Subject: Sterling example of civil asset forfeiture
This article from today's SLTrib highlights how civil asset forfeiture works. In this case, the federal government is suing a dead bison in order to obtain possession of the same, dead buffalo.
Don't get me wrong, I have no use for poaching or otherwise taking of game illegally. If the hunter or guide in question deliberately and knowingly took the bison in a no hunting area, they ought to be properly punished, including the loss of the buffalo. If it was an honest mistake--easy to make in a State with so much federal land including national parks, recreation areas, etc--any punishement should be less. And those are question rightly decided by a jury, IMO.
This time it is a buffalo being sued. Far too often it is a private gun collection or some other issue related to RKBA. Note that in these cases, neither the object sued, nor the owner thereof is entitle to a State appointed attorney as he would be were he to be charged with an actual crime. The standard of proof is also lower in these civil forfeiture cases than in a criminal case.
Thank heaven we passed our asset reform initiative. Let's hope we can keep it from being repealed.
Feds sue, claiming their buffalo was shot in Capitol Reef Park
When they believe a violation has taken place, federal prosecutors don't hesitate to go after their man.
Or beast.
The U.S. Attorney's Office on Wednesday filed a civil suit naming One Shoulder Mount Bison as the defendant. Prosecutors claim that the bull bison should be forfeited to the government because it was shot in Capitol Reef National Park, a no-hunting area.
The suit claims One Shoulder Mount Bison was taken during the 1998 "Hunters Choice Once in a Lifetime Bison Hunt."
A hunter, who had a bison permit issued by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for the Henry Mountains Unit outside Capitol Reef, hired a guide after several weeks of unsuccessful hunting, according to the suit. It claims that the guide took the hunter past "no hunting" signs into the national park and assisted with packing out the animal.
"The foregoing facts demonstrate there is probable cause to believe the defendant property was acquired through the illegal sale and purchase of guiding, outfitting or other services for the illegal taking, acquiring, receiving, transporting or possessing of fish or wildlife," the suit says.
There is no word yet on whether One Shoulder Mount Bison will have a lawyer.
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, 3 Oct 2003 17:11:16 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: Anheuser-Busch drops support of anti-gun Holden
I have done nothing to either confirm or refute this and pass it along FWIW. However, if it is true, it would sure be nice to actually have a business that supported RKBA.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
- ----- Original Message -----
Good reason to buy AB products -
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q17221616
A-B drops support of Holden over guns
By Jo Mannies ⌐2003
Post-Dispatch Political Correspondent
10/01/2003, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc., the top corporate player in Missouri
politics, is no longer backing Gov. Bob Holden - in large part
because of their differences over concealed weapons.
Republican and Democratic sources say the brewery's decision not to
support the governor's re-election next year is highly unusual in
light of its long-standing reputation as a donor which gives
generously to both parties and their candidates, regardless of their
views.
Before Holden vetoed the bill last summer, sources say, a brewery
lobbyist showed up at the governor's office to tell him that such
action would end the long-standing support he'd enjoyed from
Anheuser-Busch and its executives. Holden confirmed that position
later in phone conversations with Anheuser-Busch Cos. Chairman
August A. Busch III and corporate group vice president Stephen K.
Lambright, sources said.
The brewery wouldn't confirm or deny the account, and the governor's
office declined to comment. But Republican and Democratic sources
familiar with the incident say it's among several recent dealings
between the brewery and top state officials that underscore Anheuser-
Busch's strong support for the bill to allow most Missourians the
right to carry concealed weapons.
The Legislature overrode Holden's veto last month, and the measure
will become law Oct. 11.
"This is a huge deal for Mr. Busch," said one high-level political
source. Several who know Busch say he's an avid sportsman who also
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, 6 Oct 2003 14:47:07 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: CCW debate this Wednesday.
The following is from Clark Aposhian, of the Utah Self Defense Instructors' Network (US-DIN), a group of CCW instructors.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
Friends,
I will be debating "someone" from Utahn's Against Gun Violence this Wednesday evening. The debate is hosted by the group Voice for Moderation.
Here is the information for the debate this week. They have yet to let me know who is up to go against me.
Wednesday, October 8th. from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the Anderson/Foothill Library.
The address is 1135 South 2100 East in Salt Lake City.
I have a nasty cold right now. I am bit hesitant to take cold meds as they may fog my wits weds eve, however I suppose that would make things even though.
Please pass this around as it would be nice to have a strong presence at the meeting.
There will also be time for questions to be asked.
Just a reminder that tomorrow, Tuesday, Oct. 7th. is the municipal primary election. Please, be sure to vote. The polls are open long enough to allow for voting before or after the normal workday.
These races are officially non-partisan, though candidates will often let their political affiliation be known. However, be aware, simply belonging to one political party or another does NOT mean that a candidate actually supports (or opposes) RKBA. You'll need to do some checking to find out.
Please, do what you can to cast an informed vote. The media is not going to be much help, so you'll need to take a moment to call the candidates and ask them their position on issues of importance to you. There are some pro-RKBA candidates running for office this year, including Shirley Spain, a CCW instructor, in West Jordan.
(Also, according to a recent SLTrib poll, SLC mayoral candidates Anderson, Irish, and Pignanelli all believe cities should be allowed to impose restrictions on RKBA above and beyond what the State imposes. Lawrende Topham did not respond to the survey. Apparantly, only Molonai Hola supports protecting RKBA against a patchwork of local laws.)
Along with the usual concerns about traffic (aka speed) enforcement, water rates, local taxes (remember that upwards of half your property tax bill is levied not by the city, but by the school district and other special taxing entities), zoning, etc, here are a few RKBA related questions you might consider:
1-A generic, "How do you feel about the right to own and carry weapons for self defense?" (The answer to this one can reveal much about a person's overall political views and his beliefs on the relationship between citizens and government.)
2-What will you do to help encourage and/or protect private (and/or municipal) shooting ranges? (How much money does your city spend on soccer fields, baseball diamonds, jogging trails, dog parks, city parks, skateboard parks, tennis courts, golf courses, zoos, arts, and atracting new businesses, etc?)
3-How do you feel about allowing citizen use of the police practice range when it is not being used for formal classes by the police department? Or, what do you think about making sure any new police range is also open to the public whenever possible?
4-Do our municipal courts prohibit legally carried self defesne weapons? If so, do they provide legal, safe, convenient storage for the private weapons they prohibit? If not, will YOU work to make sure storage is provided?
5-Where do you stand on home based businesses, including home based firearm dealers and firearm repair shops?
6-Should city council or other meetings prohibit concealed weapons?
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, 6 Oct 2003 22:55:07 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Unsafe to learn/worship petition still alive and kicking
The included article from today's SLTrib mostly complains about our current initiative process. Sadly, as we saw last year, our courts are not above placing an initiative on the ballot despite failing to meet legislative thresholds. Those of us in the more highly populated areas need to do what we can to counter the lies, distortions, half-truths, and emotional appeals to voters. If these guys end up with sufficient signatures from a few densly populated counties, the courts may just place the initiative on the ballot despite failing to meet other requirements.
And unlike the radioative tax initiative that was placed on our ballot last year, there simply isn't any large, wealthy company or individual or group who is going to be able to counter the lies of the antis and their allies in every media outlet in the State.
Gun control advocates are struggling to gather enough signatures to place an initiative on the 2004 ballot.
But volunteers don't know how many signatures to collect because the State Elections Office can't give them a number. Lawmakers rejiggered state Senate district boundaries so much during redistricting two years ago that elections workers still are working to pinpoint how many residents in each district equal 10 percent of all registered voters -- the statewide threshold for getting a citizen initiative on the election ballot.
It's just one of the maddening twists Safe Havens for Learning spokeswoman Maura Carabello says she faces in her efforts to keep guns out of Utah schools and churches.
"Nobody can actually tell us what 10 percent is. No one knows what the answer is," Carabello says. "The Legislature has been very insistent that we have to follow these rules. But they can't tell us what they are. The clock is ticking. And we can't even comply with the law."
Trying to track the total number of signatures required is just one of the difficulties posed by new rules for citizen initiatives says John Pearce, the attorney appealing Safe Havens' case to the Utah Supreme Court. The state's top judges will hear arguments -- from Pearce and Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts -- on Wednesday.
In many ways, this is a rematch. Pearce, Roberts and the justices have been here before. Last year, supporters of an initiative to keep nuclear waste out of Utah convinced the court to overturn the state's initiative law. The ruling in that case -- Gallivan v. Walker (Lt. Gov. Olene Walker) -- is the foundation of this new lawsuit.
Pearce, who worked for supporters of the unsuccessful Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act, insists lawmakers only made matters worse during the 2003 Legislature.
"We believe that Gallivan established a precedent that the Legislature's job is to facilitate, not burden, the right to make law through initiatives," Pearce said.
Roberts, who defended the state in 2002, argues the two suits are completely different. It is not the state's fault that gun control advocates are having trouble, he says.
Safe Havens' "difficulties are not necessarily of constitutional concern," Roberts wrote in response to Pearce's appeal. "Their difficulties may also be due to lack of interest in the initiative, improper presentations, lack of funding or various other difficulties they may have brought on themselves."
Utah's Constitution allows residents to make law if a majority of voters approve. But the Constitution lets state lawmakers make the rules for initiative campaigns. And that has been the problem.
First written in 1917, legislators' rules required initiative supporters to collect signatures equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the most recent governor's race in 15 of the state's 29 counties. Those rules stayed largely untouched until 1998, when state leaders tightened the requirements, raising the number of counties where signatures must be gathered to 20.
Last year, nuclear waste opponents gathered 131,000 signatures, more than enough to meet the 10 percent rule. But initiative opponents convinced enough signers to remove their names from the list and the group failed to meet the 20-county requirement. Walker declared the petition insufficient and refused to place it on the ballot.
The initiative supporters appealed to the Supreme Court. And last August, the justices ruled the state's guidelines for circulating petitions were unconstitutional because they placed more weight on rural voters' signatures than those of their urban neighbors. The initiative ultimately was placed on the ballot but was roundly defeated.
Lawmakers, outraged at the "activist" court, ratcheted up initiative requirements earlier this year. Initiative supporters have to gather signatures from 10 percent of the registered voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election in 26 of 29 Senate districts. They must hold seven public meetings around the state, collect signatures within a year, and cannot attempt a similar initiative for two years.
Safe Havens, also known as the Safe to Learn-Safe to Worship Coalition, filed an initiative petition with the Lieutenant Governor's Office March 21. Although the new requirements took effect May 5, Walker determined just two of the rules apply to the gun control initiative and nine others. The rest of the rules are on hold.
The would-be citizen lawmakers complain the rules are being applied retroactively. And they asked 3rd District Judge J. Dennis Frederick to throw out the rules as unconstitutional because they are too difficult to meet -- or at least allow them to gather signatures under the old rules. Instead, Frederick threw out their case.
Now, Pearce is attempting to connect the Safe Havens lawsuit with the Gallivan case. He argues the new rules did not solve the problems of "unduly burdensome" rules posed in Gallivan. If the justices determined one rule was too much last year, four new rules must hinder initiatives, he says.
"There can be little doubt that the challenged provisions are intended to doom, rather than facilitate, the creation of law by initiative," Pearce's appeal states.
Roberts argues the rules simply organize the initiative process; they do not rout it.
"The provisions merely regulate the process for getting an initiative on the ballot and do not restrict the exercise of any of [Safe Havens'] free-speech rights," he wrote. "It can still circulate its petition, engage in political activity, advertise, speak out, raise funds, etc."
Meantime, Safe Havens signature clipboard-carriers are getting started despite the uncertainty.
Because lawmakers changed boundaries after the 2000 governor's election, state workers are recreating Senate districts and counting, sometimes street by street, to calculate the number of voters.
"This is almost an impossible task to figure out what these numbers are," says Elections Director Amy Naccaratto. "I don't know if we're ever going to get an exact number. It's a monumental task -- one that's much bigger than we anticipated."
The deadline for signatures is June 1. But Carabello says even that date has changed.
"We're worried on several fronts," she said. "They keep applying the law willy-nilly. They're giving us their 'best guesses' and interpreting the law the best way they can. This law is so poorly written. They didn't write it to solve a problem."
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, 8 Oct 2003 22:41:49 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Bernie is leaving
From today's DesNews. Bernie Machen has been hired to head up the UofFlorida. It will be interesting to see who takes up his anti-self-defense mantel at the UofU. Any chance our legislators will do anything about making sure his replacement will honor the laws as they are written rather than as he would like them to be written?
GAINESVILLE, Fla. ù The University of Florida on Wednesday named James "Bernie" Machen, the president of the University of Utah, to become its next president and the leader of the state's flagship university.
Machen was selected by the university's Board of Trustees over finalists William Jenkins, president of the Louisiana State University System; and Richard Herman, provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The selection ends a nine-month process to replace Charles Young, who is retiring after four years as president.
The three, pulled from an 11-member list of candidates interviewed earlier in the week by a selection committee, were interviewed individually Wednesday by the Board of Trustees. The trio also met individually and in separate forums with faculty, students and alumni.
Machen, 59, who drives a red Harley-Davidson motorcyle and often wears blue jeans to work, has been leader of the Salt Lake City university for six years. A dentist by trade, Machen was dean of the University of Michigan and then became provost and academic vice president.
Machen told the trustees two factors attracted him to the UF president's job ù the faculty and students and the strive toward excellence.
"At most universities the search for excellence has gone, it has turned into a search for survival," he said.
"I don't think there is a job better than a university president's job in the country today," Machen said.
Jenkins, 66, a native of South Africa, was trained as a veterinarian. As president of the Louisiana State University System, he oversees nine universities and 10 public hospitals.
Herman, 62, held administrative positions at the University of Maryland and Pennsylvania State University before becoming assuming his current post.
Manny Fernandez, chairman of the search committee, said the new president will earn between $400,000 and $700,000 a year and will probably begin work Jan. 4.
Young, who served for almost three decades as chancellor of the University of California at Los Angeles, took over the reins of the university on an interim level in 1999 when John Lombardi stepped down. When an earlier search failed, Young agreed to stay on as the president.
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, 13 Oct 2003 15:15:08 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Janalee does a great job at USU
From the USU's student paper. NOte that the author did NOT pull the usual media trick of insisting on giving the anti-self-defense lobby equal time to cloud the issue. (Wouldn't it be nice if those of us who support the right to an effective self defense were allowed equal time every time the gun haters stage an event or dance in some victim's blood.) His email, for thanking him, is at the end of the article.
Charles
<http://www.utahstatesman.com/news/519930.html>
Female gun advocate straight shoots with students
By Denise Albiston
The founding fathers were the first feminists, they understood that the Second Amendment was about individual rights to defend themselves from those that would do them harm, said Janalee Tobais, president and founder of Women Against Gun Control (WAGC).
WAGC is a national organization aimed at preserving the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Tobais spoke at the Taggart Student Center Auditorium on Thursday to support Utah State University's Students of the Second Amendment.
"I have a message for the United Nations and any other person or organization that tries to take my guns away to leave me and my family defenseless to terrorists, rapists and murderers; You'll have to pry my gun away from my cold dead fingers," Tobais said. "You don't protect yourself by disarming yourself."
Women are especially vulnerable to attacks, Tobais said. A woman's attacker is most often a man that is physically larger than a woman and that's why women need to carry guns for protection. Judges and lawyers cannot alter biology and the best way for a woman to protect herself is with a gun, she said.
"A gun is an equalizing force for women who are otherwise no match for a would-be attacker," Tobais said.
Tobais said a woman can spend thousands of dollars and many years on self-defense classes, however, they "can't protect you from a 250 pound drug addict, high on meth, from raping or killing you and your family."
Tobais said a woman most often can't match a man's strength, so they need other methods of protecting themselves.
"If guys could be women for a day and receive the harassment that women go through on a daily basis, I guarantee you that they'd be packing a pistol in their pants," Tobais said.
Tobais said it is extraordinarily difficult to observe high-profile women such as Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Sara Brady and others that actively participate in an attempt to disarm women. She said it agitates her to know that other women are trying to take away her rights and added that many of these women may be well-meaning, but they are extremely hypocritical since many of these women live in gated communities with body guards that carry guns.
"I just want to ask these women that are trying to disarm other females, just how are they going to protect themselves if an attacker breaks in? Are they going to scratch their eyes out or pull their hair?" Tobais said. "I bet they're not, I bet they have got a gun stashed under their bed or in their underwear drawer."
Danna Huntzinger, a second-year graduate student in communication disorders, said, "I think it's important for all of us to realize that guns really aren't the bad guy. If only criminals have guns, then we're just going to be the ones unprotected."
A woman has natural instincts to protect her family, Tobais said, and just like any other animal, when a women and her family are in danger, she should have every means possible to protect herself and her family.
"If anybody tries to mess with my kids, they're going to get hurt," Tobais said. "I'll fight to the death to protect them."
Caterina Wilson, a doctoral student in communication disorders, said, "As a woman, a single woman particularly, I want to be able to protect myself and I don't plan on being a victim, so I think it's my right to choose how I do that, including carrying a gun."
Tobais said gun accidents rank among the lowest in the nation, but the media with their "blatant lies" try to demonize guns. She said that whenever there is a gun accident, it's front page news, but when there is a car accident or a child gets ran over by a car, there is no story.
"I don't understand at all why the media has that opinion about guns. They are very misinformed and are lazy reporters if they don't go out and check the facts," Tobais said.
James Campbell, an undeclared junior, said, "I think all the women out there need to take advantage of gun control and gun rights. They need to do more about protecting themselves especially in a campus atmosphere, they need to have instant protection."
Tobais said facts show that since gun organizations have been educating people about gun safety, gun accidents have dropped. If people want to compare gun accident numbers with numbers of car accidents, then gun accidents are minuscule.
Tobais said a bicycle on the front lawn is a lot more dangerous for a child than a loaded gun. National statistics will show that more children are seriously injured while on a bicycle than with a gun.
"The kind of people that carry a concealed weapon have registered to buy them legally and have had background checks and everything first," said Marjorie Blake, a USU graduate that attended the speech. "This says that they are a law-abiding citizen."
Tobais said, "The number one priority of Women Against Gun Control is safety."
Gun owners need to be responsible with their firearms, they need to store their firearms correctly and teach their children to stay away from guns while they are young, Tobais said. When children get old enough to handle a gun, parents need to teach their children proper firearm safety.
"Parents that teach their children how to use a firearm are less likely to get involved with a gun accident," Tobais said.
Education is the key to firearm safety, Tobais said, a gun can't be irresponsible with a person. It's people that are irresponsible with guns. As a society, people need to examine what causes people to commit crime, not the weapon involved in the crime. The people that are irresponsible, Tobais said, are those that won't let gun safety be taught in schools.
"I'm sick and tired of the gun haters blaming guns for crime, because they are ignoring the real causes of crime," Tobais said. "The real cause of crime is the breakdown of family. Statistics show that gun owners are more religious than any other segment in society. They are family oriented. They do things with their kids. They believe in God and just want to be left alone to spend time with their families."
Craig Huntzinger, president of the Students of the Second Amendment, said he believes police officers are not able to provide the safety and protection needed in this country. They are there to simply write the report
when the crime is over. He added that the individual right to manage their own safety becomes a personal responsibility and the legislatures that are for gun control tend to believe it is their responsibility to manage the citizens of the United States.
"We will tolerate no more gun laws. There are more than 20,000 gun laws that have been passed in this nation and it's not stopped any criminals from getting a gun," Tobais said. "You have to either believe there is peace through weakness or peace through strength."
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, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:10 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Unbelievable!! A pro-hunting editorial from the DesNews.
I realize that not all gun owners are hunters--some are even anti-sport-hunting. And a single positive editorial on hunting does not make up for all the articles and opinions the DesNews has put out opposing self-defense. But I pass along enough of their bad stuff, I feel compelled to pass this along as well. Maybe we could remind the DesNews that lawful self defense, including the possession of the necessary tools for that job, are as culturally ingrained as is hunting.
The archers and muzzle-loaders have taken their best shots. Now, the rifle hunters are setting their sights on Oct. 18, the day the annual deer hunt starts at first light.
Some 70,000 hunters will head for Utah's hills this year. That's more folks in orange than at LaVell Edwards Stadium. And a third of those ù 23,000 ù will likely get a deer.
We wish them well. And we caution them to be careful.
In Utah, there is never room for tomfoolery and silly risk-taking around rifles.
On the other hand, in Utah there will always be plenty of room for the sport of hunting itself.
Years ago, sports pages called hunters "nimrods" ù the name of a mighty hunter in Genesis. Today, deer hunters are living through a less lofty era. Hunting expenses have risen while the true need for the meat has declined. And the fact most sportsmen are more interested in action than adverbs means the flow of ink has tended to favor animal-rights groups and the anti-hunting crowd more than hunters in recent years.
Still, hunters do have their champions. In novels such as "Islands in the Stream," Ernest Hemingway ù winner of the Nobel Prize ù made the case that sportsmen love wildlife and revere the great outdoors as much as any naturalist. And Utah's poet laureate, Ken Brewer ù a sensitive soul with a Ph.D. ù is an avid hunter. He's a "nimrod" capable of writing a sonnet about mallard ducks in the morning, bagging his limit of the things in the afternoon and then serving them up that evening in a four-star fricassee.
Some defenders of the deer hunt argue that hunting is a socially acceptable outlet for rambunctious men. Others claim that hunters help out wildlife officials by thinning the herds.
And the distinction between putting a bullet between the eyes of a steer in a slaughter house for profit and a putting a bullet through a deer hardly merits a distinction.
Still, from our point of view, the most persuasive defense of deer and bird hunting is the fact it is a thread woven deep into the fabric of society, especially society west of Kansas City.
On the Goshute Reservation near Wendover, tribal members are allowed to hunt at will year-round. If a family has friends coming to dinner tomorrow, they are perfectly justified in bagging an antelope today.
That is how it should be. Hunting and fishing are an integral part of native culture. They come with the territory.
What hunting opponents and animal-rights advocates fail to appreciate is the fact hunting is also an integral part of mainstream America. Hunting is in the American grain.
Hunters are us.
We wish all deer hunters a dose of success this year ù a dose of legal, safe and sober success.
