I write to protest, in the strongest terms possible, the illogical, inflammatory and inaccurate Dec. 27 editorial, "Gun-toters, leave the building."
I know of no one in the pro-self-defense community who has demanded the right to carry a gun into churches. We have resisted efforts to have the state infringe on freedom of religion by banning private guns from all churches. If the state had the proper power to ban guns from churches, it would also have the proper power to ban alcohol or any other item from churches. We assert that the state does not have that power in either case.
While we respect the rights of churches to set private policies different than we might set, we have expected that if our permits are not going to be valid in a particular church, we will be given some kind of reasonable notice. Even smokers are given notice of where their cigarettes are not welcome. Why is a "no smoking" sign OK, but a "no guns" sign unreasonable? For that matter, why should private firearms be treated any differently than alcohol, pork, unwelcome literature or any other item that a church may find offensive?
I also note that you ignore the current exemption for government employees who carry guns (see Utah Code 76-10-523). Why does an off-duty out-of-state traffic cop, or a federal meat inspector, or city prosecutor from Moab have a dire need to carry a gun to church while an abused woman whose ex has threatened further violence get labeled a pariah for wanting to protect herself and her children? Why is it OK for public officials to have armed security while worshipping, but some kind of desecration for minorities, gays, the handicapped, or others who may be at special risk from crime to take measures for their own defense?
I also have to ask: Where was your concern about private weapons in 1994 before Utah ended discrimination in its permit process? If 1,000, mostly well-to-do white businessmen could be trusted to carry guns to church, what exactly is the problem with 50,000 law-abiding men and women of whatever race, income level or career choice doing the same thing in 2003? How many problems have we seen in the nearly 10 years since we stopped discriminating in who could defend themselves?
Your bias against the (federal and state) constitutionally protected principle of individual self-defense has reached new and irrational heights with this latest editorial. You're clearly using the emotionalism and misunderstandings surrounding this issue to further an agenda that is hostile to the very idea of effective self-defense.
Shame on you.
Charles Hardy is the policy director of GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!).
The next time the DesNews calls you a "nut" for supporting the right to peaceably own and carry self-defense weapons (or even right now if you have not yet written to protest their "Gun toters leave the building" editorial), or says you're greedy if you don't support higher taxes, or you don't like children if you are opposed to expanding DCFS power, just remind them that they support civility and calling names is not civil. ;)
A few weeks ago, this newspaper published a sobering story about how researchers at LDS Hospital had pulled the covers back on a dark secret in Utah: Domestic violence is alive and thriving here, as it is nationwide.
The researchers gave confidential questionnaires to 500 consecutive women who came to the hospital's emergency room in March 2001. Nearly 10 percent of them, regardless of the reason they currently were in the hospital, said they were the victims of abuse from their intimate partners during the previous year. Nearly 40 percent of those women said they had considered suicide during that year, as well.
Utah ranks 16th in the nation in domestic homicides. Of the women murdered here each year, about 65 percent die from domestic violence, experts say. In addition, domestic violence is often a factor leading to other diseases, and it is the No. 1 reason why women are injured. And most likely it is underreported.
We were so concerned by these figures that we decided to make the cessation of domestic abuse one of our editorial goals for 2004. The other goal, a carry-over from last year, is to continue to promote civility, both in political debates and in all aspects of life in Utah.
The Deseret Morning News editorial board has a proud tradition of sharing its goals for the coming year on each New Year's Day. While we intend to comment on literally hundreds of issues as they come up during 2004, these goals will direct our concerted efforts and receive special attention.
We are convinced that almost everyone in the state has had a brush with domestic violence, through an acquaintance, a co-worker, a friend at church or some other means. Unfortunately, this is a crime that still is often treated as a private matter, rather than as the public menace it is.
President Bush declared last October to be National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. In doing so, he said, "A home, a family should be a place of support, should be a peaceful place ù not a place of cruelty and brutality. Domestic violence betrays the most basic duties of life. It violates the law. It's wrong. It is a crime that must be confronted by individuals, by communities and by government."
That three-pronged approach, through individuals, communities and government, is the only way to tackle the problem effectively. Laws can do only so much. With the proper public support, shelters can provide safe havens, but only if victims are aware of them, and only if they have the courage to seek help. Much of the burden of recognizing and solving this problem rests on friends and neighbors who see the results of abuse and need to break their silence. But all three elements must work together.
Incivility, it could be argued, is a companion to domestic abuse. Naturally, an abusive partner is not being civil. But incivility goes much deeper into the fabric of a society. When people post rude or vulgar bumper stickers on their vehicles, they are being uncivil. When they act badly in public or try to make a point by profaning the sacred or otherwise provoking people to anger, they are being uncivil. And when people approach political discussions by attacking, defaming and castigating without addressing issues or respecting differing views, they are being uncivil.
Civil people lift everyone through their manners and their attitudes. They respect differing views and celebrate differences in culture and thought, even as they express their own well-considered opinions with passion. A civil society is a civilized society. Unfortunately, there is much around us, from popular television shows to the way people interact on the street, to indicate that incivility is gaining an upper hand.
As we did last year, we intend to be a catalyst in restoring civility. We will spotlight both the good and the bad. This is an election year, which makes this goal all the more important.
Rest assured, we do not intend to abandon any of the issues we have held up as goals in years past. Faithful readers of these pages will no doubt wonder whether we still support a broadening of education choice in the state's public school system. We do. The issue of tuition tax credits seems to be gaining momentum as the Legislature prepares to meet, and we intend to be part of the debate. We also plan to continue our emphasis on ending the plague of drunken driving. Much progress has been made since we first took on this goal, and we don't plan to give up now.
And, of course, there are many other issues affecting Utahns. We will continue to speak out on all matters of concern throughout 2004, but we intend to keep domestic abuse and civility in the forefront of public debate.
Subject: Why more cars have DVDs OR Consumers should demand armed pilots
Date: 06 Jan 2004 16:50:42 GMT
My wife and I recently saw a report on how many new car buyers are opting for DVD players. Falling cost of these devices is, doubtless, one reason. But after seeing a second, seemingly unrelated report, my wife had another theory. It seems that various airports were advising travelers to arrive THREE HOURS before their scheduled flight times over the holidays--partly because of increased security and its associated delays.
Her theory? A LOT of us are choosing to drive longer distances rather than flying. And why not? All else being equal, three hours is roughly 200 miles that can be driven before the plane even gets off the ground. IOW, the time saved by flying, is less than it used to be while the discomfort of driving (especially with children) is being decreased by the re-emergence of large, comfortable cars/SUVs equiped with DVDs and other goodies.
The following two items are from a recent Chuck Muth newsletter and may be of interest on this topic. Think about it the next time you book a flight.
Charles
************************************
The Unfriendly Skies
According to a report by CNS News on Monday, a suspicious Air France flight
bound for Los Angeles on December 30 was tailed by two F-16 fighters until
it finally landed. "More than two years after September 11th we're still in
the position we're in, where, as a final line of defense, we're relying on
F-16s to shoot down the airliner and kill all of those on board in order to
prevent the airplane from being used as a weapon of mass destruction,"
(Capt. Tracy Price, a commercial passenger airline pilot and chairman of the
Airline Pilots Security Alliance) said. "We think that's unacceptable."
Price said the solution is to speed up implementation of the armed pilots
program.
************************************
Will That Be Armed or Unarmed?
"The next time you call an airline or your travel agent to book a flight,
tell them you want a flight with an armed pilot. When customers start
demanding armed pilots in the cockpit the airline industry will pressure the
Transportation Security Administration to make it happen."
Subject: "churches, schools ****and other public places****"
Date: 06 Jan 2004 17:27:49 GMT
The speed with which this response to my letter to the editor--which was only printed yesterday (monday)--must have been drafted, submitted, and chosen for publication is interesting. But I do have to give credit to Mr. (or Mrs. as the case may be) Van Dyk for being honest about his/her real position. CLEARLY, for the gun grabbers/phobics it ISN'T JUST about churches or schools or universities or daycares. It is about ANY "public place." Churches and schools are simply, currently, the most emotional issue they can find; a perfect place to get the camel's nose into the tent.
Just for fun, the next time someone tells you "guns just don't belong in churches or schools" (or any other place), rather than debating them about why, start with a single, simple question. "Well then, WHERE is it acceptable for peaceful, law abiding citizens to carry weapons for self-defense?" If the person doesn't have an answer start naming places. "Libraries?" "Public Parks?" "Hospitals?" "In their own cars while driving?" "At sporting events?" "In grocery stores or shoppping malls?" "Public side walks?"
While there are exceptions, most gun haters/phobics will have a hard time bringing themselves to conceed your right to self defense in ANY public place. And for those who conceed one public place, you can always ask them to explain what makes an off limits public place so different. ;)
The Deseret Morning News editorial staff is to be complimented for taking a positive stand on those who carry guns into churches, schools *****and other public places*****. I found absolutely noting offensive in the editorial. I, for one, am very uncomfortable to see an unknown person carrying a gun ù no matter where. How do I know what this individual's intentions are?
As far as poor Charles Handy of GOUtah is concerned (My View, Jan. 5), I have a suggestion. Why doesn't he request that cry rooms be put back into our chapels so he can go to church and do all the crying he wants for those poor, poor "gun-toters" who can't, or shouldn't, carry their guns to church with them.
And as far as Jared Robinson's letter goes, come off it. There was no deceptive rhetoric in the editorial, only an honest opinion for the right of good people who are uncomfortable in the presence of guns. Just remember not all good people carry guns.
Subject: Jail time for defending self, family and home with a gun?
Date: 13 Jan 2004 23:47:44 GMT
While Utah's gun laws are far from perfect, we can be thankful that our hard work as kept us from this kind of situation in Illinois.
Charles
From a recent Chuck Muth newsletter:
MORE ON WILMETTE GUN INSANITY
ôA pro-Second Amendment group calls it outrageous that a suburban Chicago homeowner faces criminal charges for defending his family - by shooting a burglar who broke into his home several times. Blame it on æregressive, DraconianÆ Illinois gun laws, said the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).
ôPress reports said Hale DeMar of Wilmette, Ill., is charged with violating a local ordinance banning handguns, and with violating state law by not having an Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Card (FOID) for the banned handgun. DeMar reportedly shot and wounded a masked burglar in his kitchen one night last month -- the second time the man broke into his home.
ôPress reports quoted Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter as saying that people who find themselves in DeMar's situation should, æfor the safety of the home...immediately lock the door of the room he's in and dial 911.Æ
" æProsecuting Hale DeMar is outrageous,Æ said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. æAnd Chief Carpenter's patronizing attitude about facing an immediate and unavoidable threat is shameful, if not downright despicable. Mr. DeMar fired a handgun to defend his family against a thug who evidently had invaded his home two nights in a row. If Chief Carpenter is so concerned about public safety, why hadn't his department taken the suspect off the streets long before he was in the DeMar residence, where he was shot? Carpenter has the audacity to claim that Wilmette residents are much safer without a handgun in the home,Æ Gottlieb added. æWhat he's really saying is that burglars and home invaders are a lot safer if they enter unarmed Wilmette homes, and he seems eager to maintain that safe working environment for criminals.Æ
Denying law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves and their families amounts to a æset of hunting regulations for criminals,Æ Gottlieb said. æLaws that prevent crime victims from defending themselves are simply irresponsible,Æ Gottlieb said. æLaws that punish crime victims if they do defend themselves are insidious.Æ DeMar faces up to a year in jail plus a fineàö
- CNS News, 1/13/04
Brushfire Alert: If you havenÆt done so already, you might want to drop Chief Carpenter a few well-chosen words. You can email him at: police@wilmette.com. While youÆre at it, you might want to cc your note to Village President Nancy Canafax at: nancan97@aol.com.
Subject: First of many anti-gun bills to be heard tomorrow in House Law enforce
Date: 19 Jan 2004 23:05:35 GMT
All,
The antis move quickly. HB 63, is scheduled to be heard tommorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00pm in room 225 of the capitalby the House law enforcement and criminal justice committee.
This bill would require that a dealer conduct a stolen weapons check before selling a gun purchased second hand. It has several problems:
First are the immediate problems starting with the fact that the sponsor, Buffmire, is very anti-gun and did NOT confer with pro-gun groups so anything she proposes is suspect from the get go.
Second, there is nothing in the bill actually making provisions to get stolen property returned. This adds more concern that his has less to do with protecting the property of gun owners and more to do with an anti-gun agenda.
We also have potential problems, or the camel's nose in the tent.
First, while the current bill says BCI will do this check for free, how long before they come back and want to start charging a fee?
Second, how long before this is required of all transactions including a private to private transaction?
There is also the potential for registration as the check will take place at the time the dealer goes to re-sell the firearm thus providing another opportunity to link the firearm to the buyer.
Fifth, the stolen gun data base is rife with innacurarices and problems. For example, apparantly, all it handles is a numeric serial number. Many older guns are marked with an alpha-numberic serial number so many guns have the same serial number from just the numeric perspective. Also, I'm told that in the old days, many gun manufactures would start back at zero each January. So you need both a year and serial number, which the system does not handle.
I should also note that BCI will already do a stolen gun check for anybody who requests it. No need to make this a law.
Please contact members of the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee and ask them to oppose this bill. Also, please contact your own reps as we don't have a lot of friends on this committee.
Once again the gun grabbers expose their real agenda when they talk about "churches and schools." They are always ready to add to their list of public places where your rights to an effective self-defense should be abrogated by the State.
As I've said before, I suggest that if you have a personal conversation with such persons, start by asking them to list in which places they think ARE appropriate for you to defend yourself. Hospitals and libraries? Shopping malls and while driving? Etc.
This letter to the editor is from today's Deseret News.
It renews our faith in the media when several writers take on the challenge of the gun lobby. This small group has intimidated the entire Legislature and many in the public sector.
When an article about guns hits the streets, you can hear the pitter-patter of feet as this small minority rushes to their computers to deluge the paper with scary tales of having to defend mothers and children from rabid gunslingers or wild animals. If we took these wild stories to heart, no one could sleep. Chances of problems occurring as we go about our business are remote.
No one is suggesting that our guns be taken away. However, no one should have the right, by law, to take guns to church, school, public parks, school or into people's homes. It's time to stop using fright tactics and let the lawmakers put some common sense into our gun laws. Let the people of Utah decide where guns should be taken.
Subject: Are gun grabbers violent? DesNews Bernick charged with Battery
Date: 21 Jan 2004 22:15:51 GMT
This is from today's DesNews. Of course, everyone is presumed innocent until properly convicted. But IF this is true it might explain why the Deseret News editorial board is so anti-gun. If I had a "man" working in my office who would hit a woman over cheering at a sporting event, I might get a bad impression of regular citizens' ability to control their emotions too. ;-)
Deseret Morning News political editor Bob Bernick Jr. has been charged with battery, a class B misdemeanor, by the Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office.
The alleged incident occurred during a Utah Jazz game Nov. 19 at the Delta Center, where a woman was cheering for the Sacramento Kings in the row behind Bernick. Her cheering apparently made Bernick and his companion mad, according to a report filed by Salt Lake City police.
The woman says Bernick then struck her once in the jaw, according to the police report.
Bernick and his friend then left the game but the alleged victim followed and wrote down his license plate number, the report said.
Ed Brass, Bernick's attorney, said the police report is based on one person's testimony. There are no witness statements to back up the alleged victim's claim, he said. Bernick hasn't had the opportunity to tell his side of the story, Brass noted. "I'm confident my client will be found innocent."
The complaint was filed in Salt Lake City Justice Court Dec. 17, but Bernick was not served with court papers until this week. An arraignment has been scheduled for Feb. 24. The alleged victim filed a police report Nov. 20.
Subject: OFF TOPIC: Rep Ron Paul Speaking in SLC tonight
Date: 22 Jan 2004 15:59:46 GMT
The following is passed along fyi...
Charles
>The Utah Get US out of the United Nations Committee
>presents
>
>The Case for Defending America:
>Why the United States Must Withdraw from the UN
>an address by:
>The Honorable Ron Paul, MD
>Member of the U.S. Congress
>from the Texas 14th District
>
>Thursday, January 22, 2004
>7:30 pm
>
>The Red Lion Hotel
>161 West 600 South, Salt Lake City
>Wasatch 3 and Cascade Conference Rooms
>
>ADMISSION IS FREE!
>Please come in Sunday dress
>
>Congressman Ron Paul is Washington's leading advocate of a return to the principles of limited constitutional government as established by our Founding Fathers. As such, he recognizes the total incompatability of the United States Constitution and the United Nations Charter. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges God as the source of our rights, and our Constitution's purpose is to secure those rights "to ourselves and our posterity." The United Nations, if allowed to gain the power envisioned by its supporters, would negate our founding documents and the principles they contain. Congressman Paul has stated, "UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact, they are openly opposed to it" and "If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist." For this reason he has introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which would end the membership of the United States in the UN.
>
>Come hear Dr. Paul explain why the passage of this bill is vital to the protection of our freedoms and the preservation of our independence and sovereignty!
>
>For more information, contact:
> Northern Utah - Ann Turner (801) 479-7957
> Salt Lake - Nathan Kunz (801) 254-7836
> Utah Valley - Hans Andersen (801) 224-3368
>
>The Utah Get US out of the UN Committee is an adhoc committee of the John Birch Society
Subject: SB 36, lock up your safety bill to be heard Tuesay
Date: 23 Jan 2004 19:33:57 GMT
Sen. Julanders now perinial bill mandating that firearms be kept under lock and key if there is any chance a child may gain access to them is scheduled to be heard Tuesday at 8:00 am in room 414 of the capital. It is SB 36, "Prevention of Child Access to Firearms."
This bill would add to the cost of gun ownership by mandating some kind of gun safe or trigger locks, reduce the personal safety benefits of owning a gun by decreasing the likelyhood you'd be able to get to your gun in the event of a home invasion, does NOTHING about providing gun safety education to children (the ONE thing that is proven to reduce gun accidents), does nothing to make it easier for children to get involved in the shooting sports legally (the one thing that all but guarantees a child won't use a gun in any criminal fashion), and is a trial lawyer's dream come true as it opens up a whole new cause of action should a "minor" (Are 17 year olds REALLY "children?") be injured or killed with a gun.
Ironically, most of the cases trotted out as justification for this bill would likely not even be covered by this bill. The recent case of a two toddlers getting to a gun with the older one killing his younger brother involved a gun that WAS kept under lock and key. But when mom leaves a 4 year old and 2 year old to fend for themselves while she sleeps, eventually they find a key. Another recent case involved a gun that was STOLEN from a man's car (which was parked inside his garage) by a teenager who then ended up "accidentally" shooting his friend.
This bill tries to mollify concerns by offer an "affirmative defense" that certain circumstances--such as having a gun stolen or not having any children with legal access to the home--do not require a gun to be kept under lock and key. That doesn't prevent charges from being brought (you just get to argue to the jury that they should find you not guilty).
Of course, this bill has very little to do with childhood safety as it does nothing to increase the "safe storage" of household chemicals, car keys, kitchen knives, matches, or cigarette lighters. Nor does it require that hot water tanks be set to a low temperature if there are children in the home. This bill is aimed only and squarely at your ability to keep a firearm and to keep it in a usable manner. It turns a rare and tragic accident into a criminal and civil matter while ignoring that laws already exist to cover negligence and child endangerment without singling out guns for special treatment.
Please contact your own Senator if he/she sits on this committe and let him/her know how very much you oppose this kind of attack on gun rights. THEN, please contact Sen. President Al Mansell and let him know you expect him to be present when this bill is heard and to vote against it. Pres. Mansell often is absent from these meetings despite his membership on the committee. Finally, contact other members of the ocmmittee and let them know you oppose this bill. There is no need to waste time on Sen. Patrice Arent who never met a gun control bill she didn't like. But most all other committee members should be receptive to this message.
If possible, plan to attend this hearing. SB 36 is third on the agenda. Let's send a message to the gungrabbers that these kinds of bills are not going to make it out of committee.
Charles
Messages can be left at the Senate phone or faxed to the senate at Telephone (801) 538-1035
Fax (801) 538-1414
You can also contact committee members over the weekend at their home numbers. Please be brief, and polite but firm.
Dan Harrie with the SLTribune has just read to me a press release and portions of a letter sent to local LDS leaders from LDS church HQ. Essentially, the LDS church announces their imminent intentions to ban all privately carried weapons in their houses of worship. Boy Scout and other activities involving the firearms should be held somewhere other than LDS houses of worship. Exceptions are made for "law enforcment" as contained in the law.
Nothing specific about exceptions being available for abuse or other crime victims. However, there was some general language about Bishops with questions on specific cases contacting LDS church HQ.
Look for the SLTrib article tomorrow, but here are the points I made:
1-GOUtah! respects the right of the LDS and other churches to set their own gun policy.
2-We think it imprudent to ban guns and announce to every crackpot out there that an entire congregation will be disarmed; but we respect the right of churches to set different policy than we might.
3-We hope that the VERY large number of persons who are legally exempted from the statute will be as respectful of the docrines, beliefs, and policies of churches as are those of us who are legally subject to the ban.
4-Persons exempted from the ban, by statute, include ALL peace officers of EVERY jurisdiction (off duty traffic cop from Maine), EVERY prosecutor from the AG right on down to the city prosecutor in Virgin, every judge in Utah, members of the board of parole and pardons, and EVERY federal official who carries a gun as part of his duties including FDA inspectors, meat inspectors, OSHA inspectors, IRS agents, a growing number of Forest and Park service employees, etc, etc, etc.
5-We hope that we do not see any criminals taking advantage of disarmed church congregations; however, if such a thing does happen, we hope that everyone--the media, churches, etc--will be intellectually honest enough to not suggest that the problem was our gun laws as they relate to churches.
We'll have to see what gets printed and how it sounds after going through the media filter.
Once the statutory public notice is given and the BCI is notified anyone non-government employee carrying a firearm into an LDS church, temple, tabernacle, or the new assembly hall will be guilty of an infraction.
Of course, I encourage all gun owners to respect the private property rights of the LDS church as well as the provisions of this law. I doubt any of us would deliberately take pork in a Jewish house of worship or alcoholic beverages into an LDS house of worship. The 1st Presidency of the LDS church has (or soon will) announce a ban on guns in their houses of worship here in Utah via a letter sent to local leaders over their signatures. To faithful LDS, that carries as much weight, doctrinally, as anything in the scriptures. We should respect those beliefs.
To those with extraordinary concerns or needs to have a weapon close at hand, I'd suggest that you talk with your Bishop and/or Stake President to see if an exemption will be granted. Under statute, even after a general church gun ban is invoked, a church can grant exemptions at will. Whether or not the LDS church will do that is anyone's guess.
Subject: Re: Firearms Banned from LDS Church Buildings
Date: 26 Jan 2004 17:24:17 GMT
Chad,
It was not read over the pulpit in our meetings. I did have occassion to visit with two members of our Stake Presidency and the President told his counselor he had the letter, but had not yet made copies for them. I'm wondering if the letter will be read or if it is intended as instruction for local leaders. A bit unusual to have it released to the media though.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
-- Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc <chad@pengar.com> wrote:
For the LDS in the audience: Did anyone get this read over the pulpit
in their meetings today? I expected it, but nothing. I was late to
Priesthood meeting and missed the opening, but I asked my father who
said nothing had been announced there, and in Sacrament Meeting there
was nothing either...
Chad
On Jan 24, 2004, at 10:35 AM, Scott Bergeson wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2004 21:43:54 -0700 Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc
> wrote:
>
> ___Chad___
> After I read the actual text, I (as an LDS) plan on writing a
> friendly, factual, polite letter to the church office building
> telling them the logical fallacies in their arguments as well
> as pointing out the danger of such an action. I encourage all
> who are LDS to do so. Be polite, with some deference.
Subject: DesNews article leaves out important info
Date: 28 Jan 2004 23:57:51 GMT
There is an article in today's DesNews regarding yesterday's hearing on Sen. Julander's now perinial bill that mandates that guns be kept locked up seperate from the ammo which would also have to be kept locked up.
It is available at <http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590039114,00.html>.
In in, the reporter reminds readers of the latest accidental death involving a gun, but fails to remind readers that in the case in question the gun HAD been secured in a lock box but the toddlers had been essentially unsupervised for several hours while their father was at work and their mother slept after returning home from working a graveyard shift.
(Another recent incident involved a couple of teenage boys who stole a weapon out of an automobile inside someone else's garage. Again, hardly a case of gun storage problem and far more a case of lack of safety training AND a lack of respect for others property. Had the kids stolen the car and then gotten killed in a car crash, they'd just be a couple of thieves. But let them steal a gun and then get hurt with it, and suddenly they are "victims" of a gun accident.)
Also, the reporter makes reference to the "powerful gun lobby." Of course, WE know that the "gun lobby" is really just a lot of ordinary folks, citizen activists and we are powerful only because of our numbers and grassroots involvement. We don't have Jazz tickets to hand out or (excepting for when the NRA donated to anti-gun Leavitt's campaign) make large campaign contributions. We don't have any rich sugar daddies funding our activities. The NRA has only 1 lobbyist assigned part time to Utah; he is also responsible for about 7 other western States. USSC has only the part-time, and probably donated time, of a single lobbyist.
GOUtah!, WAGC, UTGOA, USDIN, and other pro-gun groups don't even have that much. We are just regular folks who choose to be involved politically. We choose to vote; and we choose to make sure that our elected leaders know: 1-How we expect them to vote relative to our RKBA; and 2-That how they vote on RKBA WILL affect how we will vote at the next election.
Presumably, given their railings against gifts and in favor of limiting campaign contributions, this is exactly how the editorial board of the DesNews would like to see government function. Of course, they are none too happy with out continued success.
Below, is a copy of a letter I sent to the reporter who wrote today's story. I borrowed some items from a recent USSC alert to put into it. Perhaps it, and what I've said above, will generate some ideas for letters of your own--either to the editor as letters to the editor or to the reporter to encourage her to be more accurate in the future.
As always, be civil and proffessional in any communication. It is not wise to start a war of words with anyone who buys ink by the barrel. ;-)
<letters@desnews.com> for letters to the editor.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Dear Ms. Dobner,
I write in reference to your story in today's (Wednesday, Jan 28) Deseret News on Senator Julander's bill that would have required gun owners to lock up their firearms and ammunition.
I am deeply disapointed and concerned that in reminding readers about the most recent, and tragic event of a child being killed in a firearms related incident you failed to mention that in that case the weapon HAD been secured within a gun safe. Rather than being a poster child for a mandatory gun safe bill, the case in question is actually just the opposite as it shows that even locking a gun in a safe is no substitute for proper safety training, proper adult supervision of children, and general good parenting.
All the gun safes and trigger locks in the world will not protect toddlers who are left, essentially, unsupervised for four or more hours at a stretch. From what the news has reported, that entire situation was a tragidy waiting to happen. Had those children not found the keys to the gun safe, they almost certainly would have eventually found household chemicals, matches, kitchen knives, car keys, or run into the street in front of a speeding automobile. No wonder that in court the oath is to tell "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth." By ommitting this one, very pertinent fact, you have left your readers with a VERY different impression of what happened to those two toddlers than is the reality. They were not victims of a gun accident. They were victims of parental neglect. Your readers deserve better.
Only one percent of childhood accidental deaths involve a firearm. And yet for five years Sen. Julander has wasted hours of her own time, the time of legislature, and of concerned citizens with her bill to impose more restrictions on law abiding gun owners, to increase the cost of gun ownership, and to further stigmatize guns. In those five years Sen. Julander has NOT introduced a single bill requiring that matches, household chemicals or even car keys be kept under lock and key. She has opposed efforts to make gun safety training available to school children on an equal basis with power line safety, lite rail safety, and other common sense safety training.
It is clear that Sen. Julander cares far more about demonizing guns, assling gun owners, and providing work to trial lawyers, than she does about the safety of children. Here are some of the problems with this bill:
** This bill attempts to legislate common sense but stupid or careless people will still endanger kids.
** This bill is not needed as people can be prosecuted under existing laws and the dealer notification part is essentially happening now.
** A "one size fits all" approach is inappropriate for many people.
** Equal justice will not follow equally reckless conduct- parents will not be prosecuted or sued, but their neighbors will be. Affirmative defenses make you prove your innocence, instead of the state proving your guilt.
** It is not a "child safety bill" but part of a scheme to demonize guns by singling them out for harsher treatment than other potentially hazardous items like knives, matches, motor vehicles, swimming pools or other items causing more accidental deaths than guns.
** Will this protect more kids or disarm potential victims of home invasions, burglaries, etc.? A 2001 study showed a significant increase in violent crime after passage of "safe storage" laws in 15 states. CDC has found no evidence that any gun control scheme actually works.
Please try to present a more balanced and full picture of this type of bill in the future.
Subject: Fw: Minutes for Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Ju
Date: 29 Jan 2004 18:34:20 GMT
Below, are the minutes from the 1/27 Senate Judiciary Committee that heard the anti-gun, SB 36.
You'll note a few things.
1-Sen. President Mansell and Sen. Hillyard were both present to vote on SB 24 which deals with defining marriage. However, both were absent for the vote on SB 36. I'm told that Sen. Hillyard WAS present for some of the discussion on SB 36, but had to present a bill in another committee before the vote was taken.
However, Sen. President Mansell clearly left the room just as discussion on SB 36 was starting. He abandoned gun owners; he was unwilling to vote for us, but smart enough to not vote against us.
2-The president of the Utah PTA spoke in favor of this bill and thus, against your gun rights. What exactly does how a gun is stored in YOUR home have to do with the PTA's mission to work with parents and teachers to advance good education for children?
3-We see a doctor from Primary Children's Medical Center, Douglas Nelson, speaking against our gun rights.
4-The Catholic Diocese's Government Liason, Dee Rowland, spoke in favor of the bill. I'm told her comments indicated she did not even know what the bill was, other than an anti-gun bill, that she (or we presume her employer) supported on that basis alone. I'm told she said something to the effect of "My priest is tired of officiating at funerals of young people killed by guns."
5-Selanie Leavitt spoke on behalf of "Gun Wise," a group I've not heard of before, in favor of this bill and thus against your gun rights.
6-The other usual suspects including Billy/Barbara Nash and Marla Kennedy spoke in favor of this bill.
7-While Sen Buttars made a motion to kill this bill and thus took a stand solidy in defense of our rights--and even though the minutes do NOT show this--Sen. Bell, the chairman of the committee took the opportunity to ham it up for the cameras by giving "the gun lobby" a tongue lashing for being unreasonable and saying that this kind of a bill was needed and would pass eventually. Sen. Bell ultimately voted to hold the bill, but it is clear that he is NOT a strong defender of gun rights.
8-While we do not know Sen. Evans' motivation for moving to hold the bill rather than allowing a vote to happen on Arent's motiong to pass it out favorably and then moving to kill the bill, his motion had the effect of making it much easier for the gun grabbers to bring this bill back later in the session. Maybe he really thought this was the surest way to kill the bill. But from the comments made by committee members, it was clear to those in attendance that the bill was not going to get a favorable recommendation so it would seem to have been more prudent to allow a vote on Arent's motion at which time Buttars' motion to kill the bill would have been in order.
I'd say Sen. Buttars deserves your thanks on this one while Sen. Mansell needs to be reminded that friends don't desert each other. Sen. Evans need to hear that we don't want to play nicely with gun grabbers, we want to defeat them soundly enough that they quit wasting our time and attacking our rights with these kinds of bills.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
MINUTES OF THE
SENATE JUDICIARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
STANDING COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Room 414, STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Sen. Gregory Bell, Chair
Sen. Patrice M. Arent
Sen. D. Chris Buttars
Sen. James M. Evans
Sen. David L. Gladwell
Sen. Lyle W. Hillyard
Sen. Mike Dmitrich
Sen. L. Alma Mansell
Members Excused: N/A
Staff Present: Jami Momberger, Policy Analyst
Katrina Yarrington, Committee Secretary
Public Speakers Present: Scott McCoy, Attorney, Equality Utah
Paul Boyden, Director, State Wide Association of Prosecutors
Michael Zimmerman, Attorney Roger Browne, citizen
Douglas Nelson, MD, Primary Children's Medical Center
Dee Rowland, Government Liaison, Catholic Diocese
Marla Kennedy, Executive Director, Gun Violence Prevention Center
John Spangler, Utah Shooting Sports Council
JoAnn Neilson, President, Utah PTA
Bill Clayton, Director of Community Action, GOUtah
Barbara Nash, Gun Violence Prevention Center
W. Clark Aposhian, Chairman, US-DIN
Janalee Tobias, President, Women Against Gun Control
Leonard Wojcik, USSC
Selanie Leavitt, Co-Founder, Gun Wise
A list of visitors and a copy of handouts are filed with the committee minutes.
Committee Chair Bell called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m.
MOTION: Sen. Gladwell moved to approve the minutes of January 23, 2004.
The motion passed unanimously, with Sen. Evans, Sen. Dmitrich, and Sen. Mansell absent for the vote.
1. SB 118 JUDICIARY AMENDMENTS (L. Hillyard)
Sen. Hillyard introduced the bill.
MOTION: Sen. Arent moved to pass S.B. 118, out with a favorable recommendation.
The motion passed unanimously, with Sen. Dmitrich, Sen. Evans and Sen. Mansell absent for the vote.
2. S.B. 24 MARRIAGE RECOGNITION POLICY (D.C. Buttars)
MOTION: Sen. Buttars moved to adopt 1st Substitute S.B. 24.
The motion passed, with Sen. Dmitrich, Sen. Evans and Sen. Mansell absent for the vote.
Sen. Buttars introduced the bill.
The following people spoke to the bill:
Michael Zimmerman, Attorney, former Utah State Supreme Court Justice
The following people spoke in support of the bill:
Roger Browne, citizen
The following people spoke in opposition of the bill:
Scott McCoy, Attorney, Equality Utah
MOTION: Sen. Hillyard moved to pass S.B. 24 out with a favorable recommendation.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Sen. Arent moved to hold S.B. 24 in committee.
The motion failed, with Sen. Bell, Sen. Buttars, Sen. Gladwell, Sen. Hillyard, and Sen. Mansell voting in opposition, and Sen. Evans absent for the vote.
The original motion passed, with Sen. Arent and Sen. Dmitrich voting in opposition, and Sen. Evans absent for the vote.
3. S.B. 36 PREVENTION OF CHILD ACCESS TO FIREARMS (P. Julander)
Sen. Julander introduced the bill.
The following people spoke in support of the bill:
Douglas Nelson, M.D., Primary Children's Medical Center, ER Doctor
Paul Boyden, Director, State Wide Association of Prosecutors
Dee Rowland, Government Liaison, Catholic Diocese
Marla Kennedy, Executive Director, Gun Violence Prevention Center
JoAnn Neilson, President, Utah PTA
Barbara Nash, Gun Violence Prevention Center
Selanie Leavitt, Co- Founder, Gun Wise
The following people spoke in opposition of the bill:
John Spangler, Utah Shooting Sports Council
Bill Clayton, Director of Community Action, GOUtah
W. Clark Aposhian, Chairman, US-DIN
Janalee Tobias, President, Women Against Gun Control
Leonard Wojcik, USSC
MOTION: Sen. Arent moved to pass S.B. 36 out with a favorable recommendation.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Sen. Buttars moved to vote the bill down with an unfavorable recommendation on S.B. 36.
The motion was ruled out of order by Chairman Bell.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Sen. Evans moved to hold S.B. 36.
The motion passed, with Sen. Buttars and Sen. Gladwell voting in opposition, and Sen. Mansell and Sen. Hillyard absent for the vote.
S.B. 106 was not discussed at this meeting.
MOTION: Sen. Evans moved to adjourn.
The motion passed unanimously, with Sen. Mansell and Sen. Hillyard absent for the vote.
Committee Chair Bell adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.
