Subject: DN columnists encourages UoU to obey the law
Date: 05 May 2004 17:25:17 GMT
Lee Benson is no great friend to RKBA or self-defense. Which may make his current column even more credible. He's seen past the issue of guns and is directly addressing the issue of rule-of-law and encouraging the U to drop its suit and clearly illegal gun ban. He should be thanked for this sensible article.
The University of Utah has a new sheriff, er president, about to be sworn in, and maybe Michael K. Young will have the courage and good sense to end the stare-down with the state of Utah and allow law-abidin' folks on campus with legally acquired concealed weapons permits to pack their firearms.
Not because it's right, wrong, popular, unpopular, politically correct or will win more basketball games.
Because it's the law.
The only part of l-a-w the U. has a hard time understanding is the part about obeying it.
While the question about whether the school has the right to ban firearms may have been murky ù if barely ù in the three decades the U. has resolutely banned guns on its campus, it became as loud and clear as a nine-gun salute last month when the Legislature passed ù and the governor signed ù a bill that grants all power regarding public gun control to the Legislature.
And still the school, as directed by its board of trustees, refuses to follow the rules and allow legally concealed weapons ù on the grounds that the state Supreme Court will soon hear a constitutional challenge to the Legislature's law.
In the event the Supreme Court agrees with the Legislature, the trustees have indicated they will then file an appeal in federal court.
This won't be over until it's over and over and over.
What President-elect Young might want to take a look at isn't the debate about gun rights but about what kind of message the university's behavior is sending to the 30,000 or so students who flock daily to its campus.
Isn't being above the law as dangerous as being below it?
What if students followed the board of trustees' example and refused to abide by laws they think are messing with their constitutional rights?
Maybe they would stop paying parking tickets, on the grounds that their two-hour lab class lasts twice as long as the one-hour meter where they parked their car. Or on the grounds that parking regulations are discriminatory, shamelessly favoring conscientious people who get up on time, eat a sensible breakfast and make it to school a half-hour before class.
Maybe they would only pay for half their books, on the grounds that the prices the bookstore charges for "required" texts would make the New York Mafioso blush.
Maybe they would smoke pot wherever and whenever they want to because it's medicinal or because, hey, Canada does it.
Maybe they would protest the new tuition hikes by not paying them because the Legislature failed to appropriate enough money for higher education ù they'll only agree to pay the increases after the Supreme Court, the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have heard their constitutional appeals and denied them. At which point they'll all be graduated anyway.
Before they know it, the U. will have every student demanding an "A" in every class based on a perceived "equal protection" constitutional right.
All because of the example the students have seen: You must recognize all the laws, but you only have to comply with those you agree with.
That's the situation President Young, who comes to campus after serving as dean of the law school at George Washington University, inherits as he gets set to take over as the school's top gun.
To pack or not to pack isn't the issue. To obey or not to obey, that is the question on the firearm-free hill.
Please send e-mail to benson@desnews.com and faxes to 801-237-2527.
Subject: A question to ask any "pro-gun" candidates who run businesses
Date: 08 May 2004 03:54:57 GMT
All,
I wish I'd thought of this sooner, but for any who see this in time, here is what I think is a very valid--and VERY telling--question to pose to any candidate who professes to be "pro-gun" and who also happens to run a business.
Simply ask him/her what his/her business' policy is on weapons and does it make exceptions for those employees who have a CCW permit?
After all, if he/she REALLY supports RKBA and REALLY believes in the right to an effective self-defense (not mention that if he/she REALLY cares about his/her employee's welfare and safety, both on the job as well as while traveling to/from work) he/she would certainly not deny those employees the ability to defend themselves.
Most of us who work full time spend more waking hours in the workplace and commuting to/from work than anywhere else. Simple odds indicate a pretty good chance that we might just need to defend ourselves sooner or later.
You might want to preface this question with a few questions to first let the candidate profess his undying love for the 2nd amd. Be sure to ask a couple of specific questions about whether the candidate supports the right to an effective self-defense.
FWIW, my best, non-lawerly reading of Utah statute says that a business owner can carry a concealed weapon on his business property WITHOUT even needing a permit (just like you can do in your own home or yard). FURTHER, the business owne can authorize his employees to do likewise, again, no permit needed.
Now, that might be a bit radical for some, but at the VERY LEAST, any business owner (or officer of a corporation) who claims to support the right to an effective self-defense, should allow those employees with permits to keep their weapons close at hand at work.
However, the vast majority of businesses, have a standard anti-gun policy as the various national and local Human Resource groups seem to have a very anti-RKBA bent. A notable exception is local business, QSI. The last time I checked with the owner, their employee policies specifically allowed employees with CCW permits to carry their weapons at work.
If a self-professed "pro-gun" candidate won't come straight up and tell you his business allows employees to carry legal, permitted weapons, (or he claims to not know) push him to change that policy (or at least confirm it). If he is the boss, he can call his HR director on a weekend, they all carry cell phones these days. "Well, I can see this issue is new to you. Will you take 5 minutes to call your HR director and at least leave a message that the policy is to be changed to specifically allow those with permits to carry their weapons?"
Any candidate who is REALLY pro-gun should either already have a pro-self-defense employment policy at his business, OR, AT THE VERY LEAST, be completely willing to change it the moment it comes to his attention.
Not only will this line of questions give you some great insights into how pro-gun a candidate really is, but in pushing them to adopt pro-gun business policies, we start to make a dent towards maybe someday getting our own employers to respect our rights to self-defense.
As is commonly the case when the issue is guns, last week's column about the University of Utah's civil disobedience in refusing to comply with the recently passed state law (which allows firearms on the school's campus as long as the person carrying them has a concealed weapons permit) sparked a good deal of reader response.
What was surprising was the almost total lack of defense of the university.
Only one writer took up the U.'s cause that its constitutional rights have been usurped by the Legislature, thus giving the school's Board of Regents the right to thumb their nose at the law. "The University is asserting rights . . . which supersede the laws enacted by the Legislature," the e-mail stated.
Dozens of others piled on the other side of the debate, wondering why the University of Utah doesn't have to work within the system like the rest of us.
"The law is the law," wrote one e-mailer. "Change it if need be, but until then obey it."
Another e-mail, from a man who listed his address as "The Peoples Republic of California," said: "The argument is not if guns are right or wrong, or if they belong on campus. The argument is following or not following the law. And if it is a bad law, change it."
Still another: "The situation at the U. really ceased to be about guns quite some time ago. As it does on topics that affect all of us, the Legislature has spoken, passed a law, and that law should be obeyed, especially by government employees, including those at the U."
And on and on:
? "This 'it's OK for me, but not for you' attitude when it comes to following the laws of our state is embarrassing!"
? "I agree with the university on the question of gun control, but I do not agree with its current stance on compliance. It should abide by the law while its appeal is pending. That would send the right message."
? "I've never as much as held a gun, but I hold the Constitution as a sacred and divine document that must be upheld."
Some went for the jugular as far as the U. of U. Board of Trustees is concerned:
? "Any public officials who repeatedly and deliberately defy the clear language of the law (now made even clearer so that even a Ph.D. or JD can understand it) and wastes scarce tax dollars intended for higher education to engage in legalistic challenges is unfit to serve in any position of public trust. I would hope to see the Editorial Board (of the Deseret Morning News) call for the resignation (or dismissal) of the entire Board of Trustees."
? "I just wonder why no one in power has arrested the (members of the) Board of Trustees that are in open disobedience to the law."
? "I'm sick and tired of the U. thinking they have no obligation to obey the law when the rest of us have to abide by it regardless of the issue. I think it's time for the governor to call for the resignations of the trustees starting with Jake Garn. It's hard for me to fathom an ex-senator intentionally disobeying the law. To me, this is the only reason needed to force his resignation and let the issue die."
And finally, one person went outside the herd to pose this question:
? "I just don't understand why guns on campus (or at church) make any difference. To my knowledge, there has not been a single shot fired on any Utah campus or any church in my lifetime. Is that because no person with firearms has been in those locations or have the 'bad guys' been scared off by not knowing who is packing a gun? Either way, because there have been no incidents, somehow to me the whole debate is nonsense. It just doesn't matter. What am I missing?"
Lee Benson's column runs Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Please send e-mail to benson@desnews.com and faxes to 801-237-2527.
From packing.org. Fortunately, the ban will either expire or be renewed before the elctions. So now is a great time to pin down your congressman and Senators on where they stand on this and what they will do to protect your RKBA.
Charles
<http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/9638/>
A recent news story at thehill.com quoted Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) as being confident there were enough votes in the House to pass a ban renewal if it came to the floor, and indicated he was considering filing a discharge petition (which requires the support of a simple majority of House members) to force a vote on the bill.
While he might be overly optimistic on how the ban would fare in the House, we would be foolish to ignore the possibility of Republican leadership caving on this issue.
We must make it absolutely clear that, while many of us are willing to set aside our disappointment in the fact that Bush has expressed support for renewing the ban in the past, we WILL NOT vote to reelect him if the ban is actually signed into law. Plus, House leadership needs to be reminded of how they gained control in 1994, widely acknowledged as being a direct result of the original ban being passed.
In addition, you can point out the following:
╖ The government-funded study (conducted under the Clinton administration) on the effects of the ban found no detectable reduction in crime that could be attributed to the ban, as these guns were only rarely used in crime even before the ban.
╖ The firearms restricted by this ban are nearly identical to non-banned guns, differing only by "minor cosmetic changes" (a catch-phrase used by many anti-gun organizations in the context of complaining about how manufacturers changed their products to comply with the law). They do not fire any faster, nor are they any more powerful than non-banned guns, despite their menacing looks and scary-sounding names.
╖ The radically anti-gun Violence Policy Center freely admits the expiration of the ban will have no adverse effects, calling the ban "a joke."
Let us send a clear message of how strongly we feel about this issue. Take a few moments to contact the following people, and POLITELY make your opinion known. If possible, please call, as well as fax and mail a letter.
Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2976
Fax: (202) 225-0697
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
H-107 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4000
Fax: (202) 225-5117
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt
H-329 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-0197
House Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox
2402 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5611
Fax: (202) 225-9177
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone: 202-456-1111
Fax: 202-456-2461
In addition, contact your own representative, and urge him/her to not support a discharge petition on a bill to renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons." You can find the contact information for you representative by entering your zip code on this page:
http://www.house.gov/
Please send this to anyone you know who shares your view on this issue.
