The SLTribune is reporting that the Senate Confirmation Committee has approved Judge Nehring's nomination to the Utah State Supreme Court. It did not report on vote totals and I have no idea, at this point, which members of the committee, if any, voted against his nomination.
He now goes to the full Senate for a vote.
I believe this is one of the most crucial gun issues facing us this year. Bills, whether good or bad, can and will be brought up again next year. Good laws will be attacked every session. And bad laws can be repealed or amended at some future date.
BUT, a supreme court justice sits for life. He will issue rulings for MANY years to come that will affect our RKBA and other rights. I agree with the author (Neil Smith, I think) who wrote that a person's view on the individual right to own and carry guns for self defense is a pretty good indicator of their whole political outlook. A person who does not trust his fellow citizens to carry guns probably doesn't trust them to make a lot of other decisions for themselves.
Further, to date, the Utah Legislature has done NOTHING to reign in the courts or force them to obey the gun laws passed. Approving the nomination of one of the ring leaders of the successful effor to thwart legislative intent on CCW sends a terrible message to both the courts and the Governor and other government officials. It says the legislature has no intention of seeing that gun or other laws are actually abided.
Please contact your Senator and urge him to vote against Judge Nehring.
Subject: SB 108 passes the house with minor amendments
Hello all,
FYI, the legislative web site is reporting that Sen. Waddoups' SB 108 has passed its third reading in the House with two minor amendments in the church language portion of the bill.
One change requires BCI to post on their website any churches that have banned guns.
The other change shortens the duration of a church gun ban from 5 years to one year. Thus, a church that wishes to ban guns will need to provide some kind of public notice (newspaper public notice section, announcment from the pulpit, etc) and notify BCI of their continued ban on guns at least once every 12 months or the gun ban will expire.
SB 108 will now have to be returned to the Senate for a "concurance" vote. If I'm not mistaken, the Senate can vote to accept the bill as amended, in which case it passes. Or, it can reject the House amendments in which case a conference committee of House and Senate members will meet to work out new langauge, and both houses will get to vote on that new language.
Subject: OFF TOPIC PERSONAL -- My son going in for surgery
Dear Friends,
If you'll forgive me for a personal announcement and request at this busy time of year, our 4 month old son, Wesley, is scheduled to have surgery to correct a congential displacement of the hips this next week. Essentially, he was born with hip joints that are too shallow to properly hold the head of the femur in place. This is not a terribly rare occurance, though it is far more common in first or breech girls than in boys. He is also one of the minority cases that is not correctable using a harness.
This is not new or exotic surgery, but it is hard to think of anything as routine when it is your baby boy going under general anesthisia and the knife.
Jennifer and I would welcome you including him and his physicians in your prayers and/or fasting over the next few days.
I know there is more than one way to look at the whole credit union / bank debate. And I certainly don't care to start that debate here over this post. Nor am I suggesting that there is necessarily only one right or "freedom supporting" view when it comes to banks and credit unions.
However, it is interesting to note what groups and associations some of the most visible anti-self-defense (aka anti-gun, anti-RKBA) people in this State lend their support and names to, outside of the gun issue. It is also interesting if one recalls how some of these organizations conduct their public campaigns, how much honesty, vs. half-truths they use.
This looks to be one more verification that Neil Smith was correct in asserting that a person's view on guns is, very often, a very good barometer into his (or her) entire political phylosophy.
(Smith's short essay on this can be found here <http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/why_guns.htm>.)
Note that if a hyper link crosses a line, it will need to be manually cut and pasted into your web browser.
Charles
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Over the past few weeks the incessant advertisements by The Resolution
Alliance (http://www.resolutionalliance.org), a self-purported mediator of the 'feud' between banks and credit unions, has caught my attention. These advertisements have seemed quite one-sided to me, so I decided to try and learn a little more about this organization. Perhaps many of you already know this information, but what I found after a brief search was quite enlightening to me. It certainly caused me to wonder about this organization and its self-representation as a neutral third party. It may be considered hypocritical by some that a bank-funded, non-profit entity would be criticizing the not-for-profit credit unions. What's really going on here?
Interesting Article (from Members First Credit Union, Brigham City)
<http://www.members-first-cu.com/resolution.htm>
Resolution Alliance acknowledges that all its funding comes from banks.
Maura Carabello, former Utah Banker's Association consultant, was
recommended to Resolution Alliance by the Utah Bankers Association for the president and administrator position. Additionally, the Utah Bankers Association supports Resolution Alliance. The Utah League of Credit Unions does not.
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC PERSONAL -- My son going in for surgery
Certainly you are forgiven, and prayers are coming your way. Have faith
and all will be well.
Karl
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 21:14, Charles Hardy wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> If you'll forgive me for a personal announcement and request at this busy time of year, our 4 month old son, Wesley, is scheduled to have surgery to correct a congential displacement of the hips this next week. Essentially, he was born with hip joints that are too shallow to properly hold the head of the femur in place. This is not a terribly rare occurance, though it is far more common in first or breech girls than in boys. He is also one of the minority cases that is not correctable using a harness.
>
> This is not new or exotic surgery, but it is hard to think of anything as routine when it is your baby boy going under general anesthisia and the knife.
>
> Jennifer and I would welcome you including him and his physicians in your prayers and/or fasting over the next few days.
A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from
you.
-- Ramsey Clark
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:10:49 -0500
From: JHVG@aol.com
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC PERSONAL -- My son going in for surgery
How is your son doing?
JHVG
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:50:45 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Re:Re: OFF TOPIC PERSONAL -- My son going in for surgery
He's doing great at this point.
His surgery was scheduled for today. However the hospital has too many sick children (flu, rsv, pnenomia, etc) using the beds right now so his surgery had to be cancelled. It is rescheduled for about a week and a half from now. At this point I'm grateful all we have to deal with is a surgically correctable physical defect rather than a nasty and potentially life threatening bug.
Thank you for your prayers and concern. I'll post another update after surgery.
The former Mr. Nash, now Ms. Barbara Nash, still Prof. Nash at the UofU, being paid with tax dollars, presumably to teach Geology, just has nothing better to do than to throw out half truths and distortions concerning concealed carry permit holders.
I believe some letters to the editor in reponse would be in order. Of course, to the usually uniformed, this looks like a letter from a woman. So rebuttal letters from real women who really understand the need for self defense, would be particularly powerful.
His/Her/It's(?) letter to the editor is printed in today's SLTrib. But I won't be at all surprised to see it printed in the Deseret News sometime in the next few days.
Letters to the editor of the SLTrib can be sent as follows:
Email: letters@sltrib.com or
Fax:(801)257-8950
When submitting letters to the Public Forum, please include your full name, signature, address and daytime telephone numbers. Information other than your name and the city in which you live are kept confidential.
Keep them short. Concise letters developing a single theme are more likely to be published.
For hard copy submissions, please type and double space throughout.
Letters are condensed and edited.
Because of the volume of mail received, not all submissions are published.
Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, says that until we can keep "the bad guys" out of Utah schools, our children will be safer thanks to law-abiding persons with concealed guns who can provide additional protection.
Certainly the senator doesn't have in mind the more than 850 concealed weapon permit holders that the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification reports as having been convicted of crimes including murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, forcible sexual abuse, rape of a child, sexual exploitation of a minor and domestic abuse.
If it were up to me, I'd rely on trained professional law enforcement personnel to ensure safe schools instead of "mostly law-abiding," self-appointed guardians of public safety.
Subject: Jordan School Districts to discuss today whether to urge a Veto of SB 108
All,
Today I decided to check with my member of the Jordan School board to see if JSD had taken or planned to take any action relative to SB 108 as some organizations have been reported as doing. I'm glad I did.
The school board members will be holding a discussion session TODAY at 3:00 pm to discuss this very issue. It seems board member Ralph Haws is pushing for a letter urging the governor to veto SB 108.
I urge those of you in or around Jordan School District to take a moment to contact the school board members and urge them to NOT vote for nor sign any such letter.
There are aspects of SB 108 that I don't really like. But in looking at the bill in total, I believe the gains made, especially as they regard CCW in/around schools, and legal, non-CCW possession of weapons (such as in a car, home, or business) located in the 1000 foot "school zone" around school property, that this bill should not be vetoed.
Here are some arguments I presented:
SB 108 does NOT apply to criminals nor does it allow anyone under 21 (minimum age to get a permit) to carry a weapon on or around schools.
SB 108 protects teachers rights to protect themselves. Teachers should not be treated like second class citizens. They have as much right to protect themselves as anyone else.
If I can trust a teacher with my child for 8 hours a day or even for several days and nights for extra curricular trips, I can trust that teacher to make wise and proper decisions about the possession of a self-defense weapon. I sure would hate to have a dedicated teacher feel the need to cut back on extra curricular involvment because she didn't feel safe being at the school eary in the morning or late at night.
USSC filed GRAMA requests (Utah's Freedom of information law) with every district in the State a couple years ago to find out how many reported, documented incidents there had been involving weapons carried by those with permits. There were ZERO. Either these feared events are not happening, or else school personal are being criminally negligent in not reporting them to police so that permits can be revoked and bad guys put in jail.
I live within 1000 feet of a school. I drive past schools every day. Without SB 108, I could be in violation of the gun free school law everytime I go hunting or shooting. SB 108 clarifies that I am not in violation for having a gun in a private car.
SB 108 also contains language pertaining to the right of churches, which, unlike public schools, are private property, to limit or prohibit guns in their dedicated sanctuaries. The LDS church as well as other churches supported that language and want it to become law. Supporting a veto of SB 108 is to support a veto of language support by several major and smaller churches in Utah.
Finally, school boards and teachers are frequently complaining that the legislature interferes in what should be school board matters. It will sure look hypocritical if the school board decides to interject itself into an issue that by both constiutional provision as well as statute is clearly a Statewide, and legislative issue.
Please take a moment to contact the school board members ASAP. Please be polite. Some of these members are already oppose to any efforts to veto SB 108. Others are on the fence and are far more likely to be swayed by polite, thoughtful reasons than by rudeness or threats. The biggest reason given by school board members to oppose SB 108 is the fear that some hot head with a gun will shoot up a school. Please don't reinforce such misguided stereotypes about gun owners.
I've tried to give my best feel of where individual board members stand. But this is just my best guess and is not gospel truth.
Again, the meeting is at 3:00.
If you don't reach someone at home, leave a message at the district office at:
Once in Ten Year Chance to Remove Assault Weapons Ban is NOW!
For those of you who remember the Clinton years, you will most likely
remember the great battle we went through, trying to stop the Assault
Weapons Ban from becoming law. Many of us remember that defeat, for
it was a difficult pill to swallow, in losing such ground against
military rifles, and magazine cartridge capacity.
Well, we now have a rare chance to see this law repealed. The fight
has now started. The authors of the useless, rights-denying legisla-
tion, notorious anti-gunners, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.), recently asked Attorney General Ashcroft if the
Bush Administration would support the ban past the "sunset" of this
law, which is September 2004.
General Ashcroft was somewhat elusive in his answer, but yet eluded
that the "...effect of the law was uncertain...." Certainly a better
answer than saying it was a good law that they wish to keep intact!
Many Democrats saw their career end in 1994 by voting for the Assault
Weapons Ban. We can only hope that this lesson will remain firmly in
the minds of our Washington Congress critters.
This is where you come in.
You need to remind your Congresscritter and Senators let the Assault
Weapons Ban law sunset. Tell them that if they vote to retain or renew
this odious law, you will work to throw him/her out of office. Votes
are the only language (besides money) they understand. Call and write
them now!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:17:13 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Some more equal than others
From the departments of "some are more equal than others" and "why you should be very careful what records you allow your government to keep" is this from today's SLTrib.
I wonder if the powers that be would consider it not all that serious if I or some other private citizen illegally accessed someone's criminal history.
Also, no word on whether BCI (the keeper of CCW permit records) has proper safeguards in place to protect the privacy of their records.
Gunnison Police Chief Joe L. Christensen will stay on the job despite criminal charges accusing him of illegally obtaining criminal records, the mayor of the Sanpete County town says.
Christensen is charged with three class B misdemeanor counts of misusing his access to criminal records, as well as a charge of official misconduct, also a class B misdemeanor.
The charges were filed last year in Taylorsville Justice Court, and Christensen -- a 27-year veteran of the force -- pleaded innocent in December.
He faces similar charges in Salt Lake County Justice Court for allegedly accessing records from the Utah Division of Child and Family Services, said Assistant Utah Attorney General Polly Samuels.
"Until the court renders a decision, we will withhold judgment," Mayor Mark Henline said. Henline said he became aware of the allegations against his police chief in December, nearly two months after the charges were filed by Samuels.
The Gunnison City Council discussed placing Christensen on paid leave, a common move when government officials face criminal charges, but decided that the misdemeanor allegations did not warrant such action, Henline said.
"It didn't strike me as that serious," he said.
Samuels declined to discuss specifics , saying only: "The basic claim is [Christensen] got BCI [Bureau of Criminal Identification] information about a person who was not the subject of a criminal investigation."
Christensen did not return a phone call requesting comment. BCI Director Nanette Rolfe said she was unaware of the allegations.
Documents filed in the case say only that Christensen, "with an intent to benefit himself or to harm another," accessed criminal histories -- commonly called "rap sheets" -- on three separate occasions between Nov. 14, 2000, and Jan. 7, 2001.
The charges were filed in Taylorsville because BCI is headquartered there. Christensen's next court appearance is set for April 21.
Subject: UofU gun ban suit tossed down to State court
From last Friday's SLTrib.
Note that the current, illegal gun ban, only applies to employees and students of the U--those over whom the U hold administrative sway. They can't do a thing to visitors. In fact, if you or anyone you know (whether student, employee, or visitor) is ever hassled over having a gun on campus, or forced to sign away your rights--via a University Housing contract--to have a legal gun, please let me know or else contact the State Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff directly. The U (and most other public colleges in the State) are clearly violating the law. And if that violation affects you directly, the AG may be able to pursue stronger remedies against the U.
Of course, I do NOT advise anyone to deliberately provoke such a sitution nor to place your employement nor education at risk--at least not BEFORE you talk to an attorney specializing in this field and fully understand the possible ramifications.
We might also consider contacting the AG's office and asking Mark to stop waiting for this "friendly" suit to wend its way through the courts. The law should be enforced, as written and intended, NOW. The gun ban should end. Let the U sue to bring it back.
The AG can be contated at:
236 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810
FAX: (801) 538-1121
Complaints: (801) 366-0260
General Office Numbers: (801) 366-0300, (801) 538-9600
Toll Free within the State of Utah: (800) AG 4 INFO (244-4636)
Calling it a victory for "states' rights," lawyers in the Utah Attorney General's Office applauded Thursday's ruling by a federal judge that a lawsuit to keep concealed weapons off the University of Utah campus should be heard first in a state court.
"The merit of the claims was not touched upon by the judge," said Assistant Attorney General Brent Burnett, who argued the state's position before U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball. "Our argument before the court [was] that Utah courts are the only ones with jurisdiction to decide what Utah law is and how a state officer such as Attorney General [Mark] Shurtleff should or should not conduct himself in following state laws."
The university filed the "friendly" lawsuit on March 12, 2002, to settle a dispute between U. President Bernie Machen and the Legislature over whether the school has the right to ban legal concealed handguns from campus as it does other guns.
The university claimed the ban was necessary to preserve academic freedom, while the Attorney General's Office pointed to a state law allowing lawfully concealed handguns in most public places, including college campuses.
The university has 60 days to refile the lawsuit in state court.
According to Shurtleff, the lawsuit was "a race to the courthouse" to decide policies that should be set in the Legislature.
"When you look at this from a federalism and/or states' rights issue, it's a victory for states' rights," said Shurtleff.
But University of Utah spokesman Fred Esplin said, "None of our legal claims were ruled invalid," adding university attorneys still were going over Kimball's ruling and it will be discussed among the U.'s board of trustees.
"We certainly want to have the issue resolved in the courts. There is a good chance that is what we will do," he said.
The issue is two-pronged: First, whether the University of Utah has the authority to make policy related to guns on its campus. Second, the university claimed the presence of concealed weapons in the classroom would interfere with teaching and impair academic freedom, which is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Even though Shurtleff consented to deciding the issue in a lawsuit, he filed a motion last June to have the case dismissed, claiming the proper venue is state courts, not federal.
He also argued that the university had not been harmed and therefore didn't have standing to sue.
Kimball ruled the university had standing to file the lawsuit, but agreed the dispute should be argued first in state court to decide issues of Utah law.
"Our understanding of the judge's decision is that the U. has some legitimate issues on the federal side and he is willing to consider them, but he is saying we need to get our state issues decided first," said Esplin.
While legal issues are pending, the university's policy that has been in effect for 30 years will continue, said Esplin.
"Students, faculty and staff are not allowed to bring weapons on campus," he said.
