ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n122

Internet Message Format | 1999-01-23 | 45KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #122
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Sunday, January 24 1999     Volume 02 : Number 122




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

Date: Thu, 21 Jan 99 20:44:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Further On Taft Shooting

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 13:25:37 -0500
From: Patricia Neill <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Further On Taft Shooting

Forwarded from another list ...

I have no idea how we all seem to have missed this, but this link came by way
of a British shooting list that I am on. I'm pasting the text of the article
here - but its worth going to the site because there are photos, which I saved
as jpg's. First is the text from the Brit list - it asks the proper questions.
The most glaring problem with the police explanation is that the safety on the
.45 is on......Mike P

- ------------
You might find this interesting:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19981211_xex_who_fired_fa.shtml

It is an account of the Taft shooting in California. The illustration of the
1911 the guy is supposed to have shot himself with is most peculiar. It seems
to show a 1911 with the hammer down and the safety on. Now maybe I'm out of
date but none of mine would have done that. The gun is also supposed to be in
exactly the state it was after the guy shot himself - with the hammer down!!!

Kenneth Pantling (with thanks to Chris Morgan for the URL).

- -------[Cybershooters website & subscription info]--------
ARMED AND DANGEROUS
Who fired fatal shot?
Second autopsy, photos spell discrepancies
in Taft shooting death

By Sarah Foster
  1998 WorldNetDaily.com

<Picture>Death scene: Indicator sign with #1 shows location of handgun.TAFT,
Calif. -- Any one of the four bullets found in his body could have caused the
death of Taft gun store owner Darryl Howell killed in a federal raid,
according to independent pathologist Richard Siegler, M.D., of Santa Cruz,
Calif., who performed a second autopsy on the body of the deceased at the
request of attorneys retained by the family. Though not disproving the
official finding of suicide, Siegler's report inspires a deeper questioning of
the government's account of the fatal shooting that occurred during an October
raid on Howell's Alpha-Omega Surplus and Supplies, located near Taft,
California -- a small community 37 miles southwest of Bakersfield.

In that scenario, Howell, 45, took his own life by shooting himself in the
mouth with his own weapon to avoid being arrested on federal weapons law
violations.

As retold by those present at the scene, two agents from the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms entered Howell's store about 10:15 a.m., Oct. 7,
accompanied by senior deputy Robert Bendel of the Kern County Sheriff's
Department and Taft police Sgt. Ed Whiting. Howell was to be charged with
selling machine guns on two separate occasions, to an informant about two
years ago.

The ATF agents had federal search and arrest warrants. A large group of ATF
agents and sheriff deputies waited outside.

Those who planned the raid had decided against a "dynamic entry," and the
arrest was to be "low-key," since Howell was recognized as being a non-violent
person.

Indeed, he made no effort to resist the officers' intrusion into his store,
and stood quietly with his hands on his head while Whiting did a pat-down
search for weapons. But when ATF agent Larry Williams attempted to handcuff
him, Howell broke away and stepped into the narrow, crowded space behind a
counter, government officials say. Williams tried unsuccessfully to stop him
by wrapping his arms around him, but was no match for the much heavier Howell,
who weighed over 300 pounds. Despite Williams hanging onto his back, Howell
managed to grab one of his own guns, a loaded .45 caliber semi-automatic colt
pistol he kept on a shelf, according to the official version.

Williams said he realized what was happening and yelled "Don't do it! Don't do
it!" But Howell, who assumed a crouching position, put the barrel in his mouth
- -- covering the gun with both hands -- and pulled the trigger.

Whiting, fearing Williams had been shot, immediately pumped three rounds from
his .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic pistol into Howell's back and right side.
Carbon residue indicates one of the shots was a contact shot fired at
extremely close range.

The entire incident was over within minutes.

The sheriff-coroner's office performed an autopsy. Forensic pathologist Donna
Brown, M.D., found Howell's death to have been instantaneous and ruled it a
"suicide." Brown reported the shots fired by Whiting occurred "post-mortem"
(after death) -- hence the police officer was not responsible for the death.

A two-member shooting review board, comprised solely of Taft Police Chief Bert
Pumphrey and Taft police Lt. Ken McMinn exonerated Whiting, finding his shots
to be "justifiable."

That account of the tragedy has been adamantly rejected by Darryl Howell's
family and friends. No one who knew him believes he would have committed
suicide. His deeply held religious convictions would make that extremely
unlikely. Howell, a devout Christian, believed suicide to be a sin.

To probe deeper into the matter, Howell's family hired Faulkner and Faulkner,
a Bakersfield legal firm specializing in what James Faulkner calls "government
abuse cases."

The first step in the investigation was to have a second autopsy performed.
This took time, and the results were only recently sent to the attorneys.
Kathleen Faulkner made a copy of the autopsy report available to WorldNetDaily.

Dr. Siegler presented his findings with an important disclaimer: namely, that
the first autopsy after death "sees the condition of the body most similar to
what it looked like while alive." At a second autopsy, the pathologist must
work with a body that has been dissected, tissues cut, and relations altered.

Nonetheless, Siegler was able to determine that any of the bullets could have
caused Howell's death.

In a summary Siegler writes that the three bullets (fired by Whiting) were
fired "at very close range into the right side and right back. ... The organs
had been previously dissected during the first autopsy; however, based on the
location of the external wounds, any of them would likely have been fatal as
they disrupted vital chest organs, including the heart, lungs and aorta (a
major artery). ... All three projectiles came to rest within the body, and
there were no exit wounds of the chest."
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



- -

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

Date: Thu, 21 Jan 99 20:44:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Further On Taft Shooting

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Describing the bullet from the gun reportedly fired by Howell, Siegler notes:
"A single larger bullet entered the brain, fired through the back of the
mouth. This wound also would have been fatal by itself. It's location is
compatible with having been fired by the deceased. ... This projectile also
came to rest within the skull. ... The overlying scalp, however, was not torn,
and exerted sufficient elastic pressure to retain both the fractured portion
of bone and the projectile."

So, despite the bullet being a large .45 caliber, it stayed within Howell's
head, a finding that confirmed that of the county's pathologist.

"Each or any of these bullets would have caused death," Siegler concludes. "It
is important to emphasize that, according to police reports, all shots were
fired within a few seconds of each other. This information, together with the
conclusion that death occurred immediately, indicate that no single bullet can
be regarded as the one which produced death. There are no tissue changes I
saw, grossly or histologically, which would indicate to the contrary. Bullets
entering the chest producing entry wounds ... have a faint pink heat flash or
track at their periphery. I interpret this to be due to direct heat effect of
the skin which would have been independent of any action of the heart or
necessity for blood pressure. For this reason, I believe that it is impossible
to determine which single bullet caused death."

"If that is so," Kathleen Faulkner observes, "how can we be sure Whiting
didn't shoot first, killing him, then Darryl's gun was fired into his mouth to
cover up a botched raid? We simply don't know. It's one of several possible
scenarios."

That, of course, is the question that's been on the minds of Howell's family
and friends from the beginning. The new autopsy -- while not resolving the
matter -- at least opens up possibilities.

Other evidence has come to light that serves to call into question the
official account. Sitting at her desk, Kathleen Faulkner ponders over a set of
photos obtained from the county -- some taken at Howell's store in Taft,
others from the coroner's office. So many questions arise -- all crying out
for answers.

<Picture>Closeup of Howell's .45 caliber handgun as found beside body. No
blood, no saliva, with safety on. There's the matter of the clean gun.
According to the Kern County Regional Criminalistics Laboratory, the bullet
fragments retrieved from Howell's brain came from a colt .45 Mark IV handgun,
serial number B20661. This was found on the floor beside his body. [See photo
1] Instead of pointing down -- which might be expected if it had been dropped
by the victim himself -- it faces towards his head.

Even more significant, the gun -- which Howell had presumably held tight in
both hands, then placed in his mouth as he pulled the trigger -- has
absolutely no blood, saliva, and apparently no fingerprints on it. Swabs were
taken of the muzzle and slide area of the gun. According to lab tests, "No
saliva was detected on any of the swabs received for examination." And
"although a very small amount of cellular-like material was microscopically
present on the swabs ... this material did not give a positive human response."

"I don't see how this is possible," remarks Kathleen Faulkner. "How could the
gun be so clean, unless it was wiped down?"

Sgt. Glenn Johnson of the Kern County Sheriff's Dept. explained that this is
not extraordinary.

"It happens," he later told WorldNetDaily.

"Depending on the incident, sometimes we do, sometimes we don't have blood on
the weapon," he said. "It depends a lot on the gun itself as far as how tight
the gun is held when it's discharged. The tighter the gun is held and forced
up against the point of contact, you'll have a bit more blowback [of blood]
than you will if the gun is not held real tight."

This response is not likely to satisfy critics. Especially, when -- as
Kathleen Faulkner points out -- there's not only a lack of blood and saliva,
but the safety catch is on, as can be seen in the photo.

But the condition of the gun isn't the only problem the Faulkner's find with
the official account.

"What about this wound over Darryl's eye," Kathleen Faulkner asks, studying
another photo, this one from the county's autopsy.

<Picture>Head injury suggests blow to head Howell's head, shaved, shows a head
injury of some kind.

"Did someone hit him during a struggle?" she wonders. "It looks like it could
be from a gun butt. Or perhaps it happened when he fell. Whatever it was, it
certainly looks like it was inflicted externally, and we'd like to know what
caused it."

More photos.

"Here, look at these." she says, then challenges, "Do you see anything funny
about these pictures?"

<Picture>Death scene, with Howell's body as it fell In the first, Howell is
shown lying on the floor in front of his desk -- there's a space between the
desk and a small safe. In the next shot the safe has been pushed up against
the desk.

"Someone's moved furniture," she points out. "They're not supposed to do that.
So the question is, why did they? Who did it? How much more furniture was
moved about like this?"

Asked about the apparent furniture moving, Sgt. Johnson told WorldNetDaily
he'd have to review the photos, but "everything in them would be as it was
when the investigators got there. We'd search for expended rounds and casings,
but as far as the photographs showing the body still there, nothing was
moved."

Johnson said that the search for spent casings would not be conducted until
after the body was removed.

"It'll take a long time to get to the bottom of this case," Kathleen Faulkner
says. "We're waiting to hear back on some tests. We've found definite holes in
the official account, some things just don't make any sense -- these are just
a few of them -- we have to sort everything out and put it together."



- -

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

Date: Thu, 21 Jan 99 20:44:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: HOW THE BRITS LOST THEIR HANDGUNS

Forwarded from [e-mail]

The only thing that I disagree with as far as this article is
concerned is in reference to the NRA and the assumption being
that the NRA is FOR our 2nd Amendment rights. I'm a member of
Gunowners Of America. In my opinion, the NRA is NOT militant
enough in standing up for our 2nd Amendment RIGHT!

Les

Guns & Ammo
1999 HANDGUNS ANNUAL
Pages 80-1

HOW THE BRITS LOST THEIR HANDGUNS
By Brian McCombie

If you want to see how people can lose their firearms and their freedoms,
look no further than England. Ironically, the nation that gave us so many
of our ideas about liberty and personal rights has set the pattern for
outlawing the handgun, and American anti-gun forces have learned the
lessons of their British counterparts well.

British handgun owners received the first blow in September 1997, when
centerfire handguns were declared illegal. The second shoe dropped in
February 1998, when rimfire handguns were outlawed. The penalty for
possession of either? Ten years imprisonment and/or a hefty fine.

The demise of the British pistol owner began in Dunblane, Scotland, in
March 1996, when a lunatic armed with four pistols massacred 16 school
children and their teacher. The nation was in shock -- except for the
anti-gun segment, which saw a way to benefit from this terrible tragedy.
At the forefront was one Mrs. Anne Pearston, whose "Snowdrop Appeal"
campaign gathered a million signatures against pistol ownership. Anti-gun
politicians quickly pushed for a ban on centerfires, and even pro-gun
polls bowed to perceived public pressure. Once centerfires were history,
the politicians began drafting anti-rimfire laws.

Shortly before the first handgun ban took effect, I began an interesting
correspondence with one Mr. Russ Orchard of Essex, England. A loyal
reader of Guns & Ammo, Orchard had read an essay of mine, "European Gun
Laws: A History of Distrust," in the June 1997 issue. He contacted me,
and we began writing each other.

Early on, I inquired about the reaction of British pistol owners right
after Dunblane. From one of Orchard's lefters:

"During this time, the various shooting organizations requested
 shooters to remain silent, take a low profile and not respond to
 the media insults out of respect for the dead children [of Dunblane].
 This we did willingly, enduring labels like `perverts,' `lunatics,'
 etc., from press and politicians alike.

"By the time we woke up and got our asses in gear, the Snowdrop
 Appeal was unstoppable."

Here, the essential anti-gun pattern took shape. First, the act of a
madman was used to define all gun owners, even though the vast majority
were law-abiding citizens. Meanwhile, anti-gun politicians and the press
whipped up emotions, even calling handgun owners "perverts" and "lunatics."
Finally, radical legislation was passed. It doesn't seem, though, that
the pols and the press truly explained what they were up to. As Orchard
notes, polls showed most Brits believed the anti-centerfire law was aimed
at criminals. But of course it wasn't are criminals turning in their
pistols at the end of 1997. It was honest people like Russ Orchard.

Surrendering his five pistols was especially difficult for Mr. Orchard,
a dedicated competition shooter for the last 14 years. From a letter of
his dated December 14, 1997: "I handed in all my pistols today, a very
sad parting. My main competition [pistol] was a custom-built .38 on a
Model 66 frame, with bull barrel, Wichita sight rib and the best action
you ever felt. Together we collected 67 trophies, so you can imagine it
was quite a wrench knowing it was going into the furnace."

Any of this sound familiar? When two boys allegedly killed four
classmates and one teacher in Jonesboro, Arkansas, in March 1998, the
anti-gun press jumped on the bandwagon again. Article after article
blamed guns and hunting for the incident outright or at least suggested
they were significant causes. Meanwhile -- big coincidence -- Clinton
and the anti-gunners began pushing for a national background check on
all firearm purchases. Certainly not as bad as what happened to the
Brits, but one more restriction, one more hurdle to firearm ownership.

Yet, as happened with the Dunblane tragedy, few people asked the tougher
questions, including, "Why did these people hold human life in such
contempt?"

Speaking of contempt, there's another interesting parallel to the
situation here and in England. In both cases, anti-gun forces show
complete disdain for an individual's right to personal protection.

When our correspondence began, I was surprised at Orchard's many
references to English crime. From his first letter: "Our country is now
awash with illegal guns smuggled in from the former Eastern Bloc, and
shootings are almost a daily event in some parts of the UK. There seems
very little that can be done about this, even if someone could be found
willing to do it."

Rampant crime in merry old England, the home of the unarmed Bobby? But
after reading photocopies provided by Orchard and doing my own research,
it turns out England is fighting a wave of drugs, gangs and illegal
weapons. The gangs include the Russian Mafia, Yardies (Jamaican gangsters)
and homegrown hoods. In places like Liverpool, gang drug wars are common.
Asked if it's true that someone can hire a gunman by the day, Liverpool's
Detective Chief Inspector Alan Buckley replied, "That is what our
intelligence suggests."

And in the midst of all this, England's politicians forced their
law-abiding citizens to gather up their handguns and toss them into
the smelting furnace.

Yes, you can own certain rifles and shotguns in England today, but none
that are semi-automatic. These were banned in 1987. And you must first
receive a license, after a lengthy application process that includes a
background check and a home inspection. You also have to purchase an
approved firearms safe. Want a second firearm? Repeat the whole process.

But even if you live in a crime-ridden area of England, don't put
down "Protection of Home" as the reason you're applying for a firearm.
To the police, personal protection's not a valid justification, and
your application will be denied.

This reminds me of a situation that happened in this country about a
decade ago. The syndicated columnist Carl Rowan wrote many times about
his opposition to the Second Amendment, calling for a national ban on
firearms for every one except law-enforcement personnel. Yet in 1988
Rowan shot a man trying to enter his house. Much was made of the fact
that Rowan used an unregistered pistol on his assailant.

More important, I think, was what Rowan's actions revealed about himself.

When he felt his and his wife's lives threatened, the anti-gun Rowan
used his Second Amendment rights to protect himself. But pass Rowan's
national law, and how many of us would have the same ability? Of course,
it's just our personal protection at stake.

It's not like we're important syndicated writers, now is it?

Fortunately, American gun owners have several advantages over our
British cousins. They include a Second Amendment that clearly states
our right to keep and bear arms, and a long history of individual
firearms ownership. Equally important, we have groups like the National
Rifle Association fighting to keep our Second Amendment rights intact.

Yet there are very powerful interests actively working to gut the Second
Amendment. Looking back on the disastrous British experience, Mr. Orchard
provides some sage advice for us:

"I do hope that American shooters are taking this all on board, because
 if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. It would seem that one
 all-governing shooting body with ample funds would possibly have
 defeated this [anti-pistol campaign, but this we did not have. You
 really must build up the NRA reserves again... Guard your guns,
 fishing, hunting, freedom and most of all your backs."

Amen.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 21 Jan 99 20:44:00 -0700
From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Teaching Tolerance

 WESTMINSTER
C O L L E G E

     American Express, The Associated Students of
               Westminster College, and
  The Bill and Vieve Gore School of Business present

                      Morris Dees
  Chairman and Founder, The Southern Poverty Law Center

                  Teaching Tolerance

Despite threats against his life, Morris Dees continues to lead the
crusade against hate in America, arguing cases on behalf of hate crime
victims. In the 1980s he bankrupted the KKK, winning a series of
historic lawsuits. Today he focuses his attention on anti-government
militias. Dees will explore the dangers of some of the United States'
most radical militia groups and will discuss the potential for an
epidemic of racial violence and unrest if people don't start healing the
wounds of racial hatred.

                   A feature of the
       WELDON J. TAYLOR EXECUTIVE LECTURE SERIES
                       for 1999
        7:30 P.M., Wednesday, February 10, 1999

   at the auditorium of the
     Bill and Vieve Gore
      School of Business
  Westminster College campus
     1840 South 1300 East
  Salt Lake City, Utah 84105

Open to the public at no charge



- -

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:38:41 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: WAG THAT DOG!

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:18:53 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id XAA01654; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:04:12 -0700
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA27228;
    Fri, 22 Jan 1999 01:15:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 01:15:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
From: Joe Sylvester <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: WAG THAT DOG!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 11:16 PM 1/21/99 -0500, Kevin McGehee wrote:
>Screaming banner, with accompanying verbiage, now showing on the front
page at
>The Drudge Report:
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>CLINTON WARNS OF DANGER OF TERRORIST ATTACKS!
>
>President Clinton said Thursday that it was "highly likely" that a =
terrorist
>group would launch a germ or chemical attack on American soil within the =
next
>few years: "I just want the American people to know what they need to =
know
and
>have a realistic view of this," the president said in a 45-minute
interview in
>the Oval Office, "not to be afraid, or asleep. I think that's the trick."
>Clinton tells the NEW YORK TIMES that "he is carefully weighing a =
proposal
from
>the Defense Department to establish for the first time a commander in
chief for
>homeland defense of the continental United States." The paper reports =
that

Balderdash, Clinton lies again. There have been Contential Defense =
commands
of various sort for..well for a long time. There may not have been a CinC
in the way that SouthCom has a CinC or CentCom has a CinC, because that's
actually a realtively new organizational model. But Contential Defense
there has been, what does Clinton think all those Nike (and I don't mean
the sneaker) sites were for?
No to mention the Texas Tower radar sites, and so forth.

Of course what he means is not defense *of* the contential US, but rather
military activity *within* the continental U.S. . I think it's been at
least 80 years since anything other than training has gone on in the
Contential US, dicounting a few German sabatours, and not counting
anti-submarine warfare conducted off the east coast, often within site of
the coast.  Before that (Which as Pancho Villa in New Mexico BTW), you =
have
to go back to the Indian wars, which is likely a better model for what the
Impeached One has in mind, with gun owners, and anyone to his right,
playing the part of the Indians. Perhaps he should get Hillary to talk to
the ghost of one George Armstong Custer, to find out what happens when one
attacks an armed group, while outnumbered by a couple of orders of =
magnitude.





>Clinton smiled repeatedly, yet spoke of spending sleepless nights
pondering the
>new security challenges facing America after the end of the Cold War...
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>Kevin McGehee
>Fairbanks/North Pole, AK
>[e-mail]
>http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/
>
>Larry Flynt is the perfect moral voice for the Clinton Administration
>
>
>
>
Dennis J. Sylvester
Captain USAFR(ret)






- -

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:17:15 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NEWS - USA gun lawsuits


Editorials Oppose City Gun Lawsuits (Join Together Online)

1/20/99

Two big-city newspapers -- the Boston Globe and the Spokane
Spokesman-Review -- have published editorials opposing city lawsuits
against the gun industry that seek reimbursement for costs related to
gun violence.

The Globe -- which has reported extensively on gun-control issues --
called the lawsuits "a mistake" in its Jan. 19 editorial, saying, "This
newspaper is firmly in favor of strict gun control and keeping guns off
the street. Yet using the courts in this way abuses the legal system and
derogates the legislative process."

The Globe noted that unlike tobacco, guns don't harm users if used "in
the way it is supposed to by law and design." If guns are misused,
parents and police should respond, the editorial said; if gun
distribution is too lax, it is up to the legislature to change things,
not the courts. "Suing the gun manufacturers to get guns off the street
is bad law and bad policy," the Globe concluded.

The Spokane Spokesman-Review was even harsher in its assessment, calling
the lawsuits "a cynical grab for undeserved money."

"This attempt to injure an industry producing a legal product is
constitutionally dangerous," the paper's editorial board wrote on Jan.
8.

"The tobacco settlement showed revenue-hungry officials how to tap
industry to fund their social programs," according to the
Spokesman-Review. "Now, the gun industry is in the crosshairs.
Automobile makers are sure to follow. Why blame drunken drivers for
maiming and killing when those who make their vehicles have deeper
pockets? The fast food industry, with its artery-clogging menus,
should worry, too. As should we all, when abusive lawsuits take aim at
freedom."



- ----End Forwarded Message(s)----

- -

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:41:45 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: URGENT ALERT! FEE INCREASES! HB 237

HB. 237, Department of Public Safety Fee Consolidation, sponsored by Rep. Blake Chard, will be heard in committee TOMORROW, Monday, Jan. 25.  It will be heard by the House Criminal Law and Justice Committee, at 8 AM, Rm. 225, State Capitol.

This bill operates on the theory that if you can't ban concealed carry, you can make it too expensive for most people to afford.  This is especially unfair since low-income folks, who tend to live in the areas with highest crime, need to be able to defend themselves.

The bill would increase firearms-related fees across the board:
The application fee would increase from $35 to $50. (43%)
The renewal fee would increase from $5 to $25. (500%)
There is currently no fee for replacement of a permit; the new fee would be $15.
There is currently no late fee for renewal; the proposed late fee is $7.50.
The fee for a background check would increase from $7.50 to $15. (100%)

More insidious, this bill would allow the Department of Public Safety to raise fees in the future without legislative oversight.  (See the frequent references to Sec. 63-38-3.2).

The Utah Constitution states that we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.  (Yes, I know that right has already been violated by the permit system!)  Rights are not contingent on having enough money to pay for them, nor may they be denied to the poor.

DPS in general runs a responsive and user-friendly department.  It is possible that they need some additional funds to continue to provide services, although in most cases, costs go DOWN as volume increases.  However, I can find no justification for fee increases that range from 43% to 500%.  No private industry could get away with doubling its fees overnight.

In view of DPS's support for such extreme fee increases, oversight should remain under the oversight of the legislature.

Please let legislators know that these fee increases are completely unreasonable, and that you would like the legislature to retain oversight of DPS's fees.

If you can attend the committee meeting tomorrow, please do so.

Please contact the following members of the Committee and urge them to OPPOSE HB 237.  Remember to keep messages short, to the point, and polite.

Rep. DeMar "Bud" Bowman, Chair, [e-mail]
Rep. Jack A. Seitz, Vice Chair, [e-mail]
Rep. Trisha Beck, [e-mail]
Rep. Duane Bourdeaux, [e-mail]
Rep. Perry L. Buckner, [e-mail]
Rep. Blake D. Chard, [e-mail]
Rep. David L. Hogue, [e-mail]
Rep. Susan J. Koehn, [e-mail]
Rep. Loraine T. Pace, [e-mail]
Rep. Carl R. Saunders, [e-mail]
Rep. Nora B. Stephens, [e-mail]

If you would like to mail all of them at once, you can paste the following into the "To:" section of your e-mail:
[e-mail],[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

If you are up early, you can also call and leave messages for any Representative at: 801-538-1029 or 800-662-3367.

Copies of this bill in various formats, as well as committee information, can be found at: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1999/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0237.htm

Please help STOP FEE INCREASES!!

Thanks for your support!

Sarah



leg-alerts is owned and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The opinions in this alert represent those of the list owner only,
unless otherwise attributed or specified.

To subscribe to leg-alerts send a message to:
    [e-mail]
in the body of the message put:
    subscribe leg-alerts

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT POST TO THIS LIST!
Send comments, alerts, suggestions, etc. to:
[e-mail]

- -

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:11:09 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALERT: SB 91

Re: SB 91 - Weapons Technical Amendments - Sen. Mike Waddoups

SB 91 is a bill introduced by Sen. Mike Waddoups which clarifies the language
of the state pre-emption law.  As introduced, SB 91 moves the pre-emption
language from "definitions" to "Uniform Law".  This is a legislative
"housekeeping" bill that, as introduced, does not change the law.

However, as suggested by many persons (including this writer), an attempt was
made to amend the bill to add that "no person shall be required to have a
license or permit  to SELL or TRANSFER a weapon".  This additional language is
necessary to prevent municipalities from prohibiting individuals or businesses
from selling or transferring firearms.  It would also prevent municipalities
from requiring gun shows to have permits, which they could then use to deny
such permits and shut down gun shows.

It was also suggested that the state pre-emption law specifically mention state
agencies, boards, divisions and departments, so that the law will conform to
the opinion of the legislative general counsel that agencies such as the state
government and the University of Utah may not ban firearms.

This bill was heard in committee on Friday, Jan. 22 and was reported out
favorably.  I received the following report from Elwood Powell, Chair of USSC,
who attended the committee meeting:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:

    I appeared at the hearing on S.B.91 this morning.  I put into the record
the language changes suggested by Shirley Spain and Scott Engen.  The committee
voted the bill out, and were going to check with legislative counsel to
determine whether the suggested changes qualified as technical amendments.  If
they do they will be added on the Senate Floor.

    It may be that a substitute bill will need to be introduced and referred to
committee to get the changes made.  I will keep you advised.

    All of the committee members that <agreed that> specific references to
state agencies, boards, divisions and departments was a great idea.
Especially, after they were reminded of Legislative Counsel's legal memorandum
produced for the last session.

Woody"

As noted, it is not yet clear whether these changes can be incorporated into
the bill on the House floor, or whether a substitute bill will be required.

Although no urgent action is necessary at this time, please let your own
representative know that you would like him/her to SUPPORT SB 91 AS AMENDED.

If you don't know who your representative is, please go to:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/house.htm

The original bill text and committee report can be found at:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1999/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0091.htm

Thanks!
Sarah



leg-alerts is owned and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The opinions in this alert represent those of the list owner only,
unless otherwise attributed or specified.

To subscribe to leg-alerts send a message to:
    [e-mail]
in the body of the message put:
    subscribe leg-alerts

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT POST TO THIS LIST!
Send comments, alerts, suggestions, etc. to:
[e-mail]

- -

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 16:00:29 -0700
From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALERT: Asset Forfeiture

I hope that all of you are aware of the problems caused by asset forfeiture, a legal "doctrine" that allows government to seize the property of an innocent person, charge the PROPERTY with a crime, convict the PROPERTY, and then keep it.  Although originally intended to allow for the seizure of contraband, such as illegal drugs, asset forfeiture laws have been used to seize real estate, motor vehicles, boats, airplanes, cash, bank accounts, and virtually every other form of property.  Firearms are frequent targets of asset forfeiture laws, since such laws allow for your firearms to be seized without the troublesome necessity of proving that you committed a crime.  Any firearm found "in the vicinity" is assumed to have been used to facilitate the crime, and in thus "guilty".  Assets can be seized with no "proof" required other than the word of an anonymous paid informant (who often gets a share of the seized assets!).

Such laws violate the Fourth Amendment, as well as both common sense and common decency.

A bill will be introduced in the legislature this year to end such abuses.  The bill is still being drafted, so I haven't seen it.  My understanding is that it would allow for assets to be forfeited only when there is a criminal conviction of the owner of the assets or that it would require that the owner be accorded due process.

Much of the public, and far too many legislators, are still in the dark about asset forfeiture.  Therefore, your assistance is needed NOW to help educate both the public and the legislators.

Please contact your legislators (both House and Senate), explain the problems associated with asset forfeiture, and ask them to help end the abuses.  Perhaps even more important, please write letters to your local newspapers, and educate your friends, family and co-workers.

Daniel Newby, of the Sutherland Institute, has asked me to distribute the following article on Asset Forfeiture, which is being distributed by the Institute.  Since the author is someone I know and respect <grin>, I agreed.  Please feel free to distribute this note and/or the article to whomever you please.

Other information on asset forfeiture can be found at:
http://www.fear.org  (esp. Law Library, Legislation and Lobbying, and Public Opinon)
http://www.therighter.com/articles  (Click on Justice Throught the Looking Glass - Asset Forfeiture, on the left)

The Sutherland Institute article follows:

>***************************************************************
>* ##### ####   ##### #  # ####    ####  #### ### #   # #####  *
>*   #   #  #     #   #  # #       #   # #  #  #  ##  #   #    *
>*   #   #  #     #   #### ###     ####  #  #  #  # ###   #    *
>*   #   #  #     #   #  # #       #     #  #  #  #  ##   #    *
>*   #   ####     #   #  # ####    #     #### ### #   #   #    *
>***************************************************************
>TO THE POINT: A Sutherland Institute Public Policy Perspective
>May 18, 1998
>
>
>*The Ignoble History of Asset Forfeiture:*
>Where Do We Go From Here?
>
>By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
>
>Asset forfeiture is the seizure by government, without due process or
>compensation, of private property alleged to have been involved with, or
>tainted by, illegal activities.  The innocence or guilt of the property
>owner is irrelevant to the seizure of his property.  Originally adopted as
>a deterrent to foreign criminals, it is now a threat to all Americans who
>own property.
>
>The history of forfeiture in the United States is, for the most part,
>ignoble.  The original  forfeiture laws, the only constitutional ones,were
>directed against piracy and allowed for the seizure of pirate ships. Since
>the owners of the pirate ships were on the other side of the Atlantic and
>outside the reach of American law, forfeiture of the ships was deemed
>necessary to discourage piracy.  American citizens had nothing to fear from
>these laws.
>
>Forfeiture, prohibited by the Bill of Rights, did not adversely affect
>American residents until the nineteenth century.  In 1825, the Black Codes
>adopted by Florida allowed for white persons to search the property of
>non-whites and confiscate weapons without warrant, due process, or
>compensation.  During the Civil War the issue arose again. Numerous legal
>scholars warned against succumbing to the temptation of applying forfeiture
>for reasons of expediency.  But the pressures of war were too great, and
>Confederate soldiers and sympathizers were subject to forfeiture of their
>property.
>
>Although the Supreme Court later acted to correct some of these excesses, a
>dangerous precedent was set.  Peacetime forfeiture was prohibited, but
>government retained the power to conduct forfeitures during wartime.  For
>this reason it is not surprising that attempts at drug interdiction are
>referred to as a "War on Drugs."
>
>Nonetheless, asset forfeiture remained legally unconstitutional until the
>Constitution was amended in 1919 to prohibit alcohol.  Based on this
>amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that a vehicle used for transporting
>alcohol was guilty of a crime and could be forfeited.
>
>Prohibition was later repealed, but the idea of forfeiture was eagerly
>adopted by all levels of government, and the War on Drugs was used to
>justify a new wave of forfeiture laws. These laws were expanded to permit
>forfeiture for virtually all crimes.  Similarly, the definition of property
>"involved" in a crime was expanded to include all property, even if it had
>no apparent relationship to a crime.
>
>The 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) provided
>the first provisions for criminal, as opposed to civil, forfeiture in the
>United States.  Although it is promoted as a tool to stop organized crime,
>in reality, all drug crimes and virtually all federal crimes can be
>prosecuted under RICO.  For example, under the currently pending Senate
>Bill 10, a firearms manufacturer's entire business can be seized and
>forfeited under RICO if a single firearm manufactured by that company is
>used to commit a crime.
>
>What does the average citizen have to fear from asset forfeiture?  A great
>deal.  Under our current laws, private property can be seized even if the
>owner of the property did not participate in, or even know about, the
>alleged illegal activity for which the property is being forfeited.
>Contrary to popular belief, up to 80 percent of forfeitures target innocent
>people who are never charged with a crime, much less convicted of one.
>
>The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have not acted to stop
>forfeiture abuses.  Law enforcement agencies usually get to keep most of
>the proceeds of forfeiture, so they have a strong incentive to utilize
>forfeiture as often as possible.  This incentive may be strong enough to
>pre-empt more traditional law enforcement activities such as preventing
>crimes and apprehending criminals, a problem of particular concern to
>people who depend on the police for protection.
>
>One possible solution, which was used successfully in Missouri, is to
>remove the incentive for law enforcement agencies to engage in forfeiture
>by prohibiting them from profiting from such activities. Separating
>forfeiture from profit might help to ensure that it is used as a weapon
>against serious criminals instead of as a fundraising mechanism.
>
>One thing is clear: taking property from innocent people for any purpose,
>no matter how noble, is still stealing, and still wrong.  The public needs
>to let law enforcement agencies and  legislators know that it considers
>such practices unacceptable. Some legislators are already aware of the
>problem.  Rep. Henry Hyde's manager's amendment to HR 1965, "The Civil
>Asset Forfeiture Reform Act," would help to decrease asset forfeiture abuses.
>
>The ultimate goal should be to abolish the archaic concept that inanimate
>objects can commit crimes and may legally be seized for doing so.
>
>#########
>
>Sarah Thompson is a medical doctor and policy specialist who authored this
>piece for the Sutherland Institute, a Utah public policy research
>institute.  Permission to reprint this article in whole or in part is
>granted provided credit is given to the author and to the Sutherland
>Institute.
>
>For more information about the Sutherland Institute and/or to order
>additional copies of this article, call the Institute office, 801-281-2081,
>or write:  The Sutherland Institute, 111 E. 5600 South, Suite 208, Murray,
>UT  84107. Fax [phone], e-mail:  [e-mail].  Nothing
>written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the
>Sutherland Institute, as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any
>legislation, or as an endorsement of any candidate or initiative.
>
>-
>**********************************************************
>Daniel B. Newby
>Director of Project Development & Member Relations
>[e-mail]
>
>The Sutherland Institute:  Shaping the Future of Utah
>Independence Square
>111 East 5600 South, Suite 208
>Murray, Utah  84107
>Phone:    [phone]
>Fax:    [phone]
>**********************************************************


- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #122
***********************************