... the Bureau of Criminal Identification reported
last year that not all Utah concealed-carry permit
holders are law-abiding citizens. Four people in the
past eight years had their permits revoked for
committing murder, at least two using the guns they
were carrying legally.
- -----
Is this correct? The Vermont carry law prohibits
carrying a firearm for an illegal purpose. Seems to
me murder would certainly qualify. If Utah's carry
law differs on this, it is in serious need of reform.
___SLTrib___
Apologists pointed out that the overall crime rate
among permit holders was lower than in the general
population, but that is small consolation when these
people are the only private citizens with carte
blanche to carry guns in schools.
- -----
They make the case for Vermont carry. Why does the State
of Utah establish a privileged class with an exclusive
privilege of self-defense? And why should the state be
running youth indoctrination camps anyhow?
Shalom,
Scott
- ---
"The Second Amendment *IS* my gun permit!" - Sandi Webb
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:33:02 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Latest updates on on-line gun polls
For any who are keeping score, below are the final, or current results of three local on-line (and thus inherently unscientific) gun polls. The first results are the final results from the Standard Examiner's poll last week. Next are the final results from the UofU's student paper's poll from last week. Finally, are the current results from the UofU's alumni on-line newsletter's poll. Interestingly, it seems the U's alums are far more rational on this topic than here students. Either the education at the U is doing some good, or else the power of entering the real world and paying taxes for programs--rather than being in school and being the recipient of taxpayer funded programs--is even more powerful in shaping views than we might have thought. ;)
Charles
Standard.net
Recently, Gov. Mike Leavitt signed Senate Bill 108, which will allow concealed weapon holders to bring guns onto public school campuses. Do you agree with his decision?
Yes: 82.0 percent
No: 17.2 percent
Unsure: 0.8 percent
605 total votes
UtahChronicle.com
Should the U continue its fight to keep guns off campus?
Yes. The U must do all it can.
(56%; 128 votes)
No. It's a pointless battle. The U should give up.
(38%; 87 votes)
No. Even though it's good to keep guns off campus, the U can't succeed.
(7%; 15 votes)
U's alumni newsletter (still active after being reset after the first couple of days due to alledged "spamming and distorting" of the results):
http://sh2.alumni.utah.edu/poll/poll.php
Which best reflects your feelings about permit holders bringing concealed weapons on campus:
Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. 63.1%
Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because they would act as a deterrent to criminal behavior. 20.4%
Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because the dangers outweigh the benefits and they would not deter criminal behavior. 15.2%
Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because they would deter free speech and academic freedom. 1.2%
RECKLESS LAWSUIT PREEMPTION SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY VOTE!
H. R. 1036, the NRA-backed reckless lawsuit preemption legislation, has been scheduled for a vote this Wednesday, April 9 by the full U. S. House of Representatives. This critical reform seeks to put an end to the efforts of anti-gun extremists to drive law-abiding gun manufacturers into bankruptcy with their tactic of filing endless predatory lawsuits that have no merit. H. R 1036 currently has 251 cosponsors, more than a majority of U. S. Representatives, so the chance of it passing is strong. However, we can expect anti-gun lawmakers to do everything possible to derail this legislation, including offering amendments that would attempt to weaken or gut this measure.
Please be sure to call your U. S. Representative TODAY and urge him to support H. R. 1036 in its current form, and to oppose any amendments that would weaken or gut this critical legislative reform. If you need contact information for your U. S. Representative, please use our "Write Your Representatives" tool.
Honorable Jim Matheson (2nd Dist.- Salt Lake area)
410 Cannon House Office Building Washington D. C. 20515
Subject: FW: Surprise - Bush backs renewing AW Ban? (LONG)
Probably a "surprise" only to Knight Ridder Newspapers.
Scott
In surprise move, Bush backs renewing ban on assault weapons
By Shannon McCaffrey
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Fri, Apr. 11, 2003
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle
Association and supporting a renewal of the assault-weapons ban, set to
expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the
current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White
House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.
Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority for the NRA.
President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the
current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.
The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as
the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life after several years of near
hibernation. Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using
their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda.
This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and
dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits.
The assault-weapons ban is considered a crown jewel by the gun-control
movement, and even though its expiration is more than a year away it is
already being watched closely.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, who like Bush is a staunch gun-rights
supporter, muddied the waters in a recent appearance before the Senate
Judiciary Committee when he refused to say whether the administration
supports an extension. Ashcroft cited a 1999 Justice Department report that
said the ban's impact on deadly gun violence is unclear.
Ashcroft has been pushing a pro-gun rights agenda at the Justice Department,
seeking to have federal background checks on gun sales destroyed after 24
hours and embracing an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment's
guarantee of gun ownership rights.
The White House comment surprised those on both sides of the gun issue.
"That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who leads
the conservative pro-Bush group Americans for Tax Reform.
Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said it "creates a huge problem for
Bush with the NRA." "The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval
Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for
them," he said.
Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety applauded Bush's stance but urged
the president to use his political clout to push for Congress to act. If
Congress does nothing, the ban could just expire.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was
somewhat irrelevant. "Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided
by the Congress," LaPierre said. If it is, the NRA has reason to be
optimistic.
This week's action on the immunity legislation for dealers and gun makers
reflects the interest of Republicans to resurrect the pro-gun rights agenda.
Congress had been poised to act on the bill last fall, but the deadly sniper
attacks in the Washington area prompted a delay. The measure has enough
co-sponsors in the Senate to pass that chamber unless Democrats dig in their
heels and filibuster.
Supporters of the immunity bill say it shields gun makers from bankruptcy
because of frivolous lawsuits that became popular during the Clinton
administration. Lawsuits filed by cities against gun manufacturers - modeled
on similar litigation against the tobacco industry - have so far been
unsuccessful but have kept gun makers tied up in court.
Gun-control advocates say the immunity bill will keep innocent victims of
gun violence from getting their day in court. The gun industry would become
the first to receive blanket immunity protections if the bill succeeds.
The action on Capitol Hill coincides with another attempt in court to sue
manufacturers, this one by the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People. Filed in New York, the NAACP contends that weapons
disproportionately harm minorities. While a number of cities have sued the
gun industry with little success in order to collect damages for gun
violence, the NAACP lawsuit seeks to impose new restrictions on handgun
marketing and distribution.
Testifying at the case was Robert Ricker, the former head of the American
Shooting Sports Council, the main gun industry trade association. Ricker is
the gun industry's first whistleblower. He says weapons manufacturers have
known for some time that dealers were selling firearms to juveniles and
criminals but remained silent for fear of being held liable.
The active gun debate stands in contrast to several years of inaction.
Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2002 midterm election after
some determined that it had been an albatross for Democratic presidential
hopeful Al Gore in 2000.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., elected to Congress on a gun-control platform
after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a deranged gunman on a
Long Island commuter train in 1993, acknowledged that some Democrats are
nervous about the gun issue nowadays. "But it's coming back. I think you're
going to see it popping up a lot this session with the Republicans in
control," she said. She said soccer moms in the suburbs so crucial to
election success draw the line at assault-style weapons such as AK-47s and
Uzis, which can quickly fire multiple shots.
The 1994 bill made it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess certain
semiautomatic weapons that discharge one shot for each pull of the trigger
and automatically load a round of ammunition without being cocked. The
prohibition is due to expire in September 2004.
But the NRA's LaPierre noted that the political climate on guns has changed
dramatically in the last few years. The GOP has a lock on the White House
and Congress, and he said that even a number of Democrats are campaigning
on a pro-gun platform.
One who has not is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who will introduce
a bill to reauthorize the assault weapons ban in the coming weeks.
A new report due out later this year as a follow up to the 1999 report cited
by Ashcroft could provide her with some fresh evidence. One of its authors,
Jeffrey Roth, said preliminary findings showed that high-capacity magazines
for ammunition, banned as part of the 1994 bill, were being linked
increasingly to violent crimes. "These could end up emerging as even more
important than the banned weapons," said Roth, who works at the University
of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology.
- ---
Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Diego Ibarguen contributed to this
report.
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:25:40 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: FW: Surprise - Bush backs renewing AW Ban? (LONG)
I hate to dash anyone's hope that the misnamed "assault weapons" ban would be allowed to sunset under our "pro-gun" president and AG. But is anyone really surprised?
Any guesses where Utah's "solidy pro-gun" Sentors and two GOP congressmen stand on this?
I'm sure we'll be fine as Sen. Hatch will use his position as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee to keep the bill to reauthorize the gun ban bottled up. That is why we elected him, isn't it?
Charles
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
In surprise move, Bush backs renewing ban on assault weapons
By Shannon McCaffrey
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Posted on Fri, Apr. 11, 2003
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle
Association and supporting a renewal of the assault-weapons ban, set to
expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the
current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White
House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.
Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority for the NRA.
President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the
current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.
The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as
the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life after several years of near
hibernation. Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using
their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda.
This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and
dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits.
The assault-weapons ban is considered a crown jewel by the gun-control
movement, and even though its expiration is more than a year away it is
already being watched closely.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, who like Bush is a staunch gun-rights
supporter, muddied the waters in a recent appearance before the Senate
Judiciary Committee when he refused to say whether the administration
supports an extension. Ashcroft cited a 1999 Justice Department report that
said the ban's impact on deadly gun violence is unclear.
Ashcroft has been pushing a pro-gun rights agenda at the Justice Department,
seeking to have federal background checks on gun sales destroyed after 24
hours and embracing an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment's
guarantee of gun ownership rights.
The White House comment surprised those on both sides of the gun issue.
"That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who leads
the conservative pro-Bush group Americans for Tax Reform.
Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said it "creates a huge problem for
Bush with the NRA." "The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval
Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for
them," he said.
Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety applauded Bush's stance but urged
the president to use his political clout to push for Congress to act. If
Congress does nothing, the ban could just expire.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was
somewhat irrelevant. "Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided
by the Congress," LaPierre said. If it is, the NRA has reason to be
optimistic.
This week's action on the immunity legislation for dealers and gun makers
reflects the interest of Republicans to resurrect the pro-gun rights agenda.
Congress had been poised to act on the bill last fall, but the deadly sniper
attacks in the Washington area prompted a delay. The measure has enough
co-sponsors in the Senate to pass that chamber unless Democrats dig in their
heels and filibuster.
Supporters of the immunity bill say it shields gun makers from bankruptcy
because of frivolous lawsuits that became popular during the Clinton
administration. Lawsuits filed by cities against gun manufacturers - modeled
on similar litigation against the tobacco industry - have so far been
unsuccessful but have kept gun makers tied up in court.
Gun-control advocates say the immunity bill will keep innocent victims of
gun violence from getting their day in court. The gun industry would become
the first to receive blanket immunity protections if the bill succeeds.
The action on Capitol Hill coincides with another attempt in court to sue
manufacturers, this one by the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People. Filed in New York, the NAACP contends that weapons
disproportionately harm minorities. While a number of cities have sued the
gun industry with little success in order to collect damages for gun
violence, the NAACP lawsuit seeks to impose new restrictions on handgun
marketing and distribution.
Testifying at the case was Robert Ricker, the former head of the American
Shooting Sports Council, the main gun industry trade association. Ricker is
the gun industry's first whistleblower. He says weapons manufacturers have
known for some time that dealers were selling firearms to juveniles and
criminals but remained silent for fear of being held liable.
The active gun debate stands in contrast to several years of inaction.
Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2002 midterm election after
some determined that it had been an albatross for Democratic presidential
hopeful Al Gore in 2000.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., elected to Congress on a gun-control platform
after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a deranged gunman on a
Long Island commuter train in 1993, acknowledged that some Democrats are
nervous about the gun issue nowadays. "But it's coming back. I think you're
going to see it popping up a lot this session with the Republicans in
control," she said. She said soccer moms in the suburbs so crucial to
election success draw the line at assault-style weapons such as AK-47s and
Uzis, which can quickly fire multiple shots.
The 1994 bill made it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess certain
semiautomatic weapons that discharge one shot for each pull of the trigger
and automatically load a round of ammunition without being cocked. The
prohibition is due to expire in September 2004.
But the NRA's LaPierre noted that the political climate on guns has changed
dramatically in the last few years. The GOP has a lock on the White House
and Congress, and he said that even a number of Democrats are campaigning
on a pro-gun platform.
One who has not is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who will introduce
a bill to reauthorize the assault weapons ban in the coming weeks.
A new report due out later this year as a follow up to the 1999 report cited
by Ashcroft could provide her with some fresh evidence. One of its authors,
Jeffrey Roth, said preliminary findings showed that high-capacity magazines
for ammunition, banned as part of the 1994 bill, were being linked
increasingly to violent crimes. "These could end up emerging as even more
important than the banned weapons," said Roth, who works at the University
of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology.
- ---
Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Diego Ibarguen contributed to this
Today I sent the following LTE to the Tribune. It is longer than ideal and addresses more than one specific topic related to CCW in schools. Maybe it will give some ideas to others.
Charles
Editor
Salt Lake Tribune
Dear Editor,
IÆm writing in response to your editorial, ôInvitation to Mayhemö (Thursday, April 3), wherein you rail against recognition of State issued Permits to Carry a Concealed Weapon in schools because in the past eight years five persons with such permits have committed homicide. With 52,000 permit holders and nearly 450 homicides in that time, a permit holder committing such a crime looks very rare indeed. And how many of those crimes ever occurred in schools?
You editorialize that only ôlaw enforcement officersö should be allowed to carry weapons into schools. But even this distinguished groupùsome 2,500 police officers plus judges, prosecutors, and various federal officialsùhas some bad apples. Your archives indicate such officials have assaulted a motel clerk, ôpartiedö with underage girls, committed aggravated rape, abused illegal drugs, and yes, even committed murder. Such cases are, thankfully, rare. Rational individuals know it makes no sense to disarm all government officials based on the rare case of one of those officials committing a crime.
I submit that the same logic applies to private citizens who hold a permit to carry self-defense weapons. Teachers are dedicated professionals. They are also real people. They are as entitled to an effective self-defense as is anyone else.
I must also wonder where all of your concern over legally concealed weapons in schools (or anyplace else) was for all the years when most permit holders were white businessmen. Only since women, racial minorities, gays, and the poor and working classes have been afforded the right to defend themselves on equal footing with the well-to-do, has The TribuneÆs concern over the character of permit holders or the safety of legally carried weapons in schools been voiced. I hope this has more to do with your recent change in ownership than with some more ugly reason.
Subject: Wendy McElroy takes a Potshot at Gun Control
Recruiting more folks into shooting who are not middle aged white males will do much to not only reduce crime against those who are most vunerable (women, the elderly, the handicapped, the poor living in bad neighborhoods, gays and others who may be subject to so-called "hate crimes," etc) but also really divides the tradtional liberal base that generally opposses the right to an effective self defense.
Charles
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84160,00.html
War May Redefine Gun Control
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
By Wendy McElroy
Despite the high emotions that surround war ù or perhaps because of
them ù people are focusing again on "normal" life. But what is normal
has shifted in ways both obvious and subtle. Consider how war has
affected just one issue: the debate over gun control.
For years, gun ownership advocates have agonized over how to make women
comfortable around guns. As of 2000, 41.7 percent of men and 28.5
percent of women reported having a gun in their household, and 39.2
percent of men but only 10 percent of women personally owned a gun.
Reaching out to women and minorities has been a high priority of
organizations like the National Rifle Association, not merely to swell
their ranks but also to convert segments of society that have
traditionally opposed the right to own a gun.
Now, the outreach has become easier. As of 2002, over 210,000 women
were on active duty within the military, over 150,000 were in the
reserves. A steep increase in the number of women in the military means
that an unprecedented number of Gen-Next women have overcome their
mothers' aversion to guns.
Non-military women also picked up guns. NRA spokeswoman Nance Pretto
reported that, in the wake of Sept. 11, women's enrollment in
instructional shooting classes increased fourfold from years before. And
gun dealers reported a sharp increase in women purchasing weapons.
The sense of insecurity caused by Sept. 11 was heightened as police
officers in the reserves left for active duty, depleting police
departments. Some politicians began to actively encourage women to
protect themselves by owning guns. When a serial killer was loose in
Baton Rouge in the summer of 2002, Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster advised
women "you have a right to get a [concealed] gun permit. ... if you know
how [to use a gun] and you have a situation with some fruitcake running
around, like they've got right now, it sure can save you a lot of
grief."
Foster received the predictable backlash of outrage from gun control
advocates who suddenly sounded sexist. Holley Galland Haymaker from the
anti-gun group Louisiana Ceasefire argued: "Maybe if you're a big, white
guy who hunts all the time, it might do some good. For a woman who is
surprise attacked, having a gun is only giving them [the attacker]
another way to kill you."
I will ignore the racist implications of this remark and simply ask,
"Why would a white guy who hunts be more competent with a gun than a
woman who is trained to use it?"
To judge from how strained their arguments have become, gun control
advocates realize they are losing the debate. It would be difficult to
escape this realization. Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives
passed H.R. 1036 ù the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ù
which grants gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits resulting from
their products. The vote (04/09) was 285 to 140. The measure has now
moved to the Senate where it is expected to pass.
As Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., argued, "Manufacturers of legal products
should not live under the threat of litigation simply because their
product is misused ... [W]e don't sue Ginsu when someone is stabbed to
death with their knife."
Again, the anti-gun arguments were shrill. A paper published by the
Brady Center, entitled "Smoking Guns: Exposing the Gun Industry's
Complicity in the Illegal Gun Market," openly accused the firearms
industry of "actively and knowingly allowing guns to be sold into the
illegal market." In short, gun manufacturers were publicly charged with
criminal complicity.
Other gun control advocates are pushing to have guns declared as
"weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." For example, House Bill 1210 in
Washington State defined a WMD as a "device, object, or substance that a
person intends to use to cause multiple human deaths." No specific
weapons were mentioned but the Seattle Times opened its March 15
coverage of the bill with the sentence, "An anti-terrorism bill has
spurred debate among lawmakers: Is a gun a weapon of mass destruction?"
Possession would have been a class A felony had the bill passed with
above-referenced language. Many in the pro-gun rights camp view the WMD
argument as an indication of attacks to come.
The underlying facts of the gun debate remain much the same as before
Sept. 11 and the war. The award-winning criminologist Prof. Gary Kleck
states that firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times a year. 48
percent of those incidents involve women defending themselves; most of
the time a shot is not fired. The conclusion: women benefit from gun
ownership.
What is changing, however, are the faces and attitudes of the debate. A
growing number of women feel comfortable with guns and want them for
self-defense. In response, anti-gun advocates are using arguments that
seem increasingly implausible such as classifying guns as WMDs.
Gun ownership is just one of the issues over which we will stumble on
the way back to normal life. And, as people drink coffee and read
newspapers in the morning, they will discover that the war has
influenced every aspect of public debate, including the words we use to
describe and redefine our beliefs.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for
The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and
editor of many books and articles, including the new book, Liberty for
Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent
Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.
Subject: Latest results of the UofU Alumni Newsletter on CCW
The UofU's on-line Alumni newsletter (NOT to be confused with the on-line version of the student newspaper, the Chronicle) still has their poll on CCW on campus active. It looks like they only do a new edition of the newletter once a month, so maybe every poll will be active for a full month. In any case, the results still give a solid majority to allowing CCW on campus, even as the total number of those participating in the poll approaches 1000.
IFF you have NOT yet voted in the poll, surf to <http://sh2.alumni.utah.edu/alumni_poll/poll.php> and register your opinion. Please note, they already shut down and reset this poll once due to what they claimed/perceived as "spamming and distorting." So, please, no funny stuff or efforts to distort this one. It is going nicely in favor of self defense as it is.
If you have voted, but did not take time to submit a comment you might take a moment to do so if you are an alum.
It is interesting to me that the biggest item Bernie and gang are claiming as reason to ban CCW is running dead last in this poll, at less than 4%--that somehow a CONCEALED self-defense weapon will hamper free speech.
FWIW, The UofU has admitted, in court papers, that their gun ban only applies to students and employees, including staff, faculty, etc. It does NOT apply to visitors to campus. The last news I've heard, the federal judge bounced the case back to State courts, retaining the right to hear parts of the case later if need be. I haven't heard any news at the State level for a while, and the CCW ban--plus the illegal ban on students keeping personal guns, rifles, shotguns, or shortguns, in their dorm rooms--remains in effect.
Current results:
Which best reflects your feelings about permit holders bringing concealed weapons on campus:
Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. 50.2%
Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because the dangers outweigh the benefits and they would not deter criminal behavior. 33.4%
Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because they would act as a deterrent to criminal behavior. 12.6%
Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because they would deter free speech and academic freedom. 3.8%
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:53:42 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: FW: Ballot Initiative II is alive
The anti-self-defense ninnies are at it again. I have not carefully analyzed the language in the initiative, but at first glance it would do the following:
1-Prohibit carrying of guns (including those carried by a CCW permit holder, BUT, of course, NOT those carried by various government employees) into churches. I see no provision for a church to authorize the carrying of weapons. (So if this passes, someone may want to form an official church and the sue to overturn the church ban based on freedom of religion. After all, if the government can ban guns from churches, it can ban alcohol, incense, etc.)
2-Prohibit, unless prior permission from school administrators is obtained, carrying of guns into "schools" or onto "school" grounds where "school" includes public and private pre-schools, elementary, and secondary schools as well as "institutions higher education." I'm not sure if this includes or is intended to include trade and tech schools, but it certainly includes colleges and universities.
3-Allow employers, landlords, and others to include anti-self-defense terms in employment and housing contracts. IE, Your landlord could decide that you can't even keep a gun in your apartment.
4-Prohibit the carrying of self-defense weapons into ALL private residences unless prior permission is obtained.
5-Only allows weapons in private cars in school parking lots IFF the car is not under the control of a student or accesable to a student without adult supervision.
6-By specifically eliminating CCW rights (or privileges) at schools, subjects permit holders to MUCH more serious criminal penalties if they have a gun on school grounds.
Charles
5-
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
The forces of Darkness and Evil are loose in the countryside again. Sound
the alarum! Gather ye pitchforks and torches and prepare to do battle with
