ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n222

Internet Message Format | 2002-01-16 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #222
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest    Thursday, January 17 2002    Volume 02 : Number 222




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

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:19:53 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weapons bills proposed so far

From the legislative web site, here are the weapons bills officially
requested so far:

Gun Education Safety Courses in Public Schools

            Thompson, M.


                       JLW
Gun Show Background Check

            Daniels, S.


                       JLW
Repeal of Weapons Law

            Daniels, S.


                       JLW
Restriction on Purchase of Certain Shotgun Ammunition

            Bowman, D.


                       JLW


"JLW" is the drafting attorney.  No language is available on the web site
yet, however, a Sunday article in the Trib authored by anti-self-defense
fanatic Steve Gunn indicates that Daniels is sponsoring a bill to require
private sellers at gun shows to do a background check before selling
their weapon.  Given that, it lookes like three of the above bills are
solidly anti-rights while Rep. Thompson's education safety bill is a
pro-gun bill.

Here are some other bills of potential interest or concern.  Those with
bill numbers been recommended by one of the interim committees.  Those
without are just bill requests.  Not all of these are directly related to
guns, but are of significant enough importance to the system that I
included them here.  There are also many other bills that could end up
affecting self-defense, hunting, or other gun rights but are not obvious
from the title.

SB0008

   Repeal of National Guard Advisory Board


         Peterson, M.


                       JLF

HB0033

   Certification and Testing of Voting Equipment


         Buttars, C.


                       JLF

Provisional Ballot

            Hickman, J.


                       JLF

Restriction of Funding on State Entity Whose Policy, Rule, or Action is
Contrary to Law

                Waddoups
           JLF


HB0195

          Protection of Sports Officials from Violent Abuse

                      Hogue
                            SCA

 Anti-terrorism Amendments

                          Ray                                 SCA

 Children's Product Safety Act

                     Shurtliff, L.
CJD
________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:42:33 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: GOUtah! Alert #104

The latest from GOUtah.

If at all possible, please try to attend this public hearing.  If you are
a State employee on your lunch hour, you will be given first preference
on speaking.

If you are more comfortable with written comments than with public
speaking, if you cannot attend the hearing, or if you'd simply like to
present written comments in addition to your verbal statements you may do
so either at the hearing itself, via email to Mr. Conroy Whipple at
<[e-mail]>, via fax at 801.538.3081 (Salt Lake area) or via
snail mail at:

Department of Human Resource Management
2120 State Office Building
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

Please be courteous in all communications on this topic, whether written
or verbal.  Mr. Whipple and the Department of Human Resource Management
("Human Resources" is apparently a social service department so make sure
and get the full, correct title on any letters) are required by law to
hold this public hearing.  The facts and law are solidly behind us on
this issue.

But we do need to make our voices heard so that there is not pressure or
justification to try to skirt the law in any way shape or form.

I encourage all those attending the hearing to wear your "urban
camouflage" aka, business attire, business casual, or even a polo shirt
with nice jeans.  Please do not wear military cammos,or T-shirts or hats
with slogans or quotes on them.  Signs and banners are also not
appropriate in these types of hearings.

Let's present ourselves as respectable, mainstream members of the
community.

Charles

- --------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "GOUtah!" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:32:21 -0700
Subject: GOUtah! Alert #104
GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah

Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network.
No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever.

GOUtah! Website:  http://www.goutah.org
Mirror Site:  http://www.goutahorg.org

To subscribe to or unsubscribe from GOUtah!'s free e-mail Alerts, send a
blank e-mail message to one of the following addresses:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

To receive GOUtah! Alerts free of charge via fax, send a fax to:  (801)
944-9937 (Note: Fax Alerts must sometimes be transmitted late at night,
so
you'll need a fax system that doesn't make your home telephone ring)

Send comments to:  [e-mail]
___________________________________

GOUtah! Alert #104 - 18 December 2001

Today's Maxim of Liberty:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits
drawn around us by the equal rights of others.  I do not add 'within the
limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and
always
so when it violates the rights of the individual."

- -- Thomas Jefferson


IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING ON THURSDAY

Tuesday morning's edition of The Salt Lake Tribune informs us that the
Department of Human Resource Management of the State of Utah (which we,
being somewhat old-fashioned, will henceforth refer to as the "state
personnel office") will hold a public hearing at noon on Thursday
December
20 in room 403 of the State Capitol.  The topic of the hearing will be
the
proposed removal of the illegal ban on the carrying of self-defense
weapons
by state employees.

State law says that the only governmental entity in Utah (besides the
Federal Government) which can regulate the possession and carrying of
firearms is the state legislature.  The state personnel office, which is
a
government agency that is not part of the state legislature, has a rule
which prohibits all state employees (except for state law enforcement
agents) from carrying firearms while on the job.

As reported in previous alerts, the Attorney General's Office looked into
the matter recently and informed the personnel office and the governor
that
the ban is illegal.  The personnel office proposed to remove the ban on
January 1, 2002.  However, the office stated that a public hearing on the
matter would be arranged prior to the proposed removal of the ban, at the
request of any interested parties.  Thursday's hearing is being held at
the
request of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah.  According to the
personnel office, all comments made by members of the public during the
hearing will be taken into consideration.

This hearing is not like a legislative committee hearing.  Legislative
hearings sometimes give a few private citizens a chance to make brief
statements, but the main purpose of legislative hearings is for
legislators
to debate and vote on legislation.

Thursday's hearing will be a completely different type of ballgame, and
you
should definitely plan on showing up if you can.  This is not a
legislative
hearing.  It is an executive-branch hearing, the sole purpose of which is
to
hear comments from members of the public.  The media will likely be there
in
large numbers.

Please be prepared to make a brief statement.  There will probably be a
signup sheet outside the door of the room, or else one that will be
passed
around during the hearing.  If so, please put your name on it.  You might
also have a chance to be interviewed by a news reporter after the
hearing.

If you make a statement at the hearing, please do not ramble on and on.
Be
brief and to the point.  It is important to give MANY pro-self-defense
people a chance to speak.  This is a meeting in which numbers really
count.
If a whole bunch of pro-self-defense people get up one at a time to
speak,
and each of them makes a 30-second statement, this will be much more
effective than if only a few pro-self-defense people stand up, each of
whom
rambles on for 10 minutes.  The people running the hearing simply need to
know how many of those in attendance are in favor of allowing state
employees to defend themselves against violent crime.  They don't need to
hear long rambling arguments about the Second Amendment and so forth.
Even
if you just get up and say "My name is so-and-so and I am in favor of
allowing state employees to be able to exercise their right to
self-defense," this will be enough.  The bureaucrats will know which side
of the issue you're on, and that's what's important.

It is especially important to attend this meeting if you are an employee
of
the state government.  If this is the case, you should mention the fact
that
you work for the state government when you make your statement.

There are plenty of good points you can make during your statement at the
hearing, or if you happen to be interviewed by the media afterwards.  In
either case, choose a single point and make it, instead of trying to give
a
lecture on the meaning of the Second Amendment.  A single BRIEF sound
bite
is the way to go.  Here are a few examples to help give you some ideas:

"Self-defense is a good thing.  The biggest heroes of Sept. 11 were the
handful of passengers of Flight 93 who fought back against the
terrorists.
Yet some bureaucrat out there is telling me that if I'm a state employee,
I
shouldn't be allowed to defend myself against thugs and hoodlums.  Could
somebody please explain to me how this is supposed to make sense?"

"I've taken responsibility for my own safety.  People who are employed by
the state should be able to do this too."

"If a woman who works for the state wants to be completely helpless and
unable to defend herself when she walks to her car after work, that's a
decision that she should make by herself.  The state shouldn't make it
for
her."

"State law says that the police have no legal obligation to protect
anyone,
including state employees.  Yet the state personnel office prohibits
state
employees from being able to protect themselves.  Is this fair?"

"The ban on self-defense weapons for state employees is illegal.  If I
were
to do something illegal, I would go to jail or pay a fine.  Why, then,
should state bureaucrats be able to flagrantly violate the law year after
year without suffering any consequences?"
_______________________________________________
That concludes GOUtah!  Alert #104 - 18 December 2001.
Copyright 2001 by GOUtah! All rights reserved.
________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:37:51 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pro-gun (or at least pro- rule of law) editorial from the Deseret News

Ok, 'fess up.  Which one of you sneaked into the press room and got this
editorial printed?  :)

From today's Deseret News opinion page.

Charles

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

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,355013406,00.html?

Gun rules need re-evaluation

                Deseret News editorial

                      What would the holidays and upcoming legislative
session be without a lively debate about gun control?
                      That emotional issue was revisited earlier this
month when several state agencies appeared before a legislative oversight
committee. Their appearance followed an informal opinion written by
                Attorney General Mark Shurtleff that found state agency
rules restricting gun possession violated state law.
                      The issue was properly defined by House Speaker
Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, who said it wasn't the committee's
responsibility to decide if the rules are "right or wrong," but rather
whether
                the state agencies had the approval to write the rules in
the first place.
                      A month ago Shurtleff raised the issue when he
issued his informal opinion wherein he said that about two dozen rules
adopted by various state agencies controlling gun use are illegal. That's
                because only the Legislature has the power to regulate
guns in Utah, Shurtleff said.
                      Later, Shurtleff issued a formal opinion that the
rule prohibiting state employees with concealed weapons permits from
bringing their guns to work is illegal. Gov. Mike Leavitt and his
                personnel officials agree. Legislators were told that the
rule will be rescinded Jan. 1.
                      In reality, the Legislature needs to review a
number of rules that may be questionable legally, particularly regarding
concealed weapons.
                      For example, there is confusion regarding day-care
centers. Shurtleff wrote a letter to the executive director of the State
Health Department, Rod Betit, saying it appears that hundreds of state
                licensed day-care centers in Utah are defined in state
code as "schools," which can result in various ramifications regarding
gun use.
                      While there isn't an exemption now for
concealed-carry permitholders, it would appear, as Sen. Michael Waddoups,
R-Taylorsville, noted during the oversight committee's deliberations,
that
                since a school is not a "secure" area like a prison,
courtroom, mental hospital or airport, the day-care centers cannot
therefore ban concealed weapons from their premises.
                      Health Department officials indicated the rule will
likely be rewritten to specifically allow legally permitted concealed
weapons owners to carry handguns into licensed day-care centers.
                      The rules of that department and others, as well as
a thorough study of the exemptions allowed under the various gun control
provisions, need to be scrutinized.
________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:44:09 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reminder--Rules hearing today

This is a last minute reminder about the Department of Human Resource
Management's public hearing today regarding the repeal of their illegal
and pro-victimization, anti-gun employment policies.  The hearing is at
12:00 noon, in room 403 of the State Capital.

If you are a pro-self-defense State employee, it is very important for
you to attend this hearing if at all possible.  We fear this may turn
into a dog and pony show with lots of anti-gun employees making it look
like the "gun lobby" is forcing something on them that no State employees
want.  If you are (or personally know) a State employee who would like to
testify in favor of your self-defense rights, but believe doing so could
cause you problems with your superior(s), please let me know.  I
certainly understand the need (particularly in these economic times) to
protect your livelyhood and means of providing for your family and will
respect any wishes to remain anonymous.  OTOH, if intimidation or abuses
of your rights to speak out on political issues are taking place, it
needs to come to light in some manner, if at all possible.

If you are unable to attend the hearing, please submit written comments.
The following written comments have been submitted in the name of GOUtah.
Comments can also be emailed to <[e-mail]>.

Please do be courteous in all communications.

Charles

================



Charles Hardy
Policy Director, Gun Owners of Utah (GOUtah!)
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx


December 18, 2001


Public Comments on Employee Firearm Restriction
c/o Conroy Whipple
Department of Human Resource Management
2120 State Office Building
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Fax: [phone]


Dear Mr. Whipple,

As Policy Director for Gun Owners of Utah, I am pleased to take this
opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change at the Utah Department
of Human Resource Management concerning employee possession of weapons
pursuant to a government issued concealed weapons permit.

Gun Owners of Utah strongly supports the complete elimination of all
policies, rules, and other restrictions on individualsÆ rights to possess
the tools of effective self-defense including restrictions on possession
of concealed weapons pursuant to a government issued permit.

First and foremost, Utah law is clear that no agency, department, or
political subdivision may promulgate nor enforce any rules concerning
weapons unless the legislature has granted specific authority to do so.
The Utah Legislature has not given any such grant of authority to the
Utah Department of Human Resource Management.  Both a legislative counsel
opinion and now an opinion from our State Attorney GeneralÆs office
clearly indicates that current rules restricting the possession of
weapons are contrary to State law, illegal, and unenforceable.   For
government agencies to disregard, break, or attempt to skirt the clear
letter and/or spirit of the law, in any way, shape, or form, can only
degrade general respect for all laws.

Second, we believe that self-defense is the first law of nature and a
natural, inalienable right of all persons.  Police and other security
forces, dedicated as they are, simply cannot provide protection to every
State employee, every minute of every working day nor during their
travels to/from work.  By very definition, self-defense cannot be
delegated.  The State of Utah has some very hardworking employees, many
of whom work irregular hours, serve in remote and/or crime prevalent
locations, or in various jobs where they may be at special risk to
criminals or even terrorists.  And any person--regardless of
employment--is subject to threats or violence from disgruntled former
spouses, stalking, or plain old-fashioned random acts of violence and
crimes of opportunity both in the workplace and during travel to/from
work.  State employees have as much right to protect themselves as any
other citizen of Utah.

Next, current policy creates opportunities for weapons to be accessible
to criminals.  Forcing employees to leave weapons in automobiles not only
denies those persons access to an effective self-defense, it also leaves
weapons vulnerable to theft.  Also, the State of Utah actively encourages
the use of mass transit and anyone using mass or alternate transit will
be left disarmed and defenseless from the moment they leave home as they
have no place to store a weapon.

Further, despite emotional and irrational fears and predictions of
carnage from those who oppose private ownership, possession, and use of
firearms, UtahÆs concealed weapon permit holders have proven to be among
the most law-abiding members of our society.  With six years of history
and nearly 40,000 persons with current permits to carry a firearm,
verified acts (as opposed to unverified, unreported, urban myths) of
criminal violence or even negligence on the part of permit holders can
literally be counted on the fingers of your own hands.  Statistically
speaking a concealed weapon permit holder is far less likely to commit an
act of criminal violence than is a person without such a permit.   And,
as surprising as it may sound, nationwide data strongly indicate that a
concealed weapons permit holder is even less likely than a sworn police
officer to be involved in a questionable shooting.

Finally, while we completely reject any notion that fears, prejudices,
phobias, or bigotry on the part of some employees are justification for
denying basic human rights to other employees, even these are not a real
issue in this case.  The entire idea behind carrying a concealed weapon
is that it is concealed.  No employee, no matter how bigoted or phobic is
going to have to work next to someone knowing that person is carrying a
weapon.  As a matter of security, prudence, and common courtesy the vast
majority of those with permits to carry concealed weapons do so in a
highly discreet manner.  Again, six years of history and 40,000 permit
holders have shown that lawfully carried concealed weapons do not create
any problems or disturbances whatsoever in the workplace.  There are
immeasurable differences between an employee legally carrying a concealed
weapon in the workplace for legitimate self-defense and a criminal using
a weapon illegally and immorally.  GOUtah urges you to keep those
differences firmly in mind as you listen to those who would deny their
co-workers or subordinates the right to self-defense.

We look forward to a complete repeal of all employment rules, including
restrictions on legally permitted concealed weapons, that violate, in
either letter or spirit, the statutes of the State of Utah.

Please forward to us, at the above address, a copy of all rules on the
subject of weapons as soon as any new rules become effective.

Sincerely



Charles Hardy
Policy Director, Gun Owners of Utah
________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:29:18 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: In house counsel issue makes Rolly & Wells

The following is from today's SLTrib.

Asside from being another case of State agencies disobeying State laws,
in-house counsel has been a sore spot for our gun rights.  Our AG has
issued a clear opinion on various gun bans.  But State agencies with
in-house counsel (most notably the UofU) simply ask their in house
counsel for another opinion and then hide behind that opinion rather than
complying with the opinion of the duely elected AG.

Please let your legislators know you want this issued resolved and the
way to do that is to enforce existing laws.  The AG's office is the
largest law firm in the State of Utah.  The head of that office is,
rightfully, elected by and accountable to, you, the voters.  For
individual State agencies to hire their own lawyers not only wastes
money, but it subverts our representative government.

Charles

=====================


http://www.sltrib.com/12212001/utah/160485.htm

ROLLY & WELLS: State Lawyers Overlooked a
  Crucial Rule
                                                              Friday,
December
                                                              21, 2001


      BY PAUL ROLLY and JOANN
      JACOBSEN-WELLS


          Twenty-four attorneys acting as in-house lawyers for state
agencies are
      doing so illegally.
          A legal opinion signed by Legislative General Counsel Gay
Taylor and
      Associate General Counsel John Fellows this week concludes that 24
of 36
      state agency attorneys were hired illegally because state law
requires those
      agencies to be represented by the Utah attorney general. The other
12
      either work for agencies that have specific statutory permission to
hire
      their own counsel or their functions do not strictly fit the
definition of legal
      adviser.
          The in-house legal counsels are paid out of the individual
agency's
      budgets and the practice has occurred for years, but first-term
Attorney
      General Mark Shurtleff raised the issue after he took office in
January and
      a legal opinion was sought.
          Shurtleff says in order to keep government running smoothly, he
will
      make the employees in question "special assistant attorneys
general" for a
      few months until the problem can be remedied legislatively. That
means
      either changing the law to allow for independent in-house lawyers
or make
      them attorney general employees.
________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:36:20 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: RLC News & Views - December 21, 2001

A couple of items of interest on guns...

Charles

- --------- Forwarded message ----------
********************************
Gun-Grabber Back Up to Old Tricks

"Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants the Department of Justice to keep
personal data on law-abiding gun buyers from the National Instant Check
System (NICS), and to offer the information for unlimited use by state
and
local agencies.  National Rifle Association Executive Vice President
Wayne
LaPierre called the move 'gun owner registration, plain and simple.'

"Making good on a promise he made during a Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing December 6, Schumer introduced the 'Use NICS in Terrorist
Investigations Act' (S. 1788) after Attorney General John Ashcroft
refused
to allow the FBI access to NICS records of lawful gun purchases.  Schumer
introduced the bill one day after Ashcroft explained that he was merely
obeying the law Congress had passed."

- - CNSNews.com, 12/17/01



***********************************
Gun Hysteria Still Running Rampant

"Steve Decker, a social-studies teacher at Kansas' Wellsville High
School,
has been suspended without pay for 60 days. His crime? He had a
disassembled
hunting rifle, in a case, under the seat of his locked pickup truck,
which
was parked in the school parking lot. 'A search dog hired by the school
nosed down' the gun, the Lawrence Journal-World reports, and Decker was
suspended under a Kansas law prohibiting firearms on school property.

- - OpinionJournal.com, 12/19/01
________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

- -

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:53:57 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: SLTrib correction

This message is in MIME format.  Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ----__JNP_000_5df3.2466.6b4e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

For any who saw the SLTrib article the mis-identified me as the spokesman
for USSC and missed the subsequent correction, here it is from Friday's
SLTrib.

(I also continue to assist Janalee with her wagc email list.)

Charles

http://www.sltrib.com/2002/jan/01042002/utah/164371.htm

Corrections & Clarifications
Friday, January 4, 2002





    Charles Hardy is spokesman and policy director for the Gun Owners of
Utah. A Salt Lake Tribune story Dec. 26 incorrectly identified his
affiliation.
- ----__JNP_000_5df3.2466.6b4e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3Dcontent-type content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=3D0 leftMargin=3D3 topMargin=3D0 rightMargin=3D3>
<DIV>For any who saw the SLTrib article the mis-identified me as the =
spokesman=20
for USSC and missed the subsequent correction, here it is from Friday's=20
SLTrib.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(I also continue to assist Janalee with her wagc email list.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Charles</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A=20
href=3D"http://www.sltrib.com/2002/jan/01042002/utah/164371.htm">http://www=
.sltrib.com/2002/jan/01042002/utah/164371.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellPadding=3D4 width=3D"100%" border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD width=3D"80%"><B><FONT face=3D"Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-=
serif"=20
      size=3D4>Corrections &=20
    Clarifications</FONT></B><BR><I><!--SUBHEAD--></I></TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D"20%"><FONT=20
      face=3D"Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=3D1><I><B>Friday<=
/B>,=20
      January 4, 2002</I></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE width=3D"100%" border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD width=3D"7%" height=3D119> </TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D"73%" height=3D119>
      <TABLE cellPadding=3D4 width=3D275 align=3Dright border=3D0 hspace=3D=
"4">
        <TBODY>
        <TR>
          <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
            <CENTER><!--WEBPHOTO1--><BR><FONT face=3D"HELVETICA, ARIAL, =
GENEVA"=20
            size=3D2><!--WEBCAPTION1--></FONT></CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></=
TABLE><B><FONT=20
      face=3D"Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"=20
      size=3D1><BR></FONT></B><BR><BR>    Charles Hardy is=20
      spokesman and policy director for the Gun Owners of Utah. A Salt Lake=
=20
      Tribune story Dec. 26 incorrectly identified his affiliation.=20
  <BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ----__JNP_000_5df3.2466.6b4e--

- -

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:37:02 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: SLTrib editorial against gun control ?!?!?

From today's sltrib.

Never surrender, never compromise.  We've got the antis on the run and
this is the time to work even harder to regain our lost rights.

charles

Opportunism in Action

Salt Lake Tribune
January 1, 2002

http://www.sltrib.com/01082002/opinion/opinion.htm

    A few members of Congress have been using last year's
terrorist attacks to justify another push for tough gun
laws. Fear makes fertile ground for any law that promises
greater security, but this effort is a stretch. Everyone
knows that the only weapons used in the Sept. 11 hijackings
were box cutters.
    A more legitimate link between firearms, 9/11 and
citizens' safety can be found today in London, where armed
robberies are up more than 100 percent. Cops have been
pulled from the streets to guard sites that might be
vulnerable to terrorists, and gun-wielding thugs have
filled the void. Britain's rash of robberies -- more than
19,000 between September and November -- is an acceleration
of a violent four-year trend. Firearms assaults were up 53
percent last year, and every category of violent crime,
from simple mugging to rape, has been rising in steady
leaps. Brazen British burglars now strike when residents
are home about half the time.
    Those in favor of more gun restrictions might be
interested in Jamaica, where firearms have turned Britain's
former colony into one of the most violent places on Earth.
About one of every 2,000 Jamaicans was a victim of homicide
last year, an increase of 28 percent. Last week, about 30
armed thugs opened fire on a Kingston neighborhood and
killed seven people, including two young sisters.
    The troubles in Britain and Jamaica might make a strong
argument for tougher gun laws except for one inconvenient
detail: The existing laws can't get much tougher. Britain
outlawed handguns four years ago, the start of its current
explosion in violent crime, while Jamaica's firearms
restrictions fall just short of a total ban. The
law-abiding citizens of both nations are disarmed and armed
criminals are out of control.
    Is there a connection? That question is worth debating,
but it seems far more plausible than the link some
lawmakers are attempting to forge between America's gun
rights and the terrorism of Sept. 11.

________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:41:33 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hansen retiring

From today's DesNews:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,360007005,00.html?


Hansen bowing out after 22 years on Hill
By Lee Davidson
Deseret News Washington correspondent
      WASHINGTON ù Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, made the surprise
announcement Tuesday that he will not seek re-election this year, ending
his congressional career after 22 years.


Jim Hansen

      It comes as Hansen, 69, achieved a pinnacle of power during his
now-final term, serving as chairman of the full House Resources
Committee. He is the only House member from Utah to ever chair a full
committee.
      "After a lot of thought, I feel it is time to move on, and I will
not stand for election in 2002," Hansen said in a written statement. He
announced his decision by faxing a press release to the news media, after
calling other leaders in the morning.
      Hansen's decision, of course, will lead to a wide-open battle to
succeed him in the 1st House District, which he has represented since
1980 when he defeated Rep. Gunn McKay, D-Utah.
      In a telephone interview, Hansen said a desire to spend more time
with his family was his main reason to retire, but he also has had some
minor health problems recently and was unhappy with the Legislature's
redrawing of his district's boundaries.
      "I will have served 22 years at the end of this term. I will be 70
in August. I would like to do some things with my family and grandkids.
My wife has been supportive and long-suffering, and I'd like to give her
more attention. I feel there should be life after Congress," he said.

[...]

- -

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:30:51 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blather from the DesNews

If anyone is in the mood to write a letter to the editor, this editorial
from the DesNews needs a response or 10.  Their closing sentence is
particularly appalling:

The DesNews hopes the courts can determine "whether schools, colleges and
other agencies are strictly bound by Utah's concealed weapons law."

Gee, are any of us allowed to be anything other than "strictly bound" by
all of the thousands of laws on the books?  And why should Utah taxpayers
have to foot both sides of a lawsuit?  Just to give the egomaniacs at the
U one more chance to disobey a law that was passed by the legislature,
signed by the governor, and has now been given identical interpretations
by both the State AG and the Legislatures' own counsel?

It is time to impose some serious penalties in the finacial arena on the
U and her sister institutions who incist on flaunting the law.

Letters to the Deseret News editor can be emailed to [e-mail].
 Letters must include a full name, address and telephone number.
However, only name and city/State will be published.

Charles

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,365008295,00.html?


Litigate concealed weapons law
Deseret News editorial

      University of Utah President J. Bernard Machen makes a good point.
If respective Utah officials and policymakers are ever to get to the
bottom of the concealed weapons ban question, the matter needs to be
litigated. What's more, Utah's attorney general agrees.
      While this issue appears headed for a "friendly lawsuit," it is
regrettable that cooler heads couldn't have hammered out the issue at a
conference table. While this page understands that Utah's law and state
constitution are not identical to those in surrounding states, we can't
help noticing that nearby Western states do not extend the concealed
weapons permit privilege to schools or college campuses.
      For Machen, the gun issue is tied to academic freedom. He contends
that the presence of firearms on a college campus would undermine a free
exchange of ideas. We would further argue that college campuses are
unique because they are gathering places of people with vastly divergent
backgrounds and points of view.
      If Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is amenable to this challenge of
Utah's concealed weapons law, which has very few exceptions, perhaps
other affected public segments should join the litigation, among them
public schools and agencies under the Department of Human Services.
Public school districts and boards overseeing everything from mental
health to foster care have created their own policies in this area, but
it is not clear whether they could be enforced.
      The problem with legislating gun law is that common sense and
scholarly investigation often take a backseat to political whim. Utah
lawmakers relied heavily on the research of University of Chicago
visiting scholar John Lott, which was published in the 1998 book "More
Guns, Less Crime." What lawmakers didn't hear were the contrasting points
of view of academics who have since dissected Lott's research,
specifically, Daniel Webster of John Hopkins University and Jens Ludwig
of Georgetown University. Webster and Ludwig, authors of "Myths about
Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws," wrote "Errors aside,
the fundamental problem with Lott's research can by summarized by the old
social science adage 'correlation is not causation.' "
      We raise Lott's body of work not to impugn it. Even critics
consider many of Lott's methodologies as relatively sophisticated and, in
some respects, an improvement on previous evaluations of gun laws.
Rather, it's an example that public policymaking too often is relegated
to quieting the squeaky wheel rather than hearing all voices in a debate.
      While this page understands that the concealed weapon issue that
would be decided in court is primarily a legal one, we are hopeful that
in a setting removed from politics, the court can make a thoughtful and
informed determination whether schools, colleges and other agencies are
strictly bound by Utah's concealed weapons law.

________________________________________________________________
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/web/.

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #222
***********************************