"A Far North Dallas man who shot and killed two would-be burglars Thursday
morning probably will not face charges, according to Dallas police and
legal experts.
"About 9 a.m. Thursday, the 29-year-old man was at home with his wife and
three young children when a man knocked on the side door and asked for
someone the resident did not know, police said.
"One or both suspects then forced their way into the apartment, shooting
the resident once in the arm, police said. The resident retreated to his
bedroom, retrieved a gun, and a shootout ensued in the living room on
Knoll Trail Drive near the Dallas North Tollway, police said."
- - Dallas Morning News, 1/24/03
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:27:27 GMT
From: utbagpiper@juno.com
Subject: Fw:USSC Alert
The latest from USSC. Please note that I believe I have found a problem with SB 108, not mentioned by USSC.
Along with the good that it does in clarifying the primacy of CCW permits over any anti-self-defense school policy, SB 108, also adds Schedule II drugs to the Schedule I drugs that a person is already prohibited from being in illegal possession of while also possessing a gun. Being in "unlawful possession" of a Schedule II drug, makes a person a "Catagory I restricted Person" for whom, possession of a firearm becomes a felony offense. Now before you think I've gone soft in the head for drug addicts, read on.
Along with a lot of commonly abused/recreational drugs, schedule II drugs include some fairly common perscription pain killers like codeine. If I am not mistaken, in Utah, it is illegal to have perscription drug outside its original perscription bottle.
So, under this particular change in SB 108, an arthritis patient who places a couple of his perscrption pain pills into a pocket pill carrier (rather than taking his entire bottle with him to potentially lose or get stolen) and goes out for a day of hunting, is now a "Category I" restricted person and is guilty of a felony for having his hunting gun with him. SB 108 provides an "affirmative defense" to this charge if one had a perscription for the drug or if one had in his possession for legal dispensing to an animal or other member of his household.
HOWEVER, an "affirmative defense" does not prevent being arrested and charged. It is simply a defense that can be presented to the court during trial.
Also, under current statute is section 76-10-503, it is a felony to own, possess, control, OR TRANSFER a firearm if you are under felony indictment. Not conviction, indictment.
So, you happen to be on some pain meds for some reason (illness, neck injury, arthritis, etc). You break State law by placing a couple of your percsription pain pills into a pocket pill dispensor both for convenience and to prevent the risk of loss or theft of you entire bottle, and head out for a day or weekend of hunting. A peace officer asks you for your hunting license. You retrieve it from your pocket and end up digging up your pocket pill dispensor at the same time. The officer sees your pills, recognizes them as a schedule II drug and is now within his proper powers to arrest you for having a gun while being in illegal possession of a schedule II drug (your pain pill outside their original bottle).
You have a legitimate perscription for the meds in question, but you cannot make an "affirmative defense" until your case is at trial. The DA happens to be a hardnose for whatever reason and gets a felony indictment (for the possession of drugs and guns at the same time) to proceed to trial. At the moment the indictment is handed down, you are now guilty of a second felony: being a "Category II" person (one under felony indictment) who owns guns. At this point, it is not only illegal for you to own guns, but it is illegal for you to transfer (IE, sell, gift, lend) your guns.
So the DA sends the police over to seize your entire gun collection including your grandfather's hunting rifle and that civil war collector's piece you're so proud of. You go to trial on the original charge, present your "affirmative defense" and are acquited. However, that doesn't change the fact that you WERE under felony indictment while you owned firearms. The DA/police are under NO obligation to return your collection to you nor even to compensate you for it.
Further, if the DA really has it in for you, he can now charge you with a felony for even owning guns while under indictment. Under current law, you are supposed to see a felony indictment coming, and completely disarm yourself BEFORE the grand jury decides to indict.
So, contrary to the info in the alert below, you may want to consider asking for a small amendment to SB 108 to either remove the schedule II drugs or to include a stronger protection against techincal violations than just an "affirmative defense" clause.
My $0.02 worth.
Charles
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Utah Shooting Sports Council <list@utahshootingsports.com>
To: utbagpiper@juno.com
Subject: IMPORTANT COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY---CALL IMMEDIATELY!!!
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:52:07 -0700
USSC URGENT ACTION ALERT-
FOR ALL UTAH SHOOTING SPORTS COUNCIL MEMBERS & SUPPORTERS
IMPORTANT COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY---CALL IMMEDIATELY!!!
We apologize for the short notice.
You need to Phone, FAX, or Email---- See info below
TUESDAY MEETING
PLEASE CONTACT SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS IMMEDIATELY
Tell them you support Senator Mike Waddoups' SB 108 and want to see it passed without amendment. Be brief and polite, the committee members are very busy.
Please plan on attending the meeting if you can at 3:00 PM in Room 414 of the Capitol. This bill will be the 4th item on the agenda, so there is always a chance they may not get to it. Dress appropriately (coat and tie is best, or business casual at least).
Senator Mike Waddoups (a staunch supporter of legal self defense) has Senate Bill 108 before the Senate Judiciary Committee TUESDAY. Most people thought this was not going to be a controversial bill since it merely clarifies a minor technical conflict between two sections of the state laws. However, the anti-self defense crowd has been charging it will change the law and for the first time allow guns in schools, spreading their disinformation in the media.
The truth is that people with permits to carry legal self defense weapons have been allowed in schools since 1995, and have been doing so. (Remember, it is a "concealed weapon" permit so no one notices.) With over 51,100 permits issued in the last six years, there is ample proof this is not endangering students or staff. Efforts by the anti-gun crowd to spread rumors about alleged incidents were foiled when USSC used GRAMA requests to get statements from every school district on the issue. Their official responses proved the allegations to be FALSE! There were NONE.
Permit holders are no more likely to commit serious crimes than are educators. Scare stories about permits being revoked (in almost insignificant numbers) need to be balanced by the fact that some educators also commit felony offenses. A few bad apples should not tarnish the reputation of these two groups made up of mainly good, honest, hard working people.
SAMPLE EMAIL- Send one to each of the Committee members listed below, or call or FAX them:
SUBJECT- Support SB 108 without changes
Dear Senator- I urge you to support Senator Waddoups' SB 108 (Dangerous Weapon Amendments) as introduced. This is a minor clarification of a technical conflict between two sections of the Utah Statutes. This is not a change in policy concerning guns in schools. ONLY people with permits to carry legal self defense weapons are allowed to have them in schools now (or anywhere else for that matter). It will still be illegal for those without permits to carry a concealed weapon in schools (or anywhere else).
Do not make schools more dangerous by mandating that only unarmed victims will be found there.
Watch for information on two additional important gun bills coming up for committee hearings Thursday. You will need to call, email, or FAX again. This little bit of work is a small price to defend your rights.
CHANGE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS FOR ALERTS
Go to the USSC website (UtahShootingSports.com) and use the ADD--DROP--CHANGE ADDRESS section. Just "unsubscribe" your old address and "subscribe" the new one, all in about 30 seconds. If this was forwarded by someone, we invite you to sign up for free alerts or USSC membership on the USSC website
USSC WEBSITE-
http://UtahShootingSports.com includes frequent updates of gun related news stories from Utah and around the nation. There will be daily updates on gun related bills during the Legislative Session.
On 28 Jan 2003 15:27:27 GMT Charles <utbagpiper@juno.com> wrote:
___Charles___
I believe I have found a problem with SB 108, not mentioned by USSC.
Along with the good that it does in clarifying the primacy of CCW permits over
any anti-self-defense school policy, SB 108, also adds Schedule II drugs to the
Schedule I drugs that a person is already prohibited from being in illegal
possession of while also possessing a gun. Being in "unlawful possession" of a
Schedule II drug, makes a person a "Catagory I restricted Person" for whom,
possession of a firearm becomes a felony offense. Now before you think I've gone
soft in the head for drug addicts, read on.
Along with a lot of commonly abused/recreational drugs, schedule II drugs include
some fairly common perscription pain killers like codeine. If I am not mistaken,
in Utah, it is illegal to have perscription drug outside its original
perscription bottle.
So, under this particular change in SB 108, an arthritis patient who places a
couple of his perscrption pain pills into a pocket pill carrier (rather than
taking his entire bottle with him to potentially lose or get stolen) and goes out
for a day of hunting, is now a "Category I" restricted person and is guilty of a
felony for having his hunting gun with him. SB 108 provides an "affirmative
defense" to this charge if one had a perscription for the drug or if one had in
his possession for legal dispensing to an animal or other member of his
household.
- -----
While commonly neglected, one is supposed to have a pharmacy label
on secondary containers such as medisets. If the concern is merely
not to carry one's entire supply on an outing, keep an old pharmacy
bottle (for that schedule II prescription written to you) and put
1 or 2 pills in it.
___Charles___
Also, under current statute is section 76-10-503, it is a felony to own,
possess, control, OR TRANSFER a firearm if you are under felony indictment.
Not conviction, indictment.
- -----
Overreaching in general, not just wrt prescriptions.
I have a defunct monitor. Hazardous waste disposal regulations
currently don't apply to households, so the government hazardous
waste people have told me to just toss it in the trash rather
than paying Lucency a $10 recycling fee. (I'm tempted to return
it to RC Willey.) Should that exemption change, one's "firearms"
could be confiscated for disposal of common household items. My
point is many actual and potential felony violations exist of
which most people are totally unaware. This prohibition on
transfer is just another license to steal (and prosecute ex
post facto). Let the reps know this imposition is unacceptable.
Or switch to Vioxx or Celebrex. You shouldn't be handling guns
while taking narcotics (or anxiolytics like benzodiazepines,
or even antihistamines) or drinking alcohol anyhow, even though
these may be schedule IV or V or even OTC.
The whole point is to convict people of crimes, so they can
legally be enslaved under the "13th" amendment. Any excuse
will do.
___Charles___
At this point, it is not only illegal for you to own guns, but
it is illegal for you to transfer (IE, sell, gift, lend) your guns.
- -----
Subtly suggest a friend or relative "burglarize" them? (I.e.,
"Here's a spare key. It wouldn't be good were the police to find
guns and ammunition in [place], nor unexplained fingerprints.
I wouldn't notice should that key be misplaced when I come back
into this room.")
Shalom,
Scott
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:15:00 GMT
From: utbagpiper@juno.com
Subject: Re:Re: Fw:USSC Alert
- ---------- Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> writes:
>>While commonly neglected, one is supposed to have a pharmacy label
on secondary containers such as medisets. If the concern is merely
not to carry one's entire supply on an outing, keep an old pharmacy
bottle (for that schedule II prescription written to you) and put
1 or 2 pills in it.<<
>>I have a defunct monitor. Hazardous waste disposal regulations
currently don't apply to households, so the government hazardous
waste people have told me to just toss it in the trash rather
than paying Lucency a $10 recycling fee. (I'm tempted to return
it to RC Willey.) Should that exemption change, one's "firearms"
could be confiscated for disposal of common household items. My
point is many actual and potential felony violations exist of
which most people are totally unaware. This prohibition on
transfer is just another license to steal (and prosecute ex
post facto). Let the reps know this imposition is unacceptable.<<
And this is the crux of the problem. They talk about "violent felons" and everybody demands that we not let them get guns. But the actual language always applies to a whole host of technical "crimes" that most people don't even realize are crimes. Environmental regs are a huge area of concern in this regard as are the overly complex tax laws. Simply put, it is just far too easy to end up as a convicted felon (which now includes ANY offense in ANY jurisdiction that carried a possible sentence of 1 year or greater, regardless of what it was called at the time) with absolutely no knowledge or intent to ever harm anyone.
>>Or switch to Vioxx or Celebrex. You shouldn't be handling guns
while taking narcotics (or anxiolytics like benzodiazepines,
or even antihistamines) or drinking alcohol anyhow, even though
these may be schedule IV or V or even OTC.<<
I'm not a doctor nor a pharmacist, so I won't claim to know what effect any drug is going to have on any given person. And individuals should certainly give consideration to their mental state before handling a gun. But bear in mind, these legal restrictions do not just apply to hunters in the field or someone CCWing on a public street. They apply just as much in your own home. I don't believe a person should automatically lose the ability to mount a meaningful self defense simply because he happens to be taking one drug or another under a doctor's orders. I have been told that various pain killers have far less of an impairing effect when used by someone who is in pain as compared to when they are abused by someone who is not in pain.
>>Subtly suggest a friend or relative "burglarize" them? (I.e.,
"Here's a spare key. It wouldn't be good were the police to find
guns and ammunition in [place], nor unexplained fingerprints.
I wouldn't notice should that key be misplaced when I come back
into this room.")<<
I'd suspsect that if one doesn't get one's guns seized upon being arrested following the isuance of the indictment that one could find all kinds of ways to get rid of them that would be hard to prove as a crime. But one shouldn't have to over just an indictment. And if one is served with an arrest warrant or one's home is searched immediately upon issuance of an indictment, I'd guess the guns are likely to be seized before one ever has a chance to dispose of them.
In fact, as far as I'm concerned, there should be some reasonable period (say 30 days) for a person newly convicted of a felony to dispose of his otherwise legally owned firearms (maybe require that his "agent"--either attorney, friend, family member etc physically handle the guns instead of the newly convicted felon) before he is guilty of a gun crime and subject to loss of personal property.
I hope everyone has taken a moment to call the members of the Senate Judiciay committee to voice concerns with this one provision of the bill. The rest of bill--dealing with schools--very much needs to be passed.
On 28 Jan 2003 18:15:00 GMT utbagpiper@juno.com wrote:
I hope everyone has taken a moment to call the members of the Senate Judiciay
committee to voice concerns with this one provision of the bill. The rest of
bill--dealing with schools--very much needs to be passed.
- -----
Agreed. However, I'd rather have to vote at the county clerk's office
than allow more such impositions of technical crimes and seizures.
Shalom,
Scott
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:58:56 GMT
From: utbagpiper@juno.com
Subject: SB 103 passes Senate, Moves to the house
Sen. Bramble's SB 103 which eliminates the 60 day limit on out-of-State CCW permits passed the Senate's third reading today on a vote of 25 to 0 with 4 absent. Those absent were Dmitrich, Hickman, Hillyard, Mansell.
It now moves to the house of Representatives. Please encourage your Representative to support SB 103 without amendment.
My thanks to Sen. Bramble and all those who voted in favor of this bill.
Subject: Latest on SB 38 and HB 178 --Contact Senate Judiciary Committee member s
Here are some updates on a couple of bills, clarification on history, etc. These are my personal opinions and best recollections.
Sen. Julander's latest assault on the right to a meaningful defense, SB 38 that would impose significant criminal and civil penalties if a child manages to get ahold of one of your guns and injures himself or someone else, has been released from the Senate rules committee and assigned to the Senate Judiciary committee. This is the now proverbial "lock up your protection" bill that essentially requires you to store your weapons under lock and key under most circumstances.
Sen. Julander is trying to blunt some of the most emotional critisism of her bill by including a few meaningless bones such as a provision "encouraging" police to be sensitive about the timing of any arrests, "encouraging" prosecutors to be sensitive in decisions about prosecuting someone who has had a child injured or killed due to an accidnt, and including a 1/2 million dollar cap on civil awards--still more than enough to bankrupt your average gun owner.
The fiscal analysis of this bill completely fails to consider the financial impact to individuals required to either buy a gun safe (expensive) or use "external locking devices" (proven to be inneffective and even dangerious).
I'm also at a loss as to why firearms should be treated fundamentally differently than any other useful and potentially dangerous item around the home such as chemical cleaners, medications, empty 5 gallon buckets, or kitchen cutlery.
Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary (listed below) and encourage them to oppose this bill.
Rep. Ty McCartney's HB 178 has also been sent to the Senate Judiciary committee. This bill adds various attempts or agreements to obtain a gun to the list of things that a Catagory I restricted person (convicted violent felons, those on parole or probation from ANY secure facility--regardless of the underlying orginal offense--and those on probation for any felonies) can be prosecuted for along with actually possessing a gun.
Initially, GOUtah! offered no opposition to this bill and it sailed through committee. Upon further reading, we become concerned that the new langauge was so broad as to create a hazard for entrappment of those who unknowingly or unwittingly agreed to take possession of a firearm without even realizing that is what they were doing. We spoke with Rep. McCartney and asked him to add a minor modification to his bill so that a crime is committed only if a person "knowingly or intentionally" agreed or arranged to possess a gun. While Rep. McCartney was proffessional and civil, he dismissed our concerns and request for minor change as unfounded and unneeded.
We also discovered a serious problem in current statute within the same section of code as that amended by HB 178. Under current law, if a person is indicted for any felony (not convicted, but only indicted), he may not possess NOR TRANSFER (IE give away, sell, lend, etc) any firearm or he is guilty of a felony. This is a real catch-22. You cannot own guns, but you cannot legally dispose of them either. In other words, if you are indicted for a felony your entire gun collection can be seized immediately and even if the orginal indictment is eventually thrown out or you are acquited, you are still guilty of a felony for having owned a firearm at the moment you were indicted.
So GOUtah! also asked Rep. McCartney to make a very minor amendment to his bill to correct this gross injustice in current law. Again, he refused, not wanting to "muddy the waters" on his current bill. He did offer to support a seperate bill to correct this problem. Of course, offering to support a seperate bill or to "work together in the future on this issue" is a favorite ploy of politicians to get constitutents and activists to go away happy without having actually recieved anything they needed.
After getting the word out about our concerns on this bill and gun owners started calling their representatives, the bill that had thus far flown through the House, failed handily on its third reading. At that point, Rep. Curtis (who voted against the bill) moved to reconsider and that motion passed, which placed the bill back on the 3rd reading calander.
Rep. Curtis amended the bill by adding the words "intentionally or knowingly" to both the new offense of a Catagory I person attempting to obtain a firearm as well as to the existing offense of a Catagory I person actually possessing a firearm. The bill then passed the 3rd reading in the house and is now in the Senate Judiciary committee.
As it currently stands, this bill is more or less benign, and may even be a bit of an improvement in that a Catagory I person must "intentionally or knowingly" possess a firearm before a crime is committed. Parking a friend's car, not knowing there is a gun under the seat would no longer constitute a crime for a Catagory I restricted person. Ironically, a Catagory II person (presumably less dangerous than a Catagory I person) does not currently have this same protection extended to him.
Unfortunately, the current gross injustice of potentially losing an entire gun collection (likely to never get it back) AND be guilty of a felony (not likely to be prosecuted as that would highlight the insanity of the current law and maybe lead to a judge ordering your guns returned) simply because you owned guns at that moment a felony indictment (could be for a tax problem, an environmental offense, or maybe even an Olympic case) is handed down and regardless of the eventuall outcome of the case, remains in the law.
Due to various rules and procedures in the legislature, using an existing bill (such as HB 178) that is already modifying this section of code is our best bet to correct this problem this session.
Please contact gun friendly members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to amend this bill so as to remove a felony indictment as one of the things that makes a person a "catagory II" restricted person. Along with the injustice and catch-22 in current law, it simply isn't needed.
A truly dangerous person who is indicted can and should be held in custody without bail. And a judge may impose restrictions on a person who is released on bail. So there is no need for a blanket prohibition on everyone who is indicted for one of the ever growing list of technical and non-violent felonies.
Also ask the Senators to add "intentionally or knowingly" to the prohibiton against Catagory II persons.
Again, the list of Senate Judiciary members follows.
It is unfortunate the Rep. McCartney was unwilling to work with us originally on this bill. While we had hoped this was just a matter of differences in tactics, rather than a sign that Rep. McCartney is hostile to gun rights, at least a couple of procedural votes in support of very bad, anti-gun bills leads us to worry that despite his claims otherwise, Rep. McCartney may well be fundamentally opposed to some significant aspects of the RIGHT to own and carry firearms.
We are also troubled that we are hearing reports from various legislators that Rep. McCartney represented to them that he had the support of various gun groups, including GOUtah! on his bill.
For the record, GOUtah! NEVER supported this bill. As stated early, we originally took a position of "NO POSITION" which essentially means we leave it to our individual members to arrive at whatever conclusion they may, without much input from us. Even then, we had asked Rep. McCartney to fix the "indictment" problem in current language. So that is a long way from any kind of support. And by the time the third vote came in house, we had made it clear that we were opposing the bill outright.
We hope and expect this was an honest mistake on Rep. McCartney's part rather than a deliberate fabrication.
However, please be aware that such mistakes do get made (and once ina while in the heat of a legislative session, the truth might even get stretched by those who are anxious to pass a less than ideal gun bill) and if you hear reports of any pro-gun groups suppposedly supporting a bill you believe is bad, please contact your group at once so that any misperceptions can be corrected.
Thanks.
Charles
Senate Judiciary Members (full contact info at www.goutahorg.org):
