RANCHO CORDOVA, Calif. (AP) ù A 53-year-old woman who fired nine shots with two handguns to ward off an intruder said she tried to avoid hitting her furniture.
"Priorities, right?" said Carolyn Lisle of Rancho Cordova. "It was one of those nights. I have a few holes in my glass out front."
The Sacramento County sheriff's department said William Kriske, a 47-year-old parolee, was treated for a gunshot wound to the arm, then jailed on suspicion of burglary and resisting arrest after he crashed through Lisle's sliding glass door Thursday evening.
Lisle's three guests fled the home, but she took action, opening fire with a .357 caliber revolver.
"He was like a mosquito hitting the window. Every time he turned around, poweee," she told the Sacramento Bee.
She emptied her first handgun as the intruder crashed through another window to escape, then retrieved a second revolver as he broke into her garage.
"I like to be prepared," she said.
She opened fire again as the intruder fled the garage and approached the house, wounding him.
Sacramento County Sheriff's Sgt. Lou Fatur said Lisle, a retired state worker who once worked as a correctional officer, won't be charged for defending herself with properly registered firearms.
The intruder tried to steal a motorcycle from a home across the street, but was chased off by neighbors who also had armed themselves to come to Lisle's aid.
As the burglar fled, one of the men yelled, "And that's just our womenfolk," Lisle said.
A California Highway Patrol officer stopped Kriske nearby, and he was arrested by sheriff's deputies.
Here is the vote on Waddoups' SB 48 that will, yet again, spell out that the UofU if part of Utah and must obey our gun laws. Note those who voted against your rights, or who failed to show up to vote at all.
Subject: Senate committee votes to advance anti-gun SB 233
Date: 17 Feb 2004 16:15:47 GMT
Yesterday, Monday the 16th, the Senate Transportation Committee voted 4-0, with 4 members absent, to advance SB 233, "Airport Security Amendments." This bill increases the panalty level for taking a weapon, including a firearm, beyond the metal detectors at the airport.
We certainly do not condone illegally taking a weapon into a secure area. And we encourage gun owners to be mindful and dilligent in keeping track of their weapons. However, we don't think it serves either security or justice to impose unduly harsh punishment over innocent or minor mistakes.
Increasing penalty levels by one degree as this bill does, so that the maximum penalty is a Class A, rather than a Class B misdemeanor, does NOTHING to deter real criminals or terrorists. It just continues the march down the path of demonizing anyone who may have a weapon--including folding utility knives, etc.
GOUTah! has contacted Sen. Evans and let him know we oppose this bill. USDIN and the NRA attempted to work with the sponsor, Sen. Evans, as well as the airport in an effort to resolve gun owner concerns. It seems that the Sen. and the airport were unwilling to budge an inch. We know Sen. Evans is in for a tough re-election in a traditionally Democratic district. It seems he may be playing election year politics at gun owners' expense.
Here is the vote report. Unfortunately, some claimed friends voted against us and some others who are generally pro-gun were absent. Please contact these committee members, as well as your own Senator, and ask them to oppose SB 233 on the floor.
Charles
Senate Transportation and Public Utilities and Technology Committee
Subject: Latest KSL drivel against guns--OR calling all "fanatics"
Date: 17 Feb 2004 21:51:24 GMT
This is from the KSL web site and was probably read on-air on the 12th of this month. KSL needs to hear from those who understand why disarming law abiding citizens on openly accessable, government property like the UofU campus is not a good idea. As always, please be civil in all communications as the media love nothing better than to have someone write a letter that actually confirms their bigoted views of us as "fanatics."
It looks like rebuttals can be sent to <duane.cardall@ksl.com>.
Charles
<http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=70&sid=74808>
Speaking Plainly About Guns
Feb. 12, 2004
Senate Majority Leader Michael Waddoups recently used what he described as ôplain languageö to explain his latest impudent effort to amend UtahÆs liberal gun law.
As far as the conservative senator from Taylorsville is concerned, only the state legislature can set policy regarding guns on public property, including UtahÆs colleges and universities.
May we use equally plain language to express KSLÆs view . . . and what repeated public opinion polls suggest is the long-held majority view in this state: Senator Waddoups and his concealed carry cronies could use a good dose of common sense.
Guns, concealed or otherwise, donÆt belong on college campuses!
The people charged with running UtahÆs schools know what works and what is best for their institutions. The University of Utah, for example, has a 30-year-old gun policy that has helped maintain a safe haven for learning. Would forcing a policy change to allow concealed weapons, in reality, do anything to make the campus safer?
LetÆs continue to speak plainly.
KSL is not against the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Guns have a place in American life. In recent years, though, the gun debate in Utah has gotten way out of whack. In plain language, it is time to do whatÆs best for all Utahns, not merely what will satisfy the narrow-mindedness of a few concealed carry fanatics.
SB 48 is Sen. Waddoups' latest attempt to make the UofU obey Utah's gun laws (as well as overturning a really bad court decision that said they didn't have to). It passed out of committee but only after Sen. Bell amendmended the bill. This amendment has some troubling ramifications. This amendment will, for the first time in our statutes, give clear and explicit authority to ALL private property owners, including owners of so-called "places of public accomodation", to discriminate against those who legally possess self-defense weapons.
This is an area that has never been clarified in State law and so both sides--gun owners and anti-gun (or just liability nervous) businesses have taken low-key approaches. The AOL case wherein three employees were fired for having legal weapons in their cars in the parking lot was the most visible face off yet. The Delta Center's banning of legal CCW is another ongoing case.
Yesterday, Sen. Waddoups offered an amendment that would have made clear that places of business, open to the public cannot discriminate based on your ability to defend yourself while continuing to strictly limit the authority of government agents/entities to restrict your CCW. That amendment failed on a 13-13 vote with several members absent.
Those Senators who were absent often claim to support RKBA. Had one or more of them been present to vote--and voted to support your RKBA--this amendment would have passed and SB 48 would have once again been a solidly pro-gun bill.
Please note that claimed "pro-gun" Senator Evans has, once again, voted against RKBA. This in addition to running an anti-gun bill this year and previously voting to undermine our efforts to kill a very bad mandatory "lock up your gun" bill. Of course, it was claimed "pro-gun" senator Bell who offered the bad amendment in the first place.
Please note that Senators Mansell, Bramble, and Valentine apparantly do not care enough about RKBA to be present to vote to support it.
A yes vote is good. A no vote or being absent is bad.
Voting in the affirmative (to adopt Waddoups GOOD amendment) were: Senators
Bell Buttars Dmitrich Eastman J. Evans Hellewell Hillyard Jenkins Knudson Mayne Stephenson Waddoups Walker
Voting in the negative (AGAINST RKBA) were: Senators
Allen Arent Blackham Davis B. Evans Gladwell Hale Hatch Hickman Julander Killpack Thomas Wright
Absent or not voting were: Senators
Bramble Valentine Mansell
Here is a story from today's SLTrib. Note that while Senator Walker voted in favor of the Amendment (a good vote), according to this story, she spoke against it and RKBA. She may have voted the right way only after seeing that her vote wouldn't matter.
Ideally, the entire language dealing with private property will be removed in the House. This would be done by striking all of paragraph 7. That way, this bill would not deal at all with private property and would return to being just about whether local government entities, including universities, can infringe your RKBA. The debate over private property generally open to the public is best left for another day, IMO.
The Utah Senate sent the House a gun bill Tuesday that would clarify for the first time in state law that stores, other businesses and private schools have the right to ban guns, including legally concealed weapons.
Senate Bill 48 is an attempt to overturn the University of Utah's decades-old prohibition of students, faculty and staff bringing firearms onto campus. But a floor amendment approved Monday closes a big loophole in state gun policy -- spelling out that private property rights trump gun rights.
Sponsoring Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, tried but failed Tuesday to water down the amendment. "This goes back to the way it was, which in my mind was silent on the issue" of whether businesses and private schools can ban all weapons.
"That's an argument for another bill, for another debate," said Waddoups, the Senate majority leader. "I want to concentrate the debate on the University of Utah."
Monday's amendment states that nothing in Utah law would prohibit a private property owner from restricting possession or use of a firearm on his or her property. But the Tuesday proposal would have carved out of that provision private property used "as a place of public accommodation" such as stores, amusement parks and privately owned schools and universities.
The amendment failed on a 13-13 vote when several senators protested that businesses should have the right to ban guns on their premises.
"We're almost muddying the water" by passing the amendment, said Sen. Carlene Walker, R- Cottonwood Heights. "I have a small business, employing five people. I don't want guns in my office."
Sen. Karen Hale, D-Salt Lake City, raised the concern that Waddoups' proposal could interfere with the Delta Center's practice of barring concealed firearms from Jazz basketball games and other events at the facility in downtown Salt Lake City. She also said it could crimp LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University from enforcing its policy of no guns on campus.
Subject: SB 48 assigned to house committee, calls needed
Date: 18 Feb 2004 23:51:05 GMT
SB 48 has just been assigned to the House Law Enforcement Committee. It is scheduled for a hearing this Thursday, at 4:30 pm in room 225. Please contact committee members, listed below, and let them know that paragraph 7 needs to be deleted from this bill.
Paragraph 7, if it remains, will for the first time codify that businesses have the statutory authority to discriminate against gun owners. Your CCW permit will be far less useful if the grocery store, bank, shopping malls, and restraunts you frequent decide to post no gun signs and those signs have the backing of statutory authority.
Messages for all representatives can be left at the main House number at 801-538-1029. Typically, the operator will take messages for 3 or 4 legislators per phone call. You can also email the members of the committee. Email addresses can be found at <http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/members2003/membertable1.asp>
Charles
AGENDA
TO: Members of the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee
FROM: Rep. DeMar 'Bud' Bowman, Chair
Rep. Douglas C. Aagard, Vice Chair
RE: Committee Meeting
DATE: Thursday, February 19, 2004
TIME: 4:30 PM
PLACE: Room 225 State Capitol
- Call to order and approval of minutes
- The following bills are scheduled for consideration:
1. HB0364 Profits from Sale of Crime Memorabilia (S. Daniels)
I've sent the following to each member of the House Law Enforcement committee who isn't so rabidly anti-gun as to ignore it anyway. Email addresses are:
Lavarchristensen@utah.gov
bdee@utah.gov
Wharper@utah.gov
Mikemorley@utah.gov
Pwallace@utah.gov
Curtwebb@utah.gov
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Dear Rep. XXXXXX,
I'm writing to you because you are a member of the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee. This Thursday, February 19th, your committee is scheduled to hear SB 48, "Uniform Firearm Laws" by Sen. Waddoups.
I urge you to be present, and to support an expected, friendly amendment to the bill that will strike what is currently paragraph (7). This paragraph deals with the ability of private property owners, including those who own businesses open to the general public, to ban otherwise legally carried self-defense weapons.
This is not the time, nor the bill, to have this particular debate. SB 48 is intended to deal with local government entities, including public colleges and schools enacting policies contrary to State law. Please vote to remove paragraph 7 so that SB 47 deals only with the clear cut issue of local government. The issue of privately owned businesses and self-defense rights should be thoroughly studied--perhaps by an interim committee--before any legislation to address it is brought forward. A hastily drafted and adopted amendment is not the way to address that potentially thorny issue.
Please vote to remove paragraph 7 and then vote to support the amended SB 48 and send it to the full House for their consideration.
I appreciate your time and attention in this matter and would appreciate knowing your position at this time.
Subject: Sen Waddoups needs to hear from you on SB 48
Date: 19 Feb 2004 18:07:31 GMT
I've just heard that apparantly someone has convinced Sen. Waddoups' that Sen. Bell's anti-gun amendment to SB 48 is a GOOD thing as it strengthens private property rights. That may be true, but only at the expense of RKBA. Private business owners do not gain ANY rights except the explicit ability to discriminate against lawful gun owners. Besides, this is not the right section of code to address that question and it has not received a thorough debate.
The perpetually anti-gun SLTribune LIKES this amendment. Need I say more?
We need to very quickly get messages into Waddoups that SB 48 is now an anti-gun bill and will be viewed as such unless paragraph 7 is stricken. Messages need to be left at the main senate switchboard at 538-1035. Please keep them short and polite.
"Please don't gut CCW. Please support an amendment to remove paragraph 7 from SB 48."
Please, take 5 minutes and call NOW. If the phones or busy or you are put on hold, that is GOOD. It means lots of others are doing likewise. Please, either try again or stay on the line, as the case may be.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah
Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network.
No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever.
GOUtah! Web Site: http://www.goutahorg.org
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from GOUtah!'s free e-mail Alerts, send a
blank e-mail message to one of the following addresses:
goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Send comments to: goutah@goutahorg.org
___________________________________
GOUtah! Alert #191 - 19 Feb. 2004
Today's Maxim of Liberty:
"Good people do not need laws telling them to act responsibly,
while bad people will simply seek ways around the laws."
-- Plato (420 B.C.)
In this Alert:
Please call Sen. Waddoups NOW!
Corrections regarding Alert #190.
Woman assaulted in LDS house of worship.
EMERGENCY ACTION NEEDED ON SB 48
We have been informed that Sen. Mike Waddoups, the sponsor of SB 48, has
been convinced by person or persons unknown that the Bell amendment that was
attached on the floor of the Senate (which would empower owners of
public-access places such as shopping malls and grocery stores to ban
legally-carried self-defense weapons) should be left in his bill. The bill
gets heard this afternoon at a meeting in room 225 of the Capitol, which
starts at 4:30 p.m. It is second on the agenda, so it might get heard after
5:00. Any of you who can make it to the hearing should plan on briefly
speaking, with the message that you are a gun owner and that you OPPOSE SB
48 as long as paragraph 7 remains in the bill.
Sen. Waddoups appeared to have been opposed to the Bell amendment until
today. According to our sources, he has done a 180 on the amendment sometime
in the past few hours.
Please leave a brief phone message at the Capitol AS SOON AS POSSIBLE for
Senator Waddoups at 801-538-1035, asking him to oppose the Bell amendment,
or at the very least paragraph 7 (which contains the main thrust of the
amendment). Tell him that you as a gun owner will do everything you can
legally do to get SB 48 killed unless paragraph 7 gets stripped from the
bill. Even a single sentence like "Please delete paragraph 7 from SB 48" or
"Please kill the Bell amendment" will suffice.
TWO CORRECTIONS REGARDING ALERT #190
First correction: In Alert #190, we stated that "current law does not
authorize landlords to prohibit residential tenants from possessing firearms
in rented homes and apartments, nor does it explicitly prohibit them from
doing so" (or words to that effect). Actually, we forgot that Section
76-10-500(1)(a) of the Utah Code appears to prohibit landlords from doing
this. It reads: "Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of
the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be prohibited from
owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or
keeping any firearm at his place of residence ..."
Second correction: In Alert #190, we stated that current Utah law contains
nothing that either empowers owners of public-access property (such as
shopping malls and movie theaters) to ban guns nor is there anything that
prohibits them from doing so. We stated that our interpretation of the
current law was that it is left as a private matter between, for example,
the store owner and the customer. We inferred from this that current law
would allow a store owner to evict a customer from the premises if the owner
had a no-gun policy and he found that the customer was legally carrying a
firearm. Our thanks to Salt Lake attorney Mitch Vilos for correcting us on
this. Mitch quotes a section from the state's current trespassing law:
"It is a defense to prosecution under this section [criminal trespass]
that the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained;
and the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use
of
the property."
Since it can be strongly argued that the legal carrying of a discretely
concealed self-defense weapon does not "substantially interfere" with the
operation of a grocery store or a movie theater or a gas station or
whatever, we can say that, based on the above clause, it would be extremely
difficult to successfully prosecute someone for trespassing on such
public-access property based purely on his carrying of a concealed firearm,
even if the property owner has a no-gun policy. Thus, although the law does
not explicitly prohibit Home Depot from banning guns, for example, the above
clause essentially strips Home Depot of any power to enforce such a ban,
provided that the person carrying the firearm isn't doing anything to
interfere with Home Depot's business.
Our thanks to Mitch for pointing this out. We at GOUtah! are not attorneys,
so it's nice to have an attorney out there who's on our side and who can
point out such things to us.
WOMAN ASSAULTED IN LDS HOUSE OF WORSHIP
Thanks to a tip from an astute GOUtah! activist, we've learned that a
56-year-old Latter-Day Saint (LDS) woman was assaulted and severely beaten
with a pipe last week while working as a volunteer in a small family history
library located inside an LDS house of worship in Longview, Texas. For the
full story, you can go to the website of The Tyler Morning Telegraph:
Rep. Hogue's HB 166, "Concealed Firearm Permit Amendments" was--as amended by the House Law Enforcement Committee, with Rep. Hogue's consent--essentially a neutral bill that added a statutory requirement for CCW instructors to teach their approved course material. This is already a requirement under administrative rules and according to USDIN, instructors HAVE had their credentials yanked for failing to teach their approved material.
However, on the floor of the House today, Rep. Hogue offered an amendment to impose a MANDATORY live fire requirement. This would have significantly increased the time, cost, and hassle of getting a CCW permit while, as stats from States with training requirements varying from 0 hours to over 20 hours of formal training indicate, NOT doing a thing to improve public safety or reduce the already phenomially low rate of accidents and violations by those with permits. Carrying a gun is a heavy responsibility and almost everyone, it seems, naturally obtains what training they need for their particular situation and/or are careful to never exceed their training when it comes to the use of their weapons.
Hogue's hostile amendment was adopted by a voice vote on the floor. This, of course, had the effect of turning a neutral bill into a VERY BAD, anti-RKBA, anti-CCW, anti-self-defense, bill. At that point USDIN, which had been following and sheparding this bill advised Rep. Hogue that the bill needed to be killed. On the mandatory roll call vote for the entire bill, the bill failed 24-50 with 1 member absent and Rep. Hogue voting against his own bill. Roll call vote below. Please note with Representatives voted against your right to an effective self defense. Our thanks to Rep. Hogue for defeating his own bill after it was hijacked.
However, it looks like a fair number of unknown Reps are really fair weather friends when it comes to our gun rights. Many of them clearly were willing to vote against your rights when the vote was anonymous and only voted to support your rights when the light of a fully recorded vote loomed. This is not uncommon and is one reason why it is so important to look at committee votes, motions made, speaches given in an effort to influence fellow legislators, and votes conveniently missed as well as the final vote on bills in order to determine who is a real friend that will fight for our rights, and who are fair weather or even backstabbing friends who may do the right thing in an election year, when the lights are on, but will not actively defend, or even work to undermine our rights, when they think no one is looking.
Remember, at election time, EVERYONE "supports the 2nd amd." It's what they do--or don't do--when they are actually casting votes (whether voice or roll call), making motions, avoiding casting votes, etc at the legislature that REALLY determines whether YOUR rights are important to those running for re-election, or whether they just want your vote and will happily ask for ride to the capital in gun owners' pick up trucks, but then expect us to park our trucks out of sight once we arrive.
Subject: CORRECTION to HB 166 Hijacked, but then killed
Date: 20 Feb 2004 00:24:08 GMT
In the email I just previously sent, I indicated, repeatedly!?!?!, that the hostile amendment to Rep. Hogue's HB 166 was offered by....Rep. Hogue. That is incorrect and my apologies to Rep. Hogue. Obviously, a bill has NOT been "hijacked" if the sponsor offers an amendment.
It was, in fact, perpetually anti-gun, anti-CCW, anti-RKBA, anti-self-defense, Rep. DANIELS who offered the hostile amendment to hijack Hogue's bill. It was then a majority of the house, voting under cover of a non-recorded voice vote, who accepted that amendment.
Fortunately, under the light of a recorded vote (and an election year), a super-majority of those same Reps. then voted to kill the bill outright.
Subject: NH legislature considering a real RKBA bill
Date: 20 Feb 2004 20:55:18 GMT
Notice what happens when this kind of bill is run. In addition to the obvious things, notice this testimony from the Million Mom Morons:
>>Laurel Redden, board chairman of the state chapter of Million Mom March, was quoted as saying, "Instead of looking to get rid of our system of permits, responsible lawmakers should be seeking ways to improve gun laws so that only law-abiding citizens are able to secure and carry a firearm in the first place."<
HERE is a MMM actually speaking, albeit somewhat sideways, IN FAVOR of "law-abiding citizens [being] able to ... carry a firearm."
Nothing like properly shifting the terms of the debate.
Subject: Anti-gun bill slipping through the cracks
Date: 20 Feb 2004 21:00:31 GMT
SB 140 has passed the Senate and is now in House rules awaiting assignment to a committee. According to the Senate Journal for the 12 of February, page 589, it was Sen. Buttars himself who added the amendment that allows the DHS to consider the presence of firearms in the issuance of licenses, including those required to be a foster parent. In addition to the explicit reference to guns, by changing "shall be limited to" to "may include" it looks like the door has been swung wide open for DHS to consider almost anything else they want to.
"On motion of Senator Buttars, the circle was removed from 2nd Sub. S.B.
140, HUMAN SERVICES LICENSING AMENDMENTS, and it was before the
Senate. Senator Buttars explained the bill.
Senator Buttars proposed the following amendment:
1. Page 9, Lines 247 through 248
247 (xii) staff to client ratios; [[and]]
248 (xiii) segregation of children from adults;and
(xiv) access to firearms.
Senator Buttars' motion to amend passed on a voice vote"
Charles
FORWARDED info
===============
2Sub SB 140 contains provisions that jeopardize the 2nd amendment rights of anyone licensed by the "Office of Licensing within the Department of Human Services" (Including Foster Homes). THIS BILL HAS PASSED THE SENATE with the following amendment and language.
62A-2-106. Office responsibilities.
231 The office shall:
232 (1) make rules to establish:
233 (a) basic health and safety standards for licensees, which [shall be limited to] may
234 include the following:
248a (xiv) ACCESS TO FIREARMS.
The bill must be stopped or the amendment must be removed.
Just a note to remind you that tomorrow, Tuesday, is the Democratic primary for president. If I'm not mistaken, these primaries are "open" meaning that ANY registered voter can vote in them. I do not know of any other political party having primaries tomorrow.
Gun owners may want to consider casting a vote for the most gun friendly of the Democratic candidates.
I've just heard two interesting rumors that gun owners may want to consider before actually participating in the Demo presidential primary tomorrow:
1-I have heard that voters will be required to sign a form that
they will not participate in the caucus of any other party.
[Republicans might ask "Where is the press outrage at this 'closed primary'"?]
2-I have heard that some GOP county (or even the State) party(ies) may not allow persons who vote in this primary to participate in the March Caucases (Mass Meetings).
I do not know the exact State of the law, but I do know that parties can exclude those who are not registered as members of that party if they want to.
I hope at least a few people go to vote to give first hand info on what does take place.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
-- Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc <chad@pengar.com> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2004, at 6:16 PM, Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> I've just heard two interesting rumors that gun owners may want to
> consider before actually participating in the Demo presidential
> primary tomorrow:
>
> 1-I have heard that voters will be required to sign a form that
> they will not participate in the caucus of any other party.
> [Republicans might ask "Where is the press outrage at this 'closed
> primary'"?]
>
> 2-I have heard that some GOP county (or even the State) party(ies) may
> not allow persons who vote in this primary to participate in the March
> Caucases (Mass Meetings).
>
What is the state law on primaries?
The radio said that anyone who will be 18 as of November elections and
who is a US citizen can vote in the primary. It said you did not even
need to be a registered voter! This is what the radio news on KNRS
Subject: Report a crime, get your gun confiscated?
Date: 24 Feb 2004 16:42:00 GMT
While one hopes the rifles were taken only to do ballistics testing to clear them of having fired the illegal shot, this might very well be filed under the heading of "No good deed goes unpunished."
Sen. Tom Hatch, R-Panguitch, says he is cooperating with state wildlife officers, who confiscated Hatch's rifle and that of his brother during the course of an investigation into the illegal killing of a bull elk during a cow elk-only hunt last year.
"We found the elk and we reported it" to authorities, Hatch said. "We were the ones who took (Division of Wildlife Resources officers) to the elk. We have cooperated in every way since that time."
Hatch, who had a permit for a cow elk, said he was hunting on horseback with his brother on Mount Dutton northeast of Panguitch in a basin where several others were also hunting. Hatch said they came across a wounded bull elk in a patch of trees but had nothing to do with shooting it.
Hatch said he never fired his rifle, and his brother fired only once at a cow elk. A witness reportedly told officers he saw a man on horseback shoot the elk.
"I understand an investigation has to be done, but I know the facts will clear us of any involvement," he said.
Hatch, a leader of the Cowboy Caucus, is chairman of the Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the Division of Wildlife Resources.
Kevin Conway, division director, confirmed Hatch contacted wildlife officials and has "cooperated 100 percent."
Conway said the killing was probably a mistake, given it happened while both deer and elk hunts were taking place. But the investigation is proceeding and should be wrapped up soon.
"It's not an unusual case. These things happen frequently during the hunt," he said.
Subject: What zero-tolerance (at the airport) hath wrought
Date: 24 Feb 2004 16:36:25 GMT
Is this REALLY the best use of our limited law enforcement and judicial resources? Is the airport authority REALLY incapable of making any rational judgements about those who pose a danger, intended to do some harm, and those caught in a moment of forgetfullness?
I'd also like to know who the judge was who couldn't render better judgement than to impose the maximum penalty on the least of such an offender--even if he did suspend part of it.
Excerpt:
>>Looking back, he wonders how much of a deterrent the law is.
He hadn't intended to bring the gun to the airport in the first place. "No one in his right mind would do that," he says. "The only people who really are affected by this are the absent-minded, idiots like me, not terrorists."<<
Attention, air travelers. If you plan to board an airline soon, please listen closely as we run through a checklist of things you can and can't bring on board in your carry-on bag.
NO, WAIT! Uncheck the pistol. Ixnay on the .44 Magnum! My bad.
Airline people have a strong aversion to passengers carrying guns, obviously. You're probably wondering who would be dumb enough to bring a gun to the airport.
You'd be surprised. During one six-month period, 22 guns were discovered at security checkpoints in Salt Lake International. For most passengers, it was a mistake, but now it makes little difference. A zero-tolerance policy was adopted, which means virtually everyone will be prosecuted.
Just ask "David Jones." Well, actually you can't ask him, because that's not his real name. Anyway, Jones is a model citizen who found himself getting the Public-Enemy-No.-1 Treatment because he accidentally showed up at the airport with a pistol.
Before you jump to any conclusions . . . Jones is a good guy. If you were asked to describe the ideal neighbor, you would describe Jones. He's a leader in his church, a father/husband of a large family, a salt-of-the-earth guy. In his 50-plus years he has never gotten so much as a speeding ticket. The worst thing he ever did was get ticketed for turning right on a yellow light in 1971.
Jones is considered brilliant in his profession. He works hard. In his spare time, he likes to shoot guns. Some men like to hit golf balls on the driving range to relax; he likes to shoot pistols at the gun range. He has a concealed-weapons permit.
One evening he returned home after work and a range outing. Before getting out of his truck, he put the gun in his backpack, thinking he would place it in the gun safe in his house, as was his habit. But when he walked in the house, he was distracted by visitors and children vying for his attention.
Two days later, he was scheduled to fly out of town on business. It was a frantic morning. Realizing he was late, he put his laptop in his backpack, which he used as a carry-on for travel, and hurried out the door. He rushed through the airport and placed his backpack on the conveyor belt for security check.
And then it hit him. "Uh, there's a gun in that pack," he told the security officer. Following procedure, the police were called. Before marching him through the airport in cuffs, past crowds, a police officer told him, "Let's hope we don't see anyone you know."
He was taken to a building adjacent to the terminal and locked in a room. For two hours he sat there with his hands cuffed behind his back ù leaving red welts in his wrists ù while federal officers were summoned. He was sick with fear, worry and humiliation. After a long interview, an FBI agent determined there was no criminal intent, but under the zero-tolerance policy charges had to be pressed.
Jones returned home. For two days he barely left his room, too shamed to face the world. During his court appearance, a judge blistered him for his mistake and then levied the maximum penalty ù 90 days in jail and a $1,850 fine. The jail time was suspended and the fine was reduced to court costs ($250) and he was placed on probation.
Looking back, he wonders how much of a deterrent the law is.
He hadn't intended to bring the gun to the airport in the first place. "No one in his right mind would do that," he says. "The only people who really are affected by this are the absent-minded, idiots like me, not terrorists."
A few weeks later, Jones returned to the airport. After passing through the security check, he had to sit down in a restaurant and wait for his hands to stop trembling.
Doug Robinson's column runs on Tuesdays. E-mail drob@desnews.com.
Here is the latest on the Democratic Presidential primary, for any gun owners who may desire to participate.
You can vote at ANY of their polling places which are primarily public libraries. See <http://www.utdemocrats.org/locations.shtml> for a full list. Polls are open from Noon today until 8:00 pm.
They will be asking for id and will require voters to sign an affidavit that you will only vote once, that you are participating as a Democrat, and that you will not participate in the presidential nominating process of any other party. Apparantly, you do NOT have to be registered to vote. YOu do need to be 18 years old and (at least claim to be) a citizen of the U.S.
However, according to the nice fellow who answered the phone at the Utah Democratic Party HQ (801-328-1212), there are no other party primaries for president this year in Utah and they will NOT be asking you what your party affiliation is.
So, technically speaking, one might say this primary is closed, based on the honor system. But practically speaking, it is essentially open.
This election is being run by the Democratic party which is also funding it without taxpayer support. So while the DP can probably do whatever it wants with its records of did or did not vote, I'd think that such records are not "public records" the way government run primary elections are.
The Chairman of the SLCo GOP was unaware of any GOP plans to limit participation in GOP functions by those who might vote in the Demo primary. I have not contacted the State GOP.
Subject: Roll Call vote on Litvack hostile amendment to HB 295
Date: 24 Feb 2004 17:38:42 GMT
Prior to be approved by the full house, HB 295 was subject to an attempt to attach a hostile amendment. While worded somewhat vaguely, I believe the intent of this amendment, offered by anti-gun Rep. Litvack, was to lay the groundwork for a live fire (range) requirment before issuance of a CCW permit. Fortunately, this amendment failed.
However, rather than looking at just the final vote on this bill (which was passed by a supermajority), I'd suggest that savvy gun owners consider this vote. Many times, especially in an election year, legislators will attmpt to weaken a good bill or even turn a pro-gun bill into an anti-gun bill. Only when those efforts fail, and it is clear that the bill is going to pass regardless of how they vote, will they then vote the right way on the final bill, just so they can claim to be pro-gun. Just because a guy sends you flowers in the hospital, doesn't make him your friend; especially if he is the one who put you in the hospital by stabbing you in the back.
Here is the roll call vote. The 21 legislators who voted "YEA" on this amendment were voting AGAINST your gun rights. they were all savvy enough to not vote agains the final bill (they either vote for the bill or chose to not vote). Please be savvy enough to rememeber them when it comes time to file for office, to support challangers, and to vote--whether in a convetion, a primary, or a general election.
Yeas, 21; Nays, 48; Absent or not voting, 6.
Voting in the affirmative (AND AGAINST YOUR GUN RIGHTS) were: Representatives
S. Allen Becker Biskupski Bowman Buffmire D. Cox Daniels Duckworth Goodfellow Hansen Hogue E. Hutchings Jones Litvack Mascaro McCartney McGee Morgan Moss Pace Shurtliff
Voting in the negative (AND TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS) were: Representatives
Aagard Adams Alexander Anderson Barrus Bennion Bigelow Bird Bryson Bush Buttars Buxton Christensen D. Clark S. Clark Curtis
Dayton Dee Dillree Donnelson Dougall Dunnigan Ferrin Ferry Frank Gowans Harper Hendrickson Holdaway Hughes B. Johnson Kiser Last Lawrence Lockhart Love Morley Murray Newbold Noel Peterson Philpot Seitz G. Snow Thompson Ure Wallace Webb
Subject: Anti-gun SB 140 S2, "Gun owners don't make good foster parents" assign
Date: 24 Feb 2004 17:55:31 GMT
Sen. Buttars' SB 140 S2 (second substitute), "Human Services Licensing Amendments" makes two dangerous changes as far as gun owners are concerned.
Lines 233-234 eliminates the limits on what items the Department of Human Services may consider or regulate in issuing licenses (including licenses to be a foster parent). The current law says:
The office shall:
(1) make rules to establish:
(a) basic health and safety standards for licensees, which shall be limited to the following:
SB 140S2 amends (a) to read:
(a) basic health and safety standards for licensees, which may
include the following:
I'm not a lawyer, and so may be wrong, but this **might** allow the Department of Human services to look at items beyond the list.
In any event, line 248a is the killer for gun owners. It adds "248a (xiv) ACCESS TO FIREARMS" as an explicit item that the Deparment of Human services can consider and regulate when issuing licenses.
Bear in mind, this is the same department that had an illegal rule preventing those with CCW permits from being foster parents.
It has been assigned to the House Natural Resources Committee. This bill is last on the agenda for today's meeting that starts at 4:30 pm in room 129 of the State capital.
Phone messages can be left at the main House Switchboard for several legislators at a time. The number is 801-538-1029.
Ask committee members to strike line 248a so as to eliminate any references to firearms. Otherwise, they need to vote against this bill.
Charles
Committee members are:
Rep. Craig W. Buttars, Chair Cbuttars@utah.gov
Rep. Darin G. Peterson, Vice Chair Dpeterson@utah.gov
The legislative web page is reporting that SB 48, Sen. Waddoups' "Uniform Firearm Laws" that is intended to finally put an end to the UofU's illegal gun ban has passed the House with no hostile amendments. Final vote in the house was 59-14-2. Only Demos voted against the bill with Reps. Adams and Hughes absent.
I'll check later and see if anyone attempted to make hostile amendments and if so, report on who voted to accept such amendments. In this case, that vote, if there was one, will be a far better indicator of who really supports RKBA than is the final vote on this bill.
Recall that the House committee did make one amendment which changed paragraph 7 from very bad to "not great, but probably tolerable." Hence, the Senate must still concur with the House amendment.
I **BELIEVE** (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that if the Senate does not concur, then an ad hoc, joint committee with members from both bodies will try to work out a compromise.
I believe at this point, that we are more likely to get a worse bill out of such a committee than a better bill. Since this bill is, I believe, overall a net gain to CCW and RKBA in general, I think it is in our best interest to encourage our Senators to concur with the bill as it stands.
UTAH SHOOTING SPORTS COUNCIL URGENT ACTION ALERT 2/26/04
FOR ALL USSC MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS
--- National Rifle Association Alert for Utah
--- Utah Asset Forfeiture Reform Information
NRA ALERT FOR UTAH (February 25, 2004)
Utah Gun Owners! Contact Your State Representatives!
Utah gun owners need to contact their state representative and urge a "no" vote on SB 175, which will affect the civil liberties of innocent gun owners and all Utah citizens if they are involved with a seizure-of-assets procedure. SB 175 would allow the transfer of a forfeiture procedure to a federal agency where there is no presumption of innocence and where it is extremely difficult to recover fees and costs, rights guaranteed in Utah. It puts in place the old incentives for law enforcement agencies to aggressively pursue seizures of assets, again circumventing Proposition B. The seizure of illegal assets is an effective law enforcement tool, but the civil and due process rights of citizens must be held paramount. Please contact your state Representative
[End of NRA Alert. Information below is provided by USSC]
Dear Representative ______________
Please vote AGAINST SB 175 (2nd substitute). This bill removes many of the safeguards for innocent property owners, and a potential source of funds for our schools. Utah citizens should never be considered "guilty until proven innocent" as is the case in the federal asset forfeiture process. No one can afford to challenge any seizure unless it involves real estate since the legal fees would be ruinous. Although we have great confidence in our law enforcement officers, the inexplicable decline in forfeitures after the reforms of 2000 are very troubling.
You can use a map tool to identify your Utah Representative:
THIS BILL HAS PASSED THE UTAH SENATE, AND A HOUSE COMMITTEE AND IS WAITING FOR A FINAL VOTE IN THE HOUSE. YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW TO STOP THIS POTENTIAL THREAT TO LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS.
Although not directly a gun issue, SB 175 (2nd substitute) is an attempt to reverse the reforms enacted in 2000. That changed the former process where there was a financial incentive for law enforcement officers to seize private property, usually on the allegation that it was purchased with the proceeds from drug trafficking. The property was usually turned over to the federal court system where an owner had to prove that it was NOT the result of illegal activity, rather than the government being required to prove the owner's guilt. Anyone wanting to get their property back had to challenge to the huge Justice Department organization. Legal costs would be $10,000 or more, making it impractical for innocent owners to ever get their property returned. Directing the proceeds from seized property to the Utah Uniform School Fund removed the apparent conflict of interest because previously the police department got to keep most of the money they seized.
Many people claim that there was no conflict and all seizures were motivated strictly by a desire to enforce the laws. However, it is a proven fact that after the changes were made asset forfeiture seizures dropped from millions of dollars a year to almost nothing and the school fund received virtually nothing. This raises serious questions about actual or potential abuses.
SB 175 (2nd substitute) will take the proceeds from seized property away from schools and put it back into police departments. Worse, it will divert most property forfeiture cases into federal courts, turning justice upside down with their "guilty until proven innocent" process.
This issue has been hotly debated, with opponents very public, but supporters being very secretive about the contents of the bill and clever in their strategy in the legislature.
For more information see the stories in the Deseret News and Tribune.
