Subject: Fw: Re: News Release: / Re: Home Depot Anti-Gun?
All,
I have also personally spoken with Doug Zacker and received essentially the same info below. So strike this one up to a nice win for gun owners.
While HD is claiming this was all a communication problem, I think we can assume that at the very least it would not have been resolved so quickly had they not received so many calls, from so far and wide so very quickly. I think we can also assume that HD will not be tempted to come out with an anti-gun policy aimed at their customers in the future.
A few things to note:
1-Mr. Zacker told me that when it comes to customers, HD really has NO policy on guns; they just follow local laws. So, in addition to legal CCW, if are in legal possession of an open weapon, that is also welcome in HD. If you experience anything counter to that, please let us and HD know.
2-Unfortunately, HD does maintain an anti-gun, unarmed-victim policy when it comes to their employees. Employees are NOT allowed to be in possession of self-defense firearms (I failed to ask about Mace or other self defense instruments) while at work. Hence, employees, especially those who commute via mass or alternate transit, are effectively disarmed and defensless from the time they leave home until the time they arrive home again. At the very least, they are unarmed and defensless as they cross the parking lots to their personal autos. HD will NOT allow employees to store self defense weapns in lockers and will NOT even provide storage for personal weapons in the safe that is present in EVERY store.
Admittedly, and unfortunately, this is not an unusual policy and many employers have similar policies. However, so long as you're calling or emailing HD to thank them for respecting your right to self defense as a customer, you might also express concerns over how they are treating their employees.
3-Finally, be aware that we've received reports that Lowes is owned/run by an ethusiatic supporter of HCI/Sarah Brady. So they are probably not a good alternative from a support of RKBA perspective.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Conceal Carry a GO nationwide at Home Depot
15:29 Hrs. 12/05/03
I just called Doug Zacker, 770-384-5770, head of external affairs at Home
Depot.
1. all the signage that has been put up by managers are down or will be down
shortly, that includes Minnesota, Michigan, and other states.
2. The national policy will be as it was before this blow-up (and this has
been approved by the CEO, Mr. Nardelli) Home Depot will not discriminate
against legal concealed weapons holders. In other words if you are legal you
can carry concealed on their premises.
3. customer care will be sending out new emails to parties that have been
told otherwise (when I get the email I will post it).
4. Home Depot admits a lack of communication with their employees regarding
this issue and it has been rectified from the store managerial level on up.
5. the policy letter that was emailed to everyone was a caption taken out of
their rulebook for home depot workers and changed by certain parties (has
been corrected).
6. home depot was amazed how networked this movement was concerning this
issue.
7. I personally wish to thank everyone who participated by calling, faxing,
and emailing. Amazing what can be done when you stick together.
8. Just in case you run into a rogue store manager who has slipped under the
radar either call customer care or call Doug 770-384-5770 to report the
infringement. CUSTOMER SERVICE (800-654-0688)
Neal & Melissa Seaman
1 (843) 716-0511
Neal@DeadBangGuns.com
http://DeadBangGuns.com
Melissa (skypod)
http://profiles.yahoo.com/skypod
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Hardy" <utbagpiper@juno.com>
To: <skypod@DeadBangGuns.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 4:09 PM
Subject: Fw: News Release: / Re: [wagc-ut] Home Depot Anti-Gun?
In response to claims that HD definately has no policy against guns, here is
a copy of an email from HD consumer affairs stating an anti-gun policy that
was received just this week.
I encourage pro-gun folks to keep on HD until they have something clear on
their website.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
News Release:
You are welcome to quote me on the following:
I sent the e-mail that I pasted below.
I received the reply that I pasted below that.
I certify the below e-mails to be unchanged -- an exact copy and paste of
what I have received.
Ronald H Levine
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald
To: consumeraffairs@homedepot.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:56 AM
Subject: Dear Home Depot,
Dear Home Depot,
Does Home Depot have any gun policies?
Does Home Depot have any political agenda?
Reply requested.
Thank-you
Your friend and patron of The Home Depot and a concerned stock holder
Ronald H Levine
1042 E Fort Union Blvd #356
Midvale, Utah 84047
Ronald.H.Levine@mindspring.com
I received the following today in response to my inquiry.
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, 10 Dec 2003 20:23:21 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Bill O'Reilly supports and misrepresents 1994 "Assault Weapon" ban
All, last night (Tuesday, Dec. 9th, 2003) on his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly made several statements that while he supports the 2nd amd and thinks people should be able to have rifles, shotguns, and pistols, he supports the 1994 "Assault Weapon" ban and thinks it should be renewed because "nobody needs a bazooka or a machine gun."
As I trust all here know, the 1994 (misnamed) "assault weapon" "ban" does NOT even apply to bazookas or machine guns. THOSE items have been restricted since about 1938 but (at least for machine guns) CAN still be legally purchased, possessed, and used assuming one jumps through the proper hoops and gets proper federal papers.
No, the 1994 AW ban applies to detachable magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds and to certain SEMI-auto weapons based NOT on function differences with legal weapons but only on cosmetics such as pistol grips, folding stocks, raised sights, bayonet lugs, etc. Furthermore, the ban only applies to those items manufactured AFTER 1994. There are a slew of "banned" guns and magazines that are still legally possessed and used by law abiding citizens every day.
The weapons banned are ideal for defense of self, family, home, business, and other property (especially during a riot) as those Korean shop keepers demonstrated during the LA riots. These weapons are used for formal competitions, recreational plinking, and in some cases are nice for hunting. They shoot the same bullets, at the same rates of fire (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and with the same velocity as any number of firearms that are not subject to this silly ban. Further, due to their shape, many women find the banned weapons to be easier or more comfortable to fire than some of the non-banned counterparts.
If anyone cares to provide some correction to Mr. O'Reilly's mis-perceptions about what the AW ban really does (and does not do) he can be contacted at <oreilly@foxnews.com>.
Any who are premium subscribers to billoreilly.com can also email him and his producers from that page.
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, 10 Dec 2003 14:15:08 -0700
From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc <chad@pengar.com>
Subject: AW ban mis-information
Dear Mr. O'Reilly
I trust that the misinformation you broadcast on your show about the
renewal of the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" (and your support for it) was
due to ignorance and not willful misrepresentation. The 1994
so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" has nothing to do with machine-guns or
bazookas. It is a law that has purely cosmetic effect on firearms.
The sponsors labeled it an "Assault Weapons" ban and then defined the
term "Assault Weapons" to stir up emotion and to get people to falsely
connect it with machine-guns and bazookas, in order to garner support.
I expect you to issue a correction on your show or I will have to
assume that you meant to misrepresent it in order to confuse people and
gain support for it. That is a dishonest and unethical way to behave
and I would hope you would not engage in it.
The law is a bad law, has no effect on crime (you can walk in to any
gun store and buy grandfathered weapons or new weapons that have been
cosmetically altered so that they are no longer assault weapons), and
will cause George W Bush the Presidency if it is renewed and passes.
This law brought the Republicans to power in 1994 (1 out of 4 people
polled through exit polling voted based on guns and the assault
weapons ban -- that is HUGE) and if they screw it up now and let it
renew and pass, a lot of voters who would otherwise have voted for Bush
in 2004 will just stay home. This law has the capability to-single
handedly cause Bush to lose the election. It is not worth it. Bush
has done lots of other stupid things, but none of them are large enough
to cause him to lose -- only this one is.
Please do the research and learn about the law itself, its (non) effect
on crime, and then issue your correction on what the law is about.
thanks
Sincerely,
Chad Leigh
Utah
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:54:26 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Home Depot not wanting to discuss employee policies re self-defense.
All,
I received the following yesterday and pass it along for your consideration. I repeat that Home Depot has NO policy regarding customers' legal possession of firearms or other self-defense weapons (open or concealed so long as it is legal) AND the fact that Lowes is run by a supporter of Sarah Brady et al.
(Of course, your locally owned hardware store probably has no such policy and/or doesn't bother to enforce it if the lawyers have pushed one on them.)
However, I find this position and the unwillingness to even be open about what their policy is troubling and think you may want to let their "customer care" department know how you feel. I understand that most employers have these kinds of anti-self-defense policies and we have to pick our battles. But I think the recent flap over customers' guns has helped pick this one for me a bit. HD was stupid enough to show up on gun owners' radar screen and it needs to show forth some "fruits meet for forgivness" if y'all will forgive the use of a bit of religious terminology.
In addition to an email, you might want to call Doug Zacker at 770-384-5770 or customer service at 800-654-0688.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Dear Charles,
Thank you for your interest in learning more about The Home Depot!
As you can imagine, the questions you've asked concern proprietary information that we cannot disclose. You can find a great deal of information about The Home Depot by exploring our website, which includes extensive information on topics including our company's history, financial reports, community involvement, environmental programs, press releases, jobs, sponsorships, and other Home Depot companies.
Again, thank you for your interest in The Home Depot. If we can be of further assistance, please email us again or call us at 1-800-553-3199.
Regards,
Liza
Customer Care Department
homedepot.com
Original Message Follows:
- ------------------------
Thank you for your response.
I am pleased to hear that Home Depot will respect my rights to self defense as a customer.
Does your policy for employees extend to all weapons (including mace), or does it only include firearms?
Thank you
Charles Hardy
Policy Director
GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah)
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- -- HD Consumer Affairs <hdconsumeraffairs@homedepot.com> wrote:
Hello Ms. Hardy,
Thank you for your feedback.
The Home Depot has a long-standing policy prohibiting employees from carrying weapons in its stores.
The Home Depot does not prohibit anyone who is legally permitted to carry firearms from entering our stores, provided the firearms are carried in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Sincerely,
Sharon B.
Customer Care
homedepot.com
Original Message Follows:
- ------------------------
utbagpiper@juno.com
"Contact Us" Form Message From: Charles Hardy
Submitted: Thu, Dec 04, 2003 07:04:22 PM
Email: utbagpiper@juno.com
Phone: 8015233817
Zip/Postal Code: 84070
Subject: Other
Store Locator:
Service Number:
Comments:
I'm inquiring as to whether Home Depot has any coporate or individual store policy regarding the possession of lawfully carried concealed weapons by customers or employees? There are rumors on the internet that Home Depot does not allow customers or employees to possess otherwise legally concealed weapons in your stores.
Will you please either confirm or refute these rumors?
Applications are being accepted for a judicial vacancy in the 3rd District, which covers Salt Lake, Summit and Tooele counties. The vacancy was created by Judge Michael Burton, who will retire in May.
Candidates must be at least 25 years old, a U.S. citizen, a Utah resident for at least three years and admitted to practice law in Utah.
Application packets can be obtained by contacting Marilyn Smith at 801-578-3800 or e-mailing her at marilyns@email.utcourts.gov. Applications must be received by Jan. 20 at 5 p.m. to be considered.
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, 24 Dec 2003 16:14:18 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Any info for a Grand Jury
With this being published yesterday, and the deadline to get info in being Dec 31, it looks like nobody wants to receive info too badly. If anyone has anything that would qualify, be sure to get it in quickly.
Utahns who wish to report any criminal activity that would justify the calling of a grand jury can do so on Jan. 8.
State law requires a panel of judges from throughout the state to hold hearings in each judicial district every three years to determine if a grand jury needs to be summoned based on criminal activity.
Controversies between individual parties will not be considered, and individuals must be prepared to give evidence to support claims.
To arrange to testify, contact D. Mark Jones, District Court administrator, at 801-578-3800, by December 31.
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, 24 Dec 2003 16:52:45 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Lastest anti-gun editorial from SLTrib
The latest drivel from the SLTribune. Notice the attempts to equate the PRIVATE property of churches with the PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property of "public schools." The article refers to schools as being the principal's campus rather than the taxpayers' property.
It is also interesting to note that gun groups argued that churches did have the power to ban guns without needing to do anything special. All they needed to do was ask anyone with a gun to leave or to not enter. This is exactly what a church might do today if someone came in with a beer or a cigarette or a pork chop or wearing a skimpy swimming suit.
It was several politically active, anti-gun churches/pastors who insisted that the legislature had to ban guns from churches for them. The legislature resisted and instead gave churches the explicit power to ban guns. Now the churches are complaining. I, for one, would support, enthusiastically, a total and complete repeal of 76-10-530, "Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence."
Let's quit treating firearms differently than knives, mace, alcohol, tobaco, pork, beef, immodest clothing, or any other item than any particular church or homeowner may find offensive or unwanted.
Somehow, I don't expect many of these churches to join me in that effort. The VERY same people who would be OUTRAGED at a legislative or citizen initative effort to ban alcohol from all churches have no problem supporting those very efforts to ban guns from all churches.
Letters to the editor of the SLTribune can be sent to <letters@sltrib.com>.
And please, make sure they receive enough that it is clear that it is not just a few crackpots.
I also have to wonder where were all these voices against guns in churches and schools in 1994 when 1000 rich, white guys were allowed to CCW into schools and churches. If it was ok for them then, why is it such a concern if 50,000 law abiding men and women of whatever race or socio-economic background do so today?
Most churches in Utah -- most churches everywhere -- already have a sign outside that should clearly indicate to the most thickheaded among us that firearms are not welcome within.
It's the sign that says "Church."
Or temple, chapel, synagogue, mosque, cathedral, meeting house, shrine, coven, sacred space or holy roller rink.
Thus the righteous resentment of many of the area's clergy, Christian and Jewish, that state law requires them to post a sign near their front door -- or, if they prefer, a notice on a state Internet site -- to make clear something that should be obvious:
Folks are welcome to praise God, but should leave the ammunition at home.
The option given to churches to post their no-guns policy on the Utah Bureau of Criminal Information Web site, added to the state code earlier this year, was apparently meant to give priests and pastors, rabbis and reverends a way to make their desires known without having to clutter up their sacred portals with something that is Caesar's.
It took a few months, and a couple of newspaper articles, for that offer to sink in. When it did, representatives of many faiths gathered Sunday at Salt Lake City's All Saints Episcopal Church to say to the Legislature, in effect, don't do us any favors.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is so far officially agnostic on the matter of signs and Web sites, though the church went on record in 1996 stating that churches are places of refuge, thus no place for deadly weapons.
Clearly the Legislature -- or at least its most vocally armed member, Senate Majority Leader Michael Waddoups of Taylorsville -- sees it as somehow odd that a house of worship might want to ban firearms from its holy confines. Otherwise there would be no need to require churches to take special steps to legally exclude them.
Church leaders are at least luckier than are those in the public schools. Principals can't ban concealed-carry permit holders from bringing guns onto their campuses even if they post Web pages, take out full-page newspaper ads and hire skywriters.
Still, the fact that places of worship have to jump through extra hoops to state the obvious is offensive to the American concepts of both private property and separation of church and state.
Waddoups says he would be happy to work with church leaders to address their concerns. He could save everyone a lot of confusion, and a lot of fear, if he would get the law changed to allow churches the unfettered right to ban guns from their property.
And while he is at it, schools should have the same power.
So that both institutions can be about their proper business.
I share your concern. The general demeanor of this article
suggests psyops in preparation to burn out defenseless celebrants.
Shalom,
Scott
- -
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 03:12:28 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Latest anti-gun tripe from the DesNews
I don't know anyone who has demanded the ability to carry a gun into church. I do know a lot of good persons who think it is foolish to advertise to every crook and nutcase that his intended victim is safely disarmed while at church. And I know a lot of us who think it is not unreasonable to keep the government out of setting church policy (whether that be the banning of guns or the banning of alcohol). In any event, letters to the editor can be sent to <letters@desnews.com>.
Novelist Kurt Vonnegut Jr. once described a handgun as "a machine designed to kill human beings."
We agree.
So it is beyond us why gun advocates press so hard to carry their "killing machines" into local churches, where the atmosphere is one of sharing, goodwill, generosity, healing and love. But then, along with their weapons, concealed weapon holders also conceal a dirty little secret. They know if they displayed their weapons openly, they would be shunned for bringing fear and loathing into the house of God. They'd be better off showing up at church with the measles.
For such reasons, we applaud the church officials who not only discourage, but prohibit people from bringing guns into services. Legislators say the recent flap was a mere misunderstanding. That their intentions were good in asking religions to register with the state if they choose to ban guns from church, but the clergy misunderstood them. And though the issue is still murky, we give them the benefit of the doubt.
What does come through crystal clear, however, is the fact religious leaders see no place for "weapons of individual destruction" in houses of worship.
We have the Armed Services and we have church services. Guns belong in the former, not the latter.
By refusing to be more flexible and realizing that prudence dictated a change of thinking, gun hard-liners only managed to shoot themselves in the foot with their own concealed weapons. Their fervor makes one wonder if they truly favor "freedom" or are simply looking for "license" to behave how they wish.
In the end, the idea of firearms in church is so foreign to most churchgoers they can't even fathom the thinking behind such behavior. Do gun toters fear a deranged soul will arise from the congregation and begin picking people off? Do they see themselves as the "guardian angels" rising to quell the violence?
If so, they should be writing novels, not gun pronouncements.
Gun advocates say they are weary of being called "gun nuts," that the label is biased and unfair. But if they don't want Utahns to see them as "nuts," they should stop making public statements that belong in Planter's cans.
Taking aim at the churches will only crystallize their image as loose cannons whose half-cocked ideas blow up in their faces. Machines for killing people are unwelcome in places where people are being saved.
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, 30 Dec 2003 16:03:35 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Jordan School Board taking applications for replacement board member
Somewhat off topic, but the Jordan School Board is taking applications to fill a soon to be vacated spot on the board. The school board's contact info is available at <http://www.jordandistrict.org/contact/index.htm>.
Address/Telephone
Address: 9361 South 300 East
Sandy, UT 84093
Telephone: (801) 567-8100
Fax: (801) 567-8078
From today's SLTrib: <http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12302003/utah/124518.asp>
Education advocate leaving Capitol Hill
By Ronnie Lynn
The Salt Lake Tribune
Public education will lose one of its strongest voices on Capitol Hill next month when Jordan School Board member Ralph Haws leaves for an 18-month LDS Church mission to the West Indies.
Haws was a well-prepared fixture at every Education Committee meeting during recent general and interim legislative sessions.
His specialty: arguing for more education funding and against new mandates.
Haws' 32-year administrative career in Jordan district gave him unique background and experience to debate education policy with lawmakers who last year considered nearly 50 pieces of legislation involving public schools.
"It is a tremendous loss because Ralph always did his homework, always had the facts, and therefore was hard to refute, which made him unpopular with some lawmakers," said Sarah Meier, president of the Granite School Board and a fellow legislative observer.
"He'll be a great missionary because he is dynamic and he cares sincerely about people, but he will be missed up on the Hill."
Haws will resign from the Jordan board Jan. 11, the day before he and his wife Connie depart for Trinidad to coordinate church-education programs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
He said he enjoyed his time lobbying at the Capitol and working with Jordan colleagues since he joined the board in 1999. He encouraged them and other policy-makers to rely on open, honest debate as they consider controversial measures such as tax increases, tuition tax credits and spending.
"They've got very difficult decisions to make over the next several years, so I wish them well," he said. "This is the first call for my wife and I, so we think it's a real fun opportunity to do something totally different."
The Jordan School Board will have until Feb. 10 to appoint someone to fulfill the remaining 10 months of Haws' term.
The board will begin accepting applications for the position after Haws formally resigns, Superintendent Barry Newbold said.
Board members were saddened at the news of Haws' departure, even those who sparred with him from time to time.
"We didn't see eye to eye on quite a few things, but he was an incredible mentor for me," said freshman board member Lynette Phillips. "He was tenacious about things and would not let go. He has been our strongest advocate."
The Utah School Boards Association also will spend the next few weeks trying to find someone to fill Haws' shoes at the Capitol during the 2004 general session, which begins Jan. 19.
