Subject: Sterling example of civil asset forfeiture
Date: 02 Oct 2003 16:49:33 GMT
This article from today's SLTrib highlights how civil asset forfeiture works. In this case, the federal government is suing a dead bison in order to obtain possession of the same, dead buffalo.
Don't get me wrong, I have no use for poaching or otherwise taking of game illegally. If the hunter or guide in question deliberately and knowingly took the bison in a no hunting area, they ought to be properly punished, including the loss of the buffalo. If it was an honest mistake--easy to make in a State with so much federal land including national parks, recreation areas, etc--any punishement should be less. And those are question rightly decided by a jury, IMO.
This time it is a buffalo being sued. Far too often it is a private gun collection or some other issue related to RKBA. Note that in these cases, neither the object sued, nor the owner thereof is entitle to a State appointed attorney as he would be were he to be charged with an actual crime. The standard of proof is also lower in these civil forfeiture cases than in a criminal case.
Thank heaven we passed our asset reform initiative. Let's hope we can keep it from being repealed.
Feds sue, claiming their buffalo was shot in Capitol Reef Park
When they believe a violation has taken place, federal prosecutors don't hesitate to go after their man.
Or beast.
The U.S. Attorney's Office on Wednesday filed a civil suit naming One Shoulder Mount Bison as the defendant. Prosecutors claim that the bull bison should be forfeited to the government because it was shot in Capitol Reef National Park, a no-hunting area.
The suit claims One Shoulder Mount Bison was taken during the 1998 "Hunters Choice Once in a Lifetime Bison Hunt."
A hunter, who had a bison permit issued by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for the Henry Mountains Unit outside Capitol Reef, hired a guide after several weeks of unsuccessful hunting, according to the suit. It claims that the guide took the hunter past "no hunting" signs into the national park and assisted with packing out the animal.
"The foregoing facts demonstrate there is probable cause to believe the defendant property was acquired through the illegal sale and purchase of guiding, outfitting or other services for the illegal taking, acquiring, receiving, transporting or possessing of fish or wildlife," the suit says.
There is no word yet on whether One Shoulder Mount Bison will have a lawyer.
Subject: Fw: Anheuser-Busch drops support of anti-gun Holden
Date: 03 Oct 2003 17:11:16 GMT
I have done nothing to either confirm or refute this and pass it along FWIW. However, if it is true, it would sure be nice to actually have a business that supported RKBA.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
----- Original Message -----
Good reason to buy AB products -
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q17221616
A-B drops support of Holden over guns
By Jo Mannies ⌐2003
Post-Dispatch Political Correspondent
10/01/2003, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc., the top corporate player in Missouri
politics, is no longer backing Gov. Bob Holden - in large part
because of their differences over concealed weapons.
Republican and Democratic sources say the brewery's decision not to
support the governor's re-election next year is highly unusual in
light of its long-standing reputation as a donor which gives
generously to both parties and their candidates, regardless of their
views.
Before Holden vetoed the bill last summer, sources say, a brewery
lobbyist showed up at the governor's office to tell him that such
action would end the long-standing support he'd enjoyed from
Anheuser-Busch and its executives. Holden confirmed that position
later in phone conversations with Anheuser-Busch Cos. Chairman
August A. Busch III and corporate group vice president Stephen K.
Lambright, sources said.
The brewery wouldn't confirm or deny the account, and the governor's
office declined to comment. But Republican and Democratic sources
familiar with the incident say it's among several recent dealings
between the brewery and top state officials that underscore Anheuser-
Busch's strong support for the bill to allow most Missourians the
right to carry concealed weapons.
The Legislature overrode Holden's veto last month, and the measure
will become law Oct. 11.
"This is a huge deal for Mr. Busch," said one high-level political
source. Several who know Busch say he's an avid sportsman who also
The following is from Clark Aposhian, of the Utah Self Defense Instructors' Network (US-DIN), a group of CCW instructors.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
Friends,
I will be debating "someone" from Utahn's Against Gun Violence this Wednesday evening. The debate is hosted by the group Voice for Moderation.
Here is the information for the debate this week. They have yet to let me know who is up to go against me.
Wednesday, October 8th. from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the Anderson/Foothill Library.
The address is 1135 South 2100 East in Salt Lake City.
I have a nasty cold right now. I am bit hesitant to take cold meds as they may fog my wits weds eve, however I suppose that would make things even though.
Please pass this around as it would be nice to have a strong presence at the meeting.
There will also be time for questions to be asked.
Just a reminder that tomorrow, Tuesday, Oct. 7th. is the municipal primary election. Please, be sure to vote. The polls are open long enough to allow for voting before or after the normal workday.
These races are officially non-partisan, though candidates will often let their political affiliation be known. However, be aware, simply belonging to one political party or another does NOT mean that a candidate actually supports (or opposes) RKBA. You'll need to do some checking to find out.
Please, do what you can to cast an informed vote. The media is not going to be much help, so you'll need to take a moment to call the candidates and ask them their position on issues of importance to you. There are some pro-RKBA candidates running for office this year, including Shirley Spain, a CCW instructor, in West Jordan.
(Also, according to a recent SLTrib poll, SLC mayoral candidates Anderson, Irish, and Pignanelli all believe cities should be allowed to impose restrictions on RKBA above and beyond what the State imposes. Lawrende Topham did not respond to the survey. Apparantly, only Molonai Hola supports protecting RKBA against a patchwork of local laws.)
Along with the usual concerns about traffic (aka speed) enforcement, water rates, local taxes (remember that upwards of half your property tax bill is levied not by the city, but by the school district and other special taxing entities), zoning, etc, here are a few RKBA related questions you might consider:
1-A generic, "How do you feel about the right to own and carry weapons for self defense?" (The answer to this one can reveal much about a person's overall political views and his beliefs on the relationship between citizens and government.)
2-What will you do to help encourage and/or protect private (and/or municipal) shooting ranges? (How much money does your city spend on soccer fields, baseball diamonds, jogging trails, dog parks, city parks, skateboard parks, tennis courts, golf courses, zoos, arts, and atracting new businesses, etc?)
3-How do you feel about allowing citizen use of the police practice range when it is not being used for formal classes by the police department? Or, what do you think about making sure any new police range is also open to the public whenever possible?
4-Do our municipal courts prohibit legally carried self defesne weapons? If so, do they provide legal, safe, convenient storage for the private weapons they prohibit? If not, will YOU work to make sure storage is provided?
5-Where do you stand on home based businesses, including home based firearm dealers and firearm repair shops?
6-Should city council or other meetings prohibit concealed weapons?
Subject: Unsafe to learn/worship petition still alive and kicking
Date: 06 Oct 2003 22:55:07 GMT
The included article from today's SLTrib mostly complains about our current initiative process. Sadly, as we saw last year, our courts are not above placing an initiative on the ballot despite failing to meet legislative thresholds. Those of us in the more highly populated areas need to do what we can to counter the lies, distortions, half-truths, and emotional appeals to voters. If these guys end up with sufficient signatures from a few densly populated counties, the courts may just place the initiative on the ballot despite failing to meet other requirements.
And unlike the radioative tax initiative that was placed on our ballot last year, there simply isn't any large, wealthy company or individual or group who is going to be able to counter the lies of the antis and their allies in every media outlet in the State.
Gun control advocates are struggling to gather enough signatures to place an initiative on the 2004 ballot.
But volunteers don't know how many signatures to collect because the State Elections Office can't give them a number. Lawmakers rejiggered state Senate district boundaries so much during redistricting two years ago that elections workers still are working to pinpoint how many residents in each district equal 10 percent of all registered voters -- the statewide threshold for getting a citizen initiative on the election ballot.
It's just one of the maddening twists Safe Havens for Learning spokeswoman Maura Carabello says she faces in her efforts to keep guns out of Utah schools and churches.
"Nobody can actually tell us what 10 percent is. No one knows what the answer is," Carabello says. "The Legislature has been very insistent that we have to follow these rules. But they can't tell us what they are. The clock is ticking. And we can't even comply with the law."
Trying to track the total number of signatures required is just one of the difficulties posed by new rules for citizen initiatives says John Pearce, the attorney appealing Safe Havens' case to the Utah Supreme Court. The state's top judges will hear arguments -- from Pearce and Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts -- on Wednesday.
In many ways, this is a rematch. Pearce, Roberts and the justices have been here before. Last year, supporters of an initiative to keep nuclear waste out of Utah convinced the court to overturn the state's initiative law. The ruling in that case -- Gallivan v. Walker (Lt. Gov. Olene Walker) -- is the foundation of this new lawsuit.
Pearce, who worked for supporters of the unsuccessful Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act, insists lawmakers only made matters worse during the 2003 Legislature.
"We believe that Gallivan established a precedent that the Legislature's job is to facilitate, not burden, the right to make law through initiatives," Pearce said.
Roberts, who defended the state in 2002, argues the two suits are completely different. It is not the state's fault that gun control advocates are having trouble, he says.
Safe Havens' "difficulties are not necessarily of constitutional concern," Roberts wrote in response to Pearce's appeal. "Their difficulties may also be due to lack of interest in the initiative, improper presentations, lack of funding or various other difficulties they may have brought on themselves."
Utah's Constitution allows residents to make law if a majority of voters approve. But the Constitution lets state lawmakers make the rules for initiative campaigns. And that has been the problem.
First written in 1917, legislators' rules required initiative supporters to collect signatures equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the most recent governor's race in 15 of the state's 29 counties. Those rules stayed largely untouched until 1998, when state leaders tightened the requirements, raising the number of counties where signatures must be gathered to 20.
Last year, nuclear waste opponents gathered 131,000 signatures, more than enough to meet the 10 percent rule. But initiative opponents convinced enough signers to remove their names from the list and the group failed to meet the 20-county requirement. Walker declared the petition insufficient and refused to place it on the ballot.
The initiative supporters appealed to the Supreme Court. And last August, the justices ruled the state's guidelines for circulating petitions were unconstitutional because they placed more weight on rural voters' signatures than those of their urban neighbors. The initiative ultimately was placed on the ballot but was roundly defeated.
Lawmakers, outraged at the "activist" court, ratcheted up initiative requirements earlier this year. Initiative supporters have to gather signatures from 10 percent of the registered voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election in 26 of 29 Senate districts. They must hold seven public meetings around the state, collect signatures within a year, and cannot attempt a similar initiative for two years.
Safe Havens, also known as the Safe to Learn-Safe to Worship Coalition, filed an initiative petition with the Lieutenant Governor's Office March 21. Although the new requirements took effect May 5, Walker determined just two of the rules apply to the gun control initiative and nine others. The rest of the rules are on hold.
The would-be citizen lawmakers complain the rules are being applied retroactively. And they asked 3rd District Judge J. Dennis Frederick to throw out the rules as unconstitutional because they are too difficult to meet -- or at least allow them to gather signatures under the old rules. Instead, Frederick threw out their case.
Now, Pearce is attempting to connect the Safe Havens lawsuit with the Gallivan case. He argues the new rules did not solve the problems of "unduly burdensome" rules posed in Gallivan. If the justices determined one rule was too much last year, four new rules must hinder initiatives, he says.
"There can be little doubt that the challenged provisions are intended to doom, rather than facilitate, the creation of law by initiative," Pearce's appeal states.
Roberts argues the rules simply organize the initiative process; they do not rout it.
"The provisions merely regulate the process for getting an initiative on the ballot and do not restrict the exercise of any of [Safe Havens'] free-speech rights," he wrote. "It can still circulate its petition, engage in political activity, advertise, speak out, raise funds, etc."
Meantime, Safe Havens signature clipboard-carriers are getting started despite the uncertainty.
Because lawmakers changed boundaries after the 2000 governor's election, state workers are recreating Senate districts and counting, sometimes street by street, to calculate the number of voters.
"This is almost an impossible task to figure out what these numbers are," says Elections Director Amy Naccaratto. "I don't know if we're ever going to get an exact number. It's a monumental task -- one that's much bigger than we anticipated."
The deadline for signatures is June 1. But Carabello says even that date has changed.
"We're worried on several fronts," she said. "They keep applying the law willy-nilly. They're giving us their 'best guesses' and interpreting the law the best way they can. This law is so poorly written. They didn't write it to solve a problem."
From today's DesNews. Bernie Machen has been hired to head up the UofFlorida. It will be interesting to see who takes up his anti-self-defense mantel at the UofU. Any chance our legislators will do anything about making sure his replacement will honor the laws as they are written rather than as he would like them to be written?
GAINESVILLE, Fla. ù The University of Florida on Wednesday named James "Bernie" Machen, the president of the University of Utah, to become its next president and the leader of the state's flagship university.
Machen was selected by the university's Board of Trustees over finalists William Jenkins, president of the Louisiana State University System; and Richard Herman, provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The selection ends a nine-month process to replace Charles Young, who is retiring after four years as president.
The three, pulled from an 11-member list of candidates interviewed earlier in the week by a selection committee, were interviewed individually Wednesday by the Board of Trustees. The trio also met individually and in separate forums with faculty, students and alumni.
Machen, 59, who drives a red Harley-Davidson motorcyle and often wears blue jeans to work, has been leader of the Salt Lake City university for six years. A dentist by trade, Machen was dean of the University of Michigan and then became provost and academic vice president.
Machen told the trustees two factors attracted him to the UF president's job ù the faculty and students and the strive toward excellence.
"At most universities the search for excellence has gone, it has turned into a search for survival," he said.
"I don't think there is a job better than a university president's job in the country today," Machen said.
Jenkins, 66, a native of South Africa, was trained as a veterinarian. As president of the Louisiana State University System, he oversees nine universities and 10 public hospitals.
Herman, 62, held administrative positions at the University of Maryland and Pennsylvania State University before becoming assuming his current post.
Manny Fernandez, chairman of the search committee, said the new president will earn between $400,000 and $700,000 a year and will probably begin work Jan. 4.
Young, who served for almost three decades as chancellor of the University of California at Los Angeles, took over the reins of the university on an interim level in 1999 when John Lombardi stepped down. When an earlier search failed, Young agreed to stay on as the president.
From the USU's student paper. NOte that the author did NOT pull the usual media trick of insisting on giving the anti-self-defense lobby equal time to cloud the issue. (Wouldn't it be nice if those of us who support the right to an effective self defense were allowed equal time every time the gun haters stage an event or dance in some victim's blood.) His email, for thanking him, is at the end of the article.
Charles
<http://www.utahstatesman.com/news/519930.html>
Female gun advocate straight shoots with students
By Denise Albiston
The founding fathers were the first feminists, they understood that the Second Amendment was about individual rights to defend themselves from those that would do them harm, said Janalee Tobais, president and founder of Women Against Gun Control (WAGC).
WAGC is a national organization aimed at preserving the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Tobais spoke at the Taggart Student Center Auditorium on Thursday to support Utah State University's Students of the Second Amendment.
"I have a message for the United Nations and any other person or organization that tries to take my guns away to leave me and my family defenseless to terrorists, rapists and murderers; You'll have to pry my gun away from my cold dead fingers," Tobais said. "You don't protect yourself by disarming yourself."
Women are especially vulnerable to attacks, Tobais said. A woman's attacker is most often a man that is physically larger than a woman and that's why women need to carry guns for protection. Judges and lawyers cannot alter biology and the best way for a woman to protect herself is with a gun, she said.
"A gun is an equalizing force for women who are otherwise no match for a would-be attacker," Tobais said.
Tobais said a woman can spend thousands of dollars and many years on self-defense classes, however, they "can't protect you from a 250 pound drug addict, high on meth, from raping or killing you and your family."
Tobais said a woman most often can't match a man's strength, so they need other methods of protecting themselves.
"If guys could be women for a day and receive the harassment that women go through on a daily basis, I guarantee you that they'd be packing a pistol in their pants," Tobais said.
Tobais said it is extraordinarily difficult to observe high-profile women such as Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Sara Brady and others that actively participate in an attempt to disarm women. She said it agitates her to know that other women are trying to take away her rights and added that many of these women may be well-meaning, but they are extremely hypocritical since many of these women live in gated communities with body guards that carry guns.
"I just want to ask these women that are trying to disarm other females, just how are they going to protect themselves if an attacker breaks in? Are they going to scratch their eyes out or pull their hair?" Tobais said. "I bet they're not, I bet they have got a gun stashed under their bed or in their underwear drawer."
Danna Huntzinger, a second-year graduate student in communication disorders, said, "I think it's important for all of us to realize that guns really aren't the bad guy. If only criminals have guns, then we're just going to be the ones unprotected."
A woman has natural instincts to protect her family, Tobais said, and just like any other animal, when a women and her family are in danger, she should have every means possible to protect herself and her family.
"If anybody tries to mess with my kids, they're going to get hurt," Tobais said. "I'll fight to the death to protect them."
Caterina Wilson, a doctoral student in communication disorders, said, "As a woman, a single woman particularly, I want to be able to protect myself and I don't plan on being a victim, so I think it's my right to choose how I do that, including carrying a gun."
Tobais said gun accidents rank among the lowest in the nation, but the media with their "blatant lies" try to demonize guns. She said that whenever there is a gun accident, it's front page news, but when there is a car accident or a child gets ran over by a car, there is no story.
"I don't understand at all why the media has that opinion about guns. They are very misinformed and are lazy reporters if they don't go out and check the facts," Tobais said.
James Campbell, an undeclared junior, said, "I think all the women out there need to take advantage of gun control and gun rights. They need to do more about protecting themselves especially in a campus atmosphere, they need to have instant protection."
Tobais said facts show that since gun organizations have been educating people about gun safety, gun accidents have dropped. If people want to compare gun accident numbers with numbers of car accidents, then gun accidents are minuscule.
Tobais said a bicycle on the front lawn is a lot more dangerous for a child than a loaded gun. National statistics will show that more children are seriously injured while on a bicycle than with a gun.
"The kind of people that carry a concealed weapon have registered to buy them legally and have had background checks and everything first," said Marjorie Blake, a USU graduate that attended the speech. "This says that they are a law-abiding citizen."
Tobais said, "The number one priority of Women Against Gun Control is safety."
Gun owners need to be responsible with their firearms, they need to store their firearms correctly and teach their children to stay away from guns while they are young, Tobais said. When children get old enough to handle a gun, parents need to teach their children proper firearm safety.
"Parents that teach their children how to use a firearm are less likely to get involved with a gun accident," Tobais said.
Education is the key to firearm safety, Tobais said, a gun can't be irresponsible with a person. It's people that are irresponsible with guns. As a society, people need to examine what causes people to commit crime, not the weapon involved in the crime. The people that are irresponsible, Tobais said, are those that won't let gun safety be taught in schools.
"I'm sick and tired of the gun haters blaming guns for crime, because they are ignoring the real causes of crime," Tobais said. "The real cause of crime is the breakdown of family. Statistics show that gun owners are more religious than any other segment in society. They are family oriented. They do things with their kids. They believe in God and just want to be left alone to spend time with their families."
Craig Huntzinger, president of the Students of the Second Amendment, said he believes police officers are not able to provide the safety and protection needed in this country. They are there to simply write the report
when the crime is over. He added that the individual right to manage their own safety becomes a personal responsibility and the legislatures that are for gun control tend to believe it is their responsibility to manage the citizens of the United States.
"We will tolerate no more gun laws. There are more than 20,000 gun laws that have been passed in this nation and it's not stopped any criminals from getting a gun," Tobais said. "You have to either believe there is peace through weakness or peace through strength."
Subject: Unbelievable!! A pro-hunting editorial from the DesNews.
Date: 13 Oct 2003 16:13:10 GMT
I realize that not all gun owners are hunters--some are even anti-sport-hunting. And a single positive editorial on hunting does not make up for all the articles and opinions the DesNews has put out opposing self-defense. But I pass along enough of their bad stuff, I feel compelled to pass this along as well. Maybe we could remind the DesNews that lawful self defense, including the possession of the necessary tools for that job, are as culturally ingrained as is hunting.
The archers and muzzle-loaders have taken their best shots. Now, the rifle hunters are setting their sights on Oct. 18, the day the annual deer hunt starts at first light.
Some 70,000 hunters will head for Utah's hills this year. That's more folks in orange than at LaVell Edwards Stadium. And a third of those ù 23,000 ù will likely get a deer.
We wish them well. And we caution them to be careful.
In Utah, there is never room for tomfoolery and silly risk-taking around rifles.
On the other hand, in Utah there will always be plenty of room for the sport of hunting itself.
Years ago, sports pages called hunters "nimrods" ù the name of a mighty hunter in Genesis. Today, deer hunters are living through a less lofty era. Hunting expenses have risen while the true need for the meat has declined. And the fact most sportsmen are more interested in action than adverbs means the flow of ink has tended to favor animal-rights groups and the anti-hunting crowd more than hunters in recent years.
Still, hunters do have their champions. In novels such as "Islands in the Stream," Ernest Hemingway ù winner of the Nobel Prize ù made the case that sportsmen love wildlife and revere the great outdoors as much as any naturalist. And Utah's poet laureate, Ken Brewer ù a sensitive soul with a Ph.D. ù is an avid hunter. He's a "nimrod" capable of writing a sonnet about mallard ducks in the morning, bagging his limit of the things in the afternoon and then serving them up that evening in a four-star fricassee.
Some defenders of the deer hunt argue that hunting is a socially acceptable outlet for rambunctious men. Others claim that hunters help out wildlife officials by thinning the herds.
And the distinction between putting a bullet between the eyes of a steer in a slaughter house for profit and a putting a bullet through a deer hardly merits a distinction.
Still, from our point of view, the most persuasive defense of deer and bird hunting is the fact it is a thread woven deep into the fabric of society, especially society west of Kansas City.
On the Goshute Reservation near Wendover, tribal members are allowed to hunt at will year-round. If a family has friends coming to dinner tomorrow, they are perfectly justified in bagging an antelope today.
That is how it should be. Hunting and fishing are an integral part of native culture. They come with the territory.
What hunting opponents and animal-rights advocates fail to appreciate is the fact hunting is also an integral part of mainstream America. Hunting is in the American grain.
Hunters are us.
We wish all deer hunters a dose of success this year ù a dose of legal, safe and sober success.
Subject: FW: NRA: Your honor, we are here wanting to register handguns
Date: 14 Oct 2003 16:18:23 GMT
The following is from the Keep and Bear arms alerts. I urge those interested in more details to go to the website and view the entire transcripts.
While this was a preliminary hearing of some kind to determine standing, and while lawyers may argue in fairly complex ways to get past initial hurdles and save a case for trial, it is very disturbing and potentially damaging to have the NRA attorney on record as supporting registration of handguns.
If anyone can provide an explanation for this position that casts the NRA in a better light in this case, please let me know. Or, if this info is somehow in error, please let me know that as well.
Thank you.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Oct. 13, 2003
KeepAndBearArms.com
NRA Attorney: "YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS."
by Angel Shamaya
NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook appears not only unprepared to effectively
argue a Second Amendment case, but ready to give up the farm -- to register
handguns and call it "reasonable" -- when he gets his day in court. Read the
annotated transcript of Mr. Halbrook's oral arguments from court just last
This is an issue we've been aware for quite a while, but important to remember that the other side is also aware of, and more than willing to expoit it.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
The Brady/Mommies have a new tactic that they tried out last year and will
be their big push at the state level this year, so we can expect to see it
here in Utah.
Soon.
They are trying to use "domestic violence prevention" as the excuse
to pass laws to have judges/law enforcment remove guns already owned by
people newly made subect to a restraining order, and also want to force gun
show sales through a FFL to detect restraining order subjects and prevent
them from buying guns
.
A load of crap to be sure, they just want to get everyone's guns, and
While this article from fox news might be taken as a good sign by some, it is a reminder that just because politicians stop talking about taking our RKBA, doesn't mean they have changed their intent if they can get elected. And while hunting and sport shooting are fine and important aspects of RKBA, rest assured that anyone who does not support your right to an effective, armed self-defense both in the home and while in public is likely to eventually put a major crimp even in hunting and sport shooting.
Some of the best rifles for big game are also excellent for "sniper" type uses. Some of the features included on the best shotguns for game birds, also make for fine riot guns. And any handgun good for any sport shooting except single shot, slow fire, is likely to share a lot of characteristics with weapons suitable for self-defense.
It takes a lot more to support RKBA than just not attacking it in public during a campaign season.
The Democrats have decided that the stove is still hot and they donÆt want to get burned again,ö said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America (search). ôWhatever the rhetoric had been it hasnÆt been matched with what happened at the polling booth.ö
Howard and others expect the discourse to heat up in the months preceding the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban (search) in September 2004. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., has already introduced a reauthorization bill with tougher restrictions. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has introduced her own version in the Senate.
ôPeople understand that assault weapons do not belong on the street,ö said McCarthy spokesman Scott Rowson. ôNo matter Democrat or Republican, there is deep and broad support against assault weapons in the public.ö
Gun rights activists say if gun control were to become an issue in the 2004 election, it will be over the assault weapons ban reauthorization. Republican sources say debate is already emerging among the GOP rank-and-file in the House whether to fight it, and talk has centered around whether gun advocates will be inclined to go all out for President Bush if he signs a new ban.
ôIf it gets to the presidentÆs desk, and he signs it, [that] would be a campaign issue like you wouldnÆt believe,ö said Pratt. ôIt would put gun owners in a real foul mood.ö
Subject: Another perspective Fw: NRA: Your honor, we are here wanting to regis
Date: 14 Oct 2003 19:24:58 GMT
Here is a different perspective on the NRA's lawyer's comments in court regarding gun registration. My thanks to Mitch Vilos for his insightful comments.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Mitch Vilos' take on the situation.
----- Original Message -----
> Caution: Shamaya and Lucas are taking Halbrook's argument totally out of
> context.
>
> Washington D.C. already has gun registration. All Halbrook was arguing
> was that he wasn't trying to change that, he was simply trying to get
> them to start issuing permits again to law-abiding citizens. From the
> arguments I gather that Wash. D.C. was not allowing law-abiding citizens
> to register their pistols so they could lawfully have them in their
> homes. So registration wasn't the battle ground. Why piss off the
> court by arguing against registration when it isn't the issue in the
> case? Why try to argue that there can't be reasonable restrictions on
> the 2nd Amendment when it would cause you to lose credibility with the
> court? Every right in the Bill of Rights is subject to reasonable
> restrictions - free speech, search and seizure etc. If you argue
> otherwise, judges dismiss you as a nut case.
>
> For Angel Shamaya and Roy Lucas to take Halbrook's comments so grossly
> out of context makes me seriously wonder about their credibility!
> Halbrook is one of the most gifted, knowledgeable and successful
> attorneys on Second Amendment issues there is. If you don't believe me,
> read his book "That Every Man be Armed." Justice Thomas cites his book
> with approval in the Lopez case where the Supreme Court struck down the
> next-to-the-latest version of the Gun Free School Zone act as exceeding
> Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.
>
> James D. "Mitch" Vilos
> Attorney at Law
> P.O. Box 1148
> Centerville, Utah 84014
> Local Tel.No.: (801)295-3340
> Mobile: (801)560-7117
> 1(800)530-0222
> Practice Concentrating in Accidents and Personal Injury, Insurance Law,
> Medical Malpractice, Defective Products, Workplace Injuries (not
> Worker's Compensation), and Firearms Law (representation of gun owners
> in criminal actions, expungements, and civil rights cases)
Sorry for the volume of email on RKBA the last day or two. A lot of stuff going on it seems.
This is probably old news to many. I wonder if one of Dinse's captains or officers would be free to join the board of one of the various pro-gun groups. OTOH, at least it is clear where this man stands on our RKBA, for, despite far too protestations to the contrary, Utahns Against Gun Violence is decidedly against YOUR RIGHT to an effective, armed, self defense while in publicly accessable, non-secure, places.
It will be interesting to see if we now start having uniformed, SLC police officers testifying against our RKBA at legislative hearings. Perhaps we can convince our legislators to at least ask pointed questions of any such person as to whether he is there in an official capacity, at the behest of any superior, on the clock, and if not, why he has chosen to appear in uniform.
Dinse joins the board of group devoted to ending gun violence
By Michael N. Westley
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake City Police Chief Rick Dinse has added another duty to his roster of peace-keeping efforts. Dinse accepted a board position with the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah (GVPC) this week, saying the position is a natural extension of his job as the chief of police.
"In my years of law enforcement, I've seen guns and the violence surrounding them and the impact it has on the community and individuals, and I believe the organization has the goal of reducing that violence. As the chief of police I heartily support their efforts," Dinse said.
Marla Kennedy, executive director of GVPC, says the organization was formed as an official nonprofit two years ago but operated for more than 10 years from around the kitchen table of Ron and Norma Mullins as Utahns Against Gun Violence. The couple's son was killed by a stray bullet in a college fight.
"We're not anti-gun," Kennedy said. "We're anti-gun violence."
GVPC is the only gun violence prevention group in Utah, Kennedy said. They look at gun violence as a major health issue for Utahns, citing 233 deaths involving firearms in 2001 -- placing it ahead of breast cancer and colon cancer.
"Gun violence is about public health and public safety. Law enforcement backs that clearly with Chief Dinse joining our board," said Kennedy.
Dinse, now in his fourth year as chief, is encouraged by GVPC's efforts.
"By becoming a part of [the organization], I can focus attention on the problem and lend some support to reducing that violence," said Dinse.
Subject: Judge Hilder bows out UofU's illegal gun ban
Date: 15 Oct 2003 17:30:01 GMT
Whether this is some kind of juvenile protest on the part of Judge Hilder, or simply the easiest way for him to avoid having to reverse his own ruling in the event the State SC remands the case back down for further consideration, I'm thinking it is probably a good thing to have him off the case.
Notice that the attorney for the scofflaw UofU seems to be implying that it is not proper to even publicly critique a judge's rulings. That would be dangerous to enforce. We, the public, have a hard enough time getting any meaningful info about how our judges are performing as it is.
I'd say this ruling alone, is sufficient reason to give 3rd District Judge Robert Hilder a NO vote at his next retention election, which, I believe will be this next year at the 2004 general election. Those living in the counties of Salt Lake, Tooele, and Summit will be able to vote no on his retention.
Citing irreparable damage to the public's trust caused by challenges to his impartiality by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and a state senator, 3rd District Judge Robert Hilder has washed his hands of a court dispute over the legality of the University of Utah's campus gun ban.
In a recusal order filed Friday, Hilder, who in August upheld the U.'s firearms ban, denied injecting "in any way or in any degree any personal bias or preference." Under state Rules of Judicial Administration, parties or counsel who believe a judge is biased are supposed to file a sworn statement with the court. No such complaint has been filed against Hilder.
But seeing no other way to restore the public's confidence, Hilder "reluctantly" has stepped aside and asked that the case be reassigned.
"In rare instances, a meritless perception of bias is as damaging to the public's confidence in the judicial process as the presence of actual bias. This is particularly true in matters that have a high public profile," Hilder wrote. "The public statements simply cannot be countered in any way that would reasonably restore the public's confidence in this particular tribunal."
Shurtleff and Senate Majority Leader Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, deny any malice and insist they never meant to question Hilder's integrity.
"I was surprised he would even recuse himself. He's already made his ruling and he's not even in the loop," said Shurtleff.
Shurtleff plans to appeal Hilder's gun decision this week. Depending on the Utah Supreme Court's action, the case could be remanded back to state court. And the recusal, a rare move for a judge this late in a trial, adds another layer of political intrigue to the already hot-button issue of guns in schools.
At issue for Hilder is Shurtleff's statement that Hilder and U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball, who earlier refused to rule in the university's lawsuit until a state court looked at issues of law, have "tipped their hats on how they feel about guns."
Shurtleff made that statement in a news article about the risks involved in appealing Hilder's ruling that was published Sept. 25 in The Salt Lake Tribune.
Paraphrasing Shurtleff, Waddoups was quoted in that same article as saying, "He's judging the judges and I have to think he's pretty accurate, because I don't know how Hilder ever came up with his decision."
Waddoups said Tuesday his remarks had "nothing to do with [Hilder's] impartiality."
"I could never figure out where he came from. I don't see how anybody could interpret the plain language of the law the way he did. But he did," Waddoups said. "It's either him wanting to rule from the bench or flat out not understanding what the intent of the Legislature was."
Waddoups is pushing legislation this coming winter "to make clear our intent," that the Legislature is the only body with the authority to make gun policy in Utah.
Shurtleff still disagrees with Hilder, but said "every day a judge rules, someone is going to disagree with it."
When asked whether Hilder was criticizing him for vetting his complaints in the court of public opinion rather than a court of law, Shurtleff said, "I don't know why he did this. It's bizarre."
University of Utah attorney Allan Sullivan called the recusal "regrettable."
"It's regrettable whenever a judge recuses himself because of things people have said in the press," Sullivan said. "There is an appropriate way to bring up this type of thing to a judge's attention and that was ignored in this case."
Subject: The SLTrib suggests turning a golf course into a shooting range?
Date: 16 Oct 2003 17:23:35 GMT
Only as one option, but this might be an ideal time to remind our SLCo Mayor and County Council that while golfers and others have an overabundance of taxpayer provided recreational opportunities available, shooters in SLCo are facing a worsening shortage of safe and legal, much less convenient, places to engage in their chosen sport.
PS, Nothing against those in our ranks who enjoy golf. But some outdoor shooting ranges in SLCo would sure be nice.
It is time for Salt Lake County to get out some of those stubby little pencils golfers use to keep score and figure out whether there might be a better use for any of the six county-owned golf courses, a use that won't cost county taxpayers yet another $2 million in subsidies next year.
A cross-county ski area, perhaps? With runs for equestrian events in the summer? A soccer complex? A shooting range? Or just a plain old relaxing park?
While county officials figure that greens fees pay the daily operating costs of the courses, the declining number of golfers stretched over a large number of public and private courses in Utah means the county golf system cannot cover its $3 million in annual debt service without more taxpayer support. The County Council has poured nearly $4 million into the courses since 2000, and will officially ponder budgeting another $2 million, from their tourism and recreation account, for next year.
The real money pit in the county system is, of course, the South Mountain course in Draper, purchased from what the real estate agents call a particularly eager seller for $15.9 million in 1999. The course is picturesque, but remote and considered a challenging round, so it has never come close to attracting the 90,000 nine-hole rounds a year its backers predicted.
It is not at all uncommon for local leaders to seek golf courses for their communities. They do enhance the quality of life and provide an attractive amenity to the business types who decide where to locate their offices and factories. In addition to the county, West Valley City and North Salt Lake are subsidizing golf courses from tax revenues.
But the courses generally serve a small, and shrinking, portion of the population. The last generation of businessmen, who used to be the mainstay of golf courses, often find themselves much too busy to take in a round, while many coffee-driven entrepreneurs of the dot-com era find the game painfully slow.
Another reason for the government to get into the links business is the idea that it will place the game within reach, physically and financially, of the average citizen. That's true, to an extent, but it doesn't overcome the fact that the Salt Lake area simply has a surplus of golf venues and that market forces can't be ignored forever, even by government.
Other uses for South Mountain, or any of the county's other courses, would likely produce little or no revenue. But they wouldn't create the need for the same level of staffing and maintenance, either.
There is a somewhat objective number that could be determined, if county staff were directed to do so, that would let the County Council and taxpayers know what the alternatives were, and help them decide whether continued golf subsidies are worth it.
Subject: Gun news. SLC Police Chief Dinse / U gun ban
Date: 17 Oct 2003 18:12:59 GMT
My thanks to reporter Derek Jensen for seeking out local pro-RKBA groups to comment on the Dinse case as well as for his fair and accurate portrayal of my comments.
If anyone is so inclined, she or he may want to drop Mr. Jensen a quick email to either thank him for that, and/or to ask him to further report on the so-called Utahns Against Gun Violence. For example, how many public school teachers with a concealed weapons permit have ever committed any violence (or even had any kind of accident or incidnet with their weapon) while carrying a self defense weapon to school? So why does UAGV want to leave teachers defenseless not only at work, but also in transit? Ditto for parishoners and churches. So why ban guns at churches rather than leaving it up to the individual discression of churches as is now the case?
Why are they opposed to law-abiding, 25 year old female students at the U being able to defend themselves? Etc, etc, etc.
Gun advocates object to his work with anti-violence group
By Derek Jensen
Deseret Morning News
A national gun-rights group is calling for Salt Lake City Police Chief Rick Dinse's resignation after he joined the board of directors of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah.
Dinse was announced as a member of the center's 10-member board of directors last week.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, based in Bellevue, Wash., boasts 650,000 members nationwide and more than 6,000 members in Utah. The committee received an e-mail over the weekend from "somebody in (Dinse's) own" department expressing concern over Dinse's new position, chairman Alan Gottlieb said. Gottlieb declined to release the e-mail or identify the sender, but added that his organization had received some 30 e-mails or phone calls from Salt Lake residents reportedly concerned with Dinse's new position.
"We've gotten a lot of calls from members and citizens in Salt Lake City who are very upset and angry about this because they feel they can't trust law enforcement anymore," Gottlieb said.
The committee's sharply worded, one-page news release faxed to news organizations Thursday stated, "Dinse will be nothing more than a shill for the anti-gun lobby, working against the rights of the law-abiding citizens he was hired to serve."
Representatives of local gun-rights groups were careful not to endorse the statement but did express concern over Dinse's position on the Gun Violence Prevention Center's board of directors.
"I think it's inappropriate," Utah Gun Owners Alliance executive director Sarah Thompson. "I think for someone in his position it certainly is a conflict of interest."
Gun Owners of Utah policy director Charles Hardy agreed.
"We also have serious questions about parity," he said. "If one of his officers or captains or someone in the force were to want to join a pro-gun group or take a very visible role in a pro-self-defense organization, would that person feel comfortable doing it? Would they be allowed to do it? Would that person be allowed to do it on the same basis as the chief is going to participate in this anti-self-defense group?"
Dinse's boss, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, said the chief did not consult him before joining the center's board of directors.
"I am very supportive of Chief Dinse's work with this organization," said Anderson, a liberal Democrat who supports banning guns in churches and schools. "There may be political implications but I am happy to take any political heat that results from Chief Dinse's work to reduce gun violence."
A police spokesman who showed Dinse a copy of the statement said the chief was "amused by it."
"Obviously, the people of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are not aware of what the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah is all about," Salt Lake City police detective Dwayne Baird said. "He researched it before he told them he would assist them as a member of the board of directors."
Gun Violence Prevention Center executive director Marla Kennedy called the committee's demand for Dinse's resignation "offensive."
"We are not anti-gun; we are anti-gun violence," Kennedy said. "I have concealed-weapon-permit holders on my board. . . . We are not an extremist organization and we don't even respond to comments that paint us as such."
The prevention center is a nonprofit organization that works to end violence and suffering resulting from the misuse of firearms, Kennedy said. As a member of the center's board of directors, Dinse will serve for three years and have input about how the center will handle legislative bills involving gun violence, educational programs and other gun violence information programs. Dinse is the first working law enforcement officer to be named to the Utah center's board of directors.
"I'm very comfortable with what our organization does and I'm very comfortable with the fact that polling and our statistics show that the majority of Utahns support what we do because we are gun owners. We are advocates of responsible gun ownership," said Kennedy.
The battle over guns on the University of Utah campus has returned to the courtroom.
The Utah Attorney General's Office on Thursday filed a notice of appeal in the case, which was dismissed in late August following a state court judge's ruling that state law does not prohibit the U. from enforcing its own ban on on-campus firearms.
"I believe that the decision was wrong, and I think I have a duty to appeal it to a higher court," Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said.
In ruling in favor of the university, 3rd District Judge Robert Hilder determined that the U.'s 25-year-old internal policy prohibiting firearms on campus does not run contrary to the state's concealed weapons law and firearms act. Those statutes, according to Shurtleff, grant the Utah Legislature sole authority to enact gun laws.
The appeal to the Utah Supreme Court will focus on a narrow issue arising out of Hilder's ruling ù the judge's finding that the U.'s policy does not invalidate concealed-weapons permits, it just does not allow the weapons themselves to be carried on campus.
State law holds that concealed-weapons permits are valid everywhere in the state, other than those locations that lawmakers have designated as secure areas, such as courthouses and airports.
Shurtleff said lawmakers clearly intended the law to apply to permits as well as weapons, and he will ask the high court to make that finding.
"The Supreme Court will simply have to look at the statute and the intent of the legislature when it was passed," he said.
The high court will likely not hear arguments in the matter until after next year's legislative session, when lawmakers are expected to address the issue through additional legislation. Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-West Jordan, has said he will carry a bill clarifying lawmakers' authority and intent in regulating when and where concealed weapons may be carried.
If that is the case, Shurtleff said, he will dismiss the appeal.
Last week, in an unusual move, Hilder recused himself from additional participation in the case. Although no matters are currently pending before him, the judge said his impartiality has been called into question since his Aug. 29 ruling.
Hilder cited "widely publicized statements" by Shurtleff and Waddoups that the judge took to indicate he has predisposed notions about gun control.
"Mr. Shurtleff did say he could not predict how a judge would rule, but that this court and one other have 'tipped their hats on how they feel about guns,' " Hilder wrote. "The foregoing are clear statements of bias that, if true, would disqualify the assigned judge from the case."
Calling Hilder's action "curious," Shurtleff said he doesn't believe Hilder is biased. If so, he said, he would bring a motion asking the judge to step down if the case ever returned to Hilder's courtroom.
Shurtleff said the statements came as his office was evaluating its options for an appeal and never meant to imply Hilder was unfair in his ruling.
