ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n032

Internet Message Format | 1998-03-04 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #32
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest      Thursday, March 5 1998      Volume 02 : Number 032




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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 15:11:09 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phillips 66 jumps on the anti-self-defense bandwagon  -Forwarded

Received: (qmail 7651 invoked by uid 516); 4 Mar 1998 21:47:29 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 6403 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1998 21:46:23 -0000
Received: from mail13.digital.com (192.208.46.30)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 1998 21:46:23 -0000
Received: from sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com (sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com [16.29.160.92])
    by mail13.digital.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/WV1.0c) with ESMTP id QAA22764
    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:46:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Received: by sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
    id <FXKC1AF5>; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:45:20 -0500
From: Roger Oakey <[e-mail]>
To: rkba-co submit <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phillips 66 jumps on the anti-self-defense bandwagon
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:45:15 -0500
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by Roger Oakey <[e-mail]>
- -----------------------
First Dennys, now Phillips 66.



Phillips Petroleum (Phillips 66 gas
stations) in a recent "sign

package" mailed out to retail gas outlets
nationwide included the

following sign to be posted in all their
stores:



                    NOTICE



            Weapons, Concealed


or otherwise

                are prohibited

             on these
premises



        Phillips Petroleum Company



Note that by posting this
sign Phillips Petroleum has decided that the

following three statements
*must* be true (otherwise why post it?):



1) A robber or murderer
willing to threaten or use deadly force

    against a station's
attendant and uncaring of the multitude of

    laws and harsh penalties
imposed for robbing and murdering will

    see this sign, obey it, and
rob someone else.



2) The people who will obey the sign and the honor
system it relies on

    are the real threat to the attendants.



3) There
is no difference between a law abiding concealed carry holder

    and a
murdering robber.



I especially find the last statement insulting to
me.



The reality of the situation is as follows:



1) By posting the
signs, a potential robber and/or murder will know

    that the attendant
and customers are unarmed, and therefore the

    station is a safe place
to attack (for him, that is).  This is the

    classic "criminal safe
zone" mentality that protects the criminal

    and endangers the law
abiding.



2) Law-abiding concealed carry holders, whose ultimate goal is
to

    avoid situations where they may need to deploy their firearm
will

    avoid Phillips 66 stations because of the increased risk posed
to

    themselves (because as stated above the stations now advertise
that

    they're safe places to rob).



3) Concealed carry holders and
others who believe in self-defense will

    avoid Phillips 66 because
they are insulted by being equated with

    murderers and robbers.



I
urge you to pick up the phone and call Phillips 66's CEO Wayne Allen

at
918-661-4467 and tell him what you think of his companies
"Criminal

protection and sacrificial attendant" policy as well as
writing him

at:



          CEO Wayne Allen

          18 Phillips
Building

          Bartlesville, OK 74004


Roger Oakey


For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail]
with the word Help in the body of the message


- -

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 15:31:19 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phillips 66 jumps on the anti-self-defense bandwagon

At 03:11 PM 3/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>First Dennys, now Phillips 66.
>
>
>
>Phillips Petroleum (Phillips 66 gas
>stations) in a recent "sign
>
>package" mailed out to retail gas outlets
>nationwide included the
>
>following sign to be posted in all their
>stores:
>
>
>
>                    NOTICE
>
>
>
>            Weapons, Concealed
>
>
>or otherwise
>
>                are prohibited
>
>             on these
>premises
>
>
>
>        Phillips Petroleum Company


<snip>

I've been following up on this situation in Utah.  I spoke with a regional
or district manager (not sure of his exact title).  His name is Lamar
Hoskin, phone [phone].

Mr. Hoskin told me that the directive came from the national HQ in
Oklahoma.  He said he was unaware that posting such a sign was illegal in
Utah.  I briefly explained that our concealed carry law specifies "without
restriction".

Mr. Hoskin seemed concerned, receptive and interested.  He said he would
check with the national office and get back to me.  That was only Monday,
so it's a little too soon to expect a response.

I think we need to give Phillips 66 a chance to respond before making a
huge production out of it.  If they voluntarily take down the signs, great.
 If they don't, well, we already know how to deal with that. <g>

In the meantime, it certainly wouldn't hurt to politely let Mr. Hoskin, or
station managers, know that their policy is illegal and unacceptable to
law-abiding gun owners.

Sarah
(for myself)

- -

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:44:46 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Anti-gunners and the 'lympics

<<<RANT MODE ON>>>

OK, so now the 'lympics are going to be used as the excuse to restrict
CCW.  Un-friggggin-believable.  These people campaigned for the games
becuase Utah was such a great place and we wanted to show it off to
the world.  Only now that they have them, they are suddenly embarrased
by our liquar laws, our mormons, our history, and our guns.  Hell,
seems what they meant was the landscape is fine but there is
absolutely nothing about our culture worth showing off.  I admit we
aint perfect, but some of us like it here a whole lot more than other
places we've been.

Below is an article from today's DesNews wherein Beattie, Steiner, and
even our "allie" Bishop all agree that CCW will be limited prior to
2002 to accomodate the games and the international community.  My
attitude is if they don't like our mormons, history, or guns they can
stay the hell home.

<<<RANT MODE OFF>>>

DEEP BREATH....

In an unashamed attempt to pre-bias your view, I've included a letter
to the editor from a couple of weeks ago.  Seems to me that along with
freedom of religion, the U.S. is also known for our private ownership
of guns.  I think that should be shown off.  If legitimate security
concerns or simple politics demand that guns not be allowed in Olympic
venues, we need to make sure that everyplace guns are going to be
prohibited has controlled access, metal detectors, armed guards AND
secure storage facilities for legal gun carriers who do not wish to be
disarmed from point of departure.  Let the international community see
a few CCW permit holders and maybe even unlicensed open carriers
placing their guns into lockers and then retrieving them as they
leave.

The thought reminds me of a few years back when the USSR gymnastics
team came to what was then SUSC.  Their security people were freaked
at all the people driving trucks around Cedar City with guns in the
back window.  The Sherrif's response to them was, "Calm down and quit
worrrying.  These are good people."

 Deseret News Archives,
 [Image]
 Friday, February 20, 1998
  [Image]  [Image]

 S.L. has lots to offer Games
  [Image]
 [Image]

 [Image]
  [Image]  Deedee Corradini looked at the 1,350-year-old Zenkoji
 Temple and said in awe, ``This is something we just can't
 replicate. We've got to decide what will be the spirit of the Salt
 Lake Games.''
  [Image]  Look up, Deedee. The spirit is there, you just can't see
 it. The magnificent temple in your city may be comparatively young,
 but it took 40 years of backbreaking toil to build it. The story
 behind this state is wrought with blood, sweat and tears. Utah is
 all about what America is all about - religious freedom.
  [Image]  We have four years to give Utah a good housecleaning.
 Company's coming. But in so doing don't sweep our precious heritage
 under the rug. Someone is sure to find it and wonder why you are
 hiding it. I'm not suggesting we make it a Mormon program.
 Diversity is what makes this country great. But don't lean so far
 away from our culture that you fall on your face. I do not
 understand why it was necessary to hire a woman from California (at
 $60,000 a year) to coordinate Ogden's Olympics related activities.
 There is so much talent here in Utah. Did you see the spectacular
 24th of July celebration in Provo?
  [Image]  Our Tabernacle Choir is known and loved throughout the
 world. I can bear their voices singing, ``Glory, glory,
 hallelujah!'' Use them. Let everyone who will join in.
  [Image]  There are thousands of children all over the world who
 sing the song, ``I am a child of God.'' It isn't a song only for
 LDS. It is for anyone who believes in God. Let the African
 children, the Mexican children, the Jewish children, American
 children of all races sing. Let them sing in the beautiful Church
 of the Madeleine if you please.
  [Image]  In the opening ceremony a replica of the Statue of
 Liberty could rise from an elegantly wrapped gift box. That would
 make a great theme: ``America's gift to the world.'' There never
 has been a time when the world was more hungry for such a gift. Nor
 will there ever be a time when we will have a better opportunity to
 fill that need. A great package of liberty, freedom, love,
 compassion, service - God.
  [Image]  Anne Smart-Pearce
  [Image]  Salt Lake City
  [Image] [Image]

 [Image]

                                  ⌐ 1997 Deseret News Publishing Co.

                                   [Image]
[Image]                                                              [Image]

                              [Advertise here]

               [Image]

               Last updated 03/04/1998, 10:10:41 AM MT

               Pack guns to Games? Utah may alter law
[Image]        [Image]

[Front page]   By Jerry Spangler
               Deseret News staff writer
[World & Nation]
                     Salt Lake Olympic organizers certainly impressed an
[Utah]         international audience at the 1998 Winter Games in Nagano,
               Japan, with its display of cowboys and horses during closing
[Business]     ceremonies.
                     But there is one aspect of the mythical Wild West that
[Sports]       could cause 2002 Winter Games organizers some very real
               headaches: Guns. Some 15,000 of them to be exact.
[Life!]              That's how many Utah citizens, give or take a few
               hundred, have permits to legally carry weapons under Utah
[Opinion]      law. And there is absolutely nothing in current Utah law that
               would preclude those individuals from carrying their guns
[Image]        into Olympic venues.
                     "We are aware of the issue, and it is certainly a
               concern to us, as it is to all the federal and international
               security people, and to the International Olympic Committee,"
               said Department of Public Safety Commissioner Craig Dearden,
               who heads up Utah's security efforts for the 2002 Games.
               "There is no question it would be seen as a security breach
               to have people carrying guns (into Olympic venues)."
                     Republican leadership in the Legislature, as well as
               GOP Gov. Mike Leavitt, say changes will have to be made to
               Utah's liberal laws that allow virtually anyone who wants one
               to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon almost
               anywhere they want. Attempts this year to allow churches,
               schools and private businesses to prohibit guns on their
               premises have all been shot down by a powerful pro-gun lobby.
                     In fact, as the 1998 session draws to a close, it is
               likely that no substantial changes will be made to Utah's
               concealed weapons laws this year.
                     "No, I don't think it is appropriate that guns be
               carried into Olympic venues, and yes, there will be
               restrictions in place by 2002," promised Senate President
               Lane Beattie, R-West Bountiful. "We're talking an
               international situation during the Olympics, not a local
               situation."
                     Leavitt agrees, calling the issue "one of dozens that
               will have to be solved" before the 2002 Games.
                     "It all boils down to the issue of private property
               rights," he said. "Should private property owners have the
               right to restrict people from carrying weapons on their
               property? I believe there are times when private property
               owners should have the choice, and the Olympics would
               certainly be one of those times. It's a matter of principle."
            [Im      At the heart of the debate is whether the 15,000 Utahns
               who have the legal right to carry concealed weapons will
               relinquish their rights to carry guns Olympics or not. And
               given the fact that attempts to amend state law to impose
               such restrictions have met with repeated failure, will the
               international Olympic community tolerate the Games being held
               at venues where spectators may well be armed?
                     Current Utah law specifies that guns can be prohibited
               only from the airport and in designated secure areas, which
               are defined as governmental facilities like prisons and
               jails.
                     There has been considerable debate on Capitol Hill as
               to whether private property owners should have the right to
               ban weapons from their establishments. Many Olympic venues
               are private facilities, while those that are government
               buildings are not "secure facilities" as defined under
               current state law.
                     That leaves lawmakers with the prospect of amending the
               current law to allow private entities, businesses and
               governments to ban weapons ù something lawmakers have been
               reticent to do.
                     "By not acting on this issue, the Legislature has put
               private property rights into a precarious position of being
               secondary to the rights to carry concealed weapons," said
               Sen. Robert Steiner, a Salt Lake Democrat who has tried for
               years to limit where concealed weapons can be carried. "Maybe
               the Olympics situation will be the impetus for them to
               actually address the issue."
                     Rob Bishop, who represents the Utah Sports Shooting
               Council on Capitol Hill, agreed the Olympics present a unique
               situation that must be addressed through legislation. And he
               predicted a willingness on the part of gun rights advocates
               to negotiate reasonable limits on concealed weapons during
               the Olympics.
                     The issue of an armed citizenry is foreign to most
               nations participating in the Olympic Games. In Japan, for
               example, only a handful of people have permits to even own
               guns. Many European nations also have prohibited private
               ownership of guns except in very limited circumstances.
                     Olympic Games are typically characterized by heavy
               security, including metal detectors and mandatory screening
               for weapons.
                     "It will be very interesting to see how the world sees
               Utah if we allow anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon
               during the Games," Steiner said. "I would imagine the
               international governments will demand that Olympic venues be
               secure areas."
               [Image]

               [Image]

               [Image]
               Sports + World & Nat. + Business + Features + Opinion + Front
                                           Page



- --

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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule
 of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm
 the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
 general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of
 inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be
 appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered
 academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was
 offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States,
 by President Washington.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 17:06:21 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precedents -Forwarded

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA08135; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:29:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:29:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma008037; Wed Mar  4 13:26:53 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Richard Hartman <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precedents
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

     As President Clinton urges Congress to transfer billions of dollars
from working-class smokers into government coffers and lawyers' wallets,
other government officials are taking aim at gun companies.
     "Politicians are frustrated by their failure to reduce violent crime,
so they're conspiring to commit a crime of their own --shaking down gun
manufacturers for millions of dollars," said Steve Dasbach, the Libertarian
Party's national chairman. "They want to extort money from honest companies
to pay for the crimes of street thugs."
     An anti-gun lawsuit -- patterned after the lucrative lawsuit against
tobacco companies -- is now being considered by Philadelphia Mayor Ed
Rendell, Miami Mayor Alex Penelas and Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer.
     Their novel legal strategy: Blaming gun manufacturers for violent
crime, on the grounds that guns are a "public nuisance" and that "rogue
companies" are deliberately marketing guns to criminals. The lawsuit, if
filed, would force gun makers to pay the costs of prosecuting criminals,
paying overtime for police and paramedics -- even cleaning up blood from
crime scenes.



- -

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 98 18:41:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: URGENT: SB57 WITHDRAWN! -Reply

Posted to utah-firearms according to Jim Dexter's request.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chris Kierst <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: LPU: URGENT: SB57 WITHDRAWN! -Reply
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 1998, 2:43 PM

I should like to add that Jim requested that I check with the Sheriff to
see if it was possible to show the area around the UofU to be a dangerous
area. I learned several things with this arcane drill. First, that their
GIS capabilities are relatively new to their functions and they don't
have much available yet (I don't know that GIS is even able to benefit
the cop on the street in real time in a meaningful way at this time).
Secondly, as is understandable, they are leary of producing crime-related
maps for the general public (I wasn't asking for that anyway) because of
the expense. Thirdly, the crime related maps they have produced are done
for what are called "community council areas" (city councilperson
districts). It turns out that they are not responsible for reporting on
crime in the area of the U anyway, the city is. The city law enforcement
GIS is still also in its infancy. The officers are actually kinda leary
of it, especially if it is coupled w/ GPS (I don't see why considering
y2k; "And who will guard the guards?") They use a grid system with each
cell of the grid a 4 block by 4 block area. In the 16 grid cell area
surrounding and including the U grounds in 1996 there were (rough count):

2 drive bys
81 drug busts ("drug cases")
14 "gang related cases"
11 rapes
24 robberies
33 aggravated assaults (over twice the 1995 tally)
225 residential burglaries
46 business burglaries
4 arsons
no killings in 1996 but one in 1995
and a partridge in a pear tree

The area thus defined is the area from 800 east to 2400 east and from
400 north to 1200 south. The area is clearly the eastern marginal area
of the inner city high crime zone based on distribution of occurrences.
Are there higher crime areas? Definitely! But the area around the U is
definitely anomalous compared to the areas north, south and east. The
west and south tiers of grid cells are particularly rough (by East H.S.).
I can see no reason for not packing heat in the U area. It is perfectly
reasonable. Data available upon request for review.



- -

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 09:13:19 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: GSL> Fwd: Court Throws Out Part of Calif. Law -Forwarded

Received: (qmail 21062 invoked by uid 516); 5 Mar 1998 12:32:07 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 21039 invoked from network); 5 Mar 1998 12:32:03 -0000
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (198.81.19.148)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 1998 12:32:03 -0000
Received: from [e-mail]
    by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id AAAKa01471
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 07:31:30 -0500 (EST)
From: REBarnes50 <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 07:31:30 EST
To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: GSL> Fwd: Court Throws Out Part of Calif. Law
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
    boundary="part0_889101091_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 120
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

- ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --part0_889101091_boundary
Content-ID: <0_889101091@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

This appeared in my mailbox from AOL News. May be of interest to some of you.
REBarnes

- --part0_889101091_boundary
Content-ID: <0_889101091@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

From: AOL News <[e-mail]>
Return-path: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Court Throws Out Part of Calif. Law
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 06:57:54 EST
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Court Throws Out Part of Calif. Law

.c The Associated Press

 SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Supporters of gun control are calling for new bans
after a state appeals court dismissed part of California's assault weapons
restrictions as unconstitutional.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal on Wednesday struck down the heart of the
1989 law that banned 62 assault rifles, saying it violated the equal
protection provisions of the Constitution because many of the banned guns are
no different than guns sold legally.

``The listed guns are no more dangerous in the hands of criminals than the
functionally indistinguishable guns, nor than the identical clone guns. Nor do
they ... pose a greater danger of use to kill and injure human beings,'' wrote
Justice Fred Morrison, according to The San Diego Union Tribune.

The appeals court also suggested that the rest of the law may be
unconstitutional and asked a lower court to review it.

``This is the death knell'' for the state law, said Chuck Michel, a Los
Angeles attorney who represents gun maker Colt Manufacturers. ``This is a
victory for any citizen who doesn't like symbolic, feel-good laws that are
filled with technical flaws.''

The law was approved after a gunman armed with an assault rifle killed five
students at a Stockton elementary school. The law generally bans the sale,
manufacture, distribution and, in most cases, possession of a number of
military-style semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.

People who legally owned the guns before June 1989 were allowed to keep them
if they registered the weapons with the state.

Critics have argued that the law bans some guns while leaving more powerful
weapons on the market. And they also said the law could lead to a ban on
weapons without the knowledge of gun owners, making them unwitting felons.

The justices agreed, saying the law contained a gap in its notice provisions
and theoretically a person could be prosecuted before he knew that a gun he
owned was illegal.

Assemblyman Don Perata of Alameda said the decision underscores the need for
his bill seeking to replace the law with one that defines assault weapons
based on firepower and military characteristics.

AP-NY-03-05-98 0655EST

 Copyright 1997 The Associated Press.  The information  contained in the AP
news report may not be published,  broadcast, rewritten or otherwise
distributed without  prior written authority of The Associated Press.



To edit your profile, go to keyword <A HREF="aol://1722:NewsProfiles">
NewsProfiles</A>.
For all of today's news, go to keyword <A HREF="aol://1722:News">News</A>.

- --part0_889101091_boundary--


- --------------------------
GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List

This list is governed by an acceptable use
policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html
or available upon request.

To unsubscribe send a message to
[e-mail]

with the following line in the body:

unsubscribe gsl

GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST.
THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 10:59:00 +0700
From: Thomas Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: (Fwd) Re: HB242

I have taken the liberty of sending this message from our local
Senator to the group.  Keep up the fight.  Tom

- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Wed, 04 Mar 1998 21:02:11 -0700
From:          Lyle Hillyard <[e-mail]>
To:            [e-mail]
Subject:       Re: HB242

I appreciated your recent e-mail.  Sen. Steiner who was going to make the
amendment talked to me and I convinced him that he was only wasting his time and
just creating very emotional feelings.  I can tell by all the contacts I get
about the C.P. law that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the law.  I
don't believe that the newspaper wants to correct the emotional misinformation.
I am concerned that someone with a concealed weapons permit will do something
stupid and make the pressure on us to change the law unbearable.

>>> Thomas Allen <[e-mail]> 03/02 4:21 PM >>>
Some people just will not give up a bad idea.

The proposed technical corrections to the Concealed Carry Weapon law
were ok until this last-minute, ill-conceived, unneccessary garbage was
tacked on restricting what objects one may or may not carry into a house
of worship.  If the Democrats want to pass a law gutting our "shall
issue" concealed carry law in Utah, let them work it through the
committee process in the full light of public scrutiny.

As I have observed to you before, the portion of this bill regulating
what persons may carry in and around houses of worship is clearly
unconstitutional.  The LDS Church has already spoken about the
appropriateness of carrying firearms into their churches and places of
worship.  All churches and synagogues can do likewise, if they feel this
is an issue of concern.  Members will obey, or choose not to attend.  We
certainly don't need the Utah legislature dictating behavior in
churches.

If the legislature can legislate this, they can decide to outlaw the
carrying of the Book of Mormon or the Methodist Book of Discipline into
a church.  They can forbid the wearing of yarmulkes or baptism by
sprinkling.  We have wasted enough time and energy on this unneccessary
and unwanted legislation for this session.

Please vote no if this measure comes to a vote.  Thanks for your
patience with those of us who are deeply concerned about the Second
Amendment.

Thomas L. Allen, 140 E, 200 N, Millville






















- -

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 11:52:14 -0700
From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CA Gun Ban Overturned (Kasler v. Lungren)

Different/additional information on the Cal. ugly gun ban
decision.  Way to go Don, et. al.

Dunno that I can agree with the "hope" bit though.  Seems
more like an aberration to me, but I'm a cynical cuss.

BTW - It's been months since I could bring myself to read
TPG...wasn't Peter once a regular contributor there?

from [e-mail] by way of [e-mail]
>
> I take this as good news and gives me hope that our judiciary actually
> does work. The lead plaintiff, Peter Alan Kasler, is a CA Deputy Sheriff
> and Attorney and firearms instructor and author and all-around-nice-guy.
> Way to go Peter!
>
> Peter can be e-mailed at [e-mail]. He also runs the Threat Management
> Institute. You may wish to read an interesting related web page at
> http://www.scimitar.com/revolution/firearms/crime/protect.html.
>
> Godspeed,
>
> J. R. Lynch
>
> ===========================
> MICHEL & ASSOCIATES
> ATTORNEYS AT LAW
> March 4, 1998
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Contact: Chuck Michel [phone]
>
> APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS
> ASSAULT WEAPON LAW
>
>         Sacramento- The Third District Court of Appeal today ruled that
> the 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act (the Act) is
> unconstitutional.  In its 51 page decision, the Court held that the list
> of firearms deemed "assault weapons" was vague and violated
> constitutional equal protection principals, and that other provisions of
> the Act which allowed guns to be added the prohibited list violated
> constitutional due process and separation of powers requirements.
>
>         The case was brought by a consortium of law professors, doctors,
> law enforcement officers, and Colt Manufacturing, a firearms maker
> effected by the law.
>
>         "This is a tremendous victory, not just for gun owners, but for
> any citizen that understands the dangers of ill-conceived symbolic laws
> based on emotion rather than fact," Chuck Michel, an attorney for the
> plaintiffs in the case said. "The law was so poorly written and so
> difficult to understand that thousands of people became felons
> accidentally."
>
>         Attorneys Don B. Kates and Stephen P. Halbrook were lead counsel
> on the case, which was filed in 1989 and was largely funded by the Second
> Amendment Foundation in Washington.
>
>         The Court pointed out that "assault weapons" are not fully
> automatic machine guns, which have been essentially outlawed since 1934.
> Historically, the semi-automatic firearms listed as "assault weapons"
> have almost never been used in crime, nor has any jurisdiction reduced
> their crime rate by banning "assault weapons."  Many of these firearms
> are used for competitive sport target shooting and actually ideal for law
> abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families when they face
> riots or natural disasters.
>
>         The text of the decision is available at
> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

- -

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 15:27:37 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Trial of FBI Sharpshooter at Ruby Ridge -Forwarded

Received: (qmail 17481 invoked by uid 516); 5 Mar 1998 18:50:38 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 17249 invoked from network); 5 Mar 1998 18:50:20 -0000
Received: from xroadstx.com (HELO mail2.xroadstx.com) (208.220.74.12)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 1998 18:50:20 -0000
Received: from walterjr (host45.analog.xroadstx.com [208.220.74.198])
    by mail2.xroadstx.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA03832
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:42:22 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 12:46:45 -0600
From: walter lee <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: GSL> Re: Judge Postpones Manslaughter Trial of FBI Sharpshooter at Ruby Ridge
References: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

- ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
Walter Daniels wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
>
>   My comments are further down (left for context).
>
> > By George Lardner Jr.
> >
> > A federal judge in Idaho yesterday postponed the manslaughter trial of FBI
> > sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi for killing Vicki Weaver in the 1992 siege at
> > Ruby Ridge and set a hearing to decide whether Horiuchi is immune from
> > prosecution.
> >
> > The trial had been scheduled to begin in Boise Monday.
> >
> > Chief U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge said in a two-page order that it
> > would be "a miscarriage of justice" to proceed to trial without first giving
> > full consideration to Horiuchi's motion to dismiss the charge and a
> > prosecution response contending that he is "not entitled to the immunity
> > defense at all."
>
> > Horiuchi's attorneys, who are being paid by the Justice Department, argue
> > that he was acting "within the scope of his authority as a federal officer"
> > when the shot he fired "unintentionally struck and killed" the wife of white
> > separatist Randy Weaver.
>
>   If anyone knows sniper experts, can they be contacted to show he was _not_
> acting in official capacity? Reasoning as follows. The shot was outside
> guidelines: 1)due to unknown background; 2)unarmed civilians in line of
> fire; 3)excessive distance to *moving* target; 4)no officer in direct
> danger. I am _not_ an expert, but these seem clear violations of both Human
> Rights and reasonable sniper regulations. Violating _any_ of these, should
> remove "immunity."
>
> >----- End Included Message -----

There is an even bigger issue that I think people are missing.  There
are justifications in law for taking human life.  There are no
justifications in law for accidents even if what you were trying to do
is legal.  While personally I believe that this is cold blooded murder,
Hourchi has said he didn't mean to kill Vicki Weaver.  As such, the
shooting becomes "accidental."  Manslaughter has to do with
unintentional actions which result in unlawful death.  How can any law
protect someone from actions which are un- or ill considered?  The issue
here is negligence.  Is the federal government saying that its laws
allow its agents and employees to be negligent in performing their
duties?  The Feds have not disciplined Hourchi.  That seems to indicate
that they believe he exercised proper caution.

    In Texas, there are laws that protect LEOs from civil suits for
negligence but not from gross negligence--an aggravated from of
negligence involving a willful disregard of proper precautions.
However, Texas law also says that criminal liability exists for those
who accidently kill or injure someone negligently as they are acting in
a justified manner against another party. Just how does Idaho law read?
What does Federal law say?  This gets curiouser and curiouser.

Walter Lee


- --------------------------
GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List

This list is governed by an acceptable use
policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html
or available upon request.

To unsubscribe send a message to
[e-mail]

with the following line in the body:

unsubscribe gsl

GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST.
THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 15:30:55 -0700
From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject: CA AW legislation -Forwarded

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA20811; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 15:27:37 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 15:27:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma020754; Thu Mar  5 15:27:32 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: [e-mail]
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: CA AW legislation
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

I'm sure most of you know the a good chunk of the CA AW ban was struck down
yesterday by the CA Court of Appeals and the balance has been referred back
down to Superior Court for review. However, the anti's are spinning this
defeat as all the more reason CA should pass AB23, which would ban even more
guns based on description, rather than specific models.  AB23 is moving
right on through the State Senate and Assembly and is predicted to probably
end up on Gov. Wilson's desk fairly soon.  We need to get folks to contact
the Governor's office and request he veto AB23 should it reach him.

I've been trying to get the word out as much as I can on the wide range of
guns that will be covered under AB23 to get more people off their butts and
motivate them to contact their State legislators and the Governor.  Many
uninformed gun owners have no idea their gun may be defined as an AW under
AB23.

I've been telling my friends, folks up at the range, etc., that their gun or
a gun they may want may be defined as an AW and registration will be
required, possession/transport/usage will be limited, future sale banned.

Some examples are:
In addition to the currently banned AW's,  ALL AR15's including
Sporters/clones, AR10 variants, Stoner SR-25's, all HK-91/FN-FAL
sporters/clones, all thumbhole stock sporter versions of AW's (e.g.  AK's,
Daewoo, SIG 550, FN clones,  AUG USRs), Barrett's, M1A's, Mini-14's,
Mini-30's, DSA Stg 58 (US FN-FAL), Benelli M1 Super 90's and Remington
1100/11-87's  with +5 capacity, and much more.

All semi-auto pistols w/ detachable mag and +19 rd. capacity:  eg. Glock
17/19/22/23/26/27 (w/ 30-33 rd. mags), SIG 228/226's, Browning Hi-Power's,
and Beretta 92 (w/ 20 rd. mags)
All semi-auto pistols w/ mag external of the pistol grip: eg. Olympic grade
.22 target pistols like Hammerli's used in International bullseye matches.
All pistols w/ threaded barrels: any semi-auto pistol w/ aftermarket
threaded barrel (eg. IPSC race guns with compensators), HK Mk23 SOCCOM, and
HK USP Tacticals

After the cutoff date, folks from outside CA  will not be able to bring in
their banned target .22's nor 1911 variant competition guns with
compensators/threaded barrels (unregistered assault weapon), which will
effect the future of CA sponsoring national/international shooting events
(eg. International, IPSC, Steel Challenges, Action shooting, etc.)

So much for the idea of Olympic .22 pistol shooting in any proposed future
Olympics held in CA...

Anyway, fwiw, spread the word and get your friends to write/fax/call....

Governor Wilson
phone:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]

The latest amended version of AB 23 is available online at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_23_bill_980226_amende
d_sen.html

Thanks.
Steve Lew


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #32
**********************************