Subject: FW: SAYE: It's Time For "A Gun-Free Zone Liability Act"
It's Time For "A Gun-Free Zone Liability Act"
If you make a gun-free zone, you're liable for any
harm it causes. Since the gun-grabbers want your guns,
and you can no longer protect yourself at church, at
the post office, the bank, at school, on the job, and
so many other places, don't you think it is about time
to make those persons liable, if they refuse to allow
you to have a gun to protect yourself, and/or your
family? I do! No one has the right to stop me, or my
family from being protected; I don't care who they
are! If they cannot guarantee my safety, then they
need to be held responsible, if they will not let me
protect my family and myself.
It's time to take action! Call talk radio and your
legislators to introduce the "Gun-Free Zone Liability
Act."
It would say:
"Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of
government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable
for damages resulting from any criminal assault that
occurs in such gun-free zones, if a reasonable person
would believe that possession of firearms could have
helped defend against said assault. In the event the
assault is a result of a terrorist attack, or adversely
affects innocent children under 16 years of age, treble
damages shall apply. For the purposes of this section,
the term 'gun-free zone' shall mean a place, area or in
or upon a conveyance where a person's right of ability
to possess firearms is infringed, restricted or
diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule,
ordinance, utterance or posted signs."
In fact each and every city in the state of Nevada,
and the Nation for that matter, should pass an
Ordinance which states:
Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management
of the City, and further in order to provide for and
protect the safety, security and general welfare of
the city and its inhabitants, every head of household
residing in the City limits is required to maintain a
firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those
heads of households who suffer a physical or mental
disability, which would prohibit them from using such
a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this
section are those heads of households who are paupers
or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as
a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons
convicted of a felony.
In March 1982 the city of Kennesaw, GA. did just that!
This is the famous ordinance that shocked the nation!
They had to be crazy! Nuts! Insane and so on! But they
weren't as crazy, nuts or insane as people thought!
Wouldn't it be nice if each city in the state of Nevada
were able to report the same as Kennesaw, GA. did?
Crime Statistics Report
1982 - 1998
FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) statistics for the year
1998 based on incidents of crime per 100,000 population
indicate:
Overall Crime for the City of Kennesaw is approx. half
the state and national rates.
Burglary incidents are approx. half the state and
national rates.
Violent Crime incidents are approx. four times less
than the state and national rates.
Violent Crime
Burglary
Total Index Crimes
Kennesaw:
107
347
2567
Georgia:
553
951
5200
U.S.:
566
862
4616
Note: Violent Crime includes Murder, Non-Negligent
Manslaughter, Rape, Aggravated Assault and Robbery.
Part 1 Index Crime includes all violent crime plus
Burglary, Larceny, Auto Theft and Arson.
To control for population differences and make
descriptions and comparisons between jurisdictions
more accurate and meaningful, index crimes are
reported at the rate per 100,000 persons. The rate is
figured by dividing the number of crimes by the total
population and then multiplying by 100,000.
Crime Statistics also indicate that incidents involving
the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime
make up less than 2% of all reported Part 1 Crimes.
Since 1982 approx. 4,900 Part 1 Crime incidents were
reported with approx. 59 involving the use of a firearm.
1981 (Year prior to Gun Ordinance)
Population: 5,242
Burglaries: 54
Total Part 1 Crimes: 228
1982 (Year Gun Ordinance Passed)
Population: 5,308 (+1%)
Burglaries: 35 (-35%)
Total Part 1 Crimes: 165 (-27%)
1998 (Compared to 1981)
Population: 19,000 (+275%)
Burglaries: 36 (-33%)
Total Part 1 Crimes 227(+0%)
It is amazing to me how various individuals, who call
themselves "Americans" would deny other American's
their right to exercise their [text missing]
Consider the history of gun control:
1) In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From
1915-1917,1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
them, were rounded up and exterminated.
2) In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
3) Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals,
the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
4) China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
5) Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From
1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
6) Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971
to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
7) Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975
to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
This places the total victims who lost their lives
because of gun control at approximately 56 million in
the last century.
Since we should learn from the mistakes of history,
the next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
find out which group of citizens they wish to have
exterminated.
Well, I've had my say for this week. What do you have
to say? You can e-mail me at: PatriciaSaye@hotmail.com
or write me at the Las Vegas Tribune - 608 South Third
Street - Las Vegas, Nevada - 89101.
- - 30 -
I thought you might like to see one of the articles I
wrote for the Las Vegas Tribune.
Patricia Saye
WAGC NV State Coordinator
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 13:08:49 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Interview on KSL Radio concerning CCW at schools
Sorry for the very short notice, I didn't get to my email over the weekend.
Friday morning, on behalf of GOUtah! I did an interview with a reporter from KSL Radio concerning the expected effects of SB 108 (which went into effect at midnight this morning) on schools. He had already spoken to Jordan Schoool District officials which were, to their credit and unlike the UofU, altering their employment policies to comply with the new law which specifically allows CCW at schools and prevents public school officials from prohibiting the otherwise legal possession of self-defense weaspons.
The spot is suppose to air this morning (Monday) on KSL radio at 10 past the hours of of 6am, 7am, 8am, and I think, 9am. It should be about 2 minutes long. I don't listen to the radio while at work, so if anyone gets a chance to hear the interview, let me know how it sounds. We spoke for about 10 minutes, so he's got plenty of room to edit.
The main points I made (some in answer to his questions):
1-This will make our teachers, other school employees, and students safer as it is now clear that schools are not defenseless victim zones.
2-We are now finally treating teachers like the professionals that they are and allowing them to make the personal decision about whether a self-defense weapon makes sense in their individual personal circumstances.
3-Other than for the few teachers or other school employees who choose to carry, this change in law and employment policy will be transparent. No one else even need to know whether or which teacher might have personal need for a self-defense weapon.
4-Self preservation is the first law of nature and a teacher's right to self defense trumps a parent's supposed right to not have his child taught in a classroom where the teacher has a gun. A parent has no more right to demand that his child not be taught by a teacher who can defend herself, than he does to demand that his child not be taught by a teacher of a different gender, race, religion, or political persuassion. Possession of a self-defense weapon is a private matter, like religious or political views and it is none of anyone else's business.
Anyway, I'd welcome any reports of what actually survives the editing room and makes it to the air.
I'm writing in response to your April 28 editorial, "Arming UTA guards is good." Thank you for finally seeing the light. Quoting from the editorial, "In any event, it seems obvious to expect that fewer people will want to cause trouble once they know the officer nearby is packing heat."
This is exactly what gun owners have been saying for years. It seems obvious to expect that fewer people will want to cause trouble (or commit violent crimes) once they know their intended victim could be carrying a self-defense weapon.
May we hope that this latest editorial marks an end to the Deseret News' irrational attacks on the rights of law-abiding adults to defend their lives, safety, and loved ones.
Salt Lake City students met with Corrections and judicial officers Wednesday at the Youth Summit on Gun Violence to discuss parents keeping firearms out of children's hands and communication between officials and students.
Youth City Government sponsored the event with Salt Lake Peer Court, an alternative juvenile justice system, as well as city police and judicial entities. The discussion, which drew about 90 students, focused on legal consequences of firearms policies and how they affect teens.
Angela Romero, Youth City Government program coordinator, said the group has about 25 active members who will use the discussion to make suggestions on gun laws to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Romero said the discussion promoted progress.
"You can never predict who you're going to impact. The message we sent was that we want you to be a part of this process."
Romero said Youth City will continue researching the topic by following up with different groups before the students file a report.
The panel, whose discus- sions ranged from juvenile crime penalties to how to guide a troubled child, got mixed reactions from attendees. One woman broke into tears while sharing a story about the 60-year federal court sentence her 24-year-old son received.
Other teens, obviously enraged with the legal system, rebutted panelists' statements about community leaders' efforts to help.
Mike Hamideh, a detective with the Salt Lake City Police Department Community Action Team and a member of the 10-member panel, said he works to ensure solutions are long-term.
He said it is important to remember that problems may be caused by larger social or criminal issues.
"It's bringing the police department into a whole new light," Hamideh said. "We're being proactive and receptive to feedback."
The panel also stressed bettering a student's future rather than reacting to immediate desires
Arizona First State In US To Pass a Resolution Supporting Gun Shows
Phoenix, AZ - With an overwhelming majority Arizona's Legislature became
the first in the nation to pass a resolution recognizing the legitimacy,
values and traditions that gun shows represent in America. The
resolution will be transmitted to the United States House of
Representatives and Senate.
This "post card to congress" was passed today by the Arizona Senate by a
wide margin with 19 senators voting yes, 9 voting no and 2 not voting.
It passed the Arizona House on March 4, 2003 with 39 members voting yes,
18 voting no, and 3 not voting.
In recent months the US Congress has considered numerous measures that
would severely restrict gun shows and possibly drive them out of
business. One measure is sponsored by Senator John McCain of Arizona and
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
This is a great victory for gun owners because it sends a clear message
to the US Congress that gun shows are a great American past time that
should be allowed to continue operating, unhindered by further
regulations which threaten to shut them down.
Todd J. Rathner
Member, NRA Board of Directors
520-404-8096
Text of resolution follows:
ARIZONA
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2025
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
RECOGNIZING GUN SHOWS.
Whereas, the Arizona Constitution, in article II, section 26, recognizes
an individual right to bear arms by stating unambiguously that, "The
right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or
the State shall not be impaired"; and
Whereas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in
United States v. Emerson found, in harmony with long-standing United
States Supreme Court jurisprudence, that the phrase "the right of the
people" used in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
is as much of an individual right guarantee as the identical phrase in
the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and
Whereas, courts have found that gun shows are places where citizens
exercise their First Amendment rights to free commercial speech and to
peaceably assemble; and
Whereas, in order for law-abiding residents to exercise their state and
federal constitutional rights to keep and bear arms they must have the
means of purchasing and transferring arms by engaging in a system of
free enterprise and commerce; and
Whereas, since territorial days, gun shows have provided the state's
citizens with a place where like-minded people are able to gather to
exercise their rights and to be freely involved in the exchange of
firearms and related equipment and supplies; and
Whereas, thousands of Arizonans attend gun shows annually to take part
in wholesome family events that generate substantial positive economic
and commercial impact on the state and its political subdivisions; and
Whereas, the so-called gun show "loophole" is a fallacy generated by
groups whose ultimate goal is to eliminate gun shows and all private
firearms transactions; and
Whereas, the same federal and state laws that apply to firearm transfers
outside of gun shows apply equally to all transfers inside gun shows;
and
Whereas, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division of
the Department of Justice, in a survey of more than 18,000 prison
inmates documented that less than 0.6 per cent of criminals who used
firearms acquired their firearms from gun shows; and
Whereas, terrorist organizations are based in areas of the world that
are awash in weaponry not available at gun shows, including fully
automatic firearms, rocket launchers, grenades, mortars and other
explosives. The claims that these terrorist groups are acquiring their
weaponry from American gun shows are baseless in fact; and
Whereas, the terrorist attacks against this nation are being manipulated
by special interests to advance their political agenda; and
Whereas, this state believes the primary responsibility of government is
to preserve the freedom of its residents.
Therefore
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona,
the Senate concurring:
1. That the Members of the Legislature recognize that gun shows provide
a safe, historical, valuable and indispensable community service for
those citizens who choose to exercise their constitutional rights.
2. That such peaceable public assemblies should be protected from those
who would further regulate, encumber or eliminate them through a
campaign of misinformation.
- ---
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:34:49 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: Re: Youth Summit on Gun Violence
All,
A correspondant has provided the following on the youth group dicussing gun issues.
FWIW.
Charles
- ----------Begin forwarded message----------
Charles,
A little bit of searching on the orgs has brought me to the suspicion that this group,
Youth Summit on Gun Violence
is connected with the dosomething.org operation. From my wife's school teaching days I recognized this group. They "sponsor" activism for school students on various issues. Their reference materials for gun issues typically come from HCI.
Subject: Re: URGENT GOUTAH MEDIA COMMENT REQUEST from Fox 13
Our local Fox station is doing a spot on the UofU's latest efforts in their anti-gun lawsuit. It will air live on their noon broadcast. We were not able to arrange an on camera interview, but I did offer some sound bites and perspective to the reporter who said he would try to use some of them.
If anyone has the chance to watch the noon broadcast and wants to drop me an email letting me know what is said, I'd appreciate it.
I believe they are also planning on a spot during their 9:00 broadcast this evening. We may be able to arrange an on camera interview for that broadcast.
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: Thu, 15 May 2003 15:40:28 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: SLTrib editorializes in favor of lawlessness
From today's SLTrib.
A few thoughts:
Unlike all other bans on legal CCW, the U ban is NOT locational, it is class based. IOW, Guns are NOT banned from campus. Rather, by the U's own admission, students, faculty, and other employees are banned from bringing guns onto campus. The vast majority of Utah's 52,000 permit holders who are students or employees of U are perfectly free, under both law and the U's policy, to carry their weapons on campus, including to ball games, at will.
The SLTrib seems to be confusing the public policy issue of whether guns should be at campus with the legal issue of whether the U should obey the law.
The legislature and AG have not failed to act. They have not ignored the U. They have simply disagreed and passed and attempted to enforce laws with which the U disagrees. The U now asks the courts to legislate from the bench and the SLTrib agrees.
Rebbuttal letters to the editor might be helpful here.
<letters@sltrib.com>
" * 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.
Guns do not belong on college campuses. With a few exceptions, that simple truth should be the core of firearms policy at the University of Utah and the state's other colleges.
But since the gun hawks in the Legislature, egged on by the attorney general, do not recognize the wisdom of that simple policy, the U. of U. must defend it in court.
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has opined that the state's firearms and concealed-weapons laws nullify the university's sensible firearms policy, which generally prohibits students, faculty, staff and employees from possessing guns on campus. The university makes a few exceptions, such as for military cadets, the pistol marksmanship team, police officers and for someone whose life has been threatened, who has obtained a protective order from a court, who holds a valid gun permit and has the permission of the university police chief.
In particular, Shurtleff argues that state law allows any person with a concealed-carry permit to bring a gun onto campus. At last check, that is about 50,000 Utahns.
For reasons that should be self-evident, the university vehemently disagrees. President Bernie Machen argues rightly that his administration is required by state law and policy to provide a safe learning environment in which students and faculty can vigorously debate ideas without having to worry about someone pulling a gun from a backpack and opening fire. If academic freedom and the ideals of free speech embodied in the First Amendment mean anything, they must stand for the force of reason, not the force of arms.
This seems lost on Shurtleff and the Legislature's advocates of universal concealed-carry rights for anyone who can pass a criminal background check. They are obsessed by the notion that criminals can ignore the university's policy and illegally pack heat on campus, so law-abiding gun owners should have the right to defend themselves.
But there is precious little evidence to suggest that an arms race at Utah colleges will make the academic community safer, and plenty of evidence to suggest that inviting people to bring guns to school will inevitably lead to tragedy, whether it is a suicide in a dormitory or a shooting after a football game.
Besides, the U. has not witnessed a gun crime in class, the libraries, cafeterias or dorms in more than 30 years. Except to push an ideological agenda in the ongoing political battle over gun rights, there is no reason to change the university's gun policy.
Unfortunately, for that ideological reason alone, the university now finds itself in court defending itself from the charge that its gun policy is an act of making firearms law in defiance of the Legislature. Clearly, that charge is half-cocked.
President Bush, in a carefully calculated move, has somewhat distanced himself from the gun rights lobby by supporting the continued ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.
Bush backs a measure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., which would extend the 1994 nationwide ban on the sale or possession of such weapons. Feinstein also seeks to ban the import of large-capacity ammunition clips. Existing law prohibits domestic manufacture of the clips.
Bush's support of this measure shouldn't be read as a reversal of his previous staunch support of the National Rifle Association's politics. Rather, Bush, like most Americans, understands that the assault-weapon ban was implemented as a means to deter crime.
No big-game hunter or homeowner who owns a gun as a means of protection employs a semiautomatic assault weapon. They are the tools of thugs bent on committing crimes.
Moreover, Bush made a campaign promise to continue the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, which has broad popular appeal with voters and is plain common sense. The ban in no way impacts the vast majority of gun owners who are sportsmen or who own weapons for personal protection.
Frankly, it is refreshing that Bush is not in complete lockstep with the NRA. While some may view his support of the assault-weapons ban as a political risk as the 2004 election looms, others believe that Bush has ample support in other quarters so that he can disagree with the NRA on this issue.
Rest assured, the NRA will lobby Congress intensely to prevent further restrictions on semiautomatic assault-weapon sales, if not kill the reauthorization effort. That would be the worst-case scenario, considering that assault weapons are not the weapons of choice of the vast majority of gun owners in this country.
Although Bush has made his position clear, he should also encourage House Republicans to bring the issue to a vote. There may not be political will to enhance the ban, but it makes no sense to allow the existing law to expire.
