Subject: Jet Skis and Guns? -- And no, you can't shoot them when they buzz too
Date: 01 Jul 2003 16:08:54 GMT
From today's DesNews. Notice the divide and conquer technique used by the eco-freaks. Many boaters and fishermen don't really care for how some (many?) users of jet skis operate their toys. However, does anyone really think that once jet skis are banned, high speed (or noisy jet) motor boats won't be the next target? At that point, a whole segment of former motorized users (jet skiers) will have already been eliminated from the debate and it will be the fishermen and water skiers left to defend motorized use with too many fishermen just as happy to see some of those fast or loud boats off the lake anyway.
This is the same tactic that has worked so well against gun owners. As short barreled shot guns or fully automatic machine guns or scary-looking guns or inexpensive self defense pistols or 50 calibre rifles or any number of other guns are targeted to be taxed out of reach or simply banned altogether, too many gun owners figure it isn't their fight. After all, what does a duck or deer hunter need with such guns? Besides, some of the people who choose to own and use such guns behave in ways that die-hard hunters may find objectionable. What does a small bore competitive shooter need with such guns? What do antique or curio collectors need with such guns or care if the cost of ownership goes up dramitically?
But, of course, not every gun owner likes to hunt duck or deer. Not every gun owner has any interest in competitive shooting or collecting. Not every gun owner wants to carry a self defense weapon. And so on and so forth. EVERY time a gun is banned or taxed beyond normal reach or some currently legal use of firearms (such as carrying in some public place), we run the very real risk of losing some number of former gun owners from future fights. Some gun owners ONLY own a gun and care about guns because they are able to defend themselves while jogging in a public park or working in a hospital or public school. Some gun owners are ONLY involved with guns because they enjoy informal plinking with a military style rifle.
If the hunters or competitive shooters or collectors sit out the gun battles this year because they do not directly, immediately affect their chosen firearms or uses thereof, they are likely to wake up tomorrow to find that they are under attack and most of their allies have already been eliminated from the fight. A school teacher who only owns a gun for self defense and losers her ability to legally carry that gun to work, is probably not going to spend any time or energy when large areas of public land are proposed as no hunting zones. However, a teacher who only cares about self defense who still has her ability to do that legally intact, may be motivated to help counter any and all fights against gun owners. More importantly, some battles are not likely to take place until others are won (or lost, depending on which side you're on). You can't attack the inner hold until the outer wall is breached.
Jet skis, ATVs, machine guns, military style rifles, legal CCW in public places like schools or libraries or the workplace are all some of the "outer walls" of freedom. As they are allowed to crumble, rest assurred that attacks on the inner walls will start, or intensify.
I will point out that even the current ruling from the park service does not bode well for many fishermen or other motorboaters. Jet Skis are not the only watercraft that make use of carbaurated two-stroke engines. MANY small engines used by fishermen or other boaters are also carbaruated two-strokes. If jet skis using these engines are banned, there is no logical reason to not also ban these engines when used on small fishing boats, ski boats, etc. As to being fast and manuverable, I learned a long time ago that some of the fasted boats on the lake belong to bass fishermen.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
Gas up the jet-skis
Decision is final: They are welcome
By Ray Grass
Deseret Morning News
The final decision is in: Personal watercraft will be welcome on Lake Powell ù now and for years to come.
[Image]
Jet skis and other personal watercraft will be allowed on Lake Powell, thanks to a decision released by the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Monday.
Tom Smart, Deseret Morning News
Early Monday, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area released its final "record of decision."
Of three possible alternatives, the National Park Service will place into law "Alternative B," which allows personal watercraft use lakewide but with closures in some portions of the Colorado, Escalante, Dirty Devil and San Juan rivers.
It also requires that all personal watercraft meet certain emission requirements by 2012. (Basically, all carbureted two-stroke watercraft will be banned from the lake after 2012.)
It is possible, however, that a lawsuit could be filed sometime this fall that would challenged the Park Service's decision.
Sean Smith, with Bluewater Network, the San Francisco-based environmental organization that is seeking to end use of personal watercraft within national parks, said the decision is ripe for legal review.
A similar decision regarding watercraft use on Lake Mead was released in April. Smith said then that staff and attorneys were looking at a legal challenge. "We are still moving forward," Smith said. "We'll be discussing this with our lawyers and decide if we want to sue independently or combine the suits. The issues here are very similar. . . . I would expect it wouldn't be before fall before we make a decision."
After release of its final environmental impact statement in May, the Park Service issued three alternatives regarding personal watercraft use on the lake:
ò Alternative A followed guidelines that were in place prior to September 2002.
ò Alternative B, the Park Service-preferred option, allowed personal watercraft but imposed the partial river closures and more stringent emission requirements.
<ilayer></ilayer><layer> </layer>
ò Alternative C banned personal watercraft from the lake.
"After thorough analysis and public involvement, it was felt Alternative B was best because it met (Park Service) management objectives," said Charlotte Obergh, management assistant for the Park Service at Lake Powell.
She pointed out that the decision had not been expected before mid-July or early August, "but this has been a priority and we've worked hard to get it out as soon as possible so it can be finalized before the September deadline."
Back in May, the Park Service was given until the end of September to place into law its decision or personal watercraft would, for the second time, be banned from the lake.
The record of decision will now go through governmental review before being written into law. But, as Obergh pointed out, "The decision has been made and this is now just a formality to make sure everything is correct."
If a suit is filled, added Smith, it would likely challenge the results of the environmental impact statement, which he said, "Contained a number of holes," as well as the final decision at both Lake Mead and Lake Powell.
Bluewater filed a petition in May 1998 asking for a ban on personal watercraft until an impact statement could be completed. In March 2000, the Park Service issued its first report to allow the jet-powered craft on the lake. Bluewater sued and a judge ruled the Park Service had until 2002 to complete an impact statement. In November of 2002, personal watercraft were banned from Lake Powell. In May of this year the ban was lifted and the Park Service was given until September to come up with a decision.
Under Alternative B, special regulations prohibit use of personal watercraft on the Dirty Devil upstream from the U-95 bridge; on the Escalante River upstream of the confluence of Coyote Creek; on the San Juan River upstream from Clay Hills pullout; and on the Colorado River upstream from Sheep Canyon. There are wake restrictions on the Escalante River from the confluence of Cow Canyon to the confluence of Coyote Creek.
And it includes strategies to better protect recreation-area resources, improve visitor safety and reduce visitor conflicts.
The report that reviewed personal watercraft impact on Lake Powell stated that under Alternative B, the watercraft would have negligible to minor, direct adverse effects on water quality.
It also pointed out that sound levels during peak times were "acceptable within the expressed purpose of the park to provide the motorized watercraft form of recreation."
And, with respect to wildlife and wildlife habitat, it stated that use of personal watercraft would result in negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts.
The environmental impact statement also pointed out that going with Alternative C would cause major, adverse long-term effects on the economy of Page, Ariz., a town founded during the building of the Glen Canyon Dam and which now bases its economy on tourists visiting Lake Powell.
Steve Ward, public relations director for ARAMARK, concessionaire for the five lakeside marinas, said Monday's decision comes as a big relief, "knowing that after all this time the matter has been resolved."
During the review process, more than 30,000 comments were received by the Park Service regarding the use of personal watercraft on Lake Powell.
Subject: Two items of interest--comments wanted on judicial nomiee and info on
Date: 10 Jul 2003 15:30:14 GMT
After the Senate's appalling, near-unanamous confirmation of anti-gun, activist Judge Nehring to the Utah SC, their calls for public comment about any judicial nominee ring a little hollow. OTOH, if nobody has any objections, we can't hardly complain about whomever they confirm.
And some info on the new limits on administrative rulemaking.
The Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee is seeking public comment on Royal I. Hansen, nominee to the 5th District Court.
Anyone with information about Hansen's qualifications to serve as a judge can send a statement including their name, telephone number and mailing address to: Jerry D. Howe, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, 436 State Capitol, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114. Statements must be received by noon Monday.
Retaliating against the University of Utah's campus gun ban, legislators passed a bill last winter limiting state agencies' rule-making powers.
Now, legislators are wrestling with the definition of "rule" and implications of the new law -- the possibility that 35 state departments, from the Tax and Labor Commissions to the Board of Education, will bombard the Capitol with all manner of policies, guidelines and procedures in need of approval, tweaking or repealing.
State agencies are eager to know "where do we go from here?" Kevin Carter, director of the School and Institutional Trustlands Administration, testified Wednesday at a legislative hearing.
"Our board of trustees was empowered under [older] legislation to establish policies that could qualify as rules," he said.
Among those are policies for property procurement and the handling of American Indian remains discovered on trust lands.
Are these policies now null and void? Carter asked. "What is the role of our board or any number of policy-making boards throughout the state?"
Advertisement
<ilayer></ilayer><layer> </layer>
Rule making has always been the Legislature's domain. But the 2003 Legislature broadened that power under Senate Bill 30, which prohibits agencies from writing anything but internal management policies.
Policies aimed at the general public or that have the effect of law are considered rules, and as such, must go through the legislative rule-making process: a 30-day notice period and sometimes a public hearing.
"It's the duck principle," explained Administrative Rules Chairman Rep. David Ure, R-Kamas. "If it walks and talks like a rule, it's a rule."
Gov. Mike Leavitt signed the law, though his legal staff warned it would tip the balance of power toward the legislative branch.
Indeed, signs of future power struggles between legislators and agencies surfaced Wednesday.
Committee members chastised the Insurance Commission for adopting rules in concert with a new law on viatical settlements, the purchase of life insurance policies from the terminally ill.
"I'm not saying your rules are right or wrong," said Ure. "But the law specifies what rules the commissioner can and can't adopt."
Ure also asked staff for a briefing on a recent U.S. Supreme Court affirmative action ruling as it applies to the University of Utah medical school's admissions policies.
He said he doesn't plan to meddle with U. admissions, but acknowledged the subject will probably come up in other committees.
Subject: Re: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented?
Date: 11 Jul 2003 15:41:39 GMT
When "life saving technology" is reliable and inexpensive enough that police and military personnel successfully make widespread use of weapons so equiped, I may just give it a serious look. But considering the number of military pilots who still choose a .357 revolver over a 9mm or .45 ACP simply because the revolver is more reliable when dirty, I'm not holding my breath.
The great thing about modern firearms, and the very thing that drives the liberal elite nuts is the fact that these weapons are by and large, reliable, easy to use, easy to clean and service and otherwise maintain, easy to manufacture, easy to learn to use, and inexpensive. IOW, truly the GREAT equalizers as almost ANYONE can, with very modest training and effort, buy and use one well enough to pose a serious deterrent even to almost any criminal, private or government.
Adding a bunch of cracker-jack box features will drive up the cost, the size, and the weight, make cleaning and service more difficult, all while decreasing the realiability. Sooner or later, any moving part will fail. Sooner, rather than later, electrical or electronic parts are likely to fail when you need them. (Anyone want a "Windows" style boot time before you self defense weapon is ready to use?)
For now, a few functioning brain cells, education and training for the family members, adhearance to the basic safe handling rules, and storage appropriate for my individual/family situation are all the safety features I need or want on my firearm.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
--- Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> wrote:
Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented?
Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but
existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is
Subject: FW: NEA teachers union stepping up anti-gun campaign
Date: 14 Jul 2003 17:32:42 GMT
There are many very good and dedicated teachers out there who fully support the RIGHT to keep and bear arms who join the UEA/NEA or maintain membership for reasons other than the non-educational political stands of the unions. Many may not even be aware that their union is taking positions on topics so far afield from the issue of education or collective bargaining. I hope they will withold their political donations from ANY group that works against their RKBA. I also hope they will use their influence inside the union to end these attacks on our gun rights.
As for the rest of us, it's clear that the UEA is anti-gun rights.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
----------
The NEA has been silent on gun issues for quite a while. NOTE BOTTOM ITEMS
ON THEIR ALERT THIS WEEK, they are engaged again.
Please take the time to follow their links and you will call up a series of
NEA statements supporting:
--reauthorization of the [expanded] assualt weapons ban
-- closing the "gun show loophole"
-- mandatory child safety locks on all guns
-- "more about gun safety" including the NEA is parterned with the Americans
for Gun Safety.
-- opposition to SB 659 Frivolous Lawsuit protection
If you click on their letter writing tool, thye have a selection of
paragraphs to use in your comunication to elected officials with just a
mouse click. (attached as a word document)
We need to make everyone aware of these NEA policies, which is implicity
that of the UEA since they have not repudiated it. Educators need to
understand what their rights are regarding UEA membership, and especially
any pressure to contribute to UEA/NEA political activities.
John Spangler
National Education Association statements on guns (pre-written for use in messages to congressmen)posted on their website
It's time to get real about protecting our kids. Gun violence is a problem in our communities. And, while schools continue to be the safest place for kids, this safety is threatened because guns are too easily accessible to criminals and unsupervised children.
It's time to get real about protecting our kids. Gun violence is a problem in our communities. And, while schools continue to be the safest place for kids, this safety is threatened because guns are too easily accessible to criminals and unsupervised children.
The issue is SAFETY, not gun control. Our country needs responsible gun safety legislation.
I urge you to join President Bush in supporting the Assault Weapons Ban and its renewal. Vote for S. 1034 and continue to keep military-style assault weapons off our streets. These guns are not necessary for hunting or self-defense -- but their light triggers and rapid-fire capability make them the weapons of choice for criminals.
I also urge you to support the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation, sponsored by Senators Craig, Schumer, McCain and Kennedy in the Senate and Representatives McCarthy, Dingell and Pence in the House, would make 35 million missing records available to the system. The current system of background checks for gun purchasers is woefully inadequate, failing to prevent tens of thousands of criminals, domestic abusers and other prohibited buyers from obtaining guns. The NICS Improvement Act would make NICS checks faster and more accurate.
Congress should focus on bills that fight gun crime. We cannot afford legislation such as S. 659, to protect gun dealers from lawsuits, when corrupt gun stores are not prosecuted, illegal buyers can avoid background checks at gun shows, the assault weapons ban is close to expiration, existing gun laws are not enforced, and Congress has not fixed the background check system to make instants checks truly instant and accurate.
As an educator, I urge you to make our schools and communities safer by sponsoring and voting for responsible legislation that respects the rights of lawful gun owners and prevents guns from falling into the wrong hands.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 9:40 AM
Education Insider
A weekly review of progress on the Quality Public Schools Agenda
and other legislation that impacts our students, classrooms, and public
education.
July 10, 2003
Head Start - Vote Delayed
A firestorm of opposition to the Administration's Head Start proposal,
H.R. 2210, has delayed House action. The Head Start coalition's call-in line
logged 2,455 calls in opposition within hours of its opening. Thank you for
your support.
Action Alert:
Tell Congress: Cast your vote for children. Vote NO on H.R. 2210.
AN UPDATE ON KEY ISSUES
-- DC Vouchers
The House committee votes today. Stay tuned.
-- IDEA Reauthorization - Action Delayed
It now appears that the full Senate will not take up the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization until after the
August recess. (The House passed its bill on April 30.)
Action Alert:
Tell your Senators: "Please ensure that the Senate reauthorization
bill provides for mandatory full funding of IDEA."
-- Social Security Offsets (GPO/WEP) Repeal (www.nea.org/lac/socsec/)
The cosponsor list continues to grow. H.R. 594 now has 243 - a House
majority plus - as cosponsors. S. 349 has 21 cosponsors.
On May 1, the Social Security Subcommittee held the first hearing on
Social Security offsets repeal and heard directly from individuals who are
adversely affected. NEA is pressing to move the legislation.
THIS WEEK'S ACTION REPORT
-- Education Funding - It's about broken promises.
Debate continues today on the House education spending bill for Fiscal
Year 2004 (Oct. 1, 2003 - Sept. 30, 2004). The bill offers more rhetoric
than resources.
NEA opposes the House bill in its current form. A House vote may come
as early as today.
The Senate takes up education spending for the 2004 budget year very
shortly. "Never before have educators been asked to do so much with so
little," NEA told Senators.
Action Alert:
Urge your U.S. Senators to move beyond misplaced budget priorities and
hollow promises that will not educate our children.
-- Keeping Assault Weapons Off Our Streets
NEA urges the U.S. Senate to renew the Assault Weapons Ban (S. 1034).
Military-style firearms are not needed for hunting or for self-defense - but
their light triggers and rapid-fire capability make them weapons of choice
for criminals. They pose an especially high risk to our nation's youth.
Action Alert:
Tell your U.S. Senators that the issue is SAFETY, not gun control.
Urge them to support the Assault Weapons Ban (S.1034).
Government Relations
202-822-7300
http://www.nea.org/lac
1201 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Education Insider is sent to your in-box once a week. We deliver
inside information on developments in the federal government that affect
children and public education. If you find this information useful, tell a
friend. They can sign up for their very own copy at http://www.nea.org/lac
and click on "Join our E-mail List".
You may cancel your subscription at any time by sending an e-mail
tomailto:nea_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word "unsubscribe" in the
subject line.
This list conforms to the Acceptable Use Policy of the National
Education Association for electronic mailing lists. To receive a copy of
Hatch is pushing amendment to lift Oval Office limit
By Lee Davidson
Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON ù Sen. Orrin Hatch is pushing a constitutional amendment that could allow his pal, fund-raising helper and potential California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger, to also run for U.S. president someday.
[Image]
Orrin Hatch
[Image]
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Hatch, R-Utah, introduced without fanfare last week an amendment to allow foreign-born people who have been naturalized U.S. citizens for at least 20 years to run for president. Currently, only native-born citizens may run for president.
Hatch spokeswoman Margarita Tapia said the legislation was not drafted with Schwarzenegger or anyone else specifically in mind when Hatch came up with the 20-year requirement. "It was a policy judgment not associated with any one individual," she said.
Schwarzenegger, the Austrian-born star of the current "Terminator 3" and numerous other hit movies, has been publicly toying with the idea of running for governor of California.
Former actor Ronald Reagan did the same before also rising to the White House ù something the Constitution would not allow Schwarzenegger (who has appeared at fund-raisers for Hatch) to even think about unless Hatch's amendment passes.
In a statement Hatch gave to introduce his legislation, which is titled the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, he said many foreign-born citizens of all parties are loyal Americans who should have a legal opportunity to be considered for president.
"These include former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; current Cabinet members Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez; as well as Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan and bright young star of the Democratic Party," he said.
Also, he noted that thousands of foreign-born members of the military now never could be elected to lead the country for which they fought. "No matter how great their sacrifice, leadership or love for this country, they remain ineligible to be a candidate for president. This amendment would remove this unfounded inequity," he said.
Hatch, a one-time presidential candidate himself, said the restriction against foreign-born candidates is "an anachronism that is decidedly un-American."
He said it received scant debate during the Constitutional Convention but said it was apparently driven "by the concern that a European monarch, such as King George III's second son, the Duke of York, might be imported to the United States" to rule.
Hatch noted that no similar requirement bars service by naturalized citizens in Congress, the Supreme Court or the presidential Cabinet.
"I believe the time has now come to address the antiquated provision of the Constitution that requires our president to be a natural born citizen. It has long outlived its original purpose," Hatch said.
A constitutional amendment must pass both houses of Congress by two-thirds votes and then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures to become law. The amendment was referred for consideration to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Hatch chairs.
Subject: DesNews says only shoot at a professional range or don't shoot at all
Date: 16 Jul 2003 17:14:12 GMT
Read especially the last few paragraphs of this editorial.
So now, in the name of fire prevention the anti-gun DesNews editorializes against all shooting except at a professional range. Simply taking prudent measures to avoid causing a fire is not sufficient for them. No bets on whether they'd support a few public ranges or even easing the zoning for private ranges.
Letters to the editor of the DesNews can be sent to <letters@desnews.com>. Letters must include a full name, address, city and telephone number.
Drivers along I-15 in Davis County can now clearly see the ring of black, charred earth that hangs like a shroud on the mountainside above Farmington. They also can see where the ring ends, just to the east of houses and neighborhoods.
Fortunately, no house was burned. As of Monday the fire was 50 percent contained and not expected to threaten homes. That's due to a combination of good firefighting and favorable conditions ù and to the fact no homes exist higher up the mountainside.
This fire should be a warning to anyone planning to build higher than anyone has gone before in any spot along the Wasatch Front ù a popular notion among some developers.
Fires can happen anywhere. On days like these, with temperatures rising to 100 degrees or more, tinder-dry vegetation is ready to burst at the slightest spark. But the hillsides, with mountainous and difficult terrain nearby, are particularly vulnerable and dangerous.
Hillside homes are hazards for fires during hot, dry summers and for landslides during rainy periods. They could fall over in an earthquake. In addition, they mar the beauty of the mountains for everyone else who lives in the valley.
Davis County, including Farmington, is undergoing a planning process that ultimately could protect its hillsides from development. In Salt Lake and Utah counties, however, policies vary from city to city, and often they allow for developers to keep testing new heights.
Simply put, this is crazy.
Mountainside homeowners don't have to worry simply about the odd lightning strike. They have to contend with the stupidity of man, which seems to be in abundant supply.
Another wildfire started because people were shooting at targets outside of Saratoga Springs. Apparently, they tried to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly. A BLM official suggested shooters look for areas with little vegetation and that they bring fire extinguishers with them. We have a better solution. Go to a professional firing range, or don't shoot at all.
Officials say target shooters start a fire a week on average during hot summer months in Utah. Generally, they don't shoot in the valleys. They shoot in the mountains, where they stand less chance of hitting people.
Mountain fires aren't new here. The first recorded wildfire near present-day Farmington was in 1846, a full year before Mormon pioneers entered Utah. By now, everyone should have learned. Don't build houses where it's most difficult to pump water and douse a blaze
In response to yesterday's DesNews articles telling us to ONLY shoot at a professional range, I've sent the following letter to their editor. I've also sent a note to the SLCo Mayor and County Council. I encourage others to do likewise.
<letters@desnews.com> and <MayorNancy@co.slc.ut.us>, and <http://www.co.slc.ut.us/co/cfml/co_contact.cfm>.
Charles Hardy
Policy Director
GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!)
xxxxx
Sandy, Utah xxxx
xxx.xxx.xxxx
Dear Editor,
I'm writing in reference to your July 16th Editorial, "Fire a reminder to developers," in which you admonish shooters "Go to a professional firing range, or don't shoot at all. I would certainly enjoy shooting out of the hot sun and choking dust. How nice to practice self-defense tactics, duck hunting draws, or even sight in an Elk gun in a pleasant, controlled environment and without having to drive 60 minutes into the mountain or desert! Sanitation and concession facilities would also be welcome.
Unfortunately, the existence of sufficient publicly accessible shooting ranges, especially those that allow the weapons or activities mentioned above, has escaped my attention. Please publish a list of ranges that are OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Please be sure to let your readers know what types of firearms may be discharged and which shooting activities may be pursued at each range along with the costs.
Do some checking and youÆll find that in a State where the majority of homes have at least one firearm, there are almost no publicly accessible outdoor shooting ranges and very few indoor rangesùespecially that are equipped to handle anything other than standing practice with a handgun or a .22 LR.
In light of this, and with the history of taxes supporting an abundance of golf courses, health centers, tennis courts, soccer fields, swimming pools, skateboarding parks, musical presentations, arts festivals, and other public recreational facilities, IÆm sure the Deseret News will advocate the desirability of using ZAP taxes to construct some public shooting ranges. I trust you desire is simply to increase the safety of the shooting sports, not to diminish participation by eliminating venues.
Subject: FW: Poll: Should Residents of DC have Guns?
Date: 17 Jul 2003 23:18:48 GMT
One has to wonder why it has taken Hatch so long to finally introduce legislation such as this. The cynic in me says it is merely to bolster support among conservatives who are likely to disaprove of his latest Con Amd to let naturalized citizens serve as POTUS (or other non-conservative issues pushed by the Senator) and he has no real intention of burning much political capital on it. After all, nothing like this kind of bill to end coverage of his ConAmd.
As a side note, I observe that for a man who claims to believe the Constitution is a document inspired of God, Hatch sure likes to offer up amendments to change it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. A lot of people might be persuaded to accept the Bible as inspired if only they could change a few passages here and there. ;)
In any case, check out the poll.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
It's a loaded question (notice how the "No" vote is phrased) but we're
Subject: Why is Hatch finally pushing for DC gun rights?
Date: 21 Jul 2003 15:32:25 GMT
FYI...
<http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-21-03-2.html>
Battle of the Ban
by Robert A. Levy and Gene Healy
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.
Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses.
Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council member Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal.
Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest that Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker v. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.
In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.
Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the Court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.
Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Thankfully, on July 8, federal judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Sen. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Ashcroft when he's so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."
Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.
While I have expressed some concerns about the timing and motivation of Hatch's bill to allow DC residents to keep guns in their homes and businesses (but, so far as I know does not provide any CCW or other means to carry legally in public), I do not oppose the bill. (I would hate to see it derail a good clean lawsuit.)
The SLTrib, OTOH, opposses the bill on its merits. Today's editorial:
It may have escaped the notice of Sen. Orrin Hatch, busy as he is telling the District of Columbia what its laws should be, but one thing should be obvious.
Washington ain't Utah.
Hatch wants Congress to overturn the Washington City Council's strict gun-control laws.
Hatch is acting on the intellectually flawed and morally bankrupt argument that pouring more guns into a violent city would somehow make it less violent. Worse, he is seeking to usurp the District's limited home-rule authority on the insultingly paternalistic grounds that Congress Knows Best.
Washington does have exceptionally strict gun laws, at least by American standards, and crime is still a big problem. Legal gun ownership there is strictly limited, with every gun supposedly registered and every gun owner supposedly licensed.
Supposedly is the word, because the laws of course aren't stopping people, law-abiding and criminal, from obtaining and carrying weapons. Really limiting the trade and possession of firearms is difficult in any circumstance and, with D.C. surrounded by the more gun-friendly states of Maryland and Virginia, it has proved nigh onto impossible.
Still, Hatch's argument that arming more citizens would help quell Washington's murder rate, which floats between the third- and seventh-highest of major cities, is grounded in a culture that has watched far too many movies.
In fiction, the good guys never have to fumble for their weapon when taken by surprise, never have it go off too soon or too late, never shoot themselves or an innocent passer-by. Matt Dillon never left his gun within reach of a child, or a drug addict. James Bond never caressed it while in the throes of suicidal despair.
In real life, these things happen all the time, even to trained police officers. While there is little doubt that some criminals would be stopped in their tracks by a clear-eyed pistol-packing citizen, there is even less doubt that, overall, adding guns to ease violence is like adding gasoline to put out a fire.
Hatch's Utah has looser restrictions on guns. And it has less crime. It also has a smaller, richer, more religious, more highly educated population, more intact families, more open spaces, less drugs and alcohol. Our people, not our guns, are the reason for our lower crime rate.
If Orrin Hatch can find a way to make Washington more like Utah in all those other respects, he might have a chance of making the nation's capital a safer place to live.
Otherwise, he should let the people of the District of Columbia make their own laws.
Subject: Mayor Workman suggests banning all shooting outside of professional ra
Date: 21 Jul 2003 23:22:59 GMT
I am astounded at the following response I've just received from our (GOP? or RINO?) SLCo Mayor to my email suggesting that ZAP taxes might appropirately be used for construction of public shooting ranges.
While her suggestion to ban all shooting outside of professional ranges is probably a moot point as I believe all of SLCo is already off limits to recreational shooting, I'm disgusted that she would propose doing so and thought some here might want to respond. (In a professional, dignified manner, of course.)
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Dear Mr. Hardy:
Thank you for your email. I appreciate your sharing of your thoughts
concerning proper shooting ranges and encouragement of use of those venues
by shooters. As you may be aware, I am acutely concerned with the potential
for fire in this extremely dry summer. I have worked with our Fire
Department to restrict illegal use of fireworks and outright bans of any
fireworks in certain areas. It would seem to be an appropriate next step to
consider a similar restriction on using firearms outside of approved ranges.
I will work with the Fire Chief on this issue. Again, I appreciate your
thoughts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mayor Nancy Workman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Hardy [mailto:utbagpiper@juno.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:16 PM
> To: Mayor Nancy
> Cc: Randy Horiuchi; Jim Bradley; Steve Harmsen; Joe Hatch; Michael H
> Jensen; David Wilde; Russell Skousen; Cortlund Ashton; Marvin
> Hendrickson
> Subject:
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mayor Workman and SL County Council members,
>
> I've recently received your report on how my ZAP taxes are being
> allocated and spent. Coincidentally, yesterday, the Deseret News ran
> an editorial admonishing shooters to ONLY shoot at professional
> shooting ranges. Below, is the Deseret News editorial and a letter
> I've sent in response.
>
> What is the position of the SLCo Mayor and each Council member on the
> topic of providing safe and appropriate shooting venues for the
Subject: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges.
Date: 22 Jul 2003 17:21:57 GMT
The following is a brief email exchange I've recently had with SLCo Mayor Nancy Workman. Notice that she carefully avoids taking a firm position on public shooting ranges. And she was VERY quick to suggest/support a total ban on all recreational shooting except in "approved" ranges.
I think we ought to push Mayor Workman and our SLCo council to use some ZAP tax monies for shooting ranges and see how many the Republicans among them really support the RKBA and how many would rather see tax money spent only on high brow arts and parks for skate punks.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Dear Charles
That is a new and interesting concept. Shooting is a recreational activity.
ZAP funding is a function of the County Council in this new form of
government. I will pass this on to County Council Chairman Jensen.
Thank you.
Nancy Workman
County Mayor
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:06 AM
Mayor Workman,
My pleasure.
Again, what is your position on using ZAP taxes to help fund public shooting
ranges in SLCo?
Thank you.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
--- Mayor Nancy <MayorNancy@CO.SLC.UT.US> wrote:
Thank you for the clarification.
Mayor Workman
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 5:26 PM
Dear Mayor Workman;
Perhaps you misread my email. I am NOT suggesting that the county ban all
recreational shooting outside of "approved ranges." I am suggesting that
public shooting ranges are every bit as appropriate use of ZAP taxes as are
theaters, zoos, and the other attractions currently funded by those taxes.
I believe providing safe and appropriate venues for shooting is a far better
solution than simply banning shooting while few if any such venues exist.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
--- Mayor Nancy <MayorNancy@CO.SLC.UT.US> wrote:
Dear Mr. Hardy:
Thank you for your email. I appreciate your sharing of your thoughts
concerning proper shooting ranges and encouragement of use of those venues
by shooters. As you may be aware, I am acutely concerned with the potential
for fire in this extremely dry summer. I have worked with our Fire
Department to restrict illegal use of fireworks and outright bans of any
fireworks in certain areas. It would seem to be an appropriate next step to
consider a similar restriction on using firearms outside of approved ranges.
I will work with the Fire Chief on this issue. Again, I appreciate your
thoughts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mayor Nancy Workman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Hardy [mailto:utbagpiper@juno.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:16 PM
> To: Mayor Nancy
> Cc: Randy Horiuchi; Jim Bradley; Steve Harmsen; Joe Hatch; Michael H
> Jensen; David Wilde; Russell Skousen; Cortlund Ashton; Marvin
> Hendrickson
> Subject:
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mayor Workman and SL County Council members,
>
> I've recently received your report on how my ZAP taxes are being
> allocated and spent. Coincidentally, yesterday, the Deseret News ran
> an editorial admonishing shooters to ONLY shoot at professional
> shooting ranges. Below, is the Deseret News editorial and a letter
> I've sent in response.
>
> What is the position of the SLCo Mayor and each Council member on the
> topic of providing safe and appropriate shooting venues for the
Subject: FW: Concealed Weapon Permit Holders get in trouble even less frequent
Date: 22 Jul 2003 19:38:15 GMT
Some more info on the comparision between police officers and private CCW permit holders provided by Scott Engen.
Again, comparisions between police officers' and private CCW permitees' rates of problems are useful for CCW permit holders precisely because the police are such a trusted groups (and rightfully so in most cases). Hence, you'll note the subtle change in subject line, which I think may be a prudent change in language usage.
We are NOT suggesting that police officers are bad people or untrustworthy. We are simply pointing out that, by at least some measures, private CCW permitees "get into trouble" even less frequently than do our sworn peace officers.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Regarding the Cops/CCW stats issue:
I raised this very comparison in a joint House/Senate committee shortly after we did the Utah CCW reforms in the mid-1990's.
While our dedicated police officers, just like CCW holders, are among the finest members of our society and are being asked to do a difficult and often thankless job, there are a few additional points to consider:
-POST certifies some 8000-plus officers in Utah, but something less than half are Cat. 1 (Fully sworn officers with full arrest powers) and thus able to carry a firearm on or off duty per, their department's regs. The balance are Cat. 2 (Special Service Officers such as corrections, dispatchers, etc.) and generally only able to carry on duty per department regs.
-Many of both the Cat 1 and Cat 2 officers also have a CCW, to allow them greater latitude in carrying a personal firearm off duty. Departments often encourage their people to get a CCW, usually to minimize their liability for any sort of off-duty confrontation from one of their employees.
-Law enforcement as a group has demonstrated in numerous studies a higher rate of divorce, suicide, domestic violence and other potentially dangerous behaviors than those of the general public.
-Utah CCW holders are the ONLY group that are subject to a DAILY criminal background check by Utah BCI. Not cops, illegal aliens, elected officials, judges or TV reporters. Just our nearly 60,000 CCW holders.
-Thus it is possible, even probable that the figures demonstrating the highly responsible CCW holder behavior as [forwarded] by Mr. Hardy are actually even better in real life than the 1/3 less revocations compared to police as he stated.
Subject: Fw: Re: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges.
Date: 22 Jul 2003 19:42:29 GMT
Some more good points about (the lack of) public shooting ranges both in SLCo and in the State of Utah as a whole.
I wonder how much money the Utah legislature or any county commision has sought, much less obtained, from the feds for construction of shooting ranges.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
You might also want to note that SGMA's recreational participation research shows that target shooting sits between golf and tennis in number of particpants nationally, around 18-20 million annually, and would be higher than the national average in Utah. Also note that there is the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax of 11% on guns and ammo at point of manufacture earmarked for game preservation and range construction.
Subject: RE: Re: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges.
Date: 22 Jul 2003 21:21:51 GMT
Dear Mayor Workman,
I believe much good could come from greater interactions between the shooting public and sworn peace officers. While there are certainly times when the police need exclusive use of certain facilities, I fear that having exclusive use of a segregated range insulates officers too much from a major segment of those they serve and protect. Unfortunately, the very segment they are thus insulated from, private gun owners many of whom hold state issued CCW permits and carry concealed firearms in public, are the segment where the greatest mutual understanding and respect is needed.
Further, you will note that the 11% federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition applies to ALL guns and ammo, not just those purchased by or for the use of law enforcement. Hence, there should be federal money available--in addition to local ZAP funds--to fund ranges open to the general public. Ideally, such ranges would be constructed such that the public and sworn peace officers could practice and recreate side-by-side most of the time.
Thank you for your time in considering such matters. I encourage you to actively work to ensure that there are safe and appropriate venues for recreational shooting as well as to practice the arts of defensive firearm use.
If you'd like, representatives of the various gun owners and shooting sports organizations could meet with you to provide more information.
Charles Hardy
Policy Director
GOUtah!
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
--- Mayor Workman <MayorWorkman@CO.SLC.UT.US> wrote:
Hi Charles
Our shooting range that is for law enforcement was financed by federal
monies. However it is not open to the public. It is a highly patrolled and
protected area and could not be open to the public.
Nancy Workman
County Mayor
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 1:42 PM
Some more good points about (the lack of) public shooting ranges both in
SLCo and in the State of Utah as a whole.
I wonder how much money the Utah legislature or any county commision has
sought, much less obtained, from the feds for construction of shooting
ranges.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
You might also want to note that SGMA's recreational participation research
shows that target shooting sits between golf and tennis in number of
particpants nationally, around 18-20 million annually, and would be higher
than the national average in Utah. Also note that there is the federal
Pittman-Robertson excise tax of 11% on guns and ammo at point of manufacture
earmarked for game preservation and range construction.
If anyone has any info on where Mr. Pullan stands on RKBA, please let me know.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
Extremely Urgent!
Please Forward!
The news article at the following link provides some very bad news! Wasatch County Attorney Derek P. Pullan has been appointed to the Fourth District Court bench by Gov. Mike Leavitt.
Pullan led the effort of the private property confiscation lobby to repeal a resolution overwhelmingly passed at the Republican Convention in 1998. This resolution resolved that forfeiture should be allowed only if (1) the property owner is convicted of related criminal wrongdoing, (2) full due process is restored, and (3) forfeiture proceeds are directed to the General Fund or preferably the Crime Victims Reparation Fund. This resolution may be viewed at the following link.
Without prior notice, Pullan was given an opportunity to convince the Republican Party Central Committee to support repeal of the convention resolution. Pullan sought to replace the resolution approved by the delegates with one that was written on behalf of property confiscators. His resolution follows.
Fortunately, his effort failed. This failure occurred despite Pullan having the written support of the Salt Lake County Law Enforcement Administrators & Directors, South Jordan Chief of Police, Statewide Association of Public Attorneys, Uintah Basin Narcotics Strike Force, Utah Department of Public Safety, Utah Sheriffs' Association, Weber/Morgan Narcotics Strike Force, West Valley Chief of Police, and the the Attorneys for Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Iron, Morgan, Salt Lake, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Wasatch, Wayne, and Weber Counties.
Confiscation zealots such as Pullan represent an enormous threat to your right to own property, but possibly never more so when they occupy the office of judge. Fortunately, our constitutional form of government requires that judicial appointees must be confirmed by the Senate for their appointments to be effective.
To protect yourself from the menace of Derek Pullan's confiscation zealotry, without delay (a hearing will be held in no more than thirty days) you must contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and your State Senator and request that he or she reject Pullan's appointment to the Fourth District Court. Contact information for Senators and members of the Judiciary Committee can be found at the following links:
