ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n022

Internet Message Format | 1998-02-12 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #22
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest    Thursday, February 12 1998    Volume 02 : Number 022




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:21:48 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:
>

> >Personally, I don't really care whether you or anyone else joins USSC.
> >This isn't about USSC.  It goes beyond gun rights.  The First Amendment is
> >under direct assault; the state now is claiming that it has an absolute
> >right to dictate to a church what it may or may not allow.  The Second
> >Amendment is under direct assault as well, since the state also claims it
> >has a right to restrict firearms from both pubic and private places.  And
> >the Fourth Amendment is under attack because the state believes it may
> >dictate what you must do in the sanctity of your own home.  THAT's what
> >matters to me.  That _should_ matter to every Utahn whether or not they
> >even own a gun.
> >
>
> I agree the bill, if passed would be a huge blow to current CCW
> permits.  I've already written a letter that will be sent to the
> members of the Senate committee who end up hearing the bill asking
> them to oppose the bill.  However, honesty and credibility require us
> to not report the bill to be more than it is.
>
> I read the text of the bill this morning.  A church or private
> property owner may, contrary to what you post and sent to the DesNews,
> grant permission for the carry of concealed weapons on their property
> if they so choose.  I'll forward a copy of the relveant section, if
> you'd like.  However, unless they do grant permission, the CCW permit
> is void and it is an infraction to CCW--unless specific notice of
> prohibition has been given in which case it is a misdemeanor.
>
Actually, the bill states that "prior permission is a defense to
prosecution".
Not "defense to police surrounding the premises, kicking the doors in,
killing the dogs, shooting the hell out of the place, possibly killing
your neighbors children, you, your family,etc., arresting your butt,
confiscating your house, property, guns, etc."  For it to be a defense
against prosecution merely means that they _may_ decide to release
you _after_ all of the above has happened.

If that pig Beattie wanted to "fix" the ccw law and affirm that the
church had "property" rights, (even tho they steal my tax subsidy), all
he had to put in the bill was "the church _may_ prohibit".  And it's
not just about CCW, as she said.  The prohibition is by default.  It
is a dictation by the State that in order to _not_ suppress the free
exercise of civil liberties, the church or property owner _must_ take
time and money consuming action.  This is in fact a mandate on the
church.  If that isn't plain....

> So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private
> property owners is not correct.
>
see above.
Also, as it's written, I have to carry a note signed by me granting me
permission to carry on my own property...not a dictation?

So, to my reading....dictating what a church _must_ do <- 1st Amend.
banning guns anywhere <- 2nd amend
being "unsecure" in my house <- 4th amend

> I am not empowered to offer official party position on any topic.  And
> since even you have apparantly not had time to fully read and digest
> this bill yet, you certainely don't expect the State chair and State
> Executive Committee of the LPUtah to have had time to read it and
> issue official position.  I will make enquiry and relay the answer
> back to you and the list.
Having read and digested the bill, I find it packaged evil.  Legally,
morally, ethically and strategically.  The "chips" he's withheld, the
exceptions he's not mentioned, the sneaky little things he's done are
abominable.


[derant]

Will

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:37:41 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Actually, the bill states that "prior permission is a defense to
>prosecution".
>Not "defense to police surrounding the premises, kicking the doors in,
>killing the dogs, shooting the hell out of the place, possibly killing
>your neighbors children, you, your family,etc., arresting your butt,
>confiscating your house, property, guns, etc."  For it to be a defense
>against prosecution merely means that they _may_ decide to release
>you _after_ all of the above has happened.

I am not well enough versed in legal phrases to contend with your
assertion.  It may well be accurate.  But I don't know.

>
>If that pig Beattie wanted to "fix" the ccw law and affirm that the
>church had "property" rights, (even tho they steal my tax subsidy), all
>he had to put in the bill was "the church _may_ prohibit".  And it's
>not just about CCW, as she said.  The prohibition is by default.  It
>is a dictation by the State that in order to _not_ suppress the free
>exercise of civil liberties, the church or property owner _must_ take
>time and money consuming action.

I agree absolutely.  (Except the part about "stealing tax subsidy"
which is too far afield from this list's charter to even begin to
delve into.)  I doubt that many of us would have any problem with
churches and other private property being explicity allowed to
prohibit guns.  After all, if the LDS church can legally keep you out
of their temples based on your most private of affairs, they can keep
you out for any, or even no reason, including what you may be wearing
or carrying at the time.  Ditto for churches, synagouges (sp?), and
mosques.

>This is in fact a mandate on the
>church.  If that isn't plain....

It is a mandate only if the church wants to allow concealed carry.  I
don't like it any more than you do--probably less since I happen to
attend a church that has made it very clear it isn't going to give
permission to CCW.  But I don't think it is quite the absolute mandate
that Sarah made it out to be in her post or letter to the editor
where, at least by my reading, it appeared she was saying the church
could not allow CCW even if the wanted to.

To use her example of shoes and wine, the law would read something
like, no one may consume alcohol or remove their shoes on church
premisses unless the church allows them to do so.  I'd say an
invitation from the priest to partake the sacramental wine is a pretty
good indication he's granted me permission to drink alcoholic
beverages (at least the sac wine) in his church. No?

>
>> So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private
>> property owners is not correct.
>>
>see above.
>Also, as it's written, I have to carry a note signed by me granting me
>permission to carry on my own property...not a dictation?

Hyperbole may be useful for arguing at times.  But I nothing says you
have to have written permission.  Only prior permission.  Clearly, if
you have any reason to think the person granting permission may
later lie, you would be well served to have it in writing.  But
unless you have multiple personalities, I think you should be safe
vouching for the fact that you gave yourself and family permission
to CCW.

From the bill:   76-10-531. Restricting dangerous weapons in private residences -- Defense -- Penalty.

                                             - 15 -


1        (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53,
2    Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, may not knowingly or intentionally:
3        (a) transport a dangerous weapon into a private residence; or
4        (b) enter or remain in a private residence while in possession of a dangerous weapon.
5        (2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person had prior permission
6    to possess the dangerous weapon in or to transport it into the private residence of:
7        (a) the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence;
8    or
9        (b) a person with apparent authority to act for the person in Subsection (2)(a).
10        (3) A violation of this section is a class C misdemeanor.

>Having read and digested the bill, I find it packaged evil.  Legally,
>morally, ethically and strategically.  The "chips" he's withheld, the
>exceptions he's not mentioned, the sneaky little things he's done are
>abominable.
>

I don't disagree with this assesment of the bill.  Even more troubling
to me than the churches or private homes, which I can avoid if I so
choose, is his inclusion of schools and their grounds (1000' from any
school, pre-school, or day care facility) for "enhanced penalties" for
any offense involving a gun.  So now my class A misdemeanor technical
offense becomse a class C felony just because it occurred within
2 city blocks of a school, day-care, or pre-school.

- --

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and
 long lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was
 intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and
 carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family,
 and his freedoms." -- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the
 Constitution - Preface, "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms"

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:41:04 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update

At 03:29 PM 2/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I will contact them as time permits, though I don't expect them to pay
>too much credence to a non-member.  The previous board didn't pay me
>any credence when I was a member.  As a newly elected board member,
>feel free to pass along my comments as a past and potential future
>member.  Maybe the fact that I was once a dues paying member, but felt
>morally required to quit support over NRA-like compromises will help
>convince the current board to take a no compromise approach.
    I think the majority of members of this board are willing to listen.

>And lest there be any confusion, I did not mean to imply the USSC was
>a branch of the NRA, only that they had close ties.
    Nor did I mean to imply that you said so.  I was just clarifying.

>Not being a member, I was not elligble to attend.  Given past history
>I'm currently unwilling to lend financial support by joining.  That
>could change depending on how the USSC handles this issue.  As a
>current board member you would seem to be in a fine position to
>distance the USSC from the NRA and their tactics and forming closer
>alliances with GOA and JPFO.
    Actually, the meeting was open to the public.  Anyone may attend, anyone
may speak, although of course only members may vote.  Even Board Meetings
are open to the public, although the Board may elect to close a meeting
when discussing sensitive matters.  If you're interested in attending, let
me know.  Meetings are every Monday evening during the legislative session.

>I certainely hope you are not suggesting that the USSC's policy's are
>for sale to the highest bidder.  It seems that if the NRA wants to
>offer money for items the USSC supports, USSC is free to accept it,
>but should not allow the NRA to dictate policy.
    The only people who set policy are the Board of Trustees.  I'm not for
sale, which I think you already know.  I honestly don't think any of the
others are either.  But when the choice is to shut down or accept NRA
money, I can understand that some people would choose to accept the money,
even if it does have strings attached.  I'm not one of them, and if we
don't get anything going this session, I'm perfectly willing to let USSC
fold and let gun owners fend for themselves.

>I think you are opposed to CCW permits--prefering Vermont style carry.
>Do you intend to lobby in that direction, or will the NRA's grand plan
>for nationwide reciprocity (with its national data base) be USSC
>policy?
    I am indeed opposed to CCW.  I will lobby in that direction, but I do not
expect any other Board members to support that idea.   I could be wrong,
and at any rate I'll do my best to persuade them.  I don't know the
position of other members on national reciprocity, but I oppose it.
>
>Three is a good start.  As a board member, perhaps you could let us
>potential members know where the others purport to stand and, most
>importantly, how board votes stack up to what has been said.
    And maybe you potential members could let the board members know what you
require in order to feel comfortable supporting the organization.  It makes
more sense to be proactive than to rant at them _after_ they make a
decision you don't like.

>I agree the bill, if passed would be a huge blow to current CCW
>permits.  I've already written a letter that will be sent to the
>members of the Senate committee who end up hearing the bill asking
>them to oppose the bill.  However, honesty and credibility require us
>to not report the bill to be more than it is.
>
>I read the text of the bill this morning.  A church or private
>property owner may, contrary to what you post and sent to the DesNews,
>grant permission for the carry of concealed weapons on their property
>if they so choose.  I'll forward a copy of the relveant section, if
>you'd like.  However, unless they do grant permission, the CCW permit
>is void and it is an infraction to CCW--unless specific notice of
>prohibition has been given in which case it is a misdemeanor.
>
>So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private
>property owners is not correct.

I believe you are mistaken about  that.  The relevant section of the bill
states:
   76-10-530. Restricting dangerous weapons in a house of worship --
Defense -- Penalty.
13        (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed
firearm pursuant to Title 53,
14    Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, may not knowingly or
intentionally:
15        (a) transport a dangerous weapon into a house of worship; or
16        (b) enter or remain in a house of worship while in possession of
a dangerous weapon.
17        (2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the
person had permission of the
18    church or organization operating the house of worship to possess the
dangerous weapon in or to
19    transport it into the house of worship.

"Defense to prosecution" means you can be arrested, charged, your weapons
confiscated, and only after you've hired an attorney and gone to court (at
a cost of thousands of dollars) may you present the "defense" that you
"had permission".  Then you get to go to court to get your permit back and
again to get your weapons back.
Since Utah is moving away from jury trials for misdemeanors, your "defense"
may be entirely worthless.  When members of a church are subject to being
arrested in a church for behavior "permitted" by that church, not only is
there no religious freedom, you're living in a police state.

>>And for that matter, since the last I heard, you are an officer of the
>>Libertarian Party of Utah, just where does that "Party of Principle" stand
>>on these flagrant desecrations of the Constitution and individual liberty?
>
>I am not empowered to offer official party position on any topic.  And
>since even you have apparantly not had time to fully read and digest
>this bill yet, you certainely don't expect the State chair and State
>Executive Committee of the LPUtah to have had time to read it and
>issue official position.  I will make enquiry and relay the answer
>back to you and the list.
    I've virtually memorized the bill, actually.  But I would appreciate
knowing the LPU's position on this bill when the SEC has had time to review
it fully.

>I can state the LPUtah firmly supports the right to own and carry guns
>without asking govt permission.
    I don't remember hearing a position on the "Safe Storage Bill", which was
heard in committee last week either......

>The sticky thing about an issue like this is that to officially oppose
>a bill affecting CCW is to at least tacitly support the CCW system.
>As an individual, I am willing to do that at times.  This is one of
>them since gutting the CCW will make itthat much harder to ever move
>from an "unrestricted" CCW towards a Vermont style carry.  How an
>organization reacts, may be different than how individuals within that
>organization react, however.
    Agreed.  Since it appears the majority of gunowners support CCW, I'm
willing to work to preserve it until I have the opportunity to introduce
legislation to restore unrestricted, unlicensed, unpermitted carry.  That
is my own, public, individual stance on the issue, and reflects how I will
vote.   I can only speak for myself and not the board as a whole.

Sarah Thompson

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:19:33 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>    Actually, the meeting was open to the public.  Anyone may attend, anyone
>may speak, although of course only members may vote.  Even Board Meetings
>are open to the public, although the Board may elect to close a meeting
>when discussing sensitive matters.  If you're interested in attending, let
>me know.  Meetings are every Monday evening during the legislative session.

It may be worthwile for me to attend a few and see just what kind of
organization the USSC is these days.  I joined not knowing the close
ties to the NRA existed; was quite concerned over some corresponedence
I had with prior board members; and decided just a few months ago that
it was not good use of my very limited time or money.  Maybe that has
changed.  I owe it to myself to know for sure.  Please pass along the
relevenat info.

>    I am indeed opposed to CCW.  I will lobby in that direction, but I do not
>expect any other Board members to support that idea.   I could be wrong,
>and at any rate I'll do my best to persuade them.  I don't know the
>position of other members on national reciprocity, but I oppose it.

I'm starting to get nervous again.  Any group of people who do not
understand the simple language of the 2nd amd and support prior
restraint cannot fully support my rights.  I will accept political
realities if people are fundamentally in agreement that CCW is a
necessary evil.  But if they support CCW as legitimate, there isn't
much hope for any kind of offense in the legislation.  They will be in
constant defense mode because they already have everything they want.

How many board members would be willing to support legislation
removing SS numbers or some other info like work, residence history or
the letters of reference from the current permit application?  How
many would be willing to support legislation requiring that
fingerprints be submitted to the FBI in such a way that they cannot
keep names on file of gun owners and that the DPS destroy certain info
once a background check is done?  I would consider those to be
reasonable steps towards Vermont carry.  But I've never met anyone on
any gun org board except maybe you who would support them.

>    And maybe you potential members could let the board members know what you
>require in order to feel comfortable supporting the organization.  It makes
>more sense to be proactive than to rant at them _after_ they make a
>decision you don't like.

Consider my above paragraph a short list of actions that would win me
over very quickly.  I sent a fairly long letter containing numerous
pro-active ideas to one board member (maybe the chair) shortly after I
first joined a couple years back.  Never got one response.  Figured
it was all too radical for the duck hunters.

>"Defense to prosecution" means you can be arrested, charged, your weapons
>confiscated, and only after you've hired an attorney and gone to court (at
>a cost of thousands of dollars) may you present the "defense" that you
>"had permission".  Then you get to go to court to get your permit back and
>again to get your weapons back.

If that is true, it is a great point to argue to the legislature.
This bill clearly goes way too far is not about "restoring" private
property rights which have never been challenged (anyone even think
about suing Blockbustr Video?  Or did we just take our business
elsewhere?), it is about gutting the system.

>    I've virtually memorized the bill, actually.  But I would appreciate
>knowing the LPU's position on this bill when the SEC has had time to review
>it fully.
>

I'll get it to you as soon as I know it.

>    I don't remember hearing a position on the "Safe Storage Bill", which was
>heard in committee last week either......

I don't believe we issued one.  I personnally contacted every member
of the committee by email and phone oppossing the bill. I also made
use of the LPUtah mailing list to notify party members as to the
intent and status of the bill so they could take action as they saw
fit.

Our chair did attend some meeting recently and point out that all gun
control laws in this country had come from the Ds and Rs.  Rob Bishop
was in attendance and openly disputed that claim.  Who does Mr.
Bishop think proposed and passed our gun control laws?  Independants?

Much to the consternation of many people, the LPUtah is not a single
issue political party.  We can no more issue official positions on
every gun bill that comes up than we can issue official positions on
every bill having to do with taxes, assett forfeiture, search and
seizure, eminent domain, school vouchers, ballott access, and a
thousand and one other issues which the legislature tackles every
year.

Our platform and positions on the issue of guns is very clear.

I am unaware of ANY political party that even attempts to issue
official statements on individual legislation except in rare cases.
That isn't the role of political parties.  It is the role of special
interest groups like USSC.

>    Agreed.  Since it appears the majority of gunowners support CCW, I'm
>willing to work to preserve it until I have the opportunity to introduce
>legislation to restore unrestricted, unlicensed, unpermitted carry.  That
>is my own, public, individual stance on the issue, and reflects how I will
>vote.   I can only speak for myself and not the board as a whole.

Understood.  I would hope CCW provides a history of benefits to draw
on and a change in mindset where people get used to guns being
carried.  Realize there are mid steps between what we have now and
Vermont carry that may make for more feasible legislation
as stepping stones.

- --

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and
 long lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was
 intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and
 carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family,
 and his freedoms." -- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the
 Constitution - Preface, "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms"

- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:54:13 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Denny's policy, offical

I have not verified this personally....

Sarah

>----Forwarded Message(s)----
>
> #: 23412 S0/CompuServe Mail  [MAIL]
>     11-Feb-98 17:45 EST
> Sb: Denny's policy, offical
> Fm: Charles W. Parrott/FL [72350,70]
> To: Paul Gallant/NY [70274,1222]
>
>All,
>
>Just got a call from Mr. Don Spice of Denny's - this is official, Denny's
>policy regarding the signs is, the signs will NOT go up or be taken down if
>they did go up.  Mr. Spice was very concerned that they offended so many
>people and that was not Denny's intention.  I told Mr. Spice that I would
>spread the word that Denny's has no intention of infringing on the rights of
>law-abiding citizens.  Please remove any Denny's boycott posts and pass the
>word.  Mark one up for responsible law-abiding citizens!
>
>Regards,
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>----End Forwarded Message(s)----
>
>

- -

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:13:26 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Denny's: Follow-Up -Forwarded

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA11523; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:58:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:58:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma011177; Thu Feb 12 09:57:25 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: jaspar <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Denny's: Follow-Up
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

FROM Charles W. Parrott/FL,
<[e-mail]>
Date:        02/11  10:12 PM

Denny's has been swamped with calls, letters and faxes
from their customers expressing their displeasure over
the no gun signs their were going to put up
on their restaurants.  Denny's toll free-number has
been working overtime handling these calls!

I have been discussing this issue with Mr. Don Spice,
Operations Manager for Denny's.  I had requested that
Mr. Spice call me and advise me what the
official decision of Denny's would be in regards to
these signs.  Mr. Spice called me this evening
(Wed., Feb. 11) and advised me that Denny's would not
put up the signs. This is the official word from Denny's,
so we can all go into a Denny's and enjoy the fine food
they serve. I like to thank all of you for responding to
this Denny's alert and contacting them. And I'd like to
thank Mr. Don Spice, Mr. John Romandetti, CEO of Denny's
and the Advantica Restaurant Group, owner of Denny's.

Here's one more request:  please contact Denny's at
their toll free number, 1-800-733-6697 and thank them
for not infringing on the rights of law-abiding
citizens.  Or you can fax Denny's at 1-864-597-8099
and thank Mr. Romandetti and Mr. Spice for acting in
accordance with the wishes of law-abiding gun
owners. It is important that we put out these brush
fires as they occur, for if we let just one business get
away with this, then a lot more will bow to
the political pressure being put on law-abiding gun
owners in the on going effort to disarm American citizens.
Thanks again for your excellent and timely response
to the alert!

Regards,

Charlie - SFFO (South Florida Firearms Owners)


- -

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:44:42 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Junk that bear spray

Of interest to any who travel in bear country and think chemical spray
is any kind of substitute for a good firearm.

From today's Tribune.

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]      Thursday, February 12, 1998      [Image] [Image]

           Spray Repellent Attracts Bears If Used Incorrectly

 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
     ANCHORAGE, Alaska --
 It's the kind of
 discovery that makes bear country veterans shudder: Turns out the
 pepper spray hikers count on for bear protection can actually attract
 the beasts.
     U.S. Geological Survey researcher Tom Smith discovered the
 attraction in November while working on the Kulik River in Katmai
 National Park and Preserve, about 240 miles southwest of Anchorage.
     Smith was there to record brown bear activity around salmon
 streams, but became suspicious about the link between the powerful
 red pepper extract and bears when he saw a bear rolling on a rope
 sprayed more than a week earlier.
     Intrigued, Smith jumped from his observation post and sprayed the
 beach with repellent. Several bears approached and began rolling in
 the red pepper extract.
     ``It's a 500-pound cat with a ball of catnip,'' is how he
 describes the scene.
     For Alaskans who enjoy hiking, or anyone else who spends a lot of
 time in bear country, this isn't good news. The pepper spray is
 considered by many to be a good alternative to carrying a powerful
 shotgun or rifle, and tests have shown that it will stop a charging
 bear if it's sprayed in the bear's eyes, nose and mouth.
     More troubling, Smith said, is the risk that a can of spray
 that's been used may have enough residue on it to attract bears.



               [Image] [Thursday Navigation Bar] [Image]

                                [Image]

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ⌐ Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune

 All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake
 Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced
 or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
           --------------------------------------------------
     Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.


- --

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"...The right of the people peacefully to assemble for lawful purposes
 existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United
 States. In fact, it is and always has been one of the attributes of a
 free government. It `derives its source,' to use the language of Chief
 Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v Ogden, 9 Wheat., 211, `from those laws
 whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.'
 It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right
 granted to the people by the Constitution... The second and tenth counts
 are equally defective. The right there specified is that of `bearing
 arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the
 constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependant upon that instrument
 for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not
 infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not
 be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no
 other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government..."
 UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK; 92 US 542; (1875)

- -

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:16:25 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy) (by way of "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>)
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update

Charles Hardy accidentally forgot to copy this to the list, and requested
that I forward it.
Sarah

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>    I'd love to have you attend, and I'm sure your input would be valuable.
>I'll send you the info as soon as I have a definite location for Monday's
>meeting.  They're usually in Kaysville, which is a nuisance, at least for me.

I look foward to it.  Thank you.


>    If you, or anyone else on this list, would like to submit questions to
>board members, please send them to me in some form that I can easily print
>out (e-mail text is fine), and I'll be happy to pass them on.  I obviously
>can't force anyone to respond, but I'll relay the request.


Ok, here goes.  Ten easy questions (some multi-part) and an optional
comment in case they want to add something about which I didn't ask in
email format.  You may want to add some blank lines between these to
make it easier to answer on the same sheet as the question.  Please
don't help them with answers or info except as noted or pressure them
into answering.  How many will take the time to answer (about 20
minutes tops is all it should take for reasonably complete responses)
is almost as important to me as what they answer.  Answers, or lack
thereof, to the first 10 questions will be made available to at least
this email list.  Comments under number 11 will be kept private if
they request.  They can relay answer through you or send directly to
me at <[e-mail]>.

1-Do you support and believe in my right to own firearms for defense
of self and loved ones?

2-Do you believe in and support my right to publicly carry firearms for
defense of self and loved ones?

3-Does the 2nd amd to the U.S. Constitution GRANT an individual right
to own and carry guns, does it recognize a pre-esting right to do so,
or does it serve some other function?

4-Does the 1st amd to the U.S. Constitution GRANT an individual right
to print newspapers and worship, does it recognize a pre-existing
right to do so, or does it serve some other function?

4-Do you believe there is a difference between a right and a privlege?
4a-If so, what is the difference and how do I most easily tell one from
the other?

5-Does the current Utah State CCW permit system grant a right to carry
guns, or does it merely bestow a privlege to do so?

6-Do you believe residents of the State of Utah should have to obtain
a permit before exercising their 2nd amd rights to own and carry guns?

7-Do you believe the residents of the State of Utah should have to
obtain a permit before exercising their 1st amd rights to print/read
newspapers or attend church?

8-If there is a difference between your answer to question 6 and your answer
to question 7, please explain the difference.

9-What is "Vermont Style Carry"?

(If you are not familiar with the term "Vermont Style Carry" you may
ask Sarah before answering number 10, but please do not change answer
to number 9.)

10-Political "realities" aside, are you in favor of Utah adopting
"Vermont Style Carry"?
10a-Why or why not?
10b-If yes, what specific steps (changes to current system) do you
support or propose to move us in that direction.

11(optional)-Any other comments?



>I really have no desire to argue with Charles.  I know him to be a staunch
>supporter of gun rights.  I don't want to argue with anyone else on this
>list either.  If I have to argue with people, I'd prefer to save my energy
>for arguing with Robert Steiner and Lane Beattie.

Agreed.  And I hope I've not been perceived as argumenative.  I just
want to make sure the facts are all on the table.

>
>My point is simply that
>1) In my opinion SB 57 is dangerously bad legislation that needs to be
>opposed.  We need to stick together on this.

Agreed.

>and
>2) With three vocally "no compromise" Board members,  there is now an
>opportunity for similarly minded gun owners to influence the direction and
>policies of USSC.
>

I hope so and look forward to seeing the attitude of current members towards
Vermont style carry.


>The rest is up to all of you.
>
>I apologize for any part I played in turning this into a somewhat hostile
>discussion.  That was never my intent.
>I hope that we can work together as friends and colleagues to restore, or
>at least maintain, our rights and liberty.

I perceived no hostility.  My apologies if anyone has found cause to take
offense at my best assessment of the situation.

- --

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time
 that men have died to win them." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt



- -

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:24:30 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legislative ALERT!!!!

    ******* PLEASE CROSS-POST AND DISTRIBUTE********

HELP DEFEAT SB 57!!!

Last night the Board of Trustees of the Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC)
held an emergency meeting to decide what to do about SB 57, Concealed
Firearms Amendments, introduced by Senate President Lane Beattie.

This is a bad bill for many reasons:
First of all, contrary to the title of the bill, it is NOT only about
concealed weapons.  The bill refers to "dangerous weapons".  This  includes
concealed pistols, of course, but also includes knives, long guns, and
virtually anything else that can cause bodily injury.

1. It prohibits firearms (and dangerous weapons) on church (or other house
of worship) property, regardless of the wishes of that particular church.
a) This sets a dangerous precedent of allowing the State to dictate to a
church or religion what it is or is not allowed to do.  It is not the
business of the state to dictate religious practices.
b) The "defense to prosecution" clause is essentially meaningless.  It
provides that the police may enter a church, haul you out in handcuffs,
(shoot you if you resist or if they're particularly worried about your
gun), arrest you, book you, and humiliate you - EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE
PERMISSION OF THE CHURCH.  Assuming you survive the process, you then have
to hire and pay defense counsel, and only at your trial may you present
your "defense" that you had "permission".  And then you still have to go
back to court to try to get your seized weapon returned and your permit
reinstated.  (This is the legal opinion of Board Chair and legal counsel
Elwood Powell.)
c) The bill mandates that each church have a policy on firearms.  If a
church wishes to allow, or even encourage, members to carry, it must
maintain a database of who carries, and who has permission to do so, and
must issue statements of permission.  Thus the state is forcing churches to
do additional work and act as _de facto_ police.
d) This bill disproportionately affects those people who live in high crime
neighborhoods, especially those who must walk  to services, and may
actually deter people from attending church.

2.The bill  mandates that a no one may carry a firearm (or dangerous
weapon)  into a private residence, again regardless of the wishes of the
owner.  It is not the business of the state to tell a homeowner what he may
do in his own home!  (There isn't even an exclusion for the homeowner!)
a) The same "defense to prosecution" problem exists.
b) This is a gross violation of the privacy of firearms owners.  The
essence of concealed carry is CONCEALED.  If you have to tell everyone you
know that you're carrying, any benefit of concealment disappears.  If
criminals know you are carrying (especially for women who carry in purses),
you become an excellent target for an ambush.  In addition, since firearms
owners often collect firearms, if criminals know you are carrying, they may
target your house for a burglary.  And remember that YOU may be held liable
for what's done with your stolen firearm!
c) This bill presumes that law abiding gun owners with CCW's are so
dangerous that they must announce their presence before entering a private
residence.  Not even convicted felons or sex offenders are required to do
this.  Are gun owners lower than child molesters or more dangerous than
convicted rapists and murderers?

3. This bill prohibits firearms (and dangerous weapons)  from the premises
of schools.
a) By declaring schools to be off-limits to responsible gun owners, schools
are advertising that they are easy and safe targets for criminals who want
to murder children, or even for student gang-bangers.  For example, in
Pearl, MI, the student who gunned down several of his fellow students was
stopped only by a teacher who kept a firearm in his car.
b) By prohibiting firearms teachers are also identified as easy targets.
This is especially true for female teachers and those teachers who work
with "troubled" youth.  Their jobs are hard enough and there is no reason
to deny them the right to self-defense.
c) Schools are public property, owned by the people, and thus may not
infringe the rights of the public; they do not have private property rights.
d) Private schools are also forced to ban guns which IS a violation of
their private property rights.
e) School is defined vaguely enough that it could conceivably be construed
to include everything from universities to home schools.

Because of the above, the Board of USSC voted unanimously to oppose the
bill in its entirety and to work for its defeat, rather than attempt any
compromise or amendment.

And now the ALERT!!!!

As Senate President, Lane Beattie wields a lot of power.  So it's going to
take a very concerted effort to get this bill defeated or withdrawn.

1) PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR AND LET HIM/HER KNOW THAT YOU OPPOSE
THIS BILL, AND WOULD LIKE IT DEFEATED, NOT AMENDED.
     If you don't know who your Senator is, call 468-3427.  (They can also
tell you who your Representative is.)  If you go to
http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/ you can look under "District Map" to
locate your Senator and under "Roster" to find contact information.  Some
of the Senators have e-mail, but not all of them check it regularly.  You
can leave a message for any Senator at 801-538-1035.  You can fax
Democratic Senators at 801-538-1449, and Republican Senators at 801-538-1414.
    A brief follow-up contact can be helpful to remind your Senator of the
issue and emphsize your interest.  For example if your Senator says he
hasn't read the bill, you might ask if he would do so and offer to call in
a day or two to get his opinion.  However, NEVER harrass legislators!  They
are extremely overworked, and we can best help them by providing concise
and clear information.  ALWAYS be polite and respectful, even if you
disagree, and always thank your legislator for taking the time to listen to
you and consider your thoughts.

2) WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER.  Your letter does
not have to be polished or eloquent, although it's great if it is.  What
counts is the NUMBER of letters expressing a particular viewpoint that the
newspaper receives.  The more letters they receive, the more likely they
are to print some of them.  Because there is a lag in getting letters
printed, the sooner you send one, the better.  Choose one or two of the
"talking points" outlined above, and briefly state your concerns and why
you feel the bill should be defeated.  Use plain language and try to keep
it simple and short - about 100-150 words.

3)PASS THIS ALERT ON TO AS MANY INTERESTED PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.  Take it to
shooting clubs and ranges, firearms stores and dealers, other firearms
owners, and anyone else you know who cares about our Constitution.  This is
not the time to be shy!

Thanks for your assistance!

Sarah Thompson
and the USSC Board of Trustees

To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to:
[e-mail]
In the SUBJECT of the message put:
SUBSCRIBE USSC



- -

------------------------------

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #22
**********************************