Forwarded from Clak Aposhian of USDIN (Utah Self-defense Instructors' Network):
W. Clark Aposhian here,
I am copying this to several firearm rights supporters to ask for the kind of help that only you can provide. Forward this along as you deem appropriate.
By now you have heard of our friend, Jade Pusey's condition. The good news is he is about 1/2 way towards his goal of $200,000 http://www.jadepusey.com
With time I am certain he will obtain the needed funds for his bone marrow transplant. We just don't have much time though. He needs the funds this summer.
I have proposed a June 28th Concealed Carry Class in his honor and for his benefit. This date works with the Salt Lake City Library as well as the July 12th. This will also provide a good CCW exposure to the rather sterile environment of the Salt lake City Library. Remember "Exposure increases tolerance"
I realize the 28th is somewhat short notice but the majority of the work that needs to be done is not preparation rather it is on the day of the class. Let's "shoot" for the 28th.
This is where you come in.
the needs are:
Instructors The more the merrier (some to teach and some to have applicants demonstrate firearm handling skills with)
Finger printers Someone with some (even a little) experience is best
Photographers Best with a digital or even better a Polaroid portrait camera
Notary Public
Treasurer Someone to separately handle the funds. 100% of all money must go to the Jade Pusey fund.
Check in people They will take the money and hand out materials and paperwork
Paperwork people People who will verify all the paperwork is filled out correctly prior to Instructor signing application
Staff Some to verify that loaded weapons (stay concealed) someone to monitor for problems, act as runners,
Media person Our spokesperson should be frothing at the mouth, jumping up and down to give the reporters what they expect.
This person must also handle the radio, print and television contacts to make certain they are informed.
We will also need flyers and course materials to be copied.
We need someone to distribute these to the local sporting goods and gun stores.
We should also encourage local ranges to donate range time for attendees of this class. The class will not require live fire unless we can find a way to work it in. If the local ranges agree we could give them a coupon they could use on a specific date and time for live fire instruction if needed.
Jade is truly a wonderful person, he has worked hard to maintain and increase the acceptance and constitutional and civil rights of gun owners and concealed carry holders. Let us now assist him to get better and back to work.
For a detailed description of the problem and other efforts go to http://www.jadepusey.com
IMHO, Alaska is now in an even better position, CCW-wise, than is Vermont. Alaskans need not get a permit to CCW if they don't want to. BUT, unlike Vermont, a permit is available for those want reciprocity in other States or want to avoid the brady background check fee.
I note that Alaska does not allow its permit holders to CCW on school grounds (I guess you have no right to self defense if you chosen profession happens to be school teacher, adminstrator, coach, staff, etc). However, even under current federal law, that remains an option to the States so long as a permit is involved. IOW, lacking a permit, those in Vermont can not CCW in schools. If Utah were to do what Alaska has done, our permit holders would remain free to carry in schools while those without permits would, under federal law at least, not be able to carry in schools.
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, 12 Jun 2003 20:46:08 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Re: FW: number two
PS,
Perhaps we should adopt the term "Alaskan carry" to describe a State that does not require a permit to CCW, but has a permit available for those who want/need one for various reasons.
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: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:00:36 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Cali based Federal Court recognzies difference between "carrying" and "using" a gun?!?!
Interesting ruling from a California court on the distinction between carrying a gun and using a gun. Below.
I have long believed that the use of the phrase "keep and bear" in the first portion and "use" in the second portion had to apply to very distinct things.
The Utah constitution says this about RKBA:
"Article I, Section 6.
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and
defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for
other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall
prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms."
Now a California-based Federal court has reached a similar conclusion. From today's Trib's "News of the Weird" column:
"Armed with an argument: The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco
overturned the 'armed robbery' conviction of Deshon Rene Odom in May, saying that even though Odom had a gun in his waistband, he hadn't meant for anyone at the bank he was robbing to see it, and therefore that he was not legally 'armed.' The court said that the federal law speaks only of _using_ a gun, not _carrying_ one; on the other hand, the court acknowledged that if Odom had waved around a toy gun that looked real, that would be enough for 'armed'." robbery." (_emphasis_ added.)
Of course, making this precedent stick in Utah will cost a whole lot more than a CCW permit. One might also consider the idea that if you don't intend for someone to see your firearm, you aren't "armed."
Here's my favorite mental test on the topic. Simply answer the following three questions:
1-Do you have any credit, charge, or debit cards?
2-Where are those cards right now?
3-When was the last time you used one of those cards?
Now, very typical answers would go something like this:
1-Yes, I have a couple of cards.
2-In my wallet which is in my back pocket. (Or maybe, "In my purse, briefcase, etc.)
3-Last night when I bought gas. (Or maybe, "This morning to scrape the frost from my windshield.)
Those three questions, and their usual answers sum up the the three key actions in Utah's Constituional protectin of RKBA.
Question one is all about "keeping" (or in modern verncular, "owning") something.
Question two is the essence of "bearing (or "carring") something.
And question three, and ONLY question three, is really about "using" something.
IN short, while it is difficult to use something like a gun or credit card without carrying it, it is a very simply and very common matter to own and to carry a gun or a credit card without actually USING it. The legislature has power to regulate the USE of firearms (which, just like the credit card being used to clean a windshield, can be used in many different ways), but is prohibited from infringing on the the keeping (owning) OR bearing (carrying) of firearms.
Unfortunately, the most recent Utah SC test of any possible distinction on these points was by a convicted (non-violent I believe) felon who argued that laws against his owning a gun and keeping it in his own residence violated the Utah Constitution as he was not carrying or using the gun. He lost on what I think was a unanamous decision.
Don't suppose anyone knows any legislators who respect our Constitution enough to sponsor a Vermont (or Alaska) style carry law that will eliminate penalities for peacably carring (open or concealed) a gun without a permit?
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: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:07:25 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: Jade Pussey CCW benefit postponed.
The following is from Clark Aposhian of USDIN.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
===Begin forwarded message====
I have Fantastic News and somewhat Disappointing news.
First the disappointing news is that for the time being the JADE Pusey CCW Benefit class will indefinitely be postponed. It will be rescheduled if needed. I have received several e-mails from you folks and others inquiring as to the recent announcement that the relief fund has met its goal and in fact surpassed it. (That is indeed the great news)
Some have E-Mailed that it may be incorrect to have a benefit when the goal has been met.
I am willing to stay with the schedule but also understand your concerns. I propose that the CCW Benefit class be rescheduled when and if it is needed to provide any additional funds not covered by insurance for Jade's treatment. I appreciate all of your willingness to provide instructions and related assistance in this endeavor. perhaps we can keep this group together and have an annual CCW Benefit for worthy causes.
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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:08:54 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Jet Skis and Guns? -- And no, you can't shoot them when they buzz too close while you're fishing or skiing.
From today's DesNews. Notice the divide and conquer technique used by the eco-freaks. Many boaters and fishermen don't really care for how some (many?) users of jet skis operate their toys. However, does anyone really think that once jet skis are banned, high speed (or noisy jet) motor boats won't be the next target? At that point, a whole segment of former motorized users (jet skiers) will have already been eliminated from the debate and it will be the fishermen and water skiers left to defend motorized use with too many fishermen just as happy to see some of those fast or loud boats off the lake anyway.
This is the same tactic that has worked so well against gun owners. As short barreled shot guns or fully automatic machine guns or scary-looking guns or inexpensive self defense pistols or 50 calibre rifles or any number of other guns are targeted to be taxed out of reach or simply banned altogether, too many gun owners figure it isn't their fight. After all, what does a duck or deer hunter need with such guns? Besides, some of the people who choose to own and use such guns behave in ways that die-hard hunters may find objectionable. What does a small bore competitive shooter need with such guns? What do antique or curio collectors need with such guns or care if the cost of ownership goes up dramitically?
But, of course, not every gun owner likes to hunt duck or deer. Not every gun owner has any interest in competitive shooting or collecting. Not every gun owner wants to carry a self defense weapon. And so on and so forth. EVERY time a gun is banned or taxed beyond normal reach or some currently legal use of firearms (such as carrying in some public place), we run the very real risk of losing some number of former gun owners from future fights. Some gun owners ONLY own a gun and care about guns because they are able to defend themselves while jogging in a public park or working in a hospital or public school. Some gun owners are ONLY involved with guns because they enjoy informal plinking with a military style rifle.
If the hunters or competitive shooters or collectors sit out the gun battles this year because they do not directly, immediately affect their chosen firearms or uses thereof, they are likely to wake up tomorrow to find that they are under attack and most of their allies have already been eliminated from the fight. A school teacher who only owns a gun for self defense and losers her ability to legally carry that gun to work, is probably not going to spend any time or energy when large areas of public land are proposed as no hunting zones. However, a teacher who only cares about self defense who still has her ability to do that legally intact, may be motivated to help counter any and all fights against gun owners. More importantly, some battles are not likely to take place until others are won (or lost, depending on which side you're on). You can't attack the inner hold until the outer wall is breached.
Jet skis, ATVs, machine guns, military style rifles, legal CCW in public places like schools or libraries or the workplace are all some of the "outer walls" of freedom. As they are allowed to crumble, rest assurred that attacks on the inner walls will start, or intensify.
I will point out that even the current ruling from the park service does not bode well for many fishermen or other motorboaters. Jet Skis are not the only watercraft that make use of carbaurated two-stroke engines. MANY small engines used by fishermen or other boaters are also carbaruated two-strokes. If jet skis using these engines are banned, there is no logical reason to not also ban these engines when used on small fishing boats, ski boats, etc. As to being fast and manuverable, I learned a long time ago that some of the fasted boats on the lake belong to bass fishermen.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
Gas up the jet-skis
Decision is final: They are welcome
By Ray Grass
Deseret Morning News
The final decision is in: Personal watercraft will be welcome on Lake Powell ù now and for years to come.
[Image]
Jet skis and other personal watercraft will be allowed on Lake Powell, thanks to a decision released by the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Monday.
Tom Smart, Deseret Morning News
Early Monday, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area released its final "record of decision."
Of three possible alternatives, the National Park Service will place into law "Alternative B," which allows personal watercraft use lakewide but with closures in some portions of the Colorado, Escalante, Dirty Devil and San Juan rivers.
It also requires that all personal watercraft meet certain emission requirements by 2012. (Basically, all carbureted two-stroke watercraft will be banned from the lake after 2012.)
It is possible, however, that a lawsuit could be filed sometime this fall that would challenged the Park Service's decision.
Sean Smith, with Bluewater Network, the San Francisco-based environmental organization that is seeking to end use of personal watercraft within national parks, said the decision is ripe for legal review.
A similar decision regarding watercraft use on Lake Mead was released in April. Smith said then that staff and attorneys were looking at a legal challenge. "We are still moving forward," Smith said. "We'll be discussing this with our lawyers and decide if we want to sue independently or combine the suits. The issues here are very similar. . . . I would expect it wouldn't be before fall before we make a decision."
After release of its final environmental impact statement in May, the Park Service issued three alternatives regarding personal watercraft use on the lake:
ò Alternative A followed guidelines that were in place prior to September 2002.
ò Alternative B, the Park Service-preferred option, allowed personal watercraft but imposed the partial river closures and more stringent emission requirements.
<ilayer></ilayer><layer> </layer>
ò Alternative C banned personal watercraft from the lake.
"After thorough analysis and public involvement, it was felt Alternative B was best because it met (Park Service) management objectives," said Charlotte Obergh, management assistant for the Park Service at Lake Powell.
She pointed out that the decision had not been expected before mid-July or early August, "but this has been a priority and we've worked hard to get it out as soon as possible so it can be finalized before the September deadline."
Back in May, the Park Service was given until the end of September to place into law its decision or personal watercraft would, for the second time, be banned from the lake.
The record of decision will now go through governmental review before being written into law. But, as Obergh pointed out, "The decision has been made and this is now just a formality to make sure everything is correct."
If a suit is filled, added Smith, it would likely challenge the results of the environmental impact statement, which he said, "Contained a number of holes," as well as the final decision at both Lake Mead and Lake Powell.
Bluewater filed a petition in May 1998 asking for a ban on personal watercraft until an impact statement could be completed. In March 2000, the Park Service issued its first report to allow the jet-powered craft on the lake. Bluewater sued and a judge ruled the Park Service had until 2002 to complete an impact statement. In November of 2002, personal watercraft were banned from Lake Powell. In May of this year the ban was lifted and the Park Service was given until September to come up with a decision.
Under Alternative B, special regulations prohibit use of personal watercraft on the Dirty Devil upstream from the U-95 bridge; on the Escalante River upstream of the confluence of Coyote Creek; on the San Juan River upstream from Clay Hills pullout; and on the Colorado River upstream from Sheep Canyon. There are wake restrictions on the Escalante River from the confluence of Cow Canyon to the confluence of Coyote Creek.
And it includes strategies to better protect recreation-area resources, improve visitor safety and reduce visitor conflicts.
The report that reviewed personal watercraft impact on Lake Powell stated that under Alternative B, the watercraft would have negligible to minor, direct adverse effects on water quality.
It also pointed out that sound levels during peak times were "acceptable within the expressed purpose of the park to provide the motorized watercraft form of recreation."
And, with respect to wildlife and wildlife habitat, it stated that use of personal watercraft would result in negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts.
The environmental impact statement also pointed out that going with Alternative C would cause major, adverse long-term effects on the economy of Page, Ariz., a town founded during the building of the Glen Canyon Dam and which now bases its economy on tourists visiting Lake Powell.
Steve Ward, public relations director for ARAMARK, concessionaire for the five lakeside marinas, said Monday's decision comes as a big relief, "knowing that after all this time the matter has been resolved."
During the review process, more than 30,000 comments were received by the Park Service regarding the use of personal watercraft on Lake Powell.
