ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n173

Internet Message Format | 2000-01-19 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #173
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest    Thursday, January 20 2000    Volume 02 : Number 173




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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:41:56 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FW: New Book on 2nd A.

Subj:    LPU: FW: New Book on 2nd A.
Date:   1/8/2000 6:43:09 PM Mountain Standard Time
From:   [e-mail] (Jim Dexter)
To: [e-mail] (LPUtah Forum)

FYI

- ----------

My new book titled A Little Handbook on the Second Amendment:  What the
American aristocracy Doesn't Want You to Know has just been listed on
Amazon.com.  This is the only place it can be purchased.  It is a summary of
Second Amendment information found in academic books, but it includes
different points of view and a broader scope of information than that
commonly found in books on this subject.  There is a lot more to know about
the Second Amendment than what is usually discussed.

I believe this "little handbook" can have a major impact on the American
debate from a pro-gun point of view if read widely.  Getting it read widely
is my challenge.  It has been written, printed, and published on a "shoe
string."

I hope many will purchase and read it.  An "academic" has written a very
positive review, but it was not written for "academics."  I am hoping many
from the general reading population will take the time to submit candid
reviews on Amazon.com.  Any help you can provide will be very much
appreciated.

The URL is
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0966935918/qid%3D945822745/002-8796618-
1272240

I apologize if you have received this message before.  When you have
something important to offer, but you're poor, you use every free resource
possible to communicate and ask for help.  I am unable to send free copies.

Stay safe.  Stay free.

Joe Bass
Suffolk, Virginia

- -

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:42:04 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FW: 2nd Amendment Sites

Subj:    LPU: 2nd Amendment Sites
Date:   1/8/2000 6:43:52 PM Mountain Standard Time
From:   [e-mail] (Jim Dexter)
To: [e-mail] (LPUtah Forum)

This nifty tool lets you click on a US map and see  the basic gun laws of
each state...

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/

This one is by Magna Gun Club in the UK

http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/shootersenrichment/

- -

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:24:28 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Fwd: LPU: Poll: Registration of Hand Gunds on Vote.Com

- --part1_b8.b8b82476.25ad862c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



- --part1_b8.b8b82476.25ad862c_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from  rly-xa02.mx.cs.com (rly-xa02.mail.cs.com [172.31.34.47]) by
    air-xa01.mail.cs.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:38:33
    -0500
Received: from  mail.qsicorp.com ([207.173.106.20]) by rly-xa02.mx.cs.com
    (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:38:25 -0500
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
    by mail.qsicorp.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA01066
    for lputah-list; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:16:25 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.qsicorp.com: majordomo set sender to
    [e-mail] using -f
Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6])
    by mail.qsicorp.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA01063
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:16:24 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Received: from [e-mail]
    by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id j.bd.bd509820 (3926)
     for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:16:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:16:04 EST
Subject: LPU: Poll: Registration of Hand Gunds on Vote.Com
To: [e-mail]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

go to www.vote.com and vote NO on handgun registration.

This is the site started by Dick Morris.

Cheers,

andrew


LPUtah
LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "[e-mail]"
LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender.
LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: [e-mail]
LPUtah


- --part1_b8.b8b82476.25ad862c_boundary--

- -

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:00:37 -0700
From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: REMEMBER WHEN?

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:11:36 -0700
Received: by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01713;
    Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:11:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:01:20 -0600
From: larry ball <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: REMEMBER WHEN?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Divvy-no: 1

A few years ago - 94 or 95? - there was this gentleman in New York who
sponsored the Gun Clock or was it the Death Clock?   He was dramatizing
gun deaths.  He had a message, and 800 number, and a large budget.  Many
of us were so interested in his message that we called and called just
to hear it over and over.  But, I fear, that we squandered his budget
and the whole escapade went broke.

Well, theie is now another opportunity.   There is an organization
advertising on T. V. in this region (Nebraska and Iowa) against gun
violence.  They call themselves the National Citizens Commision Against
Crime.  Their number is 1800 WE PREVENT.  They would like to hear from
you and send you some material.  You will probably want some of this
material sent to your home, your box number, your office, your health
club and where ever else you might be wanting to review this vital
material.  Your Aunt Millie, Uncle Fred, Cousin Billie Wife, father,
mother, son, daughter, significant other and any other will also want
some of this material.  It will cost them about a buck to receive each
call and their mailing will likely cost them a few bucks also.  Help
them out.  It costs a lot of money if one of these campaigns go on
interminably so help them get rid of this material rapidly.  Ya'all call
now, tomorrow, before and afternoon and during siesta.

Hasta Luego

Larry Ball
[e-mail]

- -
To unsubscribe, send a message to [e-mail], and as the
body of the message (plain text, no HTML), send the following:

- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:43:28 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FW: XEROX REFUSES TO FACE RESULTS OF THEIR ANTI-FIREARMS POLICY

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

January 15, 2000

XEROX CORPORATION REFUSES TO FACE THE RESULTS
OF THEIR ANTI-FIREARMS POLICIES:
SPREAD THE WORD!

Not long after the incident in Hawaii where a criminal
attacked and killed several employees in a Xerox facility, JPFO
contacted five top Xerox corporate officials. We obtained the
names and addresses of these officials from their website, and
sent personalized letters to each of them.

In the letter we warned them about the seriously dangerous
problems that their blanket no-firearms policy might cause.
Bluntly stated, prohibiting employees from defending themselves
essentially set up the employees as targets for the next vicious
attacker. To date Xerox has not responded to the JPFO letter,
and we are unaware of any action the corporation has taken to
further protect employees in office buildings and warehouses.

But now Xerox has been warned. If another attack occurs in
a Xerox office building, it might be possible for the victims to
sue Xerox for failing to heed warnings ... and a lawsuit like
that could be a major wake-up call.

There's a strategy here. First, people can continue to
write to Xerox and demand to know why Xerox so far has refused to
answer the JPFO letter. These letters help by pressuring Xerox
to avoid taking a position in favor of victim disarmament. Xerox
must be reminded that it lost employees and public good will by
rendering them disarmed and defenseless.

Second, people can modify the same letter and send it to the
heads of other corporations. Put these corporations on notice
that by their anti-firearms policies, and their (possible)
support of "gun control," they are placing their employees and
business visitors into danger without allowing those people any
way to protect themselves. Remind the corporations that they
face potential legal liability for their negligence in this area.

Use this letter to help turn corporate America on its head.
Just paste it into your word processor, adjust the facts and
insert the correct names and addresses, personalize it so that it
comes from you or your organization, and then send it out. Let
JPFO know if you send a letter, and what response you get. JPFO
will post the results on the website for the world to see.

To make the letter most effective, use the cases and
statutes that apply in your state or in the state where the
company is located. You can get these cases and statutes from
"Dial 911 and Die". Or you can just use "Dial 911 and Die" as your
legal reference point, citing the page number. Order the book
directly from the JPFO website or by calling [phone].

JPFO=92S LETTER TO XEROX:

Dear <Mr. _>:

Your corporation suffered negative publicity recently when a
criminal killed and injured a number of Xerox employees in a
Xerox facility in Hawaii. Our organization carefully monitors
workplace conditions where citizens are placed in physical
jeopardy by the actions and policies of their government or
employers. We are writing to offer some thoughts to help and to
ask for your response.

In the last two years, there have been many well-publicized
cases in which criminals attacked unarmed and undefended
employees, teachers and school children in public places. The
incident in your facility was one among the series. While
Department of Justice figures show violent crime rates dropping
on average nationwide, there appears to be an upsurge of
murderous attacks on unarmed and undefended people in schools and
office buildings.

Each of these public attack cases occurred in places where
the innocent victims were not only undefended but were also
forbidden to defend themselves adequately. In the Xerox case,
for example, the attacker faced no armed opposition whatsoever.
It seems rather logical that the attacker would choose the Xerox
facility precisely because the attacker had good reason to
believe that he would not face any armed resistance.

We have been informed that Xerox corporate policies prohibit
employees from carrying firearms or other weapons on the premises
(security guards excepted). This policy, however, virtually
assures that Xerox employees will be unarmed and undefended
targets for violent criminals.

In effect, Xerox=92s anti-weapons policy creates a dangerous
working condition for the employees and visitors on the property.
The policy "may be said to have created an especial temptation
and opportunity for criminal misconduct." Cohen v. Southland
Corp., 157 Cal. App. 3d 130, 140-41 (1994)(Southland Corp. could
be liable for failing to protect customers from criminal attack
on their premises). Although it seems like an obvious point,
recent comprehensive research has confirmed that criminals tend
to avoid assaulting, raping or attempting to murder people whom
the criminals think might be armed. See John R. Lott, Jr., "More
Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws"
(University of Chicago Press, 1998). The Xerox anti-weapons
policy sets up a favorable target for attackers.

For two reasons it is not enough for Xerox to respond to the
threat of criminal attack by merely providing telephones for
employees to "dial 911" for emergency help. First, less than 5
percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough
for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. Gordon Witkin,
Monika Guttman & Tracy Lenzy, "This is 911 ... please hold," U.S.
News & World Report, June 17, 1996, p. 30.  As researchers put
it, "cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference
in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare."Ibid,
quoting the conclusions of the researchers, Northeastern
University Professor George Kelling and lawyer Catherine Coles.

Second, under the law in nearly every state the government
generally owes no duty to protect individual citizens from crime
or criminal attack. See e.g., Freitas v. City and County of
Honolulu, 574 P.2d 529, 532 (Haw. 1978), citing Riss v. City of
New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968).  To verify this legal
fact, we researched the law in all 50 states. We can supply you
with a book entitled "Dial 911 and Die," which collects the
statutes and court decisions, if the legal references will assist
you. Legally, in most cases the victims are on their own to
defend themselves.

The Xerox corporate anti-weapons policy would seem to place
Xerox in a difficult situation. By assuring the criminals that
the victims are unprotected, Xerox is creating a dangerous
workplace environment for which Xerox may face liability.
Providing handy emergency telephones and depending upon local
police forces to protect the employees under violent attack will
likely not save any lives.

Knowing the facts set forth in this letter, would Xerox
management consider adjusting the no-weapons policy to allow non-
violent, non-criminal employees to carry firearms or other
protective weapons into the workplace for self-defense?  If not,
what measures will Xerox take to protect its unarmed and
otherwise defenseless employees from future attacks like the one
in Hawaii?

We look forward to your response to our questions, and
appreciate your help in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Aaron Zelman
Executive Director

- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
http://www.jpfo.org/

- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:55:27 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ALERT: Marty Stephens on Gun Control

Charles Hardy, who is mysteriously absent here of late, suggests:

Looks like the speaker could use some phone calls and faxes.

I humbly suggest calling his home in the evening and if he isn't home,
leaving a polite but firm message against gun control.

- --------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:15:48 -0700
Subject: ALERT: Marty Stephens on Gun Control

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE!

Fellow gun rights activists,

Apparently Speaker of the House, Marty Stephens, is upset that gun owners
(including me!) are calling him a traitor to gun rights.  He thinks these
allegations are false and unfair.  (No, he didn't contact me, but he did
contact one of my readers.)

Facts to consider:
1. Marty Stephens did not oppose the Olympic Gun Ban last year.  (As
Speaker of the House, he doesn't vote on floor votes.)
2. Marty Stephens now says he supports Gov. "Gun-Grab" Leavitt.
3. Marty Stephens supports the Republican legislative leadership's
"crime control" package.  While that package hasn't been released yet,
it presumably includes banning firearms ownership for so-called "violent
misdemeanors", expanding mental health commitments (a round-about
way to permanently revoke firearms rights), requiring background checks
for all firearms transactions (which would make private sales illegal and
shut down gun shows), and a ban on guns in churches and private
residences, and probably in schools too.

Marty Stephens is the most powerful person in Republican leadership.
(Or one of the two most powerful if you want to include Sen. President
Lane Beattie.)  Anything that says "Republican leadership" is, therefore,
Marty Stephens.  If "leadership" supports something, pushes something,
or fails to oppose something, that's Stephens.


Stephens on gun control:

"While much work remains to be done, House Speaker Marty Stephens
said Tuesday there is a possibility that lawmakers and citizens pushing a
gun-control initiative can reach agreement -- and the initiative won't be
needed after all."...

"But Tuesday, Stephens, R-Farr West, said he believes the
guns-in-churches issue can be solved relatively easily.

"I've met with leaders of all denominations," Stephens said, and an informal
agreement has been reached whereby the concealed weapons permit holders
need permission from church officials to carry a gun on church grounds.

"That gets around the sticky issue of churches having to post signs
saying "No Guns Allowed."

"Concealed weapons in schools is a harder issue, Stephens agreed.

"Basically, if wording can be found that will allow permit holders to
carry their weapons on to school grounds to attend "approved" school
functions and to take and drop off their children, Stephens said that,
in concept, is something acceptable to him and perhaps to other
members of the Utah House and Senate Republican caucuses."
Deseret News, 9/28/99


"Stephens said there are about seven specific areas where compromise
may be reached, such as including violent misdemeanants and those
adjudicated mentally ill in gun-purchase background checks, making
private residences off-limits to uninvited gun-toters and making
background checks for casual sales at gun shows."
Deseret News, 10/17/99


"Leavitt and Stephens met at the State Capitol recently and tentatively
agreed to this Stephens-crafted compromise: The Legislature will pass
a bill banning guns from schools and churches, including guns belonging
to lawful concealed-weapon permit holders.

"The bill, however, will authorize a two-tiered permit system that would
recognize those who could prove a potential immediate need to defend
themselves, such as having their lives threatened. That exclusive group
would be allowed to carry weapons in schools. Law enforcement also
would be authorized to carry weapons in those forbidden places.

"Stephens, in recent days, has floated the idea among groups most
active in the guns-out-of-school movement. It remains to be hammered
out whether special permit holders who would have the right to carry at
schools also would have the right to carry in state offices, which currently
are off-limits, besides law enforcement officers, due to an executive order
by Leavitt."
Paul Rolly, Salt Lake Tribune, 6/27/99


"'I will not be a candidate for governor. In addition, I will be supporting
Mike Leavitt,' Stephens said."
Salt Lake Tribune, 12/15/99


It is true that Rep. Stephens helped stop the special "gun control"
session of the legislature last year, and he does deserve thanks for
doing so. But was that sincere, or was it political grandstanding?
Does he object to gun control on principle, or did he just object to
the special session for reasons perhaps unrelated to gun control?

Do any of the above quotes sound like Marty Stephens is a friend
to gun owners?  I certainly don't think so!

If Marty wants us to believe that he does not support gun control he must:
1. State PUBLICLY that he does not support ANY gun control legislation.
2. Tell Republican House members that he does not support ANY gun control
legislation.
3. Actively work to defeat such legislation.
4. Meet with leaders of Utah's no-compromise gun rights groups to discuss
how such legislation can be defeated and what pro-gun legislation can be
supported.  Leaders should include representatives from both Gun Owners
of America (Arnold Gaunt and Sarah Thompson, informal local contacts)
and GOUtah! - and not just USSC and the NRA.
5. Vote against all gun control legislation in committee and if there is
a tie on the House floor.


WHAT YOU CAN DO!
Contact Rep. Marty Stephens
318 State Capitol
SLC, UT 84114-0116
801-731-5346 (home)
801-538-1930 (work)
801-538-1908 (fax)
[e-mail]

Tell him that if he's REALLY a friend to gun owners, he must oppose ALL
gun control, state his opposition to gun control publicly, and do everything
(ethical) within his power as Speaker of the House to defeat ALL gun
control.  Compromising our rights away is absolutely NOT ACCEPTABLE!

If Speaker Stephens is not willing to do this, he supports gun control and
should stop complaining when people tell the truth about him and his record.

If Stephens wishes to issue a correction or clarification to anything I've
written, I'll be happy to distribute it.  If he'd like to meet with local gun
rights
activists, I'd be happy to meet with him.  (Obviously I can't speak for anyone
but myself!)  But in the end, it's actions, not words, that count.

If Marty Stephens is really a friend to gun owners, he'll stop looking for
ways to compromise our rights away, and start actively opposing all gun
control.

Sarah


Leg-alerts is written and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
All information contained in these alerts is the responsibility of
the author, unless otherwise attributed.

This is a one-way list.  Please do NOT try to post to the list.  It
won't work, and repeat violations will result in your removal from
the list.  Comments may be sent to me at [e-mail].
Thanks!

Permission is granted for distribution of these alerts so long as no
changes are made and this message is left intact.

To subscribe/unsubscribe from leg-alerts, send a message to:
[e-mail]
In the body put:
subscribe (or unsubscribe) leg-alerts

- -------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [e-mail]
with the line unsubscribe leg-alerts in the body.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:33:46 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: LEG ALERT - DPS fees, Stephens, and Leavitt

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

- --------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:52:36 -0700
A few quick notes...

1. Yesterday's alert was inadvertently far too charitable towards Rep.
Marty Stephens.  He DID vote for the Olympic gun ban last year.  Please
keep this in mind - especially if you will be attending any of his town
meetings this week.

2. HB 174 - Public Safety Fee Process Revision has already made it to the

House 3rd reading calendar!  (For an explanation of how the process
works,
please see http://www.le.state.ut.us/legproc.htm)  Because this proposal
was passed unanimously by the interim committee, there will not be
committee hearings!
HB 174 allows DPS to raise fees for CCW permits and background checks by
simply including them in DPS's operating budget.  While it's true that
there is legislative oversight for the budget via appropriations, it's
unlikely that anyone is going to vote against funding DPS, and gun owners

will be completely out of the process.  Fee increases will be limited to
5%
a year, but they'll occur every year.  That adds up to about 63% over ten

years!
    And of course, there is no justification for forcing people to pay to
exercise a RIGHT.  (Would you accept a fee for voting?)  Fees for
background checks should be paid out of the general fund, so that no one
is
penalized for exercising a constitutional right.  And since the FBI
doesn't
charge for background checks, Utahns shouldn't have to pay for them at
all!
    ACTION:  Please CALL your Representative and let him/her know that the
legislature MUST retain control over DPS fees and ask him/her to OPPOSE
HB 174.
    Contact info for Representatives can be found at:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/Members/Email/email.htm


Today's quotes:
"How about limiting possession of guns in our churches and in our
schools?"
    Gov. Mike Leavitt, State of the State Address, 1/17/00

    Earth to Gov. Leavitt!  Possession of guns in our churches and schools
is
ALREADY limited!  It's limited to law enforcement officers, and to law
abiding citizens who have passed a rigorous background check and taken a
class in firearms safety and laws.
    Yes, we know you mean "ban".  Why not just say so?  In fact, why not say

that you want to make it as safe and easy as possible for vicious
criminals
to shoot up schools and churches and murder our most innocent citizens?

"He did a great job," said Stephens...  (on the State of the State
address)

For those of you planning to attend any of Rep. Stephens's (or other)
Town
Meetings, I'd appreciate a report!  Thanks!

Sarah


Leg-alerts is written and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.  All
information contained in these alerts is the responsibility of the
author,
unless otherwise attributed.

This is a one-way list.  Please do NOT try to post to the list.  It won't

work, and repeat violations will result in your removal from the
list.  Comments may be sent to me at [e-mail].  Thanks!

Permission is granted for distribution of these alerts so long as no
changes are made and this message is left intact.

To subscribe/unsubscribe from leg-alerts, send a message to:
[e-mail]
In the body put:
subscribe (or unsubscribe) leg-alerts

- -------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [e-mail]
with the line unsubscribe leg-alerts in the body.


________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:22:56 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALERT--We're starting to make the legislature nervous

all

Looks like the calls, letters, and faxes are having a good effect.  If
you haven't contacted your legislators and the legislative leadership
yet, plese do so tonight.  If you have, please take the time to contact a
couple of the legislators mentioned in this article

(During the session, I find it is easiest to contact legislators by
calling them at home in the late evening--usually between 8:00 pm and
10:00 pm.  If they are not home, I leave a message with my phone number,
asking them to  call me back--"I'm up really late so he can call me
anytime tonight"--and leaving my position on the issue.  I also make sure
to let them know I am a registered voter, a GOP delegate, and, if my own
legislator that I live in their district, or if not my legislator, that I
have friends, co-workers, and/or family living in their district who look
to me for voting advice.  I am, of course, always polite with legislators
and polite even to a fault with their family members who take my
message.)

Remember, this article signals a potential for success, NOT a sign that
it is ok to sit out a few more days before contacting legislators.

History terrifyingly proves that if the anti-gun forces can convince the
fence sitters to allow the bar for revocation of civil rights to be
lowered to include misdomeenors--even a single really nasty misdomeenor
for only a very short time--they will be back next year and the next and
next to perpetually add to the list of misdomeenors and the length of
time civil rights are denied.  We will never get that bar raised back up.

If some act is so heinous that civil rights ought to be denied as a
result of it, that act ought to be moved up to a felony and all civil
rights--including the right to vote, hold office, obtain professional
licenses, RKBA, and even drivers licenses, etc, ought to be denied.  The
current proposal would create a situation in which a person could be
denied the right to own a gun while still being allowed to prescribe
narcotics, perform sugery, counsel the mentally ill, deal in stocks,
bonds and other investments, be a sworn peace officer, be a member of the
bar and an officer of the court, or even make, execute, or judge laws as
a legislator, governor, or judge.

If non-violent felons do not retain their right to own and carry a gun
after serving their time, why should even violent midomeenants lose their
right to do so?

From today's Deseret News:

Gun rights groups take aim at bills

           By Bob Bernick Jr. and Zack Van Eyck
           Deseret News staff writers

                 Heavy lobbying by gun rights advocates is causing Utah
GOP lawmakers to pause a bit before they move forward with their "crime
fighting" package.
                 "I can't tell you how may calls, e-mails and contacts
I've gotten," said House Majority Leader Kevin Garn, R-Layton, Tuesday
morning.
                 House leaders hoped to get some parts of the package
passed this week, the first of the 2000 session. Now it will be next week
or maybe longer, Garn said. A new
           Deseret News poll showed overwhelming citizen support for a
number of gun-con-trol measures before lawmakers this session.
                 The main sticking point, says Rob Bishop, chief lobbyist
for the Utah Shooting Sports Council, is a bill that includes dozens of
violent misdemeanor offenses in
           gun-buying background checks.
                 "It's really a philosophical question," Bishop said
Tuesday as he waited outside of the House chambers to talk to lawmakers.
                 "Misdemeanors are not as serious as felonies. Is it
right to take away someone's (constitutionally protected) rights for a
lesser crime than a felony?" questioned Bishop, a
           former speaker of the Utah House.
                 Felonies are included in gun background checks now.
                 Asked if gun advocates would support or oppose the
Republicans' crime package, Bishop said: "It depends on what the package
is. It could change," hinting that the
           misdemeanor bill could be dropped.
                 Later Tuesday, GOP House leaders were set to discuss
just what their package would hold during a party caucus.
                 Garn said a number of House Republicans believe the
misdemeanor bill ù already approved by the interim Judiciary Committee ù
should be part of the package. GOP
           Gov. Mike Leavitt and legislative Democrats also support the
bill.
                 "But they (gun rights advocates) have been talking to a
lot of people up here. We'll see," Garn said. "The best I can tell is
that they don't want any gun legislation passed
           up here at all. They're even opposed to my bill," which would
require concealed weapons permit holders to pass a basic test of gun
safety and operation.
                 Not so, said Bishop, as he ticked off some bills that
gun advocates "won't oppose."
                 They include bills that would add to gun purchase
background checks whether a person has been civilly committed for a
mental illness or found by a court to be
           mentally ill and a person's juvenile court records for 10
years after turning 18. That information would be taken into account in
deciding whether a person can buy a gun.
                 Bishop also said there is support for Rep. Matthew
Throckmorton's bill that would ban the state, cities and counties from
suing gun manufacturers for damages caused
           by illegal use of their products.
                 The Springville Republican's bill, as of now, is not a
part of the Republicans' crime fighting package, House leaders said.
                 Some GOP lawmakers believe misdemeanors can warrant
whether someone loses the right to own a firearm.
                 "You could beat the heck out of someone, bloody their
nose, give them a black eye, and it is a misdemeanor. Well, that is
pretty violent," and the attacker shouldn't be
           able to go out and buy a gun afterward, said House Majority
Assistant Whip Greg Curtis, R-Sandy.
                 Curtis, West Jordan's city attorney, personally
prosecuted these kinds of misdemeanors for five years. "I know the kind"
of violence that can occur under misdemeanor
           law. And it can be serious, he said.
                 Currently, a judge could order a man convicted of a
violent misdemeanor, as a condition of his probation, not to own a gun
for three years. "This is what the bill says ù
           no gun for three years. Not for the rest of your life, but a
time," said Curtis.
                 Curtis said he, too, had been heavily lobbied on the gun
bills, especially the misdemeanor background check statute.
                 "For years, (gun right advocates) have said don't harm
law abiding citizens, go after the criminals. So we carefully screen out
the violent misdemeanors to include (in
           background checks). And now they say don't include these
violent criminals as well. I find it disingenuous."
                 Bishop said the misdemeanor gun bill remains open to
negotiation. "We're working with legislators on it. Perhaps if there is a
pattern of several violent misdemeanor
           convictions" then a person could be denied the right to buy a
gun.
                 Senate President Lane Beattie said in his opinion the
gun package is still on schedule and is not being delayed.
                 "I never thought we were going to be passing (gun)
legislation the first week of the session," he said. "We're not pushing
it, we're just trying to get it into committees so
           they (lawmakers) can hear it."
                 Beattie said he has not been subject to intense lobbying
but acknowledged the gun lobby may be putting pressure on others.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Post a message, send it to:   [e-mail] To
Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
[e-mail]
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them
from anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days.  Click here for a chance to
win a digital camera.
http://click.egroups.com/1/337/2/_/97595/_/948232623/  eGroups.com Home:
http://www.egroups.com/group/gopconservatives/ http://www.egroups.com -
Simplifying group communications

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:35:13 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10 reasons to oppose misdemeanor removal of gun rights (SB 79)

all

In no particular order is a list of ten reasons to oppose the removal of
gun rights for the conviction of certain misdemeanors.  I'm sure there
are other reasons as well.  Please feel free to make use of this in any
way you'd like which you think will help protect our right to buy, sell,
own, and carry guns.  I believe all of my facts are correct and have made
efforts to verify them.  However, if anyone finds anything in error,
please let me know.

Please take some time to personnally call your legislators, legislative
leadership, and key committee members.  Even if your legislator is a
flaming liberal gun grabber--like mine--take the time to let him/her know
he/she will feel the heat of anti-gun votes come
convention/primary/election time.  Also try to attend one of the town
meetings being held by Speaker Stephens or other legislators.  If you
know of any town meetings by legislators, please keep the rest of us
posted.

Charles

Ten reasons to oppose misdemeanor crime bill.  (Currently SB 79)

1  Precedence or Tradition or Culture-For some 250 years in this country
and probably 250 more years in England and English colonies before that,
the right to buy or own weapons has only been denied upon conviction of a
felony. It is certainly foolish and arrogant to suggest such a dramatic
change to that half millennia of precedence.

2  Overly broad-Currently includes such "violent" crimes as "cruelty to
animals" (a tipped over water bowl or tangled chain?) and spanking a
child.

3  Slippery Slope-Open the door this year, and anti-gun legislators are
sure to be back year after year to add to the list of misdemeanors and
lengthen the time gun rights are revoked.

4  Due Process-A felony indictment carries with it a whole host of
procedures, rights, safeguards, and protections which are afforded the
accused.  Misdemeanor indictments do not carry all of these same
protections.  For example, for a class B misdemeanor, only four (4)
jurors are required to find a guilty verdict; for a class A misdemeanor,
only six (6) jurors are required to find a guilty verdict.  However,
felonies require eight (8) jurors in order to find a guilty verdict.  Do
we really want to lower the legal safeguards in place before we are able
to remove basic civil rights?

 5 "Reciprocity" or "Our moral obligation to warn our neighbors"-Those
denied gun rights under misdemeanor convictions would not be prohibited
from buying or owning a gun in other States.  This not only allows a
person refused a gun purchase in Utah from crossing State lines
temporarily to buy a gun (only long guns may be legally purchased in a
State other than the one in which you legally reside), but it also allows
our violent criminals to move to another State and legally buy or own any
gun.  Other States have no way of knowing that Utah considers these
people untrustworthy to own a gun.  However, a felony conviction would
prevent a violent criminal from crossing State lines and gives ample and
fair warning to other States that this person cannot own a gun.

On the other side of the coin, how will Utah go about determining which
misdemeanors committed in other States (or territories or even countries)
should  disqualify a person from owning a gun.  What will it cost us to
compile the list of similar enough offenses as they are listed in who
only knows how many other jurisdictions?  How will a person accused of a
misdemeanor in another State have any idea that his slap-on-the-wrist
plea bargain (accepted only to avoid the expense of a trial) actually
carries with it the revocation of basic rights should he later move to
Utah and that it really is worth the cost and effort to mount a
significant defense?  Or do backers of this bill intend to allow violent
misdemeanants relocating from other areas to retain their rights?

6  Horizontal Consistency-If the commission of a certain crime is worthy
of removal of gun rights, isn't it also worthy of removal of various
professional licenses?  This bill would create a class of convicts whom
the State deemed untrustworthy to buy a gun, but still perfectly
trustworthy to: practice medicine; prescribe narcotics; practice law;
sell or manage stocks, bonds, insurance, or securities; teach school;
counsel the mentally ill; work in a daycare or elderly care facility;
serve in elected or appointed office as a legislator, governor, city
councilman, judge, etc; operate a semi-truck; or even be a police
officer.

7  Vertical Consistency-If the legislature is really interested in
keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals rather than simply
expanding the number of people who cannot buy guns, then why isn't anyone
talking about restoring non-violent felons' right to buy or own a gun?
(Currently ALL felony convictions result in the loss of the right to buy
or own a gun)

8  Simply Not Needed #1-Virtually all violent misdemeanors have felony
counterparts.  Prosecutors are perfectly free to charge suspects with a
felony rather than a misdemeanor.  If there isn't sufficient evidence to
obtain a felony conviction, should we really be denying basic civil
rights?

9  Simply Not Needed #2-Class A Misdemeanors already carry a maximum term
of up to one year in jail and three years probation plus fines.
Obviously, no one in jail is going to be buying a gun and a judge is
already empowered to impose limits on gun possession as a condition of
probation if he feels it appropriate to do so.  Is it wise to hog tie
judges' ability to mete out proper and just punishment by imposing
mandatory sentences?

10  Ex Post Facto Law-As currently written, SB 79 is an ex post facto law
in that it applies a new and stronger punishment for acts committed
before the law took effect.  Someone who was convicted of a
misdemeanor--perhaps simply by agreeing to not contest a misdemeanor
charge--two years ago would lose his/her right to buy a gun.


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #173
***********************************