ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n199

Internet Message Format | 2000-12-04 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #199
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest     Tuesday, December 5 2000     Volume 02 : Number 199




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

Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:10:41 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: RKBA Election Day

Today if your polling place is a public school.
Vote absentee at your county election clerk's
office instead.

Scott

- -

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:34:51 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RKBA Election Day

On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:10:41 -0700 Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
writes:
> Today if your polling place is a public school.
> Vote absentee at your county election clerk's
> office instead.

Why?

Unless you regularly carry an openly visible, and unloaded weapon around,
I'm unaware of any stutory difference between a school and any other
polling place.

A CCW permit is as valid at a school as anywhere else under current
statute--though if you are an employee of the school district there may
be (IMHO, illegal) employment policies in place prohibiting you from
possessing any weapon regardless of whether you have a permit or not.

However, I know some States have laws specifically prohibiting ALL
weapons (except govt controlled, of course) in polling places.  I haven't
searched Utah code yet to see if anything similar exists here.


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
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, 9 Nov 2000 12:17:34 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Utah Elections

Election  commentary from UTGOA


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>



Utah election
National races
Presidential election
UTGOA needs your help!

Wow!  What an election!  Thanks to ALL of you for your hard work on
behalf of liberty!

As of now, we still don't know who our President will be, so we're
focusing on Utah races.  And as you might expect, there's good news and
bad news.  (Note: All election results are based on information from the
Lt. Governor.  It is possible that there will be recounts in close
races.)

Anti-gun Governor, Mike Leavitt will be back for four more years.  And
he's already talking about passing more gun control!  Be prepared for
lots more anti-gun legislation in January.

Sen. Orrin Hatch will be returning for another 6 years.  Although Hatch's
record on guns has been abysmal recently, he is marginally better than
Democratic opponent, Scott Howell, who is known for his extreme anti-gun
views.  Unfortunately, the two solidly pro-gun third party candidates
didn't have much of a chance, but we applaud their efforts.  UTGOA
suggests contacting Sen. Hatch and   urging him to OPPOSE all gun control
bills and to kill his horrible Juvenile Justice bill unless ALL gun
control language is removed - including mandatory gun show background
checks, mandatory trigger locks, and restrictions on safe and legal
firearms use by our children.

Congressmen Jim Hansen (1st district) and Chris Cannon (3rd district)
will also be returning for two more years.  Please congratulate them and
ask them to defend our gun rights, regardless of who becomes president.
Jim Matheson, the new Congressman from the 2nd district, received a lot
of money from Handgun Control, Inc.  He claims that won't influence his
vote, but we're a bit skeptical.  Please contact Jim Matheson and ask him
which it is:  Does he support pro-gun Utah values, or anti-gun HCI
values?  Let all three know you'll be tracking their votes!

Our new Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, refused to complete our
candidate survey.  However, we're hopeful that he'll be an improvement
over anti-gun Beagle Forum queen, Jan Graham.  UTGOA suggests you contact
Mr. Shurtleff, and politely ask him to be a strong defender of gun
rights.

The good news is that we have TEN new state legislators who have
indicated their support for gun rights on the UTGOA candidate
questionnaire.  They are:
Brent Parker, House 5
Glenn Donnelson, House 7
Morgan Philpot, House 45
Jim Ferrin, House 58
Mike Thompson, House 59
Max Young, House 71
Curtis Bramble, Senate 16
Bill Wright, Senate 17 (currently the Representative from House 67)
Scott Jenkins, Senate 20
Dan Eastman, Senate 23

Full election results are available at:
http://electionresults.state.ut.us/
Contact info is available at:
http://governor.state.ut.us/lt_gover/a2000candidates.htm

Of course politicians can and do lie.  We don't know whether these
candidates will really support our gun rights, or whether they were
willing to "say anything" to get elected.  So, UTGOA suggests you CALL
your legislators, whether or not they're on this list.  (This is
especially important for those on the list, of course!)   Congratulate
them for winning, and ask them where they stand on gun rights.  Ask them
specifically if they are willing to sponsor or co-sponsor pro-gun
legislation, and how they intend to vote on banning guns in schools and
churches.  Let them know that gun rights are extremely important to you,
and that you (with help from UTGOA) will be watching their every move and
vote.

Please let UTGOA know what you find out!  We need to get to work right
away to craft some pro-gun bills for the 2001 session.

Special kudos to the UTGOA supporters in Weber County.  They put up some
signs letting people know what a terrible record Sen. Joe Hull had on gun
rights.  Sen. Hull responded by having his attorney threaten to sue one
of them!  (Apparently he's not supportive of the First Amendment either!)
 So, UTGOA sent postcards to gun rights supporters in Sen. Hull's
district, telling them the truth about his lack of support for gun
rights, and letting them know that challenger Scott Jenkins had a perfect
score on our candidate survey.  We were told that Joe Hull's seat was
safe, and that he couldn't be beaten, but we didn't back down.  And
thanks to pro-gun folks like you, Scott Jenkins squeaked by with 50.81%
of the vote!  So the next time a legislator tells you that he doesn't
care what you think about gun rights, remind him of what happened to Joe
Hull!


National Races

See the analysis by David Kopel at
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel110800.shtml
One line summary:  The Senate is now much more anti-gun.  Not much change
in the House.


Gore vote fraud?

Do you know someone on active military duty overseas?  There are
currently reports that overseas military personnel were denied absentee
ballots.  Since most military personnel would be likely to support
Bush-Cheney, given the current administration's decimation of our
military strength, these missing ballots could be critical!

If you know a member of our military forces who may have been
disenfranchised, we suggest you see
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&artic
leid=880

For more on this subject see: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ and follow
the links.


Thanks again for all your hard work during caucuses, conventions, the
primary election and the general election!  Take a much-deserved rest,
because the battle for our rights will begin anew in January when the
legislature convenes!


Utah Gun Owners Alliance needs YOUR help!

Did you see the UTGOA yellow election postcards?  UTGOA sent out a record
number of postcards letting gun owners know how their candidates scored
on our candidate survey and how they actually voted.  Based on the
results above, this was a very successful program!

But postcards and stamps are EXPENSIVE!  So are mailing, printing, and
collating surveys.  If you like what Utah Gun Owners Alliance is doing,
PLEASE JOIN US or SEND A CONTRIBUTION!  We need your help to preserve our
gun rights!   See http://www.utgoa.org/pages/join.html.  THANKS!


PLEASE SUPPORT UTAH GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE!  JOIN US TODAY!

UTGOA is written and distributed by, Utah Gun Owners Alliance,
www.utgoa.org, and 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 [e-mail].  Thanks!

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

To subscribe to the UTGOA list, send a blank email to utgoa-subscribe at
egroups.com or use the form on our web site, http://www.utgoa.org.  For
more information, see http://www.egroups.com/group/UTGOA.

Archives of the UTGOA alerts can be found at:
http://www.egroups.com/messages/UTGOA
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[e-mail]



________________________________________________________________
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, 9 Nov 2000 15:58:41 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw:Electoral College

Folks, especially if Bush ends up holding Florida and winning the
election while Gore wins the popular vote, this article and any others in
support of the Electoral College need to be spread far and wide.  It's a
long but wonderful read that provides one of the best and most simple
defenses of the College in terms of a sports analogy I've ever seen.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

- --------- Forwarded message ----------

You all may want to check out this spectacular article on the Electoral
College.  It goes over the easily understood mathematics of the EC and
also
contains some surprising arguments for federalism (localizing control)!

http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm


- -

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

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:59:03 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fw:Electoral College

charles hardy provided:

>You all may want to check out this spectacular article on the Electoral
>College.  It goes over the easily understood mathematics of the EC and also
>contains some surprising arguments for federalism (localizing control)!

>http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

This analysis neglects the most important aspect of the
Electoral College in checking vote fraud. A State's vote
is limited by its census enumeration, and even then is
districted so 100% of Florida's vote reported for Gore
helps him no more than a bare plurality.

Scott

- -

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

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:37:14 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sensible Media Control Measures

http://www.sierratimes.com/edjwb111500.htm

- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:37:32 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Olympic hypocrisy

A[ologies to any who don't like forwards from the newspaper but this is
too choice not to share.

I wonder how the bi-athelon shooters feel about this mentality.

From today's SLTrib at <http://www.sltrib.com/11162000/utah/44036.htm>



==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>


Utah's 'Oly Guns' Idea Fails to Amuse IOC
                                                  Thursday, November
                                                  16, 2000


     BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH
     (c) 2000, THE SALT LAKE
     TRIBUNE

         What may be the most
     valuable souvenirs of the
     2002 Winter Olympics
     are secreted away in a
     vault at the Salt Lake
     County Sheriff's
     Department, probably
     never to be viewed by the
     public.
         The pair of sleek, black
     .40-caliber semiautomatic
     pistols are engraved in
     24-karat gold with the Salt Lake 2002 Winter Games logo and the five
     Olympic rings. The guns are rare not only because there has never
been
     an official Olympics handgun, but because there never will be,
according
     to the International Olympic Committee.
         The prototype pistols are all that remains of a failed
sponsorship deal
     to outfit Utah law enforcement officers conducting 2002 Games
security
     with special "Olympic edition" SIG Sauer firearms.
         After Salt Lake County Sheriff Aaron Kennard and his staff spent
     more than two years winning the approval of the Salt Lake Organizing
     Committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee, the merchandise licensing
     contract was killed by the IOC in May, only hours before it was to
have
     been signed.
         "I felt it was a good thing for law enforcement to have
everybody with
     the same weapons. I had Sen. [Orrin] Hatch helping us and Mitt
     [Romney] approved it, but the IOC was very queasy and put the kabosh
     on it," said Kennard. "I was quite disappointed. Heaven forbid we do
     anything for law enforcement to thank these men and women for
putting
     their lives on the line."
         Although Kennard figured the licensing deal could yield as much
as
     $500,000 to SLOC, IOC Director of Marketing Michael Payne rejected
     it. SLOC asked IOC Vice President Dick Pound to intercede, but he
     "dismissed it outright," according to an IOC spokesman.
         "Please understand that the U.S. is unique in its relationship
with
     firearms," said Franklin Servan-Schreiber, director of IOC
     communications in Lausanne, Switzerland. "The rest of the world
would
     not understand, nor accept, the idea of a firearm with the Olympic
rings
     on it."
         The Olympic movement has licensed almost any product, from
     champagne to condoms, as the "official" nonesuch of the games. Yet
     firearms, along with tobacco and hard liquor, remain taboo with the
     European-based IOC.
         "It's an excellent gun, a work of art, that would only be
carried by the
     trained men and women protecting these Games," said Salt Lake County
     Sheriff's Range Master and Firearms Unit Director Nick Roberts, the
     catalyst for the proposal. "SIG wanted to help the cops, to do
something
     good for law enforcement, just to be able to say in their brochures
in
     2001 that they were an official licensee."
         Roberts was boarding a plane May 17 to deliver the completed
     agreement to SIG Arms President Dieter Strich when he got the call
that
     the IOC had abruptly nixed the deal. He and Kennard reworked the
     contract -- including removing the Olympic rings and just allowing a
Salt
     Lake 2002 logo to be engraved -- and offered to go to Switzerland at
     their own expense to plead the case of law enforcement. But SLOC
     withdrew its support for the gun deal and never broached the subject
     with the IOC again. Through a spokeswoman, SLOC President Mitt
     Romney declined comment.
         The plan would have allowed SIG Arms, the North American
     subsidiary of Swiss gunmaker SIG Sauer, to manufacture at its New
     Hampshire plant between 5,000 and 6,000 commemorative sidearms of
     various calibers and models as specified by officers. Each would be
     engraved with Olympic logos and serial numbers identifying the
particular
     law enforcement agency and limited-edition issue. The handguns were
to
     be sold only to certified law enforcement personnel or agencies at a
     discounted price.
         For every gun sold, SIG Arms would pay a $30 royalty to SLOC,
     with a minimum guarantee of $150,000 for licensing rights to use the
Salt
     Lake logo and Olympic rings on the weapons.
         Additionally, SIG Sauer was to donate 120 model 551 and 552
     automatic tactical rifles, similar to AR-15 assault rifles, to be
divvied up
     among SWAT teams of Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, West Valley
     City, Ogden, Provo, Park City and the state Department of Public
     Safety. The company would also pay for training the SWAT teams in
use
     of the rifles, and training a Salt Lake County Sheriff's employee as
a
     factory armorer.
         "Every agency would get the training and rifles for free, and
that way
     no matter what happens during the Olympics, the people protecting
these
     Games would be working from the same sheet of music," said Roberts.
     "It was an administrator's dream."
         Kennard also saw the sidearms as a way of rewarding law
     enforcement officers who will be working long hours in potentially
     dangerous situations without leave or vacation during the Olympics.
         "These guns would have been probably framed or put in lock boxes
     after the Games, to be passed down to future generations as
keepsakes,"
     said the sheriff. "But the IOC didn't want the Olympics being
associated
     in any way with weapons."
         Licensing a gunmaker may conflict with the IOC's mission of
     "Olympism," to promote peace through education and sports. However,
     guns are used in events such as biathlon and skeet, with several
     manufacturers boasting in advertisements and Web sites how many gold
     medals their weapons have won in Olympic competitions.
         And guns came to symbolize the Salt Lake bribery scandal. IOC
     President Juan Antonio Samaranch noted last year that "Utah, Salt
Lake
     City, is a state where guns are very popular. I have been to Salt
Lake
     City twice and I got a gun both times."
         Those specially engraved firearms -- a pistol, a rifle and a
shotgun --
     were among 10 Browning Arms Co. guns purchased by the Salt Lake
     bid committee as gifts for IOC members. IOC members are barred from
     accepting gifts valued at more than $150, although Samaranch said he
     was immune from that limit. Today, the Browning guns given to
     Samaranch remain in their velvet-lined cases, piled beneath hundreds
of
     other gifts in a storeroom at IOC headquarters in Switzerland.
         Kennard finds the IOC ruling baffling and frustrating.
         "It's a little silly because we already have our own guns and
there will
     be armed security personnel and highly trained SWAT teams at the
     Olympics," he said. "Weapons will certainly be there, they just
don't want
     to recognize it."
________________________________________________________________
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, 16 Nov 2000 16:57:41 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: OFF TOPIC--Seamstress reccomendation

This is completely off-topic, but I think some here will find it useful.
Besides that, good service is getting so rare that when I find it I like
to reward it if possible.

If anyone is in need of a good seamstress capable of doing leather
repair, I can happily reccommend "Susan" who does business as "The
Leather Surgeon."  She works out of her home in Utah County, but at the
present time has a weekly pick up / drop off at a location in Midvale.
Her phone number is [phone].

I have no relation nor connection to her other than as a satisfied
customer.  She put a new nylon full liner and new elastic cuffs and
waistband in my leather naval aviator style jacket.  I found her prices,
schedule, and quality of work to all be very good.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:36:20 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Workplace firearms policy

Friends,

It would seem that some time ago, with no fanfare and no input from
employees, my employer changed and enlarged some of its official
employment policies.

One of those changed was the security policy.  This policy--as required
by certain federal regulations--has and does allow for the searching of
employees' personal effects as they enter, leave, or are at the
workplace.  No problem there, we are talking about valuable proprietary
information or even government classified documents.

However, a new section has been added to this portion of the policy which
lists "items normally prohibited" from company premises and property.
You guessed it, "firearms, hunting weapons," and even "alchoholic
beverages" are listed in this section along with the usual assortment of
"illicit drugs, stolen property, explosives, cameras and other recording
devices," etc.

There is no exemption to the firearms restriction for holders of State
issued Concealed Weapons Permits--only for sworn peace officers on
official business.  Further, the restrictions on such items includes not
only the buildings themselves, but extend to the company owned (but
completely open and uncontrolled) parking lots AND personal vehicles
parked therein.

Thus, my employer now has a policy in place which, officially, as
currently written, allows for termination for the same reason as those 3
AOL employees: simply having an otherwise perfectly legal firearm in the
trunk of your car in the company's parking lot.  Or, similarly, to
terminate an employee who runs down to a State Liquar Store on his lunch
hour and buys some wine for dinner and leaves the unopened bottles in his
car in the parking lot.

Our buildings do require magnetic badges to open the doors, but these
doors are, with few exceptions, sheet glass and most are unattended even
during business hours, let alone after hours.  We have no armed security
of any kind, only unarmed "rent-a-cops" with radios, and certainly no
metal detectors or other means to physically prevent someone with
ill-intent from bringing weapons into our buildings.

I've spoken to my HR department already and they've agreed to review the
policy since the parking lot restriction on weapons in cars was
apparantly not intended but just got lumped in since cars are subject to
search for classified or other documents.  Which is fine, I have no
problem if they ever feel a need to search my car.  I just don't want to
get fired when they find a legal firearm in it.  I may be able to make
good ground on that front but have serious doubts as to my ability to
persuade them to just go ahead and exempt permit holders outright,
buildings and all.

Without generating a lot of discussion on whether or not a company
*should* be able to prohibit legally carried weapons or not--(Because,
with all due respect, quite frankly at this point I don't care whether
anyone else thinks they should or not; I've made up my mind on that point
and I simply want to know whether I have a legal leg to stand on under
current State law.)--has anyone out there faced a similar situation at
their workplace?  If so, were you able to reverse the policy or obtain an
exeption?  What reasons/arguments/tactics were most (or least) effective
in persuading the employer?

My best reading of current law leaves me to conclude that the law is
ambigious on this point.  Obviously, private home owners and churches can
prohibit whatever they want.  Clearly, anyplace of "public accommodation"
like grocery stores or malls cannot prohibit legally carried weapons.
But the position of offices not generally open to the public, but not
really secure in any real sense of that word, seems a bit vague.  IOW, I
can probably find an attorney to interpret it my way, but their company
attorney's will have no problem interpreting it their way.

Can anyone reccommend an attorney who is knowledgable in these matters
and friendly to the gun owner's point of view?  Honestly, I don't care to
use an attorney unless push-comes-to-shove and I am actually terminated
for refusal to promise to comply with the policy as written, at which
point I'd want to pursue a wrongful termination suit.  But I recognize
that good legal advice may well prevent it from ever coming to that, so I
am open.

Finally, if anyone knows of any employers in the SL valley or Northern
Utah County area who are in need of digital ASIC designers (Masters
Degree and 5 years experience) and who have competitive
compensation/benefits plans AND are either silent about or friendly to
legal gun possession in their company policies, please let me know, just
in case.

Thanks for any info.  Feel free to reply privately to me at
<[e-mail]> if you want to for any reason.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:38:19 -0500
From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Workplace firearms policy

- --On Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:36 PM -0700 charles hardy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> My best reading of current law leaves me to conclude that the law is
> ambigious on this point.  Obviously, private home owners and churches can
> prohibit whatever they want.  Clearly, anyplace of "public accommodation"
> like grocery stores or malls cannot prohibit legally carried weapons.
> But the position of offices not generally open to the public, but not
> really secure in any real sense of that word, seems a bit vague.  IOW, I
> can probably find an attorney to interpret it my way, but their company
> attorney's will have no problem interpreting it their way.

I don't know what the laws really say and I am not a lawyer but a case
could probably be made that companies are "places of public accomodation"
since they have to comply with all the other inane laws about
discrimination etc.

Chad



Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC
Web and Macintosh Consulting -- full service web hosting
Chad Leigh
[e-mail]            [e-mail]


- -

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

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:36:40 -0800
From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Workplace firearms policy

charles hardy wrote:
>
>
> My best reading of current law leaves me to conclude that the law is
> ambigious on this point.  Obviously, private home owners and churches can
> prohibit whatever they want.  Clearly, anyplace of "public accommodation"
> like grocery stores or malls cannot prohibit legally carried weapons.
> But the position of offices not generally open to the public, but not
> really secure in any real sense of that word, seems a bit vague.  IOW, I
> can probably find an attorney to interpret it my way, but their company
> attorney's will have no problem interpreting it their way.
>


I can't speak for Utah, nor am I an attorney.  The issue is
(unfortunately) settled in Washington (state) courts.  The issue
is one of conflicting rights: the individual RKBA versus the
(property) rights of the employer to establish conditions of the
workplace.

Case law here comes down on the side of the employer.  The
employee has the option of choosing other employment, but for a
variety of reasons, the employer is given preference here.  You
can talk about the employer assuming liability for your safety
should he prevent you from providing your own, but that only
works AFTER you are injured in an incident and IF the civil trial
jury agrees with you.

I know of several companies with similar policies, but who choose
to ignore it when it comes to parking areas.  More or less a
"don't ask, don't tell" solution.  The problem here is that if
some nutcase (employee) with a gun in the parking lot goes off
the deep end, the company will be sued for failure to enforce a
stated policy.

Joe W

- -

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

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:36:40 -0800
From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Workplace firearms policy

charles hardy wrote:
>
>
> My best reading of current law leaves me to conclude that the law is
> ambigious on this point.  Obviously, private home owners and churches can
> prohibit whatever they want.  Clearly, anyplace of "public accommodation"
> like grocery stores or malls cannot prohibit legally carried weapons.
> But the position of offices not generally open to the public, but not
> really secure in any real sense of that word, seems a bit vague.  IOW, I
> can probably find an attorney to interpret it my way, but their company
> attorney's will have no problem interpreting it their way.
>


I can't speak for Utah, nor am I an attorney.  The issue is
(unfortunately) settled in Washington (state) courts.  The issue
is one of conflicting rights: the individual RKBA versus the
(property) rights of the employer to establish conditions of the
workplace.

Case law here comes down on the side of the employer.  The
employee has the option of choosing other employment, but for a
variety of reasons, the employer is given preference here.  You
can talk about the employer assuming liability for your safety
should he prevent you from providing your own, but that only
works AFTER you are injured in an incident and IF the civil trial
jury agrees with you.

I know of several companies with similar policies, but who choose
to ignore it when it comes to parking areas.  More or less a
"don't ask, don't tell" solution.  The problem here is that if
some nutcase (employee) with a gun in the parking lot goes off
the deep end, the company will be sued for failure to enforce a
stated policy.

Joe W

- -

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:28:06 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: "Give It to Them Straight" by John Ross, Author, Unintended  Consequences

"Give It to Them Straight"
by John Ross, Author, Unintended Consequences

The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue,
and letting our enemies define the terms.
- ------------------

THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."

WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW:
The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are
at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to
give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry,
that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."
- ------------------

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a
30-round magazine fro hunting deer -- they're only for killing people."

WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity
magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never
done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah."
(FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no
sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with
arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A
gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices
obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity
military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect
myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity
weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with
freedom is that they're good practice."
- ------------------

THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with
shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep
guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if
studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be
illegal.

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's
not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important
that anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the
technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population.
We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How
does that sound?"
- ------------------

THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of
resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods DID
reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review
board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined,
e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own
a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment.
Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government
as chief nanny."
- ------------------

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly
AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the
Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the
issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued
muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers
are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore,
according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid
for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no
one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite
transmission."
- ------------------

THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody
murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a
right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's
interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE
go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you
want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property.
If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16.
This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks,
nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state
and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and
shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could
get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public
property."
- ------------------

Final comment, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren.
I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."

THEY SAY: "Huh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean,
in the next couple of years, neither Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to
open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your
worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that
MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of
the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY
what your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom?
And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"

- -

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:07:40 -0700
From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-self-defense Editorial in Today's SL Tribune

Well, I knew the well reasoned, pro-freedom editorials from the SLTrib
couldn't last forever.  The following editorial appeared in today's
(Tuesday, 5 December) SL Tribune.  While I know there are those who
believe an employer's property rights trump an employee's RKBA, I also
know there are many who believe otherwise.

Bear in mind that most of us who work full time are currently spending
upwards of one-third of our time in the workplace.  This represents
nearly half of all waking hours and easily the VAST majority of all time
away from home.  How much does your RKBA and your right to defend
yourself REALLY mean if it can so easily be abrogated for the majority of
time you are away from your house?  Now, if you happen to use mass
transit, or if your employer happens to extend their anti-gun policy to
the parking lot, you are not only unarmed and defenseless while actually
at work, but also while commuting to/from work.

Also bear in mind that current Workers' Comp law places major
restrictions on an employee's (or his/her survivors') ability to sue an
employer for injuries in the workplace.

Letters to the editor of the SLTrib may be emailed to
<[e-mail]>.  Opinion pieces may be submitted to
<[e-mail]>.  In both cases, emails with attachements will be
deleted.  Material must be submitted as plain text in the body of the
message.  Also, postal address, name, and phone number are required.
Only name and city and State are published.  Full guidelines available at
<http://www.sltrib.com/Help/forum.asp>

Editorial at <http://www.sltrib.com/12052000/opinion/opinion.htm>.

Guns at Work




                    Employers should be able to ban firearms in the
                workplace, even when such a prohibition conflicts
                with the state's concealed-carry law. A lawsuit
                now under way could settle the issue in
                employers' favor, but the circumstances of the
                case may not lend themselves to a clearcut
                resolution, or the verdict could go the other way.
                Ultimately, the Legislature should amend the
                concealed-carry law to give employers
                unambiguous authority to ban firearms on their
                premises.
                    America Online fired three workers at its
                Ogden call center for having firearms in their cars
                at a company-leased parking lot. Two of the
                plaintiffs are former AOL employees who hold
                state permits allowing them to a carry concealed
                weapon. They contend that the state's
                concealed-weapons law allows permit holders to
                carry their firearms "without restriction," including
                at work, except in secure areas of airports,
                mental-health facilities, jails and courthouses.
                    AOL contends that the former employees
                agreed to the company's no-guns policy when
                they were hired. The company also argues that
                under the state's at-will employment law, the
                company can fire employees arbitrarily, so long as
                the termination is not contrary to the public
                interest, such as in whistle-blower cases.
                    The problem with this case, however, is that it
                may not be the best vehicle to settle the scope of
                the state's concealed-weapons law. The three
                plaintiffs were not fired for carrying concealed
                weapons into AOL's buildings. Rather, they were
                fired for possessing unloaded firearms in their
                vehicles, which is legal, in a parking lot AOL does
                not own, but leases, and which is used to access
                other businesses as well, a fact that makes it
                hardly exclusive to AOL.
                    In this case, the three plaintiffs had unloaded
                firearms in their vehicles because they were going
                target shooting after work. This is an innocuous
                and perfectly legitimate pastime, and the situation
                was little different than employees having golf
                clubs or skis in the trunk.
                    There are many Utah employers that have
                policies prohibiting employees and others from
                bringing lethal weapons onto their premises. This
                newspaper has such a policy, but it is silent about
                employees' private vehicles or where they choose
                to park.
                    This case may help to clarify the reach of
                Utah's concealed-carry law in the workplace. But
                depending on the outcome, the Legislature may
                need to take another look at the law.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #199
***********************************