ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/v02.n224

Internet Message Format | 2002-02-12 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (utah-firearms-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #224
Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utah-firearms-digest   Wednesday, February 13 2002   Volume 02 : Number 224




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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:33:35 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-gun amendment proposed to co-opt HB 183

Lamont Tyler (RINO) and the Democrats are proposing and supporting a
floor amendment to Morgan Philpot's HB 183.

HB 183, as you recall, eliminates the $7.50 fee, for the redundant State
"brady" check conducted before you are allowed to exercise your
Constitututional right to purchases a firearms (see Utah Constitution,
Art. 1, Sec. 6).  See previous alerts for arguments and talking points on
why our right to purchase firearms should be subect to special fees or
taxes.

Tyler's proposed amendment (officially titled House Amendment #2) will do
worse than gut the bill, it will co-opt it into a completely different
and anti-gun animal.


The amendment, if passed, will do the following:

1-Remove the requirement that all recods of criminal check be immediately
destroyed for all checks that pass.  BCI will continue to be allowed to
keep records of law abiding citizens' gun purchases for up to "20 days"
before those records are destroyed.  20 days is simply too long and too
much mischief can take place.

2-Changes the title of section 76-10-256 by deleting the specific
exemption for CCW permit holders.  This may well be setting the stage to
require CCW permit holders to undergo the same brady background check on
purchases as non-permit holders.  This is a complete waste of time as CCW
permit holders have not only gone through a criminal background check but
are currently being subjected to daily checks as well.  Further, the way
the amenment is written, CCW permit holders would no longer be exempted
from background check fees.  Under the orginal bill, this language was
removed because there would be no fee.  But if the fee remains, and CCW
permitees are no longer exempt from that fee...your guess is as good as
mine.

3-Instead of eliminating the fee, changes the fees charged each quarter
based on the percentage of purchases that were approved in the previous
quarter.  However, it maintains the same total income to the State.
EVERYONE wanting to purchase a firearm would pay the now MUCH HIGHER FEE
up front.  Those who are approved, would have their fee refunded to them,
at some point, in the future, by the BCI.  Those who are not approved,
would lose their money permanently and presumably, pay the full cost for
the background check system.  No details on how this scheme may affect
those denied wrongly.

The upfront fee would be $7.50 divided by 1 minus the fraction of those
background checks passed the previous quarter.

So, if 90% of brady checks were approved the prior quarter, the fees this
quarter would be $7.50 / (1 - 0.9) = $75.00!!!!!

If 99% of brady checks were approved the prior quarter, the fees this
quarter would go to $7.50 / (1 - 0.99) =  $750.00!!!

And of course, if we ever had a quarter where 100% of all brady checks
were approved, the fees the next quarter would be infinate ($7.50 / 0).

If those numbers do not represent an impediment to gun ownership, I don't
know what does.

BCI would have an indefinate period of time in which to refund this
money.  (Nice interest free loan to the State.)

This amendment will come up for a vote either Tuesday or Wednesday.  It
is critical that you call or fax your Representative today and tell them
to oppose this ill conceived, "poison pill" amendment.

A full list of legislators, along with email and home phone numbers can
be found at http://www.utgoa.org/resources/legcontact02.html

Messages for all Representatives can be left at the main house
switchboard at: 801-538-1029.

Charles Hardy
________________________________________________________________
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, 4 Feb 2002 17:55:40 -0700 (MST)
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Word About Gunnies in Orem

I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and
have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete
reloading "bench". and at least one handgun.

They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that
firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I
noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter.

I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left at
the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my assumption
was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, I decided I
better call them, especially since I didn't "check in" at the front on my
previous visit because of how absurd I figured it would be for them to think
I should.

The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant ALL guns,
even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for their
safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this request or not.
I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a request that my truck
doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of course, unlike my children, my
truck does whatever I say.

Okay, now that I've put the facts down, can I rant a little? Do they not
trust CCW permit holders? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW permit
holders, in "checking" their guns at the front door, are violating the terms
of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder.

After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at their
store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think she tried
to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to put the phone
on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude and they won't
consider my call very important.

But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at their
obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly, foolishness. I'm
pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so I'll be giving more
of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very polite owner/operator of
Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I live in Utah County.

As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I
doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my decision
because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and I can no
longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust others can't be
trusted" has more often than not been proved true.

In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's
Gunnies info:

Gunnies (mailto:[e-mail])
396 South State
Orem, Utah 84062

801-226-7080 or
800-696-4867

And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all (they
have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at
www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page:

<a href=http://www.gunnies.com>

AOL users click here

</a>

Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like my
daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively speaking.

- --
Karl L. Pearson
Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
Senior Consulting Database Analyst
[e-mail]
 My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
 http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml


- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:04:03 -0500
From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Word About Gunnies in Orem

Thanks Karl

I will avoid them as well whenever I am in Utah.  I have done lots of
business with them as well in the past, but no more.  Anyone with that
kind of mindset just "doesn't get it".  They don't care about my safety
because they want to disarm me.  And it reduces their own safety as well.

Chad

On Monday, February 4, 2002, at 07:55  PM, <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and
> have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete
> reloading "bench". and at least one handgun.
>
> They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that
> firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I
> noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter.
>
> I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left
> at
> the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my
> assumption
> was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, I
> decided I
> better call them, especially since I didn't "check in" at the front on
> my
> previous visit because of how absurd I figured it would be for them to
> think
> I should.
>
> The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant ALL
> guns,
> even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for their
> safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this request or
> not.
> I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a request that my
> truck
> doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of course, unlike my
> children, my
> truck does whatever I say.
>
> Okay, now that I've put the facts down, can I rant a little? Do they not
> trust CCW permit holders? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW
> permit
> holders, in "checking" their guns at the front door, are violating the
> terms
> of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder.
>
> After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at
> their
> store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think she
> tried
> to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to put the
> phone
> on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude and they won't
> consider my call very important.
>
> But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at
> their
> obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly, foolishness.
> I'm
> pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so I'll be giving
> more
> of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very polite owner/operator
> of
> Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I live in Utah County.
>
> As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I
> doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my
> decision
> because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and I can no
> longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust others
> can't be
> trusted" has more often than not been proved true.
>
> In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's
> Gunnies info:
>
> Gunnies (mailto:[e-mail])
> 396 South State
> Orem, Utah 84062
>
> 801-226-7080 or
> 800-696-4867
>
> And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all
> (they
> have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at
> www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page:
>
> <a href=http://www.gunnies.com>
>
> AOL users click here
>
> </a>
>
> Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like
> my
> daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively
> speaking.
>
> --
> Karl L. Pearson
> Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
> Senior Consulting Database Analyst
> [e-mail]
>  My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
>  http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml
>
>
> -
>
>


- -

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:44:59 -0700 (MST)
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: A Word About Gunnies in Orem (fwd)

I received a response from Gunnies management. I thought you might be
interested in both my response and their email which elicited my response.
Mine appears next. To read them in order, go to the end and start at Dear
Valued Customer.  KLP


I appreciate your response, especially in light of the tone and tenor of my
original email, however, the damage has been done. Your sign, first of all,
was ambiguous and no effort was made to correct the wording before it
offended customers. Second, why did the girl who answered the phone tell me
that yes, the sign does apply to CCW permit holders, too? Your email
indicates that either she lied on the phone, or you are lying now to hope to
cover your original intentions. Yes, I know I'm being tough on you.  But you
are dealing with hundreds of CCW permit holders who know about that sign
now. At the least, you are guilty of not communicating the gravity of the
situation to your employees appropriately or effectively.

I stand by my previous email because in business, actions taken can never be
done hastilly and thoughtlessly. As such, I prefer to believe you knew the
consequences of your ambiguous sign and are now back-peddling. Why wasn't
the consequence of the sign discussed completely with all employees,
especially those who greet the customer? How can you expect to be trusted
where such a tremendous lack of judgement shows such lack of respect for
your customers?

I await your response. Perhaps the prosperity of your business hangs in the
balance. You are, I'm certain, aware that many hundreds of individuals saw
my first email and I'll be sure to pass this communication on to them,
negative or positive.

Thank you,

- --
Karl L. Pearson
Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
Senior Consulting Database Analyst
[e-mail]
 My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
 http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml



- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 9:40:39 -0700
From: Rex Harrison <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: A Word About Gunnies in Orem

Dear Valued Customer:

Thanks for bringing to our attention the poorly written sign on our front
door.  Gunnies respects the rights of CWP holders and has long supported
the Utah CWP program.

Our Store Policy is to have firearms that enter the store for repair, or
trade-in be signed in at the cashier's desk.  This has been necessary
because frankly some people are just not honest.  Hence, we have tightened
control measures for firearms entering and leaving to minimize gunsmithing
losses.

Thanks
Gunnies Management


> [Original Message]
> From: <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Date: 2/4/2002 5:55:43 PM
> Subject: A Word About Gunnies in Orem
>
> I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and
> have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete
> reloading "bench". and at least one handgun.
>
> They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that
> firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I
> noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter.
>
> I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left
> at the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my
> assumption was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the
> doubt, I decided I better call them, especially since I didn't "check
> in" at the front on my previous visit because of how absurd I figured it
> would be for them to think I should.
>
> The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant
> ALLCWPs, even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for
> their safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this
> request or not. I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a
> request that my truck doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of
> course, unlike my children, my truck does whatever I say.
>
> Okay, now that I've put the facts doCWPcan I rant a little? Do they not
> trust CCW permit hCWPrs? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW
> permit holders, in "checking" their guns at theCWPont door, are
> violating the terms of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder.
>
> After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at
> their store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think
> she tried to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to
> put the phone on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude
> and they won't consider my call very important.
>
> But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at
> their obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly,
> foolishness. I'm pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so
> I'll be giving more of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very
> polite owner/operator of Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I
> live in Utah County.
>
> As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I
> doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my
> decision because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and
> I can no longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust
> others can't be trusted" has more often than not been proved true.
>
> In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's
> Gunnies info:
>
> Gunnies (mailto:[e-mail])
> 396 South State
> Orem, Utah 84062
>
> 801-226-7080 or
> 800-696-4867
>
> And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all
> (they have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at
> www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page:
>
> <a href=http://www.gunnies.com>
>
> AOL users click here
>
> </a>
>
> Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like
> my daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively
> speaking.
>
> --
> Karl L. Pearson


- -

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:08:22 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Potentially OFF-TOPIC PSA

This may well be off topic to some of the lists that recieve it, for
which I apologize.

I want to take a moment to air a public service announcement that there
are several areas holding special bond elections today.  In some cases,
if these bonds pass, property taxes will be affected.  I'm not going to
take a position on any of these (especially since 2/3rds of the elections
I know about do not affect me), but I do encourage you to take whatever
time you can today to acquaint yourself with the issues and to make sure
and get to the polls to vote.  It is likely that the polling location for
these bond elections will NOT be at the usual primary/general election
location.

I am aware of two or maybe three bond elections today.

In Davis county, the school board is having a bond election today.  This
has received a fair bit of coverage in the local papers.

I think Washington County School board is also having a bond election
today.

Finally, in SLCo, the Sandy Suburban Improvement District (Sewer and
wastewater folks) is holding a bond election today to upgrade facilities.
 There is only 1 polling location for this election--the Sandy Suburban
Improvement District office building on 700 East 9115 South (east side of
the road, little white building).

Again, I encourage you to take time to vote.  Otherwise, don't complain
about the outcome.

Charles
________________________________________________________________
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, 5 Feb 2002 13:08:42 -0700 (MST)
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: A Word About Gunnies in Orem (fwd)

Hi all. The email that follows is a response from Gunnies. Although this
response seems to placate nicely my concerns, why in the world did the nice
girl who answered the phone tell me the sign meant everyone, including CCW
permit holders?

- --
Karl L. Pearson
Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
Senior Consulting Database Analyst
[e-mail]
 My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:
 http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 9:40:39 -0700
From: Rex Harrison <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: A Word About Gunnies in Orem

Dear Valued Customer:

Thanks for bringing to our attention the poorly written sign on our front
door.  Gunnies respects the rights of CWP holders and has long supported
the Utah CWP program.

Our Store Policy is to have firearms that enter the store for repair, or
trade-in be signed in at the cashier's desk.  This has been necessary
because frankly some people are just not honest.  Hence, we have tightened
control measures for firearms entering and leaving to minimize gunsmithing
losses.

Thanks
Gunnies Management


> [Original Message]
> From: <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
 > Date: 2/4/2002 5:55:43 PM
> Subject: A Word About Gunnies in Orem
>
> I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and
> have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete
> reloading "bench". and at least one handgun.
>
> They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that
> firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I
> noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter.
>
> I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left at
> the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my
assumption
> was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, I decided I
> better call them, especially since I didn't "check in" at the front on my
> previous visit because of how absurd I figured it would be for them to
think
> I should.
>
> The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant ALLCWPs,
> even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for their
> safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this request or
not.
> I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a request that my
truck
> doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of course, unlike my children,
my
> truck does whatever I say.
>
> Okay, now that I've put the facts doCWPcan I rant a little? Do they not
> trust CCW permit hCWPrs? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW permit
> holders, in "checking" their guns at theCWPont door, are violating the
terms
> of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder.
>
> After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at their
> store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think she tried
> to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to put the
phone
> on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude and they won't
> consider my call very important.
>
> But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at
their
> obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly, foolishness. I'm
> pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so I'll be giving more
> of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very polite owner/operator of
> Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I live in Utah County.
>
> As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I
> doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my decision
> because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and I can no
> longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust others can't
be
> trusted" has more often than not been proved true.
>
> In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's
> Gunnies info:
>
> Gunnies (mailto:[e-mail])
> 396 South State
> Orem, Utah 84062
>
> 801-226-7080 or
> 800-696-4867
>
> And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all
(they
> have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at
> www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page:
>
> <a href=http://www.gunnies.com>
>
> AOL users click here
>
> </a>
>
> Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like my
> daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively speaking.
>
> --
> Karl L. Pearson
> Senior Consulting Systems Analyst
> Senior Consulting Database Analyst
> [e-mail]
>  My Thoughts on Terrorism In America:



- -

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:08:51 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quick Update on SB147 and HB 219S1

All,

More details will surely follow this evening or tomorrow, but I wanted to
give a quick update on two bills of particular interest to gun owners.
All in all a good morning to be at the capital.

SB 147, Restriction of Funding on State Entity whose Policy, Rule, or
Action is Contrary to Law , Sen. Waddoup's bill that would make it easier
to cut the ADMINSTATIVE portion of the budget of any agency or department
whose rules, polices, or actions are contrary to State law was heard this
morning in the Senate STate and Local Affairs committee.  I was not there
due to attendance at the house committee hearing mentioned below.  This
bill would put some real teeth into the power of the purse strings and
likely force agencies like the UofU and other colleges to drop illegal
gun bans.  Reports this morning from those who attended indicated that 4
persons spoke to the bill, all in favor.  But then, no one on the
committee offered a motion to pass the bill on to the full senate so the
bill was effectively held having received no action.  However, the
legislative web site indicates the bill was held on a 5-0-2 vote.  More
info later as I can get it.  In any event, this bill appears to be still
very much alive.  Contact members of the Senate State and Local Affairs
committee and ask them to support this bill.

H.B. 219 S1  Firearm Fee Amendments, Rep. Philpot's bill to eliminate
fees for obtaining a CCW permit, was heard in the House Judiciary
Committee this morning.  The bill was last on a very full agenda and
followed another bill that was subject to intense and long debate.  Even
with the meeting starting at 7:00 am, only 15 minutes remained in the
meeting by the time Rep. Philpot was able to begin presenting his bill.

Fiscal Analysis STILL has failed to return a fiscal note for this bill.
Calls of complaint to Speaker Stephens are probably in order on that
point.  To the credit of Chairman Ferrin, the committee chose to hear the
bill and act on it anyway.  Reps. Arent and Daniels were most hostile to
the bill.  Reps. Bennion, Way, Ferrin, and Thompson all either asked very
good questions supporting the bill or made statements in support of the
bill.  Rep. Philpot did an outstanding job of presenting and defending
his bill in the very short time available.

Cudos to Rep. Ferrin for running a very tight ship during the final 15
minutes of the meeting and seeing that this bill was discussed and acted
on.  However, placing such an important bill last on the agenda, and then
allowing all the preceeding bills to run so long is an issue that
concerns me.  Whether by design (on the part of anti-gunners) or simply
by nature, we frequently find good gun bills dying in committee due to
time running out and/or we expend far more energy and time than we should
have to because our bills get held over several committee meetings.

Only a single person spoke agains the bill, Ms. Carbella (sp?) from the
Utah Firearms Violence Preventin Center.  Her commends were poorly framed
IMO, and, thanks to a timely question from Rep. Bennion, did as much to
help our side as anything else.  Due to time constraints, Rep. Ferrin
asked if those in favor of the bill would select two persons to speak to
the bill.  Charles Hardy for GOUtah and Dana Dickson for UTGOA both spoke
very briefly in favor of the bill.  Finally, a spokeswoman from BCI
offered some info and basically spoke against the bill.  She noted that
the fiscal note was of concern AND THAT IF THE FEES WERE DROPPED MORE
PEOPLE WOULD APPLY FOR PERMITS thus increasing the workload.  Rep.
Thompson seized on that comment to say that he was even more convinced
this was the right bill becuase if more people would apply for permits if
the fees were dropped, then clearly SOME number of people WERE be
dissuaded from exercising their rights becuase of the fees.

Rep. Daniels and Rep. Arent attempted some last minute procedural motions
in an attempt to prevent a vote on the bill.  Both failed and the bill
was passed out to the full house with a favorable recomendation on an
8-3-2 vote.  Reps. Arent, Daniels, and one other person voted against.
All Republicans voted in favor except two (Curtis and one other) who were
absent.

Please contact your Representative as well as Speaker Stephens and ask
that they support this bill on the floor while opposing all hostile
amendments that may come.

Charles
________________________________________________________________
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, 05 Feb 2002 14:40:00 -0700
From: scott bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ban Screwdrivers.com -- Your source for screwdriver activism

http://www.banscrewdrivers.com/

- -

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:18:09 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: GOUtah does NOT support Tyler's Amendments to HB 183

Last night GOUtah was contacted by one of Rep. Lamont Tyler's
constituents.  This constituent had phoned Tyler asking that he withdraw
his anti-gun amendment to HB 183.

As you will recall, Tyler's amendment would require that all persons
purchasing a gun pay a much increased fee (easily $75.00 and likely as
high as $500+) for the State brady background check  Those who pass the
background check would have their money refunded back to them at some
point.  Of course fiscal records would almost certainly be kept forever
showing a payment of x dollars for refund of brady check to joe gun
owner.  Defacto gun owner list on top of all the other problems.

Tyler had told this constituent that he was running the amendment either
with the support of GOUtah or to make GOUtah happy, or other words to
that effect.  A conference call was quickly arranged to determine whether
Tyler was crazy, or just a bald faced liar.

On direct confrontation with both the constituent and GOUtah on the
phone, Tyler claimed GOUtah supported this amendment due to a comment
made by Policy Director Charles Hardy in answer to a question during
testifying in support of HB 183.  During that testimony, Hardy stated
that it "is particularly repugnant to charge law abiding gun owners in
order to maintain a database of criminals."  Tyler asked whether GOUtah
would support charging only those who failed the background check.  Hardy
responded that such a proposition was more just than charging law abiding
gun owners, and if someone wanted to bring such a bill, we'd certainly
look at it to see whether we would support it, but that we were
supporting HB 183 as is without reservation.

From this exchange, Tyler extrapolated to telling this constituent that
GOUtah supported his amendment.  After a few moments he backed off a bit
and admitted the he had only "gotten the idea for it" during the hearing
on HB 183.

GOUtah made perfectly clear that we do not, in any way shape or form,
support Tyler's amendment and that there was nothing he could do to it to
cause us to support it.  We requested that he withdraw, drop, decline
from offering, or otherwise junk this amendment.

Tyler suggested that HB 219 will certainly die if the fiscal note is not
reduced.  GOUtah made clear that we would rather Philpot's good bill fail
due to fiscal constraints than that the anti-gun monster that would be
created by Tyler's amendments pass.

At the hearing on HB 219 this morning, Tyler visited briefly with GOUtah
and assured us he would NOT be representing his amendment as having the
support of GOUtah.  We hope Tyler is good to his word, but want to
pre-emptively clarify our position once again.

GOUTAH DOES NOT SUPPORT TYLER'S AMENDMENTS TO HB 219.  WE OPPOSE THEM
COMPLETELY.  Tyler voted for HB 219 in committee and did not offer any
amendments in committee.  To offer such an amendment now is clearly an
effort to kill the bill.  To try to claim such an amendment benefits gun
owners and potential gun owners in any way, shape, or form, is either the
height of arogance, or the depths of insanity.

If anyone PERSONALLY hears Tyler or any other legislator making such
false claims in the future, please contact GOUtah or the other affected
pro-gun organization at once to get the truth.

Charles Hardy
Policy Director -- GOUtah

- -

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

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 13:14:19 -0700
From: scott bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Urgent News Flash

Subject: FW: Urgent News Flash
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 12:40:02 -0700
From: Jim Dexter <[e-mail]>
To: LPUtah Forum <[e-mail]>

Please take 5 minutes to read this important, one topic, message about
gun confiscation taking place in Chicago.

http://www.privategunsale.com/urgent_pgs_newsflash.htm

- -

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

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:11:38 -0700
From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Air marshalls too far undercover

From today's SLTrib.

Certainly, air-marshall cannot look like air marshalls until such time as
they are needed.  But once they are needed--especially for anything short
of a head shot--I would hope they would immediately identify themselves
in such a way as to be credible and convincing.

Gee, Sept. 11 happened because of a generation of conditioning to not
resist and everything will be ok.  I sure hope the next hijacking isn't
made easier by conditioning to immediately submit to anyone claiming to
be a cop and carrying a badge.

Charles


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

Suspect Says He Doubted Marshals

http://www.sltrib.com/02122002/utah/utah.htm
BY MICHAEL VIGH
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

    Richard Bizzaro claims that when three young men in
street clothes took control of a commercial airliner bound
for Salt Lake City, he believed they were hijackers posing
as sky marshals. And he wasn't going to let them get away
with it.
    "I believed I was witnessing a hijacking of our
airplane," Bizzaro said Monday in his first public
statement since he was charged two days earlier with felony
interference with a flight crew.
    But when the Park City man's Delta Air Lines flight
from Los Angeles touched down Saturday night, he was the
one arrested by the same trio of federal agents, who had
taken over the flight after Bizzaro improperly left his
seat.
    "I believe the situation was aggravated by my and other
people's attitudes prompted by the Sept. 11 attacks where
we are all fearful of one another," Bizzaro said in a
written statement in which he apologized for his actions.
    About 30 minutes before landing, Bizzaro, who happened
to have appeared on an in-flight video feature about his
business, left his first-class seat and went to the
restroom. Under Olympic security rules, passengers on
commercial flights into Salt Lake City may not leave their
seats during the final half-hour in the air.
    Bizzaro, a frequent traveler, said he had never heard
the restriction announced before, and no one stopped him
when he stood up. When he exited the restroom, Bizzaro said
he was confronted by a flight attendant, whose comments he
interpreted as rudeness.
    "I now know she was just doing her job," Bizzaro said.
    Federal prosecutors say he intimidated the attendant
with his stares and his size -- 6 feet, 2 inches and 235
pounds.
    After he finally sat down, Bizzaro was seen giving a
"thumbs up" to a pair of passengers, an FBI agent alleges.
Bizzaro, 59, vehemently denies that allegation and says the
three air marshals looked young enough to be his
grandchildren and may have had fake badges. One marshal was
wearing a baseball cap backward, he added.
    "They did not give the appearance they were law
enforcement officers and I did not pay them the proper
respect," Bizzaro said. "I overheard conversations between
the young men that they were observing something going on
at the back of the plane. It did not occur to me that I was
seen as the problem until I was informed afterwards."
    The agents said Bizzaro continually looked at the coach
cabin, making his behavior appear suspicious. Bizzaro's
attorney, Max Wheeler, said his client looked back because
"he thought a hijacking was going on in the back of the
plane."
    After he demanded a closer look at the badges, he
realized they were real and began to comply, Wheeler said.
    Until that time, he said, Bizzaro was thinking he may
have to take action against the trio as the passengers
appear to have done on the plane that crashed in
Pennsylvania on Sept. 11.
    U.S. Attorney Paul Warner wasn't sounding mollified on
Monday, two days after he charged Bizzaro with a federal
crime that could net him up to 20 years in prison and a
$250,000 fine.
    "This is an important point: We're taking a heightened
look at anything that appears to have an impact on the
safety and security of the Games," Warner said.
    Bizzaro is CEO of Unicity Network of Orem, a multilevel
marketing company with $100 million in annual sales of
herbal supplements. The company was featured in an
in-flight CNN news segment.
    Bizzaro found it "kind of surreal," Wheeler said. "He
was arrested just after seeing his business featured on the
flight."
    _________

   Tribune reporter Kevin Cantera contributed to this
report.

________________________________________________________________
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, 13 Feb 2002 10:09:54 -0700
From: scott bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: 'Have gun, will boycott,' group warns

'Have gun, will boycott,' group warns
- ----------
The Roanoke Times
   "Valley View Mall management has never seen such a flurry of
   negative feedback. More than 20 gun-rights activists have called,
   written e-mails or sent letters vowing to boycott the mall until
   it reverses its policy forbidding guns." (02/11/02)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/757753110.html

- -

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

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:17:43 -0700
From: scott bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pro-gun Amendment Vote Today!

Gun Owners of America's alert


Contact Your Congressman! -- Tell him or her to support the
Pickering amendment to the Incumbent Protection Bill

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org

(Wednesday, February 13, 2002) -- Late tonight, the U.S. House of
Representatives will consider the anti-gun Incumbent Protection Bill
(H.R. 2356).

Shays-Meehan (so-called Campaign Finance Reform) is particularly a
dagger at the heart of pro-gun groups. Groups like GOA would be
prohibited from engaging in many forms of communication to the
public which mention the names of incumbent legislators within 60
days of an election.

This would give anti-gunners a decisive advantage. For instance,
if anti-gun groups were prohibited from broadcasting ads depicting
pro-gun candidates, they would have little trouble getting the
Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Enquirer, L.A. Times,
etc., (all of which are exempt from the legislation) to run the ads
as Editorials.

Pro-gun groups rarely receive any positive attention from the major
media outlets. Thus, GOA members and supporters often rely on our
advocacy to inform them of how their Representatives in Washington
are voting -- and to alert them when important votes are pending,
no matter how close to an election such votes may occur.

To protect the right of groups like GOA to communicate to the public,
an amendment to Shays-Meehan has been offered by pro-gun Rep. Chip
Pickering (R-MS), which would:

exempt Second Amendment groups from the bill's requirements.

In addition to protecting the rights of groups like GOA to communicate
with the public, the Pickering amendment draws a line in the sand in
reaffirming that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. The
Pickering amendment would also:

declare that the Second Amendment applies to ALL AMERICANS and NOT
just to the National Guard.

As you know, there are many politicians who pretend to support the
Second Amendment in order to secure your votes, but sabotage gun
rights once they are elected.

Today's vote on the Gun Owners Protection amendment will distinguish
our friends from our enemies. NO POLITICIAN WHO VOTES TO LIMIT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL GUARD -- BY OPPOSING THIS AMENDMENT
- -- SHOULD EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS ANYTHING BUT ANTI-GUN.

ACTION: Please e-mail or call your congressman IMMEDIATELY. Tell him
or her to support the pro-gun amendment to the Shays-Meehan Incumbent
Protection Bill.

You can call your Representative at 202-225-3121. To identify your
Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the
Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
on the GOA website.


- ----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Congressman,

An amendment to the Shays-Meehan Incumbent Protection Bill to protect
the right of Second Amendment groups to communicate effectively to
the public is being offered today.

I cannot count on the major media to inform me of what's going on
concerning my gun rights. I must rely on GOA and other groups to
inform me of pending legislation or congressional votes, no matter
how close to an election these issues arise.

In fact, the primary concern of the First Amendment is to protect
exactly the type of political communication Shays-Meehan is trying
to destroy.

The Pickering amendment reaffirms that the Second Amendment is an
individual right, not one reserved to the National Guard.

I urge you to support the Pickering Gun Owners Protection amendment.

Sincerely,


****************************

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address
may also be made at that location.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
mailto:[e-mail] is at your disposal. Please do not add
that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages
per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.

END OF GOA ALERT

- -

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

End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #224
***********************************