The Provo Daily Herald is running a poll about RKBA, with so far very satisfactory results, but some of the comments are interesting. Thought you might want to be aware of it.
I just received a phone call from Clark Aposhian (USDIN) who told me that NRA lobbyist Brian Judy just let him know that the Alaska Legislature has just passed a "Vermont Carry" bill (overwhelming in the house, virtually no debate in the Senate, it seems) that is expected to be signed by the Governor. Once that happens, Alaska will become the second State in Union to recognize citizens' RIGHT to own AND CARRY weapons suitable for self defense.
I do not know any further details at this time. However, I suspect, given NRA involvement and support, that the bill/soon-to-be-law, leaves the CCW permit in place and simply adds permitless, carry-by-RIGHT, as an option.
Congrats to Alaska. May Utah's legislature/governor soon see the light and follow in the example of our two northern examples.
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, 29 May 2003 21:08:02 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: Man storms Quantas cockpit with wooden knife; 4
And we thought airport security was a hassle now. Wait until they start strip searching to look for sharp sticks.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88040,00.html
SYDNEY, Australia ù A man shouting threats used a sharpened wooden instrument to try to force his way into the cockpit of a domestic Qantas (search) flight Thursday, stabbing two flight attendants in his attempt, the government said.
The plane had departed the southeastern city of Melbourne (search) for the southern island of Tasmania when he tried to storm the cockpit, Transport Minister John Anderson told reporters in a hastily arranged press briefing.
Two flight attendants with Australia's national air carrier were stabbed and two other passengers were also injured as they overwhelmed the man, who Anderson described as "an individual who was less than stable."
Anderson said he did not believe it was a terrorist attack and did not identify the man.
"Although it looks premeditated, it doesn't look like it was an act of terrorism," Anderson said.
The man was now in custody and being interviewed by police, said Jane O'Brien, spokeswoman for the Australian Federal Police.
Anderson said the wooden weapon had gone through security checks unnoticed, calling the oversight a "lesson about unforeseen tools being used."
He said the man shouted threats as he attempted to storm the cockpit but did not elaborate. He said there were no sky marshals on board the flight.
"We'll leave no stone unturned, plainly we don't want to see a repeat of this," Anderson said.
The plane turned around and landed at Melbourne not long after it had departed, where police and emergency services rushed to the scene.
Police met passengers in the departure lounge at Melbourne's airport for further questioning.
A Qantas spokeswoman told The Associated Press that the national carrier could not make any statement until it had more information.
The flight attendants, a man in his late 30s and a woman in her 20s, were taken to a nearby hospital. They were in stable condition with facial injuries, Metropolitan Ambulance spokesman James Howe said. Two passengers were treated by paramedics at the scene for minor injuries, Howe told reporters.
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, 5 Jun 2003 18:29:43 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Anti-gun groups sues over new initiative law
This is likely of interest to gun owners, those interested in flouridation, etc.
FWIW, while I disagree with the court's so-called "one man one vote" ruling that invalidated Utah's previous geographic requirment on petitions, I think the legislature went too far with the new law. In light of the court's ruling (and with an unwillingness to defend the principle of geographic representation), some majority or even supermajority of Senate districts would have been a workable solution. Reducing the time frame might also have been appropriate. I believe the various meetings and notices, however, will do little or nothing good and really are just an inpediment to petitions.
Finally, as much as it harms my favorite cause short term, I do happen to personally side with the victim disarmers in their argument that the new law should not apply retroatively. I don't like ANY rules being changed midgame.
That being said, if the court rules with the State on at least the Senate district requirments the petition is probably doomed. However, if the court rules against the State on that and any other major points, we may be in for a real fight this time as I understand the victim disarmers have out-of-State money for paid signature gatherers this time around.
The state is defending recent amendments to Utah's initiative law, saying they pass constitutional muster and should apply to a group seeking to ban guns from churches and schools.
Called the Utah Safe to Learn-Safe to Worship Coalition, the group filed suit in 3rd District Court, asserting the "severe" restrictions approved by the 2003 Legislature essentially eliminated the ability of people to put an issue on the ballot.
In a response filed late Tuesday, the state argued the changes are not unduly burdensome and meet the "test" handed down in a previous initiative ruling by the Utah Supreme Court.
"Their difficulties may also be due to lack of interest, improper presentation, lack of funding or any other various difficulties they may have brought on themselves with regard to their initiative and signature-gathering efforts," Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts wrote, emphasizing the last three initiatives that appeared on the ballot show that sufficient signatures can be gathered.
The current dispute over Utah's initiative process stems from legislative "fixes" made during the 2003 General Session after the state's previous initiative law was challenged and ultimately deemed unconstitutional.
At the time, the court held the geographic distribution requirement ù requiring signatures be collected in 20 of Utah's 29 counties ù violated the "one man one vote" tenet because it gave disproportionate favor to rural counties.
In response, lawmakers adopted a signature requirement based on Senate districts, not counties, with initiative proponents now required to gather signatures in 26 of Utah's 29 senate districts.
Additional changes impose a one-year deadline for proponents to gather signatures and submit them to the Lieutenant Governor's Office for certification, as well as seven public hearings spread throughout the state.
The latest challenge says the amendments "burden core political speech," but the state scoffed at that, replying they do not restrict or burden free speech rights at all.
"Plaintiff is free to initiate and circulate petitions, engage in political discussion, raise money, campaign and otherwise engage in all their First Amendment freedoms," Roberts wrote, pointing out, "plaintiff confuses its exercise of First Amendment rights with political success, which is not protected under the First Amendment."
The coalition is urging the court to declare the amendments unconstitutional, or at the very least deem that they not be applied "retroactively" to their effort.
They filed the initiative petition with the Lieutenant Governor's Office in March, two months before the new law went into effect. They say whatever law was in effect at the time of the petition filing should be the controlling guide throughout the process. At the time, only the requirement that 76,180 signatures be gathered statewide had been left standing in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.
The state doesn't agree, saying that by the time the signatures will be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor's Office, the new law should apply.
A hearing on the arguments is set for 9 a.m. June 16 before Judge J. Dennis Frederick.
