendly members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to amend this bill so as to remove a felony indictment as one of the things that makes a person a "catagory II" restricted person. Along with the injustice and catch-22 in current law, it simply isn't needed.
A truly dangerous person who is indicted can and should be held in custody without bail. And a judge may impose restrictions on a person who is released on bail. So there is no need for a blanket prohibition on everyone who is indicted for one of the ever growing list of technical and non-violent felonies.
Also ask the Senators to add "intentionally or knowingly" to the prohibiton against Catagory II persons.
Again, the list of Senate Judiciary members follows.
It is unfortunate the Rep. McCartney was unwilling to work with us originally on this bill. While we had hoped this was just a matter of differences in tactics, rather than a sign that Rep. McCartney is hostile to gun rights, at least a couple of procedural votes in support of very bad, anti-gun bills leads us to worry that despite his claims otherwise, Rep. McCartney may well be fundamentally opposed to some significant aspects of the RIGHT to own and carry firearms.
We are also troubled that we are hearing reports from various legislators that Rep. McCartney represented to them that he had the support of various gun groups, including GOUtah! on his bill.
For the record, GOUtah! NEVER supported this bill. As stated early, we originally took a position of "NO POSITION" which essentially means we leave it to our individual members to arrive at whatever conclusion they may, without much input from us. Even then, we had asked Rep. McCartney to fix the "indictment" problem in current language. So that is a long way from any kind of support. And by the time the third vote came in house, we had made it clear that we were opposing the bill outright.
We hope and expect this was an honest mistake on Rep. McCartney's part rather than a deliberate fabrication.
However, please be aware that such mistakes do get made (and once ina while in the heat of a legislative session, the truth might even get stretched by those who are anxious to pass a less than ideal gun bill) and if you hear reports of any pro-gun groups suppposedly supporting a bill you believe is bad, please contact your group at once so that any misperceptions can be corrected.
Thanks.
Charles
Senate Judiciary Members (full contact info at www.goutahorg.org):
Any who live near USU may want to attend these if possible.
From the latest USU "Statesman" newspaper's LTE section.
Charles
LETTER: Let gun opinions come out
Editor,
The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News recently printed articles attacking Sen. Mike Waddoups' bill that would clarify current law allowing concealed weapon permit holders to carry on public schools. I don't mind that these articles were biased in their views, my problem is that both newspapers censored out several articles and opinions that were sent in expressing support for Sen. Waddoups. As a result, Utahns are only getting half the story, told in an emotional way without all the facts.
These papers prefer the legislators to "write a law clarifying that holders of concealed-carry permits are forbidden to bring guns into schools." They ignore the fact that CC permit holders committing any kind of gun crime is almost unheard of, and that firearms are used to protect life and property more often than criminals use them to break the law.
What these newspapers prefer is for mothers who pick their children up from school to make a choice of breaking the law by being prepared to protect her family and self, or conform with the law and be a submissive victim.
The Students of the Second Amendment will be hosting Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff to discuss concealed carry bans by universities on Feb. 20 at 3 p.m. in the Taggart Student Center Auditorium. The following week, the club will host Mitch Vilos who will be teaching a class on concealed carry permits. Don't rely on our managed news propaganda, but seek out the other side also.
Yesterday, the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee interviewed both nominees for the Utah Supreme Court, including judge Nehring. Both candidates talked a good talk and claimed to oppose judicial activism. However, both also cited "ethical guidelines" in refusing to discuss anything meaningful about the right to own and carry self defense.
These past two articles remind us that Judge Nehring will say one thing and then do another. In the DesNews article, he makes clear he is opposed to gun lockers, but seems to say he'll follow the will of the people as expressed via the legislature, "...God bless them."
However, as reported in the second, he voted as a member of the State Judicial council to support Judge McIff in his CLEARLY illegal ban on both guns and lockers.
PLEASE remember that all of this happened BEFORE the judges found the "loophole" in the law they claim allows them to ban guns via fiat (rather than via declaring a legally secure area), while still not providing lockers. At the time of these articles, the judges--with Nehring as one of their leaders--were simply declaring themselves above the will of the legislature.
So far, the legislature has done nothing on this issue to support our rights to bear arms as we travel to and from court.
They should reject Nehring's nomnation as he clearly is willing to ignore the rule of law.
If possible, when communicating with your senators, stress "activist judge pushing his own views instead of interperting the law," rather than "gun lockers". If anyone knows of some additional incidents to cite beyond the gun lockers that backs up this point, please let me know.
"Utah deserves better!" than a activist judge who isn't even honest enough to admit he is an activist.
Anyone can talk the talk for an hour. We've seen the walk he walks.
Sen. Curt Bramble's SB 103 which removes the unenforcable, unneeded 60 day limit on out-of-State CCW permits has passed the house on a 48-19 vote with 8 absent or not voting. It will now go to the governor. Barring his veto (always possible with any good bill) this bill will become law a couple months from now.
My thanks to Sen. Bramble for sponsoring this bill. My thanks to all those who called or otherwise voiced their support.
The following story is in today's SLTrib. It may be a waste of time. Or it may be a chance for freedom-loving, RKBA supporting individuals to provide a little diversity to the otherwise gun hating, big government loving group-think that seems to pervade newsrooms these days.
For those interested in joining, the email address is <readerpanel@sltrib.com>.
Charles
http://www.sltrib.com/readerpanel/
The Tribune Wants to Hear From You
As towns and cities in Utah get larger, representing an entire community can be a daunting task for a newspaper. We at the Web edition of The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah Online, are stepping up our efforts to improve communication with you, our growing online community. Join The Panel:
You can join the Tribune Reader Panel by emailing us here.
Our hope is to compile a list of thoughtful readers willing to share their ideas, opinions and thoughts with us and with the community.
The Salt Lake Tribune is one of 27 newspapers chosen from around the country to join in an effort to forge new methods of communication between the newspaper and its readers. This project, sponsored by the Associated Press Managing Editors organization, is another step toward accomplishing that goal.
Ken Sands, Online Editor for the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington, and the coordinator of the APME Reader Interactive program has created a contact list of readers. The readers who volunteer are asked to provide feedback regularly on issues via email. The Spokane newspaper has seen impressive results in the quality of feedback they receive. We plan to emulate this successful program.
How does it work? To use a real-life example, The Spokesman-Review contacted readers on their list after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Of the 500 people they contacted, about 70 provided good leads or possible interviews future stories.
Another newspaper participating in the program had solicited responses before the State of the Union address and posted reader feedback on online only thirty minutes after the president finished.
We have no desire to make this burdensome on you, the reader. We plan on contacting participants no more than once every two weeks. We also do not provide email addresses on our list to anyone else.
If you are interested in joining The Tribune's reader panel or if you have more questions, please send email to readerpanel@sltrib.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Subject: SB 251, Banning shooting in ANY direction passes out of Senate Committ
Date: 21 Feb 2003 16:51:24 GMT
Sen. Bev Evans' SB 251 which is worded so broadly and vaugely as to make possible the prohibition on discharging a firearm for hunting or recreation almost anywhere in the State passed out of the Senate Judiciary committee this morning.
It will now go to the floor of the Senate. Please contact your State Senator and ask him to oppose SB 251.
Subject: OFF-topic perhaps: SB 125, Riding in a pickup bed to be heard Tuesday
Date: 24 Feb 2003 19:42:05 GMT
SB 125 that would micro-manage one more aspect of our lives by banning everyone under the age of 18 from riding in the bed of a pickup (except for parades and agricultural uses) has been released from the House rules committee and is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, Tuesday, mornning at 8:00 am in the House Transportation committee. Please contact committee members and ask them to oppose this bill.
If possible, please attend the hearing and speak against this bill.
This bill is simply not needed. It is a bad idea. Even if one were to concede it is needed, which I don't, it is also a grossly stupid implementation. It makes no distinction between a busy interstate freeway and a quiet country lane. If you're on a public road, no one under 18 can ride in the back of the truck.
I also find it intriguing that a 16 year old can get a license to ride a motorcycle and is then perfectly free to ride from here to St. George and back. However, that same 16 year old is, under the presumptions of this bill, too immature to decide whether or when it might be appropriate to ride in the bed of a pickup? Similarly, a father can choose to take his 7 or 8 year old for a ride on his motorcycle, but under this bill is too stupid and irresponsible to decide when it might be ok to hold his child on his lap as they ride a couple miles in a pickup bed. As a long time motorcycle rider, I am convinced that riding a motorcycle--as either a passenger or operator, there is no real difference--is far more dangerous than riding in the bed of a pickup.
This bill will almost certainly be supported by talking about "children." But the bill was sponsored because the Boy Scouts (a group I support in most things) are having trouble enforcing their internal policy against anyone riding in the bed of a pickup while on a scout activity. Thus, this bill is NOT aimed at correcting some widespread problem of people making their 4 or 5 year olds ride in the bed of pickup. Rather, it is targeted at 12-17 year old adolecents and young adults and removes all discretion for parents to decide under what conditions such activities might be appropriate.
Please oppose this bill.
Charles Hardy
Members of the House Transportation Committee are below and messages for several representatives can be left at once by calling the House switchboard at 538-1029, faxes can be sent to 538-1908:
The SLTribune is reporting that the Senate Confirmation Committee has approved Judge Nehring's nomination to the Utah State Supreme Court. It did not report on vote totals and I have no idea, at this point, which members of the committee, if any, voted against his nomination.
He now goes to the full Senate for a vote.
I believe this is one of the most crucial gun issues facing us this year. Bills, whether good or bad, can and will be brought up again next year. Good laws will be attacked every session. And bad laws can be repealed or amended at some future date.
BUT, a supreme court justice sits for life. He will issue rulings for MANY years to come that will affect our RKBA and other rights. I agree with the author (Neil Smith, I think) who wrote that a person's view on the individual right to own and carry guns for self defense is a pretty good indicator of their whole political outlook. A person who does not trust his fellow citizens to carry guns probably doesn't trust them to make a lot of other decisions for themselves.
Further, to date, the Utah Legislature has done NOTHING to reign in the courts or force them to obey the gun laws passed. Approving the nomination of one of the ring leaders of the successful effor to thwart legislative intent on CCW sends a terrible message to both the courts and the Governor and other government officials. It says the legislature has no intention of seeing that gun or other laws are actually abided.
Please contact your Senator and urge him to vote against Judge Nehring.
Subject: SB 108 passes the house with minor amendments
Date: 27 Feb 2003 00:56:44 GMT
Hello all,
FYI, the legislative web site is reporting that Sen. Waddoups' SB 108 has passed its third reading in the House with two minor amendments in the church language portion of the bill.
One change requires BCI to post on their website any churches that have banned guns.
The other change shortens the duration of a church gun ban from 5 years to one year. Thus, a church that wishes to ban guns will need to provide some kind of public notice (newspaper public notice section, announcment from the pulpit, etc) and notify BCI of their continued ban on guns at least once every 12 months or the gun ban will expire.
SB 108 will now have to be returned to the Senate for a "concurance" vote. If I'm not mistaken, the Senate can vote to accept the bill as amended, in which case it passes. Or, it can reject the House amendments in which case a conference committee of House and Senate members will meet to work out new langauge, and both houses will get to vote on that new language.
Subject: OFF TOPIC PERSONAL -- My son going in for surgery
Date: 28 Feb 2003 04:14:22 GMT
Dear Friends,
If you'll forgive me for a personal announcement and request at this busy time of year, our 4 month old son, Wesley, is scheduled to have surgery to correct a congential displacement of the hips this next week. Essentially, he was born with hip joints that are too shallow to properly hold the head of the femur in place. This is not a terribly rare occurance, though it is far more common in first or breech girls than in boys. He is also one of the minority cases that is not correctable using a harness.
This is not new or exotic surgery, but it is hard to think of anything as routine when it is your baby boy going under general anesthisia and the knife.
Jennifer and I would welcome you including him and his physicians in your prayers and/or fasting over the next few days.
I know there is more than one way to look at the whole credit union / bank debate. And I certainly don't care to start that debate here over this post. Nor am I suggesting that there is necessarily only one right or "freedom supporting" view when it comes to banks and credit unions.
However, it is interesting to note what groups and associations some of the most visible anti-self-defense (aka anti-gun, anti-RKBA) people in this State lend their support and names to, outside of the gun issue. It is also interesting if one recalls how some of these organizations conduct their public campaigns, how much honesty, vs. half-truths they use.
This looks to be one more verification that Neil Smith was correct in asserting that a person's view on guns is, very often, a very good barometer into his (or her) entire political phylosophy.
(Smith's short essay on this can be found here <http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/why_guns.htm>.)
Note that if a hyper link crosses a line, it will need to be manually cut and pasted into your web browser.
Charles
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Over the past few weeks the incessant advertisements by The Resolution
Alliance (http://www.resolutionalliance.org), a self-purported mediator of the 'feud' between banks and credit unions, has caught my attention. These advertisements have seemed quite one-sided to me, so I decided to try and learn a little more about this organization. Perhaps many of you already know this information, but what I found after a brief search was quite enlightening to me. It certainly caused me to wonder about this organization and its self-representation as a neutral third party. It may be considered hypocritical by some that a bank-funded, non-profit entity would be criticizing the not-for-profit credit unions. What's really going on here?
Interesting Article (from Members First Credit Union, Brigham City)
<http://www.members-first-cu.com/resolution.htm>
Resolution Alliance acknowledges that all its funding comes from banks.
Maura Carabello, former Utah Banker's Association consultant, was
recommended to Resolution Alliance by the Utah Bankers Association for the president and administrator position. Additionally, the Utah Bankers Association supports Resolution Alliance. The Utah League of Credit Unions does not.
