Subject: SB 48 assigned to house committee, calls needed
SB 48 has just been assigned to the House Law Enforcement Committee. It is scheduled for a hearing this Thursday, at 4:30 pm in room 225. Please contact committee members, listed below, and let them know that paragraph 7 needs to be deleted from this bill.
Paragraph 7, if it remains, will for the first time codify that businesses have the statutory authority to discriminate against gun owners. Your CCW permit will be far less useful if the grocery store, bank, shopping malls, and restraunts you frequent decide to post no gun signs and those signs have the backing of statutory authority.
Messages for all representatives can be left at the main House number at 801-538-1029. Typically, the operator will take messages for 3 or 4 legislators per phone call. You can also email the members of the committee. Email addresses can be found at <http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/members2003/membertable1.asp>
Charles
AGENDA
TO: Members of the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:56:18 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: Please amend and then support SB 48
I've sent the following to each member of the House Law Enforcement committee who isn't so rabidly anti-gun as to ignore it anyway. Email addresses are:
Lavarchristensen@utah.gov
bdee@utah.gov
Wharper@utah.gov
Mikemorley@utah.gov
Pwallace@utah.gov
Curtwebb@utah.gov
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Dear Rep. XXXXXX,
I'm writing to you because you are a member of the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee. This Thursday, February 19th, your committee is scheduled to hear SB 48, "Uniform Firearm Laws" by Sen. Waddoups.
I urge you to be present, and to support an expected, friendly amendment to the bill that will strike what is currently paragraph (7). This paragraph deals with the ability of private property owners, including those who own businesses open to the general public, to ban otherwise legally carried self-defense weapons.
This is not the time, nor the bill, to have this particular debate. SB 48 is intended to deal with local government entities, including public colleges and schools enacting policies contrary to State law. Please vote to remove paragraph 7 so that SB 47 deals only with the clear cut issue of local government. The issue of privately owned businesses and self-defense rights should be thoroughly studied--perhaps by an interim committee--before any legislation to address it is brought forward. A hastily drafted and adopted amendment is not the way to address that potentially thorny issue.
Please vote to remove paragraph 7 and then vote to support the amended SB 48 and send it to the full House for their consideration.
I appreciate your time and attention in this matter and would appreciate knowing your position at this time.
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:07:31 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Sen Waddoups needs to hear from you on SB 48
I've just heard that apparantly someone has convinced Sen. Waddoups' that Sen. Bell's anti-gun amendment to SB 48 is a GOOD thing as it strengthens private property rights. That may be true, but only at the expense of RKBA. Private business owners do not gain ANY rights except the explicit ability to discriminate against lawful gun owners. Besides, this is not the right section of code to address that question and it has not received a thorough debate.
The perpetually anti-gun SLTribune LIKES this amendment. Need I say more?
We need to very quickly get messages into Waddoups that SB 48 is now an anti-gun bill and will be viewed as such unless paragraph 7 is stricken. Messages need to be left at the main senate switchboard at 538-1035. Please keep them short and polite.
"Please don't gut CCW. Please support an amendment to remove paragraph 7 from SB 48."
Please, take 5 minutes and call NOW. If the phones or busy or you are put on hold, that is GOOD. It means lots of others are doing likewise. Please, either try again or stay on the line, as the case may be.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah
Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network.
No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever.
GOUtah! Web Site: http://www.goutahorg.org
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from GOUtah!'s free e-mail Alerts, send a
blank e-mail message to one of the following addresses:
goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Send comments to: goutah@goutahorg.org
___________________________________
GOUtah! Alert #191 - 19 Feb. 2004
Today's Maxim of Liberty:
"Good people do not need laws telling them to act responsibly,
while bad people will simply seek ways around the laws."
- -- Plato (420 B.C.)
In this Alert:
Please call Sen. Waddoups NOW!
Corrections regarding Alert #190.
Woman assaulted in LDS house of worship.
EMERGENCY ACTION NEEDED ON SB 48
We have been informed that Sen. Mike Waddoups, the sponsor of SB 48, has
been convinced by person or persons unknown that the Bell amendment that was
attached on the floor of the Senate (which would empower owners of
public-access places such as shopping malls and grocery stores to ban
legally-carried self-defense weapons) should be left in his bill. The bill
gets heard this afternoon at a meeting in room 225 of the Capitol, which
starts at 4:30 p.m. It is second on the agenda, so it might get heard after
5:00. Any of you who can make it to the hearing should plan on briefly
speaking, with the message that you are a gun owner and that you OPPOSE SB
48 as long as paragraph 7 remains in the bill.
Sen. Waddoups appeared to have been opposed to the Bell amendment until
today. According to our sources, he has done a 180 on the amendment sometime
in the past few hours.
Please leave a brief phone message at the Capitol AS SOON AS POSSIBLE for
Senator Waddoups at 801-538-1035, asking him to oppose the Bell amendment,
or at the very least paragraph 7 (which contains the main thrust of the
amendment). Tell him that you as a gun owner will do everything you can
legally do to get SB 48 killed unless paragraph 7 gets stripped from the
bill. Even a single sentence like "Please delete paragraph 7 from SB 48" or
"Please kill the Bell amendment" will suffice.
TWO CORRECTIONS REGARDING ALERT #190
First correction: In Alert #190, we stated that "current law does not
authorize landlords to prohibit residential tenants from possessing firearms
in rented homes and apartments, nor does it explicitly prohibit them from
doing so" (or words to that effect). Actually, we forgot that Section
76-10-500(1)(a) of the Utah Code appears to prohibit landlords from doing
this. It reads: "Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of
the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be prohibited from
owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or
keeping any firearm at his place of residence ..."
Second correction: In Alert #190, we stated that current Utah law contains
nothing that either empowers owners of public-access property (such as
shopping malls and movie theaters) to ban guns nor is there anything that
prohibits them from doing so. We stated that our interpretation of the
current law was that it is left as a private matter between, for example,
the store owner and the customer. We inferred from this that current law
would allow a store owner to evict a customer from the premises if the owner
had a no-gun policy and he found that the customer was legally carrying a
firearm. Our thanks to Salt Lake attorney Mitch Vilos for correcting us on
this. Mitch quotes a section from the state's current trespassing law:
"It is a defense to prosecution under this section [criminal trespass]
that the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained;
and the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use
of
the property."
Since it can be strongly argued that the legal carrying of a discretely
concealed self-defense weapon does not "substantially interfere" with the
operation of a grocery store or a movie theater or a gas station or
whatever, we can say that, based on the above clause, it would be extremely
difficult to successfully prosecute someone for trespassing on such
public-access property based purely on his carrying of a concealed firearm,
even if the property owner has a no-gun policy. Thus, although the law does
not explicitly prohibit Home Depot from banning guns, for example, the above
clause essentially strips Home Depot of any power to enforce such a ban,
provided that the person carrying the firearm isn't doing anything to
interfere with Home Depot's business.
Our thanks to Mitch for pointing this out. We at GOUtah! are not attorneys,
so it's nice to have an attorney out there who's on our side and who can
point out such things to us.
WOMAN ASSAULTED IN LDS HOUSE OF WORSHIP
Thanks to a tip from an astute GOUtah! activist, we've learned that a
56-year-old Latter-Day Saint (LDS) woman was assaulted and severely beaten
with a pipe last week while working as a volunteer in a small family history
library located inside an LDS house of worship in Longview, Texas. For the
full story, you can go to the website of The Tyler Morning Telegraph:
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, 20 Feb 2004 00:08:14 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: HB 166 Hijacked, but then killed
Rep. Hogue's HB 166, "Concealed Firearm Permit Amendments" was--as amended by the House Law Enforcement Committee, with Rep. Hogue's consent--essentially a neutral bill that added a statutory requirement for CCW instructors to teach their approved course material. This is already a requirement under administrative rules and according to USDIN, instructors HAVE had their credentials yanked for failing to teach their approved material.
However, on the floor of the House today, Rep. Hogue offered an amendment to impose a MANDATORY live fire requirement. This would have significantly increased the time, cost, and hassle of getting a CCW permit while, as stats from States with training requirements varying from 0 hours to over 20 hours of formal training indicate, NOT doing a thing to improve public safety or reduce the already phenomially low rate of accidents and violations by those with permits. Carrying a gun is a heavy responsibility and almost everyone, it seems, naturally obtains what training they need for their particular situation and/or are careful to never exceed their training when it comes to the use of their weapons.
Hogue's hostile amendment was adopted by a voice vote on the floor. This, of course, had the effect of turning a neutral bill into a VERY BAD, anti-RKBA, anti-CCW, anti-self-defense, bill. At that point USDIN, which had been following and sheparding this bill advised Rep. Hogue that the bill needed to be killed. On the mandatory roll call vote for the entire bill, the bill failed 24-50 with 1 member absent and Rep. Hogue voting against his own bill. Roll call vote below. Please note with Representatives voted against your right to an effective self defense. Our thanks to Rep. Hogue for defeating his own bill after it was hijacked.
However, it looks like a fair number of unknown Reps are really fair weather friends when it comes to our gun rights. Many of them clearly were willing to vote against your rights when the vote was anonymous and only voted to support your rights when the light of a fully recorded vote loomed. This is not uncommon and is one reason why it is so important to look at committee votes, motions made, speaches given in an effort to influence fellow legislators, and votes conveniently missed as well as the final vote on bills in order to determine who is a real friend that will fight for our rights, and who are fair weather or even backstabbing friends who may do the right thing in an election year, when the lights are on, but will not actively defend, or even work to undermine our rights, when they think no one is looking.
Remember, at election time, EVERYONE "supports the 2nd amd." It's what they do--or don't do--when they are actually casting votes (whether voice or roll call), making motions, avoiding casting votes, etc at the legislature that REALLY determines whether YOUR rights are important to those running for re-election, or whether they just want your vote and will happily ask for ride to the capital in gun owners' pick up trucks, but then expect us to park our trucks out of sight once we arrive.
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, 20 Feb 2004 00:24:08 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: CORRECTION to HB 166 Hijacked, but then killed
In the email I just previously sent, I indicated, repeatedly!?!?!, that the hostile amendment to Rep. Hogue's HB 166 was offered by....Rep. Hogue. That is incorrect and my apologies to Rep. Hogue. Obviously, a bill has NOT been "hijacked" if the sponsor offers an amendment.
It was, in fact, perpetually anti-gun, anti-CCW, anti-RKBA, anti-self-defense, Rep. DANIELS who offered the hostile amendment to hijack Hogue's bill. It was then a majority of the house, voting under cover of a non-recorded voice vote, who accepted that amendment.
Fortunately, under the light of a recorded vote (and an election year), a super-majority of those same Reps. then voted to kill the bill outright.
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, 20 Feb 2004 20:55:18 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: NH legislature considering a real RKBA bill
Notice what happens when this kind of bill is run. In addition to the obvious things, notice this testimony from the Million Mom Morons:
>>Laurel Redden, board chairman of the state chapter of Million Mom March, was quoted as saying, "Instead of looking to get rid of our system of permits, responsible lawmakers should be seeking ways to improve gun laws so that only law-abiding citizens are able to secure and carry a firearm in the first place."<
HERE is a MMM actually speaking, albeit somewhat sideways, IN FAVOR of "law-abiding citizens [being] able to ... carry a firearm."
Nothing like properly shifting the terms of the debate.
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, 20 Feb 2004 21:00:31 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Anti-gun bill slipping through the cracks
SB 140 has passed the Senate and is now in House rules awaiting assignment to a committee. According to the Senate Journal for the 12 of February, page 589, it was Sen. Buttars himself who added the amendment that allows the DHS to consider the presence of firearms in the issuance of licenses, including those required to be a foster parent. In addition to the explicit reference to guns, by changing "shall be limited to" to "may include" it looks like the door has been swung wide open for DHS to consider almost anything else they want to.
"On motion of Senator Buttars, the circle was removed from 2nd Sub. S.B.
140, HUMAN SERVICES LICENSING AMENDMENTS, and it was before the
Senate. Senator Buttars explained the bill.
Senator Buttars proposed the following amendment:
1. Page 9, Lines 247 through 248
247 (xii) staff to client ratios; [[and]]
248 (xiii) segregation of children from adults;and
(xiv) access to firearms.
Senator Buttars' motion to amend passed on a voice vote"
Charles
FORWARDED info
===============
2Sub SB 140 contains provisions that jeopardize the 2nd amendment rights of anyone licensed by the "Office of Licensing within the Department of Human Services" (Including Foster Homes). THIS BILL HAS PASSED THE SENATE with the following amendment and language.
62A-2-106. Office responsibilities.
231 The office shall:
232 (1) make rules to establish:
233 (a) basic health and safety standards for licensees, which [shall be limited to] may
234 include the following:
248a (xiv) ACCESS TO FIREARMS.
The bill must be stopped or the amendment must be removed.
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, 23 Feb 2004 23:50:31 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Demo primary tomorrow
Just a note to remind you that tomorrow, Tuesday, is the Democratic primary for president. If I'm not mistaken, these primaries are "open" meaning that ANY registered voter can vote in them. I do not know of any other political party having primaries tomorrow.
Gun owners may want to consider casting a vote for the most gun friendly of the Democratic candidates.
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:16:25 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: FOLLOW-UP: Demo primary tomorrow
I've just heard two interesting rumors that gun owners may want to consider before actually participating in the Demo presidential primary tomorrow:
1-I have heard that voters will be required to sign a form that
they will not participate in the caucus of any other party.
[Republicans might ask "Where is the press outrage at this 'closed primary'"?]
2-I have heard that some GOP county (or even the State) party(ies) may not allow persons who vote in this primary to participate in the March Caucases (Mass Meetings).
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, 23 Feb 2004 18:27:46 -0700
From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc <chad@pengar.com>
Subject: Re: FOLLOW-UP: Demo primary tomorrow
On Feb 23, 2004, at 6:16 PM, Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> I've just heard two interesting rumors that gun owners may want to
> consider before actually participating in the Demo presidential
> primary tomorrow:
>
> 1-I have heard that voters will be required to sign a form that
> they will not participate in the caucus of any other party.
> [Republicans might ask "Where is the press outrage at this 'closed
> primary'"?]
>
> 2-I have heard that some GOP county (or even the State) party(ies) may
> not allow persons who vote in this primary to participate in the March
> Caucases (Mass Meetings).
>
What is the state law on primaries?
The radio said that anyone who will be 18 as of November elections and
who is a US citizen can vote in the primary. It said you did not even
need to be a registered voter! This is what the radio news on KNRS
said.
Chad
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:43:11 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Re: FOLLOW-UP: Demo primary tomorrow
I do not know the exact State of the law, but I do know that parties can exclude those who are not registered as members of that party if they want to.
I hope at least a few people go to vote to give first hand info on what does take place.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- -- Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc <chad@pengar.com> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2004, at 6:16 PM, Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> I've just heard two interesting rumors that gun owners may want to
> consider before actually participating in the Demo presidential
> primary tomorrow:
>
> 1-I have heard that voters will be required to sign a form that
> they will not participate in the caucus of any other party.
> [Republicans might ask "Where is the press outrage at this 'closed
> primary'"?]
>
> 2-I have heard that some GOP county (or even the State) party(ies) may
> not allow persons who vote in this primary to participate in the March
> Caucases (Mass Meetings).
>
What is the state law on primaries?
The radio said that anyone who will be 18 as of November elections and
who is a US citizen can vote in the primary. It said you did not even
need to be a registered voter! This is what the radio news on KNRS
