Subject: FW: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges
Keep at it Charles. Don't let her divide and conquer
by artificially separating police and public, and
squandering public funds on exclusively elitist
applications. While somewhat off-topic, I wonder if
those "public" golf courses pay their own way when
their tax exclusions are considered. If not, they
are a theft from the rest of us. (Same could be said
of tennis courts, opera, or whatever else ZAP tax is
spent on; however, nearly all those uses sequester a
far smaller amount of land from productive use, parking
possibly excepted.) Does the Lee Kay Center receive ZAP
or federal excise funds? If not, why not? (Shooting's
an art, a range could be considered a park, and the
antis certainly consider shooters exhibits at a zoo.
Perhaps it could charge separate admission to a gallery.)
Shalom,
Scott
(Below wrapped for legibility.)
On 22 Jul 2003 21:21:51 GMT Charles Hardy wrote:
Subject: RE: Re: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges.
Dear Mayor Workman,
I believe much good could come from greater interactions
between the shooting public and sworn peace officers.
While there are certainly times when the police need
exclusive use of certain facilities, I fear that having
exclusive use of a segregated range insulates officers
too much from a major segment of those they serve and
protect. Unfortunately, the very segment they are thus
insulated from, private gun owners many of whom hold
state issued CCW permits and carry concealed firearms in
public, are the segment where the greatest mutual
understanding and respect is needed.
Further, you will note that the 11% federal excise tax on
firearms and ammunition applies to ALL guns and ammo, not
just those purchased by or for the use of law enforcement.
Hence, there should be federal money available - in addition
to local ZAP funds - to fund ranges open to the general
public. Ideally, such ranges would be constructed such
that the public and sworn peace officers could practice and
recreate side-by-side most of the time.
Thank you for your time in considering such matters. I
encourage you to actively work to ensure that there are
safe and appropriate venues for recreational shooting as
well as to practice the arts of defensive firearm use.
If you'd like, representatives of the various gun owners
and shooting sports organizations could meet with you to
provide more information.
Charles Hardy
Policy Director
GOUtah!
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- --- Mayor Workman <MayorWorkman@CO.SLC.UT.US> wrote:
Hi Charles
Our shooting range that is for law enforcement was financed
by federal monies. However it is not open to the public.
It is a highly patrolled and protected area and could not
be open to the public.
Nancy Workman
County Mayor
- -----Original Message-----
From: Charles Hardy [mailto:utbagpiper@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 1:42 PM
To: Mayor Workman
Subject: Fw: Re: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges.
Some more good points about (the lack of) public shooting
ranges both in SLCo and in the State of Utah as a whole.
I wonder how much money the Utah legislature or any county
commision has sought, much less obtained, from the feds for
construction of shooting ranges.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
You might also want to note that SGMA's recreational
participation research shows that target shooting sits
between golf and tennis in number of particpants nationally,
around 18-20 million annually, and would be higher than the
national average in Utah. Also note that there is the federal
Pittman-Robertson excise tax of 11% on guns and ammo at point
of manufacture earmarked for game preservation and range
construction.
- ---
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:51:50 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Need info on judicial appointment
If anyone has any info on where Mr. Pullan stands on RKBA, please let me know.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
Extremely Urgent!
Please Forward!
The news article at the following link provides some very bad news! Wasatch County Attorney Derek P. Pullan has been appointed to the Fourth District Court bench by Gov. Mike Leavitt.
Pullan led the effort of the private property confiscation lobby to repeal a resolution overwhelmingly passed at the Republican Convention in 1998. This resolution resolved that forfeiture should be allowed only if (1) the property owner is convicted of related criminal wrongdoing, (2) full due process is restored, and (3) forfeiture proceeds are directed to the General Fund or preferably the Crime Victims Reparation Fund. This resolution may be viewed at the following link.
Without prior notice, Pullan was given an opportunity to convince the Republican Party Central Committee to support repeal of the convention resolution. Pullan sought to replace the resolution approved by the delegates with one that was written on behalf of property confiscators. His resolution follows.
Fortunately, his effort failed. This failure occurred despite Pullan having the written support of the Salt Lake County Law Enforcement Administrators & Directors, South Jordan Chief of Police, Statewide Association of Public Attorneys, Uintah Basin Narcotics Strike Force, Utah Department of Public Safety, Utah Sheriffs' Association, Weber/Morgan Narcotics Strike Force, West Valley Chief of Police, and the the Attorneys for Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Iron, Morgan, Salt Lake, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Wasatch, Wayne, and Weber Counties.
Confiscation zealots such as Pullan represent an enormous threat to your right to own property, but possibly never more so when they occupy the office of judge. Fortunately, our constitutional form of government requires that judicial appointees must be confirmed by the Senate for their appointments to be effective.
To protect yourself from the menace of Derek Pullan's confiscation zealotry, without delay (a hearing will be held in no more than thirty days) you must contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and your State Senator and request that he or she reject Pullan's appointment to the Fourth District Court. Contact information for Senators and members of the Judiciary Committee can be found at the following links:
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: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 18:20:35 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: FW: Tide is turning against the anti's
A short, interesting, and uplifting read.
While I remind everyone that both Alaska and Vermont (along with various federal laws such as the unconstitutional "gun free school act") impose a fair number of restrictions on where a gun can be carried without a permit, would that our own legislature would follow their lead in respecting the RIGHT to own AND CARRY a firearm. In most regards, Alaska now does Vermont one better. No permit is required to carry a firearm (openly or concealed, if I'm not mistaken) in most public places AND Alaska also has a "shall issue" concealed carry law similar to Utah's for those who want or need to carry in places like schools or to avail themselves of reciprocity in other States.
Any legislators willing to follow Alaska's example?
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Great News!
- ----------
Source:
The Future of Freedom Foundation
http://www.fff.org/
The Gun-Control Tide Is Turning
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0308a.asp
by Scott McPherson mailto:mcpherson0627@juno.com
http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/bios/sxm.asp
August 4, 2003
Advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have modest reason to celebrate
these days. The state of Alaska recently became the second state, after
Vermont, to allow citizens to carry concealed firearms without a permit or
any of the restrictive measures, such as fingerprinting or background
checks, that often accompany the permit-application process.
And on July 15 the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 6-1 that │a citizen╣s
desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security
is at its apex when undertaken to secure one╣s home or privately owned
business.▓ The decision came when the court heard the case of a Milwaukee
store owner who was arrested for having a loaded gun in his pocket. The
police were enforcing the state╣s draconian concealed-carry law, which
allows only │peace officers▓ to carry concealed weapons.
The Wisconsin court ruled, however ï on the basis of a 1998 amendment to the
state╣s constitution that states that │people have the right to keep and
bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful
purpose▓ ï that protecting oneself while at home or one╣s place of business
is clearly consistent with that │other lawful purpose▓ standard.
These two events mark small but significant victories for America╣s
gunowners and all supporters of individual freedom.
Do they signal a sea change in the way most Americans are thinking about
guns? Can we now expect widespread support for the repeal of our nation╣s
many unconstitutional gun-control laws? Unfortunately not.
Still, what does seem to be happening, at the very least, is that more and
more Americans are rejecting the absurd, leftist, 20th-century invention of
a │collective right▓ to own a gun (e.g., through a state agency such as the
National Guard) in favor of an individualist interpretation of the Second
Amendment more consistent with the intentions of the Framers. More
important, a few state governments seem to be listening.
When writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Framers wanted to
ensure that the citizenry at large would be armed to protect their
respective states against foreign aggression or a tyrannical central
government; this was the general militia (as compared with the │select▓
militia, which they greatly feared) early statesmen were talking about when
they wrote the Second Amendment.
The Founders wanted to maintain a constant and large supply of gunowners who
could defend liberty were it ever to be seriously threatened again.
Remember, these men had lived through the early days of the American
Revolution; they had seen the militia at work on April 19, 1775, when armed
farmers swarmed like bees on an invading British army and sent it back to
Boston in tatters. Whatever their misgivings about the militia replacing a
conventional standing army, they knew first-hand that a countryside full of
armed citizens was the greatest first line of defense.
Tench Coxe, a personal friend of James Madison (who with George Mason
co-authored the Second Amendment), summed it up best when he wrote, │Their
swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
birth-right of an American.▓ Such men would be horrified to hear modern
Americans claim that gun ownership was a right only of government employees.
For these early Americans, one of the citizen╣s first duties was to own a
gun ï if necessary, __as a last resort for use against government
employees__.
At the same time, the right of an individual to own and use a gun to defend
his home and property would have been accepted as a given, not even worthy
of discussion or debate ï which is precisely why it was never discussed, let
alone debated, in either the Constitutional Convention or early congresses.
People would own guns for the broad purpose of security, as the Wisconsin
court has acknowledged. If someone wishes to argue that home, state, or
national security should be assigned orders of importance, it doesn╣t weaken
the case for an individual right in the least.
Ever since the 2000 presidential election, many pundits have been warning
Democrats that gun control is a losing issue. Many believe that key
Democratic states such as Tennessee and Arkansas, which should have been
easy pickings for Al Gore, were nonetheless lost because of his anti-gun
proposals.
In the same vein, these pro-gun victories in Alaska and Wisconsin suggest
that a minor groundswell is taking place in our country. Even if most
Americans are still (mistakenly) prepared to support │reasonable▓ gun
control at the federal level, such as background checks, they are also
(wisely) signaling that such measures should not be used to erode the
general right to own guns.
We may be a long way from abolishing all of our failed, immoral, and
unconstitutional gun-control laws, but this year╣s actions taken by the
Alaska legislature and the Wisconsin Supreme Court indicate that, however
slowly, the tide is finally moving in that direction.
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
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, 27 Aug 2003 11:03:41 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
Subject: Review - 'The Bias Against Guns'
Freedom Book of the Month, 8/03
- ----------
FMN
by Sunni Maravillosa
"'The Bias Against Guns' could prod many individuals out of their
previously-unexamined anti-gun views. We can but hope." (8/25/03)
http://www.free-market.net/rd/998177324.html
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 15:06:32 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Debate tonight on Centerville gun range
Centerville gun range to be debated Sept. 2, 2003
Gun club future to be debated Sept. 2
CENTERVILLE ù The lease on the Centerville Small Arms Association is up for renewal. City council members tabled action on granting or denying the renewal request until representatives of the gun club could address the council personally.
They will have the opportunity to do so at the next council meeting, Sept. 2.
The city owns the land and leases it to the association for free. The association then charges a $25 membership fee to use the facility and other fees, according to council members.
Few of the council members favored granting the associationÆs request for a 10-year renewal of the lease.
ôI am not certain how much benefit Centerville residents get from it,ö said Mayor Michael L. Deamer.
ôI know I usually just go over to Bountiful where I can pay my $5, or so, and shoot my muzzleloader or shotgun.ö
Gun-control advocates say a recent court ruling upholding the University of Utah's campus weapons ban may also apply to K-12 schools, paving the way to reverse legislation approved last winter that allows lawfully concealed weapons onto school grounds.
Calling the pro-gun Legislature's firearm regulations "inconsistent" and "politically driven," members of a group known as Safe Havens for Learning intend to push a bill this coming session to clarify once and for all state law as it applies to concealed weapons.
"If a state judge says the U. is free to pursue its no-gun policy, public schools ought to as well," said Marla Kennedy, executive director of Utahns Against Gun Violence.
Kennedy has yet to nail down a bill sponsor, and school districts appear loathe to join the fight. But she says the U. ruling, coupled with public opinion polls showing that more than 70 percent of Utahns oppose guns in schools, will force lawmakers' hands.
"They shouldn't be re-elected if they aren't listening to a nearly two-thirds majority of their constituency. If they don't listen, I guess we'll have to get an initiative on the ballot and do it ourselves," she said.
State leaders say they are listening and insist when it comes to guns, they have been consistent.
"I don't want guns in schools either. But until we stop the bad guys, we don't want to stop the good guys too," said Senate Majority Leader Mike Waddoups.
The Taylorsville Republican sponsored the law that Kennedy wants reversed. He also is urging an appeal of the U. ruling and plans a bill next session asserting lawmakers' authority to override campus gun bans and permit lawfully concealed weapons on college campuses.
Waddoups insists that when it comes to guns, his message has always been "stop the criminals first; don't take mine away until you take John Dillinger's."
Under state law, concealed-weapon permit holders can carry their weapons "without restriction" except in large airports, prisons, jails and courtrooms -- all areas with security screening, noted Waddoups. "If schools promise to make their buildings more secure, I'll help them get legislation [banning concealed weapons] through. But that's not their priority."
Schools opposed Waddoups last winter, but have no plans to continue the battle.
"We're always concerned about the safety of our students and employees, but feel we have policies in place to ensure that," said Jordan School District spokeswoman Melinda Colton.
Jordan and Granite school districts have written policies limiting their liability for any claims or damages brought because of the weapons and prohibiting employees from volunteering information about their permits. Granite's policy further states employees with permits will be fired for leaving a weapon unattended.
Despite repeatedly defending a state law that says the Legislature alone can make rules on concealed weapons unless the body specifically authorizes a political subdivision to do so, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff OK'd the district policies.
"It's a matter of selective enforcement," said gun-control advocate and former Utah House Majority Leader Dave Jones.
He acknowledged, "The Legislature usually takes a broad-brush approach and then school districts are allowed to pass administrative interpretations of those laws. Theoretically the U. could apply the same interpretation, but wanted to take it a step further."
Jones isn't convinced, however, that schools have been granted explicit rule-making authority on guns.
Then again, neither have private employers, and that hasn't stopped the Delta Center from screening for weapons at Jazz games, he said. "And nobody is knocking on [LDS Church-owned] Brigham Young University's door, probably because it's not politically popular to do so. But if the U. says no guns on campus, it seems to me they would be no different than Larry Miller."
Shurtleff's spokesman Paul Murphy insists the attorney general's stand has nothing to do with politics.
The Attorney General's Office was asked for an opinion about the legality of a slew of state agency gun policies, including the U.'s, said Shurtleff.
"He is simply defending the law," Murphy said of Shurtleff.
As for the rights of private employers to impose gun bans, "that's another issue for another day in another court," Murphy said.
