From today's SLTrib. I wonder how long before this policy will extend to a single live bullet (Am I the only one who sometimes ends up with an unexpended .22LR round packed into a crease in my luggage?) or anything else that might be used as a weapon.
Permit holders, hunters, and other gun owners, beware.
Airport security and law enforcement officials will today announce a "zero tolerance" policy on guns at Salt Lake City International Airport.
Passengers who show up at an airport security checkpoint with a weapon in their possession will be automatically detained and charged, an official said Sunday.
Previously, such situations involving weapons would be reviewed by airport security officers on a case-by-case basis, said Suzanne Luber of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
"Should someone come to the checkpoint with a gun, they will be processed for prosecution," Luber warned, adding that the policy will apply to all weapons, including guns covered by a state-issued concealed weapons permit. Being processed, she explained, means being detained by airport police, questioned by the FBI and then having the case forwarded to the United States Attorney's Office for formal prosecution on federal charges.
In August, the Department of Homeland Security announced a new airport crackdown on small electronic gadgets, urging added checkpoint scrutiny of items such as cell phones, cameras and car key alarms, based on fears they might be disguised bomb components.
Today's announcement is billed as a joint effort by the TSA, the United States Attorney's Office, Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City prosecutors, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the FBI and the Salt Lake Airport Police Department.
The various agencies have scheduled a high-profile news conference at the airport for this morning. Scheduled to appear are Earl Morris, TSA Federal Security Director for Salt Lake International Airport; Paul Warner, U.S. Attorney for Utah; and several federal law enforcement officials -- Gale Evans, chief of the Salt Lake Airport police; and Salt Lake County District Attorney David Yocom.
"This is a final warning to passengers," Luber said. "You need to think about what's in your carry-on baggage before you bring it to the airport."
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, 19 Nov 2003 20:22:57 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Dancing in Victims' blood to restrict RKBA
While these kinds of things are always tragic, what is downright disgusting is how quickly the anti-self-defense crowd starts dancing in the victims' blood to advance their agenda.
A few observations:
1-Mr Smeath did not see fit to even quote any pro-RKBA/pro-self-defense persons in writing his story. If anyone would like to comment on this to Mr. Smeath, his email address is included below.
2-As you can see in the second report (from the same day's paper) the gun in question had been stored in a safe, but the child had managed to get the safe unlocked. "But if only we had required the gun to be unloaded before it had been locked up...." So much for a safe storage law preventing these kinds of things. Next thing they'll want to require two safes, one for the guns, one for the ammo. I understand this is just what is required for the ever more rare shooting clubs in places like England.
3-The mother was a trained and certified armed security guard. So much for any arguments that only cops and those trained as security guards should have guns.
4-The shooting took place while a 4 year old and a 2 year old were left to their own devices while the mom slept. Reports indicate that there were several past allegations on the part of neighbors that these young children were not being properly supervised.
Bottom line, this is a tragic event that seems to be the result NOT of improper storage nearly so much as it is of improper supervision of the children.
Utah children have been victims of accidental shootings three times in the past week. This time a child died.
Gun-control advocates in the state are reacting by reiterating their desire for stronger legislation, while gun-rights activists say such shootings are rare and overplayed in the news media.
Marla Kennedy of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah said while no official statistics are available, the group's unofficial count puts at 67 the number of children younger than 18 shot by other children since 1988. The actual number, she said, is probably much higher.
Kennedy said no official numbers are available because the state has no central way of keeping track. Numbers from the state Department of Health's Bureau of Vital records, however, put at 11 the number of children 14 and younger killed by firearms from 1988 through 2001.
The statistics will now include 3-year-old Ryker Lambert, who was shot in the face Tuesday by his 4-year-old brother in their West Valley home. He was dead by the time emergency crews arrived.
"We have to do something about this in this state, and we've been trying to do something about it for 10 years," Kennedy said. "And every year we've been shot down up at the Legislature."
A bill was introduced but was defeated in committee during this year's general session that would have provided a criminal penalty for a gun owner who "negligently" stores a weapon in a way that allows a minor access to it. Opponents said it denied the right to self-defense.
Early this year, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Utah a D- grade on its gun law as it applies to children. The group, named after former President Ronald Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady, who was shot and disabled during an assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981, marked Utah down for not requiring child-safety trigger locks to be sold with guns and for not holding adults criminally responsible for leaving loaded firearms unsecured.
The center is seeking a so-called child-access prevention law, Kennedy said. Such laws, which provide for strong prosecution when a gun owner's negligence leads to an accident, have been supported by the National Rifle Association, she said.
"I am adamantly opposed to placing the responsibility in the hands of children," she said. "Children being children, by their very nature, don't have the impulse control" needed to safely handle guns.
The other shootings in the past week involved a 16-year-old Honeyville girl who was accidentally shot in the elbow Friday when two 17-year-olds pulled a gun as a prank, and a 14-year-old Minersville boy wounded Nov. 12.
WEST VALLEY CITY ù A 3-year-old boy was accidentally shot and killed here Tuesday by his 4-year-old brother.
West Valley police discuss a shooting in which a 4-year-old accidentally shot and killed his 3-year-old brother.
Michael Brandy, Deseret Morning News
According to police, the child was shot in the face in his living room sometime between 8:30 a.m. and just after noon at his home near 4500 South and 4200 West. He was dead by the time emergency crews arrived.
The two brothers were apparently playing a game with toy guns prior to the shooting, West Valley Police Capt. Steve Sandquist said. Their father had left for work at 8:30 a.m. and their mother, who works a graveyard shift as a security guard, was asleep.
The gun used in the fatal shooting was the service weapon the mother uses for her job, Sandquist said. The mother told police she put her gun in a safe when she got home. The 4-year-old apparently was able to get the key to the safe and get the 9mm handgun while his mother was sleeping, Sandquist said.
The older boy, however, waited to tell his mother about the shooting. He eventually went into his mother's bedroom and said, "My brother has been shot," Sandquist said. Investigators don't believe the 4-year-old completely understood what had happened.
"If he had grasped what happened, he would have woke (the mother) up right away," Sandquist said.
Police have no record of being called to the house, but Department of Child and Family Services spokeswoman Carol Sisco said Tuesday that DCFS investigators have been to the home on several occasions.
"We have had two or three anonymous calls in the past alleging nonsupervision of the children," Sisco said.
The first call came about a year ago, and the most recent one was last month, Sisco said. Each time investigators went to the home, they found the children were supervised and did not discover sufficient evidence to warrant action against the parents.
The investigation into the latest call was closed Nov. 3, Sisco said.
It was unclear Tuesday afternoon exactly when the boy was shot because of the four-hour window between the time the father left for work and when the mother was awakened. The mother said she did not hear the gunshot.
Most of the family's neighbors said they were shocked to hear what had happened, but many said they didn't know the family members because they had not lived there for a long time.
Dorothy Martinez, who lives across the street from the family, said the boys were a frequent sight in the neighborhood running unsupervised.
Neighbor Adam Walker said he was shocked to hear what happened.
"I was horrified. I have no idea how a 3-year-old can get shot. There needs to be a trigger lock on every gun in the house," he said.
Marie Mason described both boys as very cute and very active.
"It's terrible. I didn't think it would be this bad," Mason said on hearing emergency crews and their sirens arrive at the boys' house.
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, 19 Nov 2003 20:41:07 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: Your article in Today's DesNews
I just sent the following to the DesNes reporter as well as the editor.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Dear Mr. Smeath,
I write to express concern over the fact that your article today, "Shootings renew calls for stronger Utah gun laws," does not include a single direct quote from a single member of any of Utah's pro-self-defense organizations while giving Ms. Kennedy from the anti-Gun and misnamed "Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah" almost an entire article to push her agenda. (How many gun safety classes for children have Ms. Kennedy or her "Gun Violence Prevention Center" actually hosted? How many laws mandating that such instruction be available in the public schools have they proposed or supported. ALL they do is support limits on law-abiding gun owners' access to their self defense weapons.)
While every accidental death is a tragedy, a little perspective would be nice. How many of those "children" under 18 who were shot by other "children" were actually members of violent, criminal gangs killed by other members of violent, criminal gangs? Such shootings are hardly "accidental" and do not involved "children" as most of us think of them. How many others involved young people 14 or older who are legally permitted to hunt or use a gun for target shooting? Again, hardly "children" in the sense of being too young to understand the dangers of what they are doing--at least if they had been exposed to some basic gun safety education such as through the NRA's award winning "Eddie Eagle" program that has been very much opposed by most school districts in our State.
Those shootings that really are accidents involving children and guns claim far fewer lives (and cause far fewer other serious injuries) than a whole host of other events including drownings, poisonings, trampolines, etc.
I note that in the latest incident, the gun HAD been stored in a safe. But the children had managed to open the safe while they were left unattended as their mother slept. Why, in the name of everything logical, does this case suggest any need for more laws aimed at gun storage. If it suggest a need for any laws, it would be more laws aimed at how long mothers leave babies and toddlers unattended--something none of us would support.
May I suggest that for future stories you make an effort to present a much more balanced picture by at least speaking with and including some quotations from some members of the pro-self-defense community?
As the public policy director for Gun Owners of Utah (GOUtah!) I can be reached at this email or [rdacted for this email]. <http://www.goutah.org/>
The NRA certainly has some kind of contact/spokesman available.
Locally, we also have groups such as Women Against Gun Control <http://www.wagc.com/>, the Utah Shooting Sports Council <http://www.utahshootingsports.com/>, and the Pink Pistols <http://www.pinkpistols.com/> which is a pro-gun group specifically for gays. Certainly, with just a bit of effort, one of us could have been contacted before writing this story.
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, 24 Nov 2003 16:55:00 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Lock up your safety AND permit to BUY a gun?
The following is the lead editorial in today's SL Tribune. Notice the two radical proposals they suggest:
1-Not just 1 safe, but 2 seperate safes should be required to own a gun. One to store the gun, another to store the ammo. What a very effective way to keep guns out of the hands of poor or lower middle class folks. This proposal would also really reduce the number of home invasions stopped by gun owners. How long would it take to retrieve a gun and its ammo from two seperate safes and have your self-defense ready to use? And exactly how does a second safe keep kids from getting access? If a child can find a key to one safe, why can't he find a key to two safes?
2-This editorial also supports a mandatory training class before one can purchase a firearm. Maybe newspaper editors and reporters should be required to pass a test on writing, logical thinking, and laws regarding libel before being able to publish articles/editorials.
While gun safety classes in schools are mentioned, they are not supported in this editorial. Hmm? Where does this same paper stand on sex education and drug education in schools?
Letters to the SLTrib editor can be emailed to <letters@sltrib.com>.
A gun, two children, a tragedy. This time a 4-year-old boy got hold of a loaded handgun and shot his 3-year-old brother to death.
The specifics of various children shooting children differ. But in many cases, these horrors could be prevented if parents who own guns would follow a simple rule: Store firearms unloaded under lock, and keep ammunition in a separate, locked place.
In this case, the mother of the boys, a security officer, reportedly had kept her service handgun in a locked safe, but the boys somehow got hold of the key.
One must assume either that the gun was loaded when it was stored, or one of the boys figured out how to get a cartridge into the chamber. If the gun had been unloaded, and if the ammunition had been kept under lock in a separate place, the shooting would have been prevented.
Ten years ago, after an epidemic of child deaths involving firearms, The Salt Lake Tribune printed lengthy stories about child gunshot deaths -- suicides, homicides and accidents -- and how similar misfortunes could be prevented. The Legislature considered and rejected bills that would make a criminal offense of negligently storing a gun that was involved in a death or injury. Lawmakers also debated mandatory gun safety education for all children in the public schools.
Not much came of either proposal, and for good reason. Charging a person with a crime after a child is injured or killed by a firearm that was not safely stored might encourage other gun owners to secure their weapons better, or it might just magnify the suffering following a death.
We would prefer a continuing education campaign for gun owners. Without one, a criminal sanction by itself would be meaningless anyway. Perhaps only people who have passed a state-sanctioned firearms safety course should be allowed to buy guns.
Some organizations of firearms owners say that children need to be taught never to pick up a gun, but instead to leave it alone and immediately notify an adult. Unfortunately, one peer-reviewed study of boys ages 8-12 showed that a large percentage of them, even those who have had some firearms safety training, cannot resist picking up a handgun and pulling the trigger if they come across one during play.
This suggests that only gun owners can prevent accidents involving children by properly storing firearms unloaded, under lock, and separate from locked ammunition.
Of course, people who insist on keeping loaded guns at the ready for personal protection put not only themselves but their children at risk. Frankly, we have no answer for that one.
Which means, regrettably, that we probably will be writing this editorial again in another 10 years, after another series of tragedies. If not sooner.
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, 25 Nov 2003 21:17:38 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw:letter to Des News Editorial Editor exposing conflict of interest o n part of LaVarr Webb
The following letter exposes some serious but undisclosed conflicts of interest on the part of Des News columnis LaVarr Webb on the whole gun issue. It is forwarded with the permission of the author, State Rep Greg Hughes.
Feel free to pass it around and expose Webb and his column for what they are.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Mr. Evensen,
After the recent controversy about printing potential conflict of
interest disclaimers on opinion pieces, I would think you would be more
sensitive and consistent with this practice.
Last week LaVarr Webb gratuitously opined about guns in schools and the
Legislature's "nutty" acquiescence to the "powerful gun lobby." You did
not provide any contrary point of view which is an unfortunate
development for this column. I could describe in length the hyperbole
and poor rationale in Mr. Webb's piece but that is not the point of this
communication.
Upon reading another one sided, non-disclosed conflict of interest,
guns in school tirade for the 2nd week in a row, I am compelled to ask
what is going on?! Are you aware that LaVarr Webb, Ted Wilson, and the
Exoro Group have been hired by the board of Safe Haven to start a voter
initiative to remove guns from schools? Does Mr. Wilson mind the
conflict disclosure being omitted from LaVarr's column the last two
weeks? He shouldn't mind because without it they have succeeded in
placing an unpaid political ad right on the front editorial page of the
most read edition of the Des News. The Exoro Group's "campaign" can be
read about in the Nov. issue of a new Utah magazine called "Connect."
Both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Webb are interviewed in an article titled
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, 5 Dec 2003 00:13:00 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Home Depot Anti-Gun?
I've just called Home Depot. I was told that they have received several inquiries regarding a "rumor" they prohibit legal CCW, but that they have not received a final answer from their legal department. However, I have seen emails that purport to be from Home Depot that indicate there is a policy against lawful CCW and that signs will be posted where required. (See forwarded message at the end of this email.)
I suspect that Home Depot may be in the stage of guaging how this policy would affect business. I urge those concerned about this kind of corporate policy to contact Home Depot and let them know you'll take your business to Lowes or elsewhere (as well as canceling your Home Depot credit card) if Home Depot has or adopts a no guns policy. You might also want to let the store manager know about your position the next time you are in a Home Depot.
Blockbuster, Lowes, and others have withdrawn these ill-advised and uneforcable policies once it became clear it was going to cost them business not only from CCW permit holders, but from others who support the right to self defense.
Home Depot corporate can be reached at:
770-433-8211,
800-553-3199
or via a web based email system at
<www.homedepot.com> (click on "contact us" is organe letters at the bottom right of the page).
You might also try direct email at <consumeraffairs@homedepot.com>.
With a little effort, in a short time Home Depot will be issuing press releases saying they have no policy on guns and all the letters and phone calls they've been getting had nothing to do with their position. ;) Remember, to be firm but polite and civil.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
> > >From: "Barry H. Adams" <badams@f...>
> > >Reply-To: nmssa@yahoogroups.com
> > >To: "NMSSA" <nmssa@yahoogroups.com>
> > >Subject: [nmssa] Home Depot Will Begin Posting
> > >Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 05:16:14 -0700
> > >
> > >There has been a numerous threads and lots of rumors on many of
>the gun
> > >related talk groups regarding carry in Home Depot stores.
>Apparently, the
> > >following is their policy. You should decide if you will continue
>to
> > >support Home Depot or shop elsewhere. Their e-mail address is
> > >consumeraffairs@h...
> > >
> > >
> > >The following is their Policy Statement that is being e-mailed in
>response
> > >to inquires.
> > >
> > >"Thank you for your feedback.
> > >
> > >The Home Depot has a long-standing policy prohibiting the
>possession of ALL
> > >weapons in its stores. Consistent with that policy, customers are
> > >prohibited
> > >from carrying firearms in our stores. Where required by local
>legislation,
> > >The Home Depot will install necessary signage to reiterate this
>policy to
> > >all customers."
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >
> > >Daina
> > >Customer Care
> > >homedepot.com
> > >
> >
> > Yes, this is essentually the same email I received from HD but from
>Jennifer
> > in Customer No Care (contact #KMM494722C0KM).
> > I too am writing them and will not purchase from Home Depot until
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, 5 Dec 2003 00:39:31 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Churches where your CCW is not valid
It looks like a couple of churches have finally notified BCI of policies prohibiting firearms. All churches that do this are listed at <http://www.bci.utah.gov/CFP/CFChurch.html>.
Currently there are two churches listed:
St. Paul's Episcopal Church
261 S 900 E
Salt Lake City UT 84102
Summum Church
707 Genesee Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84104
Carrying a firearm into either of these churches is now an infraction (an offense of lessor severity than a misdemeanor) called "Tresspass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence."
While an infraction is not enough to get a permit automatically yanked, it seems possible that if someone refused to leave a church upon request from someone with authority to control church property, that person could then be charged with good old fashioned tresspass which is at least a misdemeanor and IS grounds to have a CCW permit revoked.
Also, please bear in mind that (contrary to recent articles/editorials in the SLTribune) if a church posts signs at its entrances or someone with authority to control the church property communicates a "no guns" policy directly to you, the church does NOT need to notify BCI (and will not be listed on the above web page) in order to ban guns. In such cases, carrying a gun into the church is, again, an infraction.
So, those who carry self defense weapons should check the above BCI website (or contact the church directly) before visiting a new church. They should ALSO check for signage at the entrances before entering with a weapon.
Parking lots and other outdoor areas do NOT qualify as "houses of worship" where guns can be banned even if they are owned by a church. Further, ONLY buildings actually and primarily used for religious services. Other buildings, regardless of ownership, are NOT considered "houses of worship."
Finally, also bear in mind that under current statute, even churches with a "no guns" policy can make specific exeptions at their sole discretion. So, if you happen to regularly attend a church that bans CCW, you may be able to convince your pastor, priest, church board of directors, etc, to grant you a specific exemption. There is NO requirement that they do so, of course. But they may if they want to. I would suspect that in most cases, best hopes would be had by showing some kind of specific need (abusive ex, verifiable threats against you, walking to church through neighborhoods with high crime or loose dogs, etc).
As a PS, the latest anti-gun initiative, the misnamed "Save Havens" would ban all CCW from churches and NOT provide churches with any way to grant exemptions or even have a different policy. Make sure your friends and family know to not sign this petition.
For questions about corporate issues such as donation requests, investor
relations, media relations, public relations, marketing, vendor relations
and community affairs, call our Corporate Office at: 1-770-433-8211.
Store Support Center: 2455 Paces Ferry Road NW, Atlanta, GA 30339-4024
Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.LibertyRoundTable.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> LIBERTY ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS LIST v2.24 (http://www.vader.com/lrtdiscuss)
>
> TO POST TO THE LIST: send mail to lrt-discuss@vader.com
> TO UN/SUBSCRIBE TO LIST: send blank mail with command as subject
> IMPORTANT NOTE: ONLY YOUR SUBSCRIBED ADDRESS MAY POST
- -
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:00:35 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: HOME DEPOT *ALLOWS* *LEGAL* CONCEALED CARRY
This is good news. However, after seeing emails with a homedepot return address saying just the contrary, AND having PERSONALLY spoken to HD's customer care line just yesterday and being told they did not have a firm answer, I'd like to see HD make this publicly known. Further, it is perfectly legal in Utah, Arizona, and other States to carry a firearm openly in many cases. Is HD discriminating against those who don't feel a need or desire to hide their self-defense? Is my right to carry openly contigent upon nobody else in the store being a gun-hater or gun-phobe?
A firm and clear statement on their web page would be great. An email from HD would be nice. And their customer care operaters need to answer questions about this appropriately. Once I am able to personally confirm that HD does not have an anti-gun policy and will not require me to relinquish my rights to shop there, I'll happily let my pro-gun groups know about it. Until then, we simply have rumors on both sides. Feel free to send me any contact info.
FWIW, I understand that while Lowes does not have a no guns policy (at least for customers) its CEO or other head honcho is very anti-gun personally and has contributed to HCI. So I'm very anxious to find a harware store that is not, in any way, shape, or form, anti-gun. I hope HD is that store.
Charles Hardy
Policy Director
GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah)
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- -- Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com> wrote:
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fw: HOME DEPOT *ALLOWS* *LEGAL* CONCEALED CARRY
