For those who care, there is a new on-line alumni newsletter at the University of Utah. It is currently conducting a poll regarding CCW at the U.
To voice your opinion (including the option to leave comments), go to <http://sh2.alumni.utah.edu/alumni/newsletter.php> and scroll down almost all the way to the bottom of the page. The poll is on the right hand side.
Current results are:
Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because the dangers outweigh the benefits and they would not deter criminal behavior. 273
Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because they would act as a deterrent to criminal behavior. 194
Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment. 105
Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because they would deter free speech and academic freedom. 38
Total votes: 610
Here are some interesting comments someone I know posted:
"The newsletter editor doesn't address an important
nuance of the UofU's policy. As the UofU argued
in federal district court, the university only intends to enforce its
policy against faculty, staff, and students. The UofU argued in court
documents that it does not intend to enforce its policy against
permit holders who do not fall into the aforementioned categories.
"The Utah Attorney General's website is a good resource to read at
least one side's arguments in the case.
"See http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/highprofileissues.htm"
IOW, the U's policy is not only stupid, it is discriminatory in that only university members are left defenseless. Visitors, invited or otherwise, are perfectly free to carry legal weapons.
Subject: U Alumi Online shuts down its poll--Chronicle has one of its own
Date: 02 Apr 2003 22:36:16 GMT
All,
It seems the UofU online Alumi newsletter did not like the way their poll on CCW on campus was going. Attempting to view results brings up, instead, a page saying the poll was shut down due to "spamming and distorting." Of course, no information on what their evidence is for that claim.
However, the online version of the U's student newspaper, "The Chronicle" has its own poll asking whether the U should keep up its battle to ban guns. Of course, in typical fashion, they have two "No" answers and only one "yes" answer, thus distorting the results a little.
But if you're of a mind to do so, surf over and log your vote. In my experience, if these things go in favor of gun control, they are trumpted as some kind of gospel truth despite the fact that they are not scientific. However, if they go in favor of RKBA, we never hear of them again.
Go to <http://www.utahchronicle.com> and scroll down to the bottom of the page. Poll is on the right hand side.
charles
Current results:
Should the U continue its fight to keep guns off campus?
Yes. The U must do all it can.
(65%; 120 votes)
No. It's a pointless battle. The U should give up.
(27%; 50 votes)
No. Even though it's good to keep guns off campus, the U can't succeed.
Interestingly enough, the poll has been 'frozen due to spamming and
distorting" (their own words). In other words, the numbers don't reflect
what they wanted to see, so they don't want it to be seen anymore.
Waaaaahhh...
--
Karl L. Pearson
Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
Senior Consulting Database Analyst
karlp@ourldsfamily.com
http://consulting.ourldsfamily.com
My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Charles Hardy wrote:
>For those who care, there is a new on-line alumni newsletter at the University of Utah. It is currently conducting a poll regarding CCW at the U.
>
>To voice your opinion (including the option to leave comments), go to <http://sh2.alumni.utah.edu/alumni/newsletter.php> and scroll down almost all the way to the bottom of the page. The poll is on the right hand side.
>
>Current results are:
>
>Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because the dangers outweigh the benefits and they would not deter criminal behavior. 273
>
>Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because they would act as a deterrent to criminal behavior. 194
>
>Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment. 105
>
>Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because they would deter free speech and academic freedom. 38
>
>Total votes: 610
>
>Here are some interesting comments someone I know posted:
>
>
>"The newsletter editor doesn't address an important
>nuance of the UofU's policy. As the UofU argued
>in federal district court, the university only intends to enforce its
>policy against faculty, staff, and students. The UofU argued in court
>documents that it does not intend to enforce its policy against
>permit holders who do not fall into the aforementioned categories.
>
>"The Utah Attorney General's website is a good resource to read at
>IOW, the U's policy is not only stupid, it is discriminatory in that only university members are left defenseless. Visitors, invited or otherwise, are perfectly free to carry legal weapons.
One more poll on guns. This one is going in our favor currently so go log your vote and keep it that way. One excuse used by the UofU alumi association for shutting down their poll is that the results were different than those showing up in the Chronicle poll.
Charles
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
The Ogden Stupid-Exaggerator is running a poll about Leavitt's decision to
sign SB108 clarifying a CCW right to carry in schools. Vote YES.
http://www.standard.net/opinion.html
Thanks.
The UofU Alumni pollsters decided, without benefit of cookies, that most the
overwhelming pro-gun votes received yesterday were "duplicates" so they've
Subject: Fw:RE: Legally concealed guns on campus poll
Date: 03 Apr 2003 00:12:11 GMT
Not sure what kind of explanation Ms. Marion expects when a poll gives results you don't like. Nor do I know how they can tell which votes are multiples if they didn't bother to implement the basic measures to limit multiple votes in the first place.
But if you haven't already, go over to the U of U and vote for the least objectionable option there. Nothing like creating a little mental dissonance in the minds of gun haters.
Charles
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Mr. Hardy,
Thank you for your comments. It became clear this morning that someone had
been "spamming" our poll with multiple opinions because the numbers changed
so dramatically, and without explanation. I informed the newsletter
technical specialist of the situation, and he has stopped the voting in
order to delete all of the multiplications, of which there are many. It's
obvious that someone with an agenda has been undermining the validity of the
poll--something we will try not to allow to happen again.
Unfortunately, there are some out there who lack the integrity to allow the
poll to reflect accurately the opinion of our alumni readers.
If you doubt that the opinion of our poll has been intentionally skewed by
multiple votes, please look at the results of the Daily Utah Chronicle,
which, coincidentally, is conducting a similar poll
(http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/).
Regards,
Linda Marion
Editor
U-News & Views
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:27 PM
Dear Sir or Madam,
I checked your web site today to see what the results of your poll on
legally carried weapons on campus were. When I clicked on the "results"
link, I did not find the results. Instead, I received the following
message:
"We are sorry for the inconvinience. This poll has been frozen due to
spamming and distorting."
If you have some evidence of "spamming and distorting" I would ask you to
post such evidence. I'd also like to see what the last valid results
showed. Certainly if you have evidence of spamming, you have some idea of
when it started and can post data as it stood, prior to that.
If you do not, I can only assume that your evidence amounts to nothing more
than the fact that--at least when I voted--the poll seemed to be going
strongly in favor of allowing legally carried weapons on campus.
I realize these polls are unscientific to begin with. But if you don't like
the results, quite posting the polls and then using them to bolster
positions when you do get answers you like.
Clarification of your position would be most appreciated.
It looks like the UofU alumni site has re-opened their poll. I'll assume they've placed some kind of measures in place to prevent multiple votes from the same machine. Pass this around, surf over, and log your opinion (for the least objectionable option, anyway). Let the gun grabbers see themselves for the tiny minority their are, once again.
Current results are very much in favor of allowing legal CCW. Let's keep it that way.
Thanks to those who took a moment to log an opinion on the Chronicle's web site poll. That poll on guns has now closed--in about the usual time-frame I'd say--and the newest poll is concerning student health insurance benefits. Below are the results from the gun poll.
Those who want to keep guns off campus at all costs ended up with 56%. But hardly the overwhelming support that might otherwise have been manifest at a place like the U.
Charles
Should the U continue its fight to keep guns off campus?
Yes. The U must do all it can.
(56%; 128 votes)
No. It's a pointless battle. The U should give up.
(38%; 87 votes)
No. Even though it's good to keep guns off campus, the U can't succeed.
The Deseret News published three letters to the editor today. The first one could use some rebuttals. The other two could use some kudos. Lest anyone get the idea that the DesNews is being evenhanded, they have printed no less than 2 or 3 anti-gun full length editorials in the last couple of months alone, even encouraging the governor to veto SB 108 because it would allow legal CCW in schools by teachers and other adult employees. This, even as the owner of the DesNews, the LDS church, was supporting passage of the bill so as to gain some new options in keeping guns out of churches.
I know many gun owners have very mixed feelings on SB 108, being the "mixed bag" that it was. But the DesNews made clear its reason for opposing the bill was based on pure, anti-gun views.
Charles
http://deseretnews.com/dn/edt/0,1555,4,00.html
Gun rights not absolute
As a student at the University of Utah College of Law, I am deeply interested in the free exchange of ideas on campus. I am also interested in the effect, if any, that guns have in this exchange. I do not own guns myself, but I respect others' rights to bear arms and support the Second Amendment's protections.
I also feel that the right to bear arms, like the other rights in the Bill of Rights, is not absolute and ought to be subject to some reasonable restraints. Just as there is no absolute freedom of speech in schools, it seems reasonable that a similar limit on other rights is warranted. I also commend the university in pursuing this issue in the face of criticism by some government officials. It is important to note that both Texas and Colorado have been witness to horrific school shootings ù Columbine High School and at the University of Texas in Austin. Does a similar tragedy have to occur before a restriction on guns is considered before the Legislature here?
Douglas E. DeVore
Salt Lake City
We are the good guys
I just read your editorial opinion titled: "U's gunfight commendable." I don't understand how your people think. We have the right, guaranteed by our Constitution, to carry our concealed weapons. We are not the bad guys. We are the good guys. We are not the problem. If it is truly the public's wish that there be no guns in schools, why did the petition for "The right to learn, right to worship" fail so miserably?
Marion Mott
Draper
Who is making the rules?
Your editorial,"U.'s gun fight commendable," commended the U. for efforts to protect "its First Amendment right to make its own rules." I've read the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over and over and, although it mentions religion, freedom of speech and the press, and the right to assemble, I don't find any reference at all to an educational institution having the right to make its own laws.
Perhaps the Deseret News Editorial Board has its own constitution to which it is referring.
I'd also like a credible explanation of how disarming all the "good guys" protects everyone from someone who attempts to cause harm (the "bad guy").
The SLTrib published another piece of anti-gun tripe today.
Rebuttals can be sent to letters@sltrib.com. Send as plain text. They delete all email with attachments.
"When submitting letters to the Public Forum, please include your full name, signature, address and daytime telephone numbers. Information other than your name and the city in which you live are kept confidential.
Keep them short. Concise letters developing a single theme are more likely to be published.
For hard copy submissions, please type and double space throughout.
Letters are condensed and edited.
Because of the volume of mail received, not all submissions are published"
The Utah Legislature spent a lot of time last session arguing over reform of the public schools. In the midst of this debate, the lawmakers passed a bill that virtually invites people with concealed-weapons permits to bring their guns to school. Some might call that a reform, but we do not believe most Utahns would.
For openers, it runs counter to common sense, which argues that for the safety of children, the state should do everything it can to discourage people from bringing firearms into schools.
Gov. Mike Leavitt signed the bill last month, giving the excuse that the new legislation wouldn't really change anything. We beg to differ.
A veto would have forced the Legislature to reconsider this dangerous bill, and perhaps to do what it should have done in the first place, namely, to ban all firearms from schools. There could be reasonable exceptions, of course, such as for law enforcement officers, but such exceptions should not include the 52,000 Utahns who currently hold permits to carry concealed weapons.
The proponents of the new law, Senate Bill 108, claim that schoolchildren have nothing to fear from the law-abiding citizens who have passed the criminal background check and rudimentary training course necessary to hold a concealed-carry permit. In fact, the proponents go further, insisting that the presence of these armed people in schools will deter crime.
But the Bureau of Criminal Identification reported last year that not all Utah concealed-carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens. Four people in the past eight years had their permits revoked for committing murder, at least two using the guns they were carrying legally. Another permit was revoked for attempted homicide with a firearm, and yet another was in jeopardy because of a pending homicide case.
Apologists pointed out that the overall crime rate among permit holders was lower than in the general population, but that is small consolation when these people are the only private citizens with carte blanche to carry guns in schools.
The backers of the bill, led by Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, claimed that it was needed to eliminate a conflict between the concealed-carry law, which says that permit holders may carry guns "throughout the state, without restriction" (except for the secure areas of airports, courts, jails and mental hospitals) and another law that forbade the possession of weapons and explosives in schools.
The lawmakers should have eliminated the conflict by adding schools to the list of places where permit holders may not carry. Sen. Patrice Arent, D-Holladay, proposed such a bill, which was defeated.
It is shocking that lawmakers would open the schoolhouse doors to tens of thousands of people carrying guns. If this is reform, count us out.
For any who are keeping score, below are the final, or current results of three local on-line (and thus inherently unscientific) gun polls. The first results are the final results from the Standard Examiner's poll last week. Next are the final results from the UofU's student paper's poll from last week. Finally, are the current results from the UofU's alumni on-line newsletter's poll. Interestingly, it seems the U's alums are far more rational on this topic than here students. Either the education at the U is doing some good, or else the power of entering the real world and paying taxes for programs--rather than being in school and being the recipient of taxpayer funded programs--is even more powerful in shaping views than we might have thought. ;)
Charles
Standard.net
Recently, Gov. Mike Leavitt signed Senate Bill 108, which will allow concealed weapon holders to bring guns onto public school campuses. Do you agree with his decision?
Yes: 82.0 percent
No: 17.2 percent
Unsure: 0.8 percent
605 total votes
UtahChronicle.com
Should the U continue its fight to keep guns off campus?
Yes. The U must do all it can.
(56%; 128 votes)
No. It's a pointless battle. The U should give up.
(38%; 87 votes)
No. Even though it's good to keep guns off campus, the U can't succeed.
(7%; 15 votes)
U's alumni newsletter (still active after being reset after the first couple of days due to alledged "spamming and distorting" of the results):
http://sh2.alumni.utah.edu/poll/poll.php
Which best reflects your feelings about permit holders bringing concealed weapons on campus:
Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. 63.1%
Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because they would act as a deterrent to criminal behavior. 20.4%
Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because the dangers outweigh the benefits and they would not deter criminal behavior. 15.2%
Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because they would deter free speech and academic freedom. 1.2%
RECKLESS LAWSUIT PREEMPTION SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY VOTE!
H. R. 1036, the NRA-backed reckless lawsuit preemption legislation, has been scheduled for a vote this Wednesday, April 9 by the full U. S. House of Representatives. This critical reform seeks to put an end to the efforts of anti-gun extremists to drive law-abiding gun manufacturers into bankruptcy with their tactic of filing endless predatory lawsuits that have no merit. H. R 1036 currently has 251 cosponsors, more than a majority of U. S. Representatives, so the chance of it passing is strong. However, we can expect anti-gun lawmakers to do everything possible to derail this legislation, including offering amendments that would attempt to weaken or gut this measure.
Please be sure to call your U. S. Representative TODAY and urge him to support H. R. 1036 in its current form, and to oppose any amendments that would weaken or gut this critical legislative reform. If you need contact information for your U. S. Representative, please use our "Write Your Representatives" tool.
Honorable Jim Matheson (2nd Dist.- Salt Lake area)
410 Cannon House Office Building Washington D. C. 20515
Subject: FW: Surprise - Bush backs renewing AW Ban? (LONG)
Date: 14 Apr 2003 15:25:40 GMT
I hate to dash anyone's hope that the misnamed "assault weapons" ban would be allowed to sunset under our "pro-gun" president and AG. But is anyone really surprised?
Any guesses where Utah's "solidy pro-gun" Sentors and two GOP congressmen stand on this?
I'm sure we'll be fine as Sen. Hatch will use his position as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee to keep the bill to reauthorize the gun ban bottled up. That is why we elected him, isn't it?
Charles
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
In surprise move, Bush backs renewing ban on assault weapons
By Shannon McCaffrey
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Fri, Apr. 11, 2003
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle
Association and supporting a renewal of the assault-weapons ban, set to
expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the
current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White
House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.
Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority for the NRA.
President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the
current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.
The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as
the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life after several years of near
hibernation. Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using
their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda.
This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and
dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits.
The assault-weapons ban is considered a crown jewel by the gun-control
movement, and even though its expiration is more than a year away it is
already being watched closely.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, who like Bush is a staunch gun-rights
supporter, muddied the waters in a recent appearance before the Senate
Judiciary Committee when he refused to say whether the administration
supports an extension. Ashcroft cited a 1999 Justice Department report that
said the ban's impact on deadly gun violence is unclear.
Ashcroft has been pushing a pro-gun rights agenda at the Justice Department,
seeking to have federal background checks on gun sales destroyed after 24
hours and embracing an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment's
guarantee of gun ownership rights.
The White House comment surprised those on both sides of the gun issue.
"That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who leads
the conservative pro-Bush group Americans for Tax Reform.
Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said it "creates a huge problem for
Bush with the NRA." "The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval
Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for
them," he said.
Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety applauded Bush's stance but urged
the president to use his political clout to push for Congress to act. If
Congress does nothing, the ban could just expire.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was
somewhat irrelevant. "Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided
by the Congress," LaPierre said. If it is, the NRA has reason to be
optimistic.
This week's action on the immunity legislation for dealers and gun makers
reflects the interest of Republicans to resurrect the pro-gun rights agenda.
Congress had been poised to act on the bill last fall, but the deadly sniper
attacks in the Washington area prompted a delay. The measure has enough
co-sponsors in the Senate to pass that chamber unless Democrats dig in their
heels and filibuster.
Supporters of the immunity bill say it shields gun makers from bankruptcy
because of frivolous lawsuits that became popular during the Clinton
administration. Lawsuits filed by cities against gun manufacturers - modeled
on similar litigation against the tobacco industry - have so far been
unsuccessful but have kept gun makers tied up in court.
Gun-control advocates say the immunity bill will keep innocent victims of
gun violence from getting their day in court. The gun industry would become
the first to receive blanket immunity protections if the bill succeeds.
The action on Capitol Hill coincides with another attempt in court to sue
manufacturers, this one by the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People. Filed in New York, the NAACP contends that weapons
disproportionately harm minorities. While a number of cities have sued the
gun industry with little success in order to collect damages for gun
violence, the NAACP lawsuit seeks to impose new restrictions on handgun
marketing and distribution.
Testifying at the case was Robert Ricker, the former head of the American
Shooting Sports Council, the main gun industry trade association. Ricker is
the gun industry's first whistleblower. He says weapons manufacturers have
known for some time that dealers were selling firearms to juveniles and
criminals but remained silent for fear of being held liable.
The active gun debate stands in contrast to several years of inaction.
Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2002 midterm election after
some determined that it had been an albatross for Democratic presidential
hopeful Al Gore in 2000.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., elected to Congress on a gun-control platform
after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a deranged gunman on a
Long Island commuter train in 1993, acknowledged that some Democrats are
nervous about the gun issue nowadays. "But it's coming back. I think you're
going to see it popping up a lot this session with the Republicans in
control," she said. She said soccer moms in the suburbs so crucial to
election success draw the line at assault-style weapons such as AK-47s and
Uzis, which can quickly fire multiple shots.
The 1994 bill made it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess certain
semiautomatic weapons that discharge one shot for each pull of the trigger
and automatically load a round of ammunition without being cocked. The
prohibition is due to expire in September 2004.
But the NRA's LaPierre noted that the political climate on guns has changed
dramatically in the last few years. The GOP has a lock on the White House
and Congress, and he said that even a number of Democrats are campaigning
on a pro-gun platform.
One who has not is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who will introduce
a bill to reauthorize the assault weapons ban in the coming weeks.
A new report due out later this year as a follow up to the 1999 report cited
by Ashcroft could provide her with some fresh evidence. One of its authors,
Jeffrey Roth, said preliminary findings showed that high-capacity magazines
for ammunition, banned as part of the 1994 bill, were being linked
increasingly to violent crimes. "These could end up emerging as even more
important than the banned weapons," said Roth, who works at the University
of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology.
---
Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Diego Ibarguen contributed to this
Today I sent the following LTE to the Tribune. It is longer than ideal and addresses more than one specific topic related to CCW in schools. Maybe it will give some ideas to others.
Charles
Editor
Salt Lake Tribune
Dear Editor,
IÆm writing in response to your editorial, ôInvitation to Mayhemö (Thursday, April 3), wherein you rail against recognition of State issued Permits to Carry a Concealed Weapon in schools because in the past eight years five persons with such permits have committed homicide. With 52,000 permit holders and nearly 450 homicides in that time, a permit holder committing such a crime looks very rare indeed. And how many of those crimes ever occurred in schools?
You editorialize that only ôlaw enforcement officersö should be allowed to carry weapons into schools. But even this distinguished groupùsome 2,500 police officers plus judges, prosecutors, and various federal officialsùhas some bad apples. Your archives indicate such officials have assaulted a motel clerk, ôpartiedö with underage girls, committed aggravated rape, abused illegal drugs, and yes, even committed murder. Such cases are, thankfully, rare. Rational individuals know it makes no sense to disarm all government officials based on the rare case of one of those officials committing a crime.
I submit that the same logic applies to private citizens who hold a permit to carry self-defense weapons. Teachers are dedicated professionals. They are also real people. They are as entitled to an effective self-defense as is anyone else.
I must also wonder where all of your concern over legally concealed weapons in schools (or anyplace else) was for all the years when most permit holders were white businessmen. Only since women, racial minorities, gays, and the poor and working classes have been afforded the right to defend themselves on equal footing with the well-to-do, has The TribuneÆs concern over the character of permit holders or the safety of legally carried weapons in schools been voiced. I hope this has more to do with your recent change in ownership than with some more ugly reason.
Subject: Wendy McElroy takes a Potshot at Gun Control
Date: 15 Apr 2003 16:10:29 GMT
Recruiting more folks into shooting who are not middle aged white males will do much to not only reduce crime against those who are most vunerable (women, the elderly, the handicapped, the poor living in bad neighborhoods, gays and others who may be subject to so-called "hate crimes," etc) but also really divides the tradtional liberal base that generally opposses the right to an effective self defense.
Charles
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84160,00.html
War May Redefine Gun Control
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
By Wendy McElroy
Despite the high emotions that surround war ù or perhaps because of
them ù people are focusing again on "normal" life. But what is normal
has shifted in ways both obvious and subtle. Consider how war has
affected just one issue: the debate over gun control.
For years, gun ownership advocates have agonized over how to make women
comfortable around guns. As of 2000, 41.7 percent of men and 28.5
percent of women reported having a gun in their household, and 39.2
percent of men but only 10 percent of women personally owned a gun.
Reaching out to women and minorities has been a high priority of
organizations like the National Rifle Association, not merely to swell
their ranks but also to convert segments of society that have
traditionally opposed the right to own a gun.
Now, the outreach has become easier. As of 2002, over 210,000 women
were on active duty within the military, over 150,000 were in the
reserves. A steep increase in the number of women in the military means
that an unprecedented number of Gen-Next women have overcome their
mothers' aversion to guns.
Non-military women also picked up guns. NRA spokeswoman Nance Pretto
reported that, in the wake of Sept. 11, women's enrollment in
instructional shooting classes increased fourfold from years before. And
gun dealers reported a sharp increase in women purchasing weapons.
The sense of insecurity caused by Sept. 11 was heightened as police
officers in the reserves left for active duty, depleting police
departments. Some politicians began to actively encourage women to
protect themselves by owning guns. When a serial killer was loose in
Baton Rouge in the summer of 2002, Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster advised
women "you have a right to get a [concealed] gun permit. ... if you know
how [to use a gun] and you have a situation with some fruitcake running
around, like they've got right now, it sure can save you a lot of
grief."
Foster received the predictable backlash of outrage from gun control
advocates who suddenly sounded sexist. Holley Galland Haymaker from the
anti-gun group Louisiana Ceasefire argued: "Maybe if you're a big, white
guy who hunts all the time, it might do some good. For a woman who is
surprise attacked, having a gun is only giving them [the attacker]
another way to kill you."
I will ignore the racist implications of this remark and simply ask,
"Why would a white guy who hunts be more competent with a gun than a
woman who is trained to use it?"
To judge from how strained their arguments have become, gun control
advocates realize they are losing the debate. It would be difficult to
escape this realization. Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives
passed H.R. 1036 ù the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ù
which grants gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits resulting from
their products. The vote (04/09) was 285 to 140. The measure has now
moved to the Senate where it is expected to pass.
As Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., argued, "Manufacturers of legal products
should not live under the threat of litigation simply because their
product is misused ... [W]e don't sue Ginsu when someone is stabbed to
death with their knife."
Again, the anti-gun arguments were shrill. A paper published by the
Brady Center, entitled "Smoking Guns: Exposing the Gun Industry's
Complicity in the Illegal Gun Market," openly accused the firearms
industry of "actively and knowingly allowing guns to be sold into the
illegal market." In short, gun manufacturers were publicly charged with
criminal complicity.
Other gun control advocates are pushing to have guns declared as
"weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." For example, House Bill 1210 in
Washington State defined a WMD as a "device, object, or substance that a
person intends to use to cause multiple human deaths." No specific
weapons were mentioned but the Seattle Times opened its March 15
coverage of the bill with the sentence, "An anti-terrorism bill has
spurred debate among lawmakers: Is a gun a weapon of mass destruction?"
Possession would have been a class A felony had the bill passed with
above-referenced language. Many in the pro-gun rights camp view the WMD
argument as an indication of attacks to come.
The underlying facts of the gun debate remain much the same as before
Sept. 11 and the war. The award-winning criminologist Prof. Gary Kleck
states that firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times a year. 48
percent of those incidents involve women defending themselves; most of
the time a shot is not fired. The conclusion: women benefit from gun
ownership.
What is changing, however, are the faces and attitudes of the debate. A
growing number of women feel comfortable with guns and want them for
self-defense. In response, anti-gun advocates are using arguments that
seem increasingly implausible such as classifying guns as WMDs.
Gun ownership is just one of the issues over which we will stumble on
the way back to normal life. And, as people drink coffee and read
newspapers in the morning, they will discover that the war has
influenced every aspect of public debate, including the words we use to
describe and redefine our beliefs.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for
The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and
editor of many books and articles, including the new book, Liberty for
Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent
Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.
Subject: Latest results of the UofU Alumni Newsletter on CCW
Date: 22 Apr 2003 19:11:51 GMT
The UofU's on-line Alumni newsletter (NOT to be confused with the on-line version of the student newspaper, the Chronicle) still has their poll on CCW on campus active. It looks like they only do a new edition of the newletter once a month, so maybe every poll will be active for a full month. In any case, the results still give a solid majority to allowing CCW on campus, even as the total number of those participating in the poll approaches 1000.
IFF you have NOT yet voted in the poll, surf to <http://sh2.alumni.utah.edu/alumni_poll/poll.php> and register your opinion. Please note, they already shut down and reset this poll once due to what they claimed/perceived as "spamming and distorting." So, please, no funny stuff or efforts to distort this one. It is going nicely in favor of self defense as it is.
If you have voted, but did not take time to submit a comment you might take a moment to do so if you are an alum.
It is interesting to me that the biggest item Bernie and gang are claiming as reason to ban CCW is running dead last in this poll, at less than 4%--that somehow a CONCEALED self-defense weapon will hamper free speech.
FWIW, The UofU has admitted, in court papers, that their gun ban only applies to students and employees, including staff, faculty, etc. It does NOT apply to visitors to campus. The last news I've heard, the federal judge bounced the case back to State courts, retaining the right to hear parts of the case later if need be. I haven't heard any news at the State level for a while, and the CCW ban--plus the illegal ban on students keeping personal guns, rifles, shotguns, or shortguns, in their dorm rooms--remains in effect.
Current results:
Which best reflects your feelings about permit holders bringing concealed weapons on campus:
Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. 50.2%
Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because the dangers outweigh the benefits and they would not deter criminal behavior. 33.4%
Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because they would act as a deterrent to criminal behavior. 12.6%
Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because they would deter free speech and academic freedom. 3.8%
The anti-self-defense ninnies are at it again. I have not carefully analyzed the language in the initiative, but at first glance it would do the following:
1-Prohibit carrying of guns (including those carried by a CCW permit holder, BUT, of course, NOT those carried by various government employees) into churches. I see no provision for a church to authorize the carrying of weapons. (So if this passes, someone may want to form an official church and the sue to overturn the church ban based on freedom of religion. After all, if the government can ban guns from churches, it can ban alcohol, incense, etc.)
2-Prohibit, unless prior permission from school administrators is obtained, carrying of guns into "schools" or onto "school" grounds where "school" includes public and private pre-schools, elementary, and secondary schools as well as "institutions higher education." I'm not sure if this includes or is intended to include trade and tech schools, but it certainly includes colleges and universities.
3-Allow employers, landlords, and others to include anti-self-defense terms in employment and housing contracts. IE, Your landlord could decide that you can't even keep a gun in your apartment.
4-Prohibit the carrying of self-defense weapons into ALL private residences unless prior permission is obtained.
5-Only allows weapons in private cars in school parking lots IFF the car is not under the control of a student or accesable to a student without adult supervision.
6-By specifically eliminating CCW rights (or privileges) at schools, subjects permit holders to MUCH more serious criminal penalties if they have a gun on school grounds.
Charles
5-
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
The forces of Darkness and Evil are loose in the countryside again. Sound
the alarum! Gather ye pitchforks and torches and prepare to do battle with
the demons once more.
This garbage to gut concealed carry is now deceptively called "Safe Havens
for Learning" but also infringes on lawful self defense in churches, private
residences, and a very broad spectrum of "schools" ranging from day care
through Universities. It appears to be an outright ban in schools (broadly
defined) and churches, although allowing for a few exceptions, and changes
the private property provisions from "unless prohibited" to "unless prior
permission is obrtained."
The 7 pages of detailed text are available ONLY in .pdf format at
Subject: Mere Presence of guns "commands respect" and may prevent problems
Date: 28 Apr 2003 18:35:13 GMT
"In any event, it seems obvious to expect that fewer people will want to cause trouble once they know the officer nearby is packing heat."
The following editorial from the Deseret News makes some very valid points. I, for one, believe that anyone wearing a uniform and expected to maintain safety and order is a natural target and ought to at least have the option of being armed. Whether the UTA can handle security with any greater sucess than they handle bus schedules, is another question altogether. ;)
I just think we ought to all remember that even liberal papers now agree that the presence of a firearm will command respect among scofflaws and that the knowledge a gun is (or may be) present may actually prevent some problems. It seems to me, the same logic applies to legally carried concealed weapons--though, perhaps, to a lessor degree as the presence of those weapons is generally presumed, rather than known, at least prior to one needing to be displayed.
I suggest some letters to the editor to point out this conclusion and to thank them for finally seeing the light. The presence of guns does not escalate a situation. In many cases the presence of a gun will prevent a situation from ever arrising.
Charles
"To submit a letter to the editor for publication in our Readers' Forum: Send the letter to <letters@desnews.com.> Letters must include a full name, address, city and telephone number."
Even under normal circumstances, a mass transit system that carries thousands of passengers daily, huddled together in close quarters, needs to provide the best security system possible. It's hard to see how that could be done adequately without armed guards.
But these are not normal circumstances. Utah may not be a likely target for terrorists, but it's safe to say a security force of armed officers could respond more quickly and effectively to any brewing crisis than could a force armed only with a book of citations. Beyond that, Utah is a state that allows anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun onto a train or bus. Why should the people charged with keeping the peace have less firepower than the people around them?
A year and a half ago, we urged the Utah Transit Authority to hire an armed and well-trained group of security guards. We're glad to see that UTA general manager John Inglish, after compiling a mountain of research on the subject, has agreed. Beginning sometime soon, the security folks who patrol trains and buses along the Wasatch Front will carry guns.
We hope they never have to use them. But if the officers are properly trained and certified, they will know when, in rare instances, to fire and when to rely on other means for keeping the peace. The important thing is they will instantly command respect among scofflaws who may be tempted to challenge them.
That seems to have been a problem lately. UTA officials are quick to point to an incident on March 19 when a passenger and his companion held a UTA officer at gunpoint before escaping. They remain at large today. Perhaps they will board a TRAX train again soon.
Such incidents are rare. Regular riders will attest that UTA's TRAX and bus system generally is safe. People are courteous. They line up to buy tickets even though chances are they won't be asked to show them. But even rare problems can turn tragic in a hurry.
UTA officers have the authority to detain people and to cite them for violating UTA ordinances. They cannot, however, make arrests. This has led to some frustrations in the past when officers ended up having to let a suspect go because the local police force didn't show up to make an arrest. We trust those problems have been worked out.
In any event, it seems obvious to expect that fewer people will want to cause trouble once they know the officer nearby is packing heat.
Subject: Minnesota Legislature Passes Shall-issue CCW law; Governor Expected to
Date: 29 Apr 2003 15:51:59 GMT
Below are two articles on the shall-issue measure passed by Minesota. A few highlights here:
"O.J. Simpson was not seeking a permit," Pariseau replied. "But maybe his wife needed one."
"The State Capitol, courthouses, federal facilities, airports, prisons, jails and state hospitals already are off limits to guns in most instances. The bill would add K-12 schools, child care centers and school buses to the list. Private businesses and places of worship could post signs to prohibit guns on those premises."
"City halls, recreation centers, parks, state and county fairgrounds, public convention centers, sports arenas and stadiums could not bar handguns. But employers and colleges could restrict the carrying of handguns by employees and students."
"What happens if a sheriff wrongfully denies a handgun permit?
"Applicants can go to district court and, if they prevail, must be awarded attorneys fees and costs. Similarly, the sheriff must pay costs of an unsuccessful district court petition to revoke a permit."
metro / region - nation / world - politics - business - sports - variety - opinion - fun & games - talk - classifieds
index
war on terrorminnesota pollwashington politicslatest from washingtonphotosnews graphics
resources
the legislatureminnesota houseminnesota senatenorth starbill trackere-democracyfirstgov.gov
archive
storiesphoto reprintsprojects
contact us
correctionsfeedback
Highlights of the handgun bill
Associated Press
Published April 29, 2003 GUNSGL
The Minnesota Personal Protection Act, as its backers call it, would make it much easier for thousands of Minnesotas to carry handguns in public.
The bill establishes a ``shall issue'' policy for permits to carry a pistol in public. Essentially, it reverses the presumption on the issuance of permits to carry a pistol.
Under current law, a person must demonstrate an occupational or personal safety hazard to get a permit. Under the bill, a sheriff must issue a permit unless the applicant is disqualified for a specific reason.
The Senate approved the bill 37-30 on Monday. It now awaits the signature of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has said he supports the bill.
Who qualifies?
U.S. citizens or permanent residents 21 or older with no record of a disqualifying crime or mental disability would qualify, if they have taken certified handgun training, aren't listed on the state criminal gang database and can't be aren't a obvious danger to themselves or others.
How many people are expected to get permits?
In other states with similar laws, about 2 percent of the eligible population has become licensed. A legislative study estimated that 90,000 Minnesotans would do so within three years. That's eight times the current number of permit-holders.
Where would guns be banned?
The State Capitol, courthouses, federal facilities, airports, prisons, jails and state hospitals already are off limits to guns in most instances. The bill would add K-12 schools, child care centers and school buses to the list. Private businesses and places of worship could post signs to prohibit guns on those premises.
Where would they be allowed?
City halls, recreation centers, parks, state and county fairgrounds, public convention centers, sports arenas and stadiums could not bar handguns. But employers and colleges could restrict the carrying of handguns by employees and students.
What happens if a sheriff wrongfully denies a handgun permit?
Applicants can go to district court and, if they prevail, must be awarded attorneys fees and costs. Similarly, the sheriff must pay costs of an unsuccessful district court petition to revoke a permit.
Could permit-holders lose their license to carry?
Yes, by committing a disqualifying crime or carrying a handgun under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Punishment varies by level of drunkeness.
It took the longest debate in memory on the floor of the Minnesota Senate, but a bill to make permits to carry handguns in public available to more people gained final legislative approval Monday and was signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
It is to go into effect in 30 days. Eventually, according to an official legislative estimate, it could increase the number of people licensed to tote guns on Minnesota streets from fewer than 12,000 now to about 90,000.
For 7 1/2 hours Monday, Senate DFLers railed against the measure and the parliamentary legerdemain that brought it directly from the House with no opportunity for Senate amendments. Six DFL senators even donned bulletproof vests as they denounced the bill as "insanity," "lunacy" and "sheer madness."
The bill's Republican sponsors, led by Sen. Pat Pariseau of Farmington, dismissed the protests as fear-mongering and doomsday predictions, maintaining that 34 other states have adopted similar measures without catastrophic consequences.
Sen. Pariseau listens to Sen. Olson defend handgun bill.
Jim Mone
Associated Press
"If I want to have a gun in my purse, that should be my choice, not the sheriff's," said Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen.
In the end, a small group of outstate DFL senators who favor gun rights bucked their leadership's opposition and tipped the balance in favor of the bill. The vote for final passage was 37 to 30.
What comes next is a sweeping reversal of Minnesota handgun policy that has been in effect since 1975. Under that system, police chiefs and sheriffs have had broad discretion to grant or deny permits for occupational needs or personal protection.
In some areas, especially the Twin Cities, critics say, authorities have abused that discretion by denying permits to nearly all applicants.
Under the new system, sheriffs will be required to issue permits to all applicants 21 or older who meet largely objective standards of U.S. citizenship or permanent residency, handgun safety training and a criminal and mental health background check.
Supporters vs. foes
The bill's final victory defied formal opposition from more than 300 churches and other groups in Minnesota, including the three major statewide police associations, city councils, and health and education groups.
According to senators on both sides of the issue, the bill was supported by only three organizations: the National Rifle Association (NRA), a local group called Concealed Carry Reform Now! and the Republican Party of Minnesota. But Pariseau said many individuals and street police officers also back the legislation.
She counted thousands of violent crimes in the 20 Minnesota counties where handgun permits have been most restricted and added: "It's time that we allow people to prevent the violence on themselves."
DFLers responded with statistics of their own: Minnesota now stands eighth-lowest in the nation in the rate of firearm deaths from homicide, suicide and accident. All of the states with better rates have gun laws similar to the one Minnesota is abandoning. The dozen states with the highest rates of firearm deaths all have the system Minnesota is adopting.
"This state will forever be changed, and not for the positive," said Sen. Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, a Lutheran pastor. "What are we scared of? Why are we so fearful? Why should violence beget violence? I'm supposed to arm myself and get even? It does not make any sense to me."
In addition, the House Republican tactic of amending the measure onto an unrelated bill previously passed by the Senate was branded "a conceal and carry approach to legislation" by Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis.
The procedure meant that DFLers could criticize but not change details of the bill that they said made it worse than similar laws in many other states. For example, critics said, public parks, playgrounds, city halls and the State Fair may not bar guns from their premises, while malls and churches face a cumbersome process of posting signs and verbally informing licensed gun-carriers that their firearms aren't welcome.
"I wouldn't worry about honest people next to me in church carrying guns," said Sen. Michael Jungbauer, R-East Bethel, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute. "But I would worry about the criminals."
Sen. Jane Ranum, DFL-Minneapolis, said the bill's lack of a Minnesota residency requirement will make the state a magnet for gun-lovers from the handgun-restrictive neighboring states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois.
"This bill was written by the gun industry and it's all about their profits," she said. "The Midwest is the one place they haven't infiltrated yet. This will make Minnesota the place to come and get your gun."
Ranum also criticized the bill's limits on evidence of applicants' dangerousness that sheriffs may consider in deciding whether to issue permits. For example, alleged crimes that a person has been acquitted of cannot be factored in.
That means a sheriff could not weigh any of the evidence presented in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson should he seek a permit, Ranum said.
"O.J. Simpson was not seeking a permit," Pariseau replied. "But maybe his wife needed one."
Subject: Nationwide CCW reciprocity bill in Congress
Date: 30 Apr 2003 14:38:00 GMT
None of Utah's Congressmen appear as co-sponsors on this bill. The bill is simple. If you have a CCW permit from your home State, OR if your home State allows you to CCW without a permit, you get to carry in any State, subject only to local restrictions on specific locations. IE, one State may ban CCW in bars, another in churches, etc. IF this were to pass, I suspect a fair number of gun folks would be trying to figure out how to spend most of their time living and working in one State, while being legal residents of Vermont. ;-)
Full bill text, all 15 lines of it, follows the article below.
Charles
==========Forwarded Message=========
ISSUE: Radio talk show host Chuck Baldwin (www.chuckbaldwinlive.com)
recently notified his audience that, "while most new laws emanating from
Washington, D.C., these days tend to take freedoms away from us, there is
one bill currently in the U.S. House of Representatives that deserves the
full support of every American. The bill is numbered H.R. 990 and is
titled the 'Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2003.'"
The bill's chief sponsor is Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN).
What this pro-Second Amendment bill does is reciprocate state Carry
Concealed Weapons (CCW) permits in much the same way that driver's
licenses are reciprocated state to state. In other words, a person who has
a Concealed Carry permit in one state would be legally allowed to carry
his concealed weapon in other states. (Feel free to look up the actual
wording of the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/)
One could argue that it shouldn't even be necessary to obtain a permit to
carry a firearm, as this freedom is duly recognized by the U.S.
Constitution as an unalienable, God-given right. However, the only state
in the Union that recognizes this right by allowing its citizens to carry
firearms without a license is Vermont. This is one reason why Vermont has
one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
However, as long as obtaining CCW permits is the only manner in which
law-abiding citizens may legally carry concealed weapons, it only makes
sense that they be allowed to freely carry weapons when visiting states
outside their residence. In fact, out-of-state visitors are often primary
targets of criminals, because they know most visitors will be unarmed in
compliance with those state laws restricting such carry. Therefore, this
law will doubtless save the lives of countless law-abiding people.
ACTION ITEM: Currently, the bill has 22 co-sponsors. Along with Chuck
Baldwin, we want to encourage our members to contact their representative
and encourage him or her to become a co-sponsor of this important bill.
The freedom to possess and carry a firearm is consistent with the Second
Amendment and should never be denied by law.
Go to the site below to contact your House member today, and encourage
them to support H. R. 990. And while we're at it, we'll copy President
Bush on your message. Let's see if he'll get behind this bill:
http://www.conservativealerts.com/042903.htm
<a href="http://www.conservativealerts.com/042903.htm"> AOL GO
HERE </a>
==============BILL Text==========
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 27, 2003
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. CRANE, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. WAMP, Mr. OTTER, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. NEY, Mr. CANNON, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. HALL, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PENCE, and Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:
`Sec. 926B. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is--
`(1) carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm; or
`(2) otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State of the person's residence,
may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:
`926B. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Subject: Federal ban on lawsuits unconstitutional?
Date: 30 Apr 2003 14:53:22 GMT
An interesting counter point of view on the issue of federlism and the federal gun lawsuit ban.
Charles
=====Begin Forwarded Message========
Is gun lawsuit pre-emption unconstitutional?
Jacob Sullum (back to web version <js20030418.shtml>)
April 18, 2003
The gun control movement, which pushes national restrictions on firearms at every opportunity, has discovered the virtues of federalism. Testifying before a House subcommittee last year, Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, averred, "The notion that the common law of every state can be radically altered by a special interest bill in Washington should disturb even those members who support the gun lobby, but profess to a belief in federalism."
Barnes was talking about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which the House recently passed by a bipartisan vote of 285 to 140. The bill, now being considered by the Senate, would protect gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits that seek to hold them responsible for the misuse of their products. Gun makers would still be liable for defective products, and gun dealers could still be sued if they broke the law or negligently sold a weapon when they knew or should have known that it was apt to be used in a crime.
Barnes clearly is one of those people who only "profess to a belief in federalism" when it's convenient. As it happens, two of the most important victories for federalism in recent years were Supreme Court decisions that overturned gun control measures.
In 1995 the Court concluded that Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause to ban possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. In 1997 the Court ruled that Congress could not commandeer local and state authorities to perform a federally mandated background check.
Somehow, I doubt that Barnes cheered either decision. But even if his concern for the proper balance between state and national power is insincere, he could still be right that conservatives are supporting a bill that violates their avowed federalist principles.
It would not be the first time. In areas such as assisted suicide, medical marijuana, and "partial birth" abortion, conservatives have not just gone along with but actively pursued measures that impose the federal government's policy concerning local matters on recalcitrant states.
And on the face of it, Barnes and his fellow activists seem to have a point. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would, after all, put a definitive end to more than two dozen lawsuits in state courts, dictating the outcome to local judges and juries, and forbid similar lawsuits in the future.
But as Manhattan Institute senior fellow Walter Olson, author of The Rule of Lawyers <buy book <http://www.thbookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6084>> <read book review <http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/olson.html>>, pointed out in congressional testimony earlier this month, the lawsuits themselves pose a threat to the balance of powers envisioned by the Framers. "By design and by necessity," he observed, "the antigun litigation campaign is interstate in its anticipated effects." In seeking to set national gun control policy through state courts, the lawsuits usurp the authority of state legislatures and Congress.
Supporters of the lawsuits make no bones about what they're trying to accomplish.
"Litigation is a powerful tool to promote the public's health -- especially when other avenues are stymied," writes Julie Samia Mair of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "An industry, wanting to avoid paying an award or engaging in costly litigation, may voluntarily make its products safer and/or change the way it markets or distributes them."
Notice that it doesn't matter whether the cases have any merit. Judges so far have dismissed most of the gun lawsuits by local governments, but the cost of fighting them, coupled with the possibility of one big judgment, could be enough to persuade the industry to make concessions that would have the same impact as legislation.
Cigarette billboards are a thing of the past not because of a statutory ban (which would have violated the First Amendment) but because eliminating outdoor advertising was part of the price for settling state lawsuits against the tobacco companies. Gun makers, whose financial resources are puny compared to the tobacco industry's, are especially vulnerable to that sort of pressure.
Hence a lawsuit brought in New Jersey can affect the availability of guns in Virginia through a settlement or, if the plaintiffs should manage to win, an injunction. This nationwide impact, an explicit goal of the lawsuits, is a strong justification for congressional intervention, especially given the Second Amendment rights at stake.
The right to keep and bear arms, of course, is one part of the Constitution that Michael Barnes will never even pretend to like.
