Subject: Report a crime, get your gun confiscated?
While one hopes the rifles were taken only to do ballistics testing to clear them of having fired the illegal shot, this might very well be filed under the heading of "No good deed goes unpunished."
Sen. Tom Hatch, R-Panguitch, says he is cooperating with state wildlife officers, who confiscated Hatch's rifle and that of his brother during the course of an investigation into the illegal killing of a bull elk during a cow elk-only hunt last year.
"We found the elk and we reported it" to authorities, Hatch said. "We were the ones who took (Division of Wildlife Resources officers) to the elk. We have cooperated in every way since that time."
Hatch, who had a permit for a cow elk, said he was hunting on horseback with his brother on Mount Dutton northeast of Panguitch in a basin where several others were also hunting. Hatch said they came across a wounded bull elk in a patch of trees but had nothing to do with shooting it.
Hatch said he never fired his rifle, and his brother fired only once at a cow elk. A witness reportedly told officers he saw a man on horseback shoot the elk.
"I understand an investigation has to be done, but I know the facts will clear us of any involvement," he said.
Hatch, a leader of the Cowboy Caucus, is chairman of the Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the Division of Wildlife Resources.
Kevin Conway, division director, confirmed Hatch contacted wildlife officials and has "cooperated 100 percent."
Conway said the killing was probably a mistake, given it happened while both deer and elk hunts were taking place. But the investigation is proceeding and should be wrapped up soon.
"It's not an unusual case. These things happen frequently during the hunt," he said.
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 16:36:25 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: What zero-tolerance (at the airport) hath wrought
Is this REALLY the best use of our limited law enforcement and judicial resources? Is the airport authority REALLY incapable of making any rational judgements about those who pose a danger, intended to do some harm, and those caught in a moment of forgetfullness?
I'd also like to know who the judge was who couldn't render better judgement than to impose the maximum penalty on the least of such an offender--even if he did suspend part of it.
Excerpt:
>>Looking back, he wonders how much of a deterrent the law is.
He hadn't intended to bring the gun to the airport in the first place. "No one in his right mind would do that," he says. "The only people who really are affected by this are the absent-minded, idiots like me, not terrorists."<<
Attention, air travelers. If you plan to board an airline soon, please listen closely as we run through a checklist of things you can and can't bring on board in your carry-on bag.
NO, WAIT! Uncheck the pistol. Ixnay on the .44 Magnum! My bad.
Airline people have a strong aversion to passengers carrying guns, obviously. You're probably wondering who would be dumb enough to bring a gun to the airport.
You'd be surprised. During one six-month period, 22 guns were discovered at security checkpoints in Salt Lake International. For most passengers, it was a mistake, but now it makes little difference. A zero-tolerance policy was adopted, which means virtually everyone will be prosecuted.
Just ask "David Jones." Well, actually you can't ask him, because that's not his real name. Anyway, Jones is a model citizen who found himself getting the Public-Enemy-No.-1 Treatment because he accidentally showed up at the airport with a pistol.
Before you jump to any conclusions . . . Jones is a good guy. If you were asked to describe the ideal neighbor, you would describe Jones. He's a leader in his church, a father/husband of a large family, a salt-of-the-earth guy. In his 50-plus years he has never gotten so much as a speeding ticket. The worst thing he ever did was get ticketed for turning right on a yellow light in 1971.
Jones is considered brilliant in his profession. He works hard. In his spare time, he likes to shoot guns. Some men like to hit golf balls on the driving range to relax; he likes to shoot pistols at the gun range. He has a concealed-weapons permit.
One evening he returned home after work and a range outing. Before getting out of his truck, he put the gun in his backpack, thinking he would place it in the gun safe in his house, as was his habit. But when he walked in the house, he was distracted by visitors and children vying for his attention.
Two days later, he was scheduled to fly out of town on business. It was a frantic morning. Realizing he was late, he put his laptop in his backpack, which he used as a carry-on for travel, and hurried out the door. He rushed through the airport and placed his backpack on the conveyor belt for security check.
And then it hit him. "Uh, there's a gun in that pack," he told the security officer. Following procedure, the police were called. Before marching him through the airport in cuffs, past crowds, a police officer told him, "Let's hope we don't see anyone you know."
He was taken to a building adjacent to the terminal and locked in a room. For two hours he sat there with his hands cuffed behind his back ù leaving red welts in his wrists ù while federal officers were summoned. He was sick with fear, worry and humiliation. After a long interview, an FBI agent determined there was no criminal intent, but under the zero-tolerance policy charges had to be pressed.
Jones returned home. For two days he barely left his room, too shamed to face the world. During his court appearance, a judge blistered him for his mistake and then levied the maximum penalty ù 90 days in jail and a $1,850 fine. The jail time was suspended and the fine was reduced to court costs ($250) and he was placed on probation.
Looking back, he wonders how much of a deterrent the law is.
He hadn't intended to bring the gun to the airport in the first place. "No one in his right mind would do that," he says. "The only people who really are affected by this are the absent-minded, idiots like me, not terrorists."
A few weeks later, Jones returned to the airport. After passing through the security check, he had to sit down in a restaurant and wait for his hands to stop trembling.
Doug Robinson's column runs on Tuesdays. E-mail drob@desnews.com.
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 17:00:49 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Open Closed Demo Presidential Primary
Here is the latest on the Democratic Presidential primary, for any gun owners who may desire to participate.
You can vote at ANY of their polling places which are primarily public libraries. See <http://www.utdemocrats.org/locations.shtml> for a full list. Polls are open from Noon today until 8:00 pm.
They will be asking for id and will require voters to sign an affidavit that you will only vote once, that you are participating as a Democrat, and that you will not participate in the presidential nominating process of any other party. Apparantly, you do NOT have to be registered to vote. YOu do need to be 18 years old and (at least claim to be) a citizen of the U.S.
However, according to the nice fellow who answered the phone at the Utah Democratic Party HQ (801-328-1212), there are no other party primaries for president this year in Utah and they will NOT be asking you what your party affiliation is.
So, technically speaking, one might say this primary is closed, based on the honor system. But practically speaking, it is essentially open.
This election is being run by the Democratic party which is also funding it without taxpayer support. So while the DP can probably do whatever it wants with its records of did or did not vote, I'd think that such records are not "public records" the way government run primary elections are.
The Chairman of the SLCo GOP was unaware of any GOP plans to limit participation in GOP functions by those who might vote in the Demo primary. I have not contacted the State GOP.
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 17:38:42 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Roll Call vote on Litvack hostile amendment to HB 295
Prior to be approved by the full house, HB 295 was subject to an attempt to attach a hostile amendment. While worded somewhat vaguely, I believe the intent of this amendment, offered by anti-gun Rep. Litvack, was to lay the groundwork for a live fire (range) requirment before issuance of a CCW permit. Fortunately, this amendment failed.
However, rather than looking at just the final vote on this bill (which was passed by a supermajority), I'd suggest that savvy gun owners consider this vote. Many times, especially in an election year, legislators will attmpt to weaken a good bill or even turn a pro-gun bill into an anti-gun bill. Only when those efforts fail, and it is clear that the bill is going to pass regardless of how they vote, will they then vote the right way on the final bill, just so they can claim to be pro-gun. Just because a guy sends you flowers in the hospital, doesn't make him your friend; especially if he is the one who put you in the hospital by stabbing you in the back.
Here is the roll call vote. The 21 legislators who voted "YEA" on this amendment were voting AGAINST your gun rights. they were all savvy enough to not vote agains the final bill (they either vote for the bill or chose to not vote). Please be savvy enough to rememeber them when it comes time to file for office, to support challangers, and to vote--whether in a convetion, a primary, or a general election.
Yeas, 21; Nays, 48; Absent or not voting, 6.
Voting in the affirmative (AND AGAINST YOUR GUN RIGHTS) were: Representatives
S. Allen Becker Biskupski Bowman Buffmire D. Cox Daniels Duckworth Goodfellow Hansen Hogue E. Hutchings Jones Litvack Mascaro McCartney McGee Morgan Moss Pace Shurtliff
Voting in the negative (AND TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS) were: Representatives
Aagard Adams Alexander Anderson Barrus Bennion Bigelow Bird Bryson Bush Buttars Buxton Christensen D. Clark S. Clark Curtis
Dayton Dee Dillree Donnelson Dougall Dunnigan Ferrin Ferry Frank Gowans Harper Hendrickson Holdaway Hughes B. Johnson Kiser Last Lawrence Lockhart Love Morley Murray Newbold Noel Peterson Philpot Seitz G. Snow Thompson Ure Wallace Webb
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 17:55:31 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Anti-gun SB 140 S2, "Gun owners don't make good foster parents" assign ed to House committee
Sen. Buttars' SB 140 S2 (second substitute), "Human Services Licensing Amendments" makes two dangerous changes as far as gun owners are concerned.
Lines 233-234 eliminates the limits on what items the Department of Human Services may consider or regulate in issuing licenses (including licenses to be a foster parent). The current law says:
The office shall:
(1) make rules to establish:
(a) basic health and safety standards for licensees, which shall be limited to the following:
SB 140S2 amends (a) to read:
(a) basic health and safety standards for licensees, which may
include the following:
I'm not a lawyer, and so may be wrong, but this **might** allow the Department of Human services to look at items beyond the list.
In any event, line 248a is the killer for gun owners. It adds "248a (xiv) ACCESS TO FIREARMS" as an explicit item that the Deparment of Human services can consider and regulate when issuing licenses.
Bear in mind, this is the same department that had an illegal rule preventing those with CCW permits from being foster parents.
It has been assigned to the House Natural Resources Committee. This bill is last on the agenda for today's meeting that starts at 4:30 pm in room 129 of the State capital.
Phone messages can be left at the main House Switchboard for several legislators at a time. The number is 801-538-1029.
Ask committee members to strike line 248a so as to eliminate any references to firearms. Otherwise, they need to vote against this bill.
Charles
Committee members are:
Rep. Craig W. Buttars, Chair Cbuttars@utah.gov
Rep. Darin G. Peterson, Vice Chair Dpeterson@utah.gov
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, 26 Feb 2004 20:25:15 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: SB 48 passes house with no hostile amds
The legislative web page is reporting that SB 48, Sen. Waddoups' "Uniform Firearm Laws" that is intended to finally put an end to the UofU's illegal gun ban has passed the House with no hostile amendments. Final vote in the house was 59-14-2. Only Demos voted against the bill with Reps. Adams and Hughes absent.
I'll check later and see if anyone attempted to make hostile amendments and if so, report on who voted to accept such amendments. In this case, that vote, if there was one, will be a far better indicator of who really supports RKBA than is the final vote on this bill.
Recall that the House committee did make one amendment which changed paragraph 7 from very bad to "not great, but probably tolerable." Hence, the Senate must still concur with the House amendment.
I **BELIEVE** (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that if the Senate does not concur, then an ad hoc, joint committee with members from both bodies will try to work out a compromise.
I believe at this point, that we are more likely to get a worse bill out of such a committee than a better bill. Since this bill is, I believe, overall a net gain to CCW and RKBA in general, I think it is in our best interest to encourage our Senators to concur with the bill as it stands.
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, 26 Feb 2004 21:38:54 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: USSC URGENT ACTION ALERT
The latest from the USSC / NRA.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
UTAH SHOOTING SPORTS COUNCIL URGENT ACTION ALERT 2/26/04
FOR ALL USSC MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS
- --- National Rifle Association Alert for Utah
- --- Utah Asset Forfeiture Reform Information
NRA ALERT FOR UTAH (February 25, 2004)
Utah Gun Owners! Contact Your State Representatives!
Utah gun owners need to contact their state representative and urge a "no" vote on SB 175, which will affect the civil liberties of innocent gun owners and all Utah citizens if they are involved with a seizure-of-assets procedure. SB 175 would allow the transfer of a forfeiture procedure to a federal agency where there is no presumption of innocence and where it is extremely difficult to recover fees and costs, rights guaranteed in Utah. It puts in place the old incentives for law enforcement agencies to aggressively pursue seizures of assets, again circumventing Proposition B. The seizure of illegal assets is an effective law enforcement tool, but the civil and due process rights of citizens must be held paramount. Please contact your state Representative
[End of NRA Alert. Information below is provided by USSC]
Subject: DEFEAT SB 175 (Asset Forfeiture)
Dear Representative ______________
Please vote AGAINST SB 175 (2nd substitute). This bill removes many of the safeguards for innocent property owners, and a potential source of funds for our schools. Utah citizens should never be considered "guilty until proven innocent" as is the case in the federal asset forfeiture process. No one can afford to challenge any seizure unless it involves real estate since the legal fees would be ruinous. Although we have great confidence in our law enforcement officers, the inexplicable decline in forfeitures after the reforms of 2000 are very troubling.
You can use a map tool to identify your Utah Representative:
THIS BILL HAS PASSED THE UTAH SENATE, AND A HOUSE COMMITTEE AND IS WAITING FOR A FINAL VOTE IN THE HOUSE. YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW TO STOP THIS POTENTIAL THREAT TO LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS.
Although not directly a gun issue, SB 175 (2nd substitute) is an attempt to reverse the reforms enacted in 2000. That changed the former process where there was a financial incentive for law enforcement officers to seize private property, usually on the allegation that it was purchased with the proceeds from drug trafficking. The property was usually turned over to the federal court system where an owner had to prove that it was NOT the result of illegal activity, rather than the government being required to prove the owner's guilt. Anyone wanting to get their property back had to challenge to the huge Justice Department organization. Legal costs would be $10,000 or more, making it impractical for innocent owners to ever get their property returned. Directing the proceeds from seized property to the Utah Uniform School Fund removed the apparent conflict of interest because previously the police department got to keep most of the money they seized.
Many people claim that there was no conflict and all seizures were motivated strictly by a desire to enforce the laws. However, it is a proven fact that after the changes were made asset forfeiture seizures dropped from millions of dollars a year to almost nothing and the school fund received virtually nothing. This raises serious questions about actual or potential abuses.
SB 175 (2nd substitute) will take the proceeds from seized property away from schools and put it back into police departments. Worse, it will divert most property forfeiture cases into federal courts, turning justice upside down with their "guilty until proven innocent" process.
This issue has been hotly debated, with opponents very public, but supporters being very secretive about the contents of the bill and clever in their strategy in the legislature.
For more information see the stories in the Deseret News and Tribune.
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: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:11:59 -0700
From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: 022704 STANLEY SCOOP MEDIA RELEASE: From A Cop About Gun Control - LONG
Correction; sorry for the need to bother you again.
[Excerpt]
There is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon": We know that the firearms
that have been demonized as so-called "Assault Weapons" are no more
dangerous than any other common rifle. We know that these firearms were
discriminated against simply because they look similar to current military
firearms. We know that looks are totally irrelevant to function. We know
that many of these targeted firearms are in fact less lethal than most
common firearms, because the ammunition is of lower power. We know that
the propagandists misused the German term "Sturmgewehr" ("Assault Rifle"),
a firearm by definition a "machine gun" or "full-automatic" rifle, and
bastardized the term "Assault Weapon". Then, using the "Big Lie"
technique (itself pioneered by Nazi master propagandist Josef Goebbels)
by substituting the [literally translated] term "Assault Weapon" for
"semi- automatic" or "self-loading" rifles. The latest definitional
"bait and switch" buzzword is to refer to any self-loading firearms,
rifle or pistol, as so-called scary "Semi-Automatic weapons".
- ---
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 16:09:19 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: USSC URGENT ACTION ALERT
The latest from USSC...
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
MAJOR THREAT TO GUN SHOWS IN U.S. SENATE MONDAY AND TUESDAY
ONE MORE TIME!!
CALL SENATORS HATCH AND BENNETT- ESPECIALLY BENNETT
If you can only email, that helps, but they REALLY need to get PHONE CALLS and FAXES in their Washington and local offices all day Monday and early Tuesday.
The message is simple: "SUPPORT SB 1805- Frivolous Lawsuit Protection, but we are counting on you to DEFEAT any "assault weapon ban" or "gun show" amendments.
According to our sources, it looks like the pro-gun rights forces in the Senate have the votes to pass the lawsuit protection bill.
We think we have the votes to keep the "assault weapons and magazine ban" from being attached.
It is NOT CLEAR if they can keep the McCain Reed "Gun Show Loophole" bill from being attached to the frivolous lawsuit ban We expect Hatch to vote against it, but Senator Bennett (up for reelection this year) may or may not be as committed to a solid pro-gun position. This is the critical vote where we are counting on him to support gun rights..
NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO! to gun show restrictions!
The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics studies in 1991 and 1997 proved that LESS THAN 1% of criminals get their guns from gun shows. They mainly get them from family, friends, or illegal sources. Gun shows are not a crime problem.
The McCain-Reed bill is not just aimed at making sales by non-dealers at gun shows go through a background check. It is aimed at putting gun shows out of business, and implementing a process that will enable de facto registration system for all firearms transfers between law abiding citizens. The next step will be to force newspaper sales and family member transfers into the dealer record system.
This is the bill that will require everyone taking a gun to a show to register and provide ID. If anyone so much as mentions a possible sale or trade at a show, the transfer MUST go through a dealer, or they will be guilty of a felony, even if the transaction takes place months or years later, and nowhere near a gun show. This bill makes the show promoter liable for any illegal transactions at (or after) a show, a risk that no sane person would accept. In short, it will end gun shows in the United States forever.
One aspect of gun shows that politicians may appreciate (or fear) is that they are a gathering point for political free speech among people with generally conservative beliefs. Besides looking at guns, people at gun shows learn how be politically active, meet candidates, register to vote, and organize to share information about candidates and their positions. Putting an end to such "dangerous" meetings is probably as big a goal of the gun grabbers and their allies as their attack on gun rights.
It is imperative that every gun owner ONCE AGAIN, contact your Senators and tell them Vote YES on SB 1805, and vote NO on any amendments dealing with "assault weapon bans" or "gun show loopholes." The assault weapon and gun show provisions are not anti-crime measures, they are deceptive gun control schemes that are unacceptable to law abiding citizens.
HOW TO CONTACT SENATORS HATCH AND BENNETT
EMAIL ADDRESSES: This link will call up the NRA-ILA list of Senators and their sponsorship status.
Go to Utah, and click on the envelope shape after Sen. Hatch or Sen. Bennett's name. This will open up a window to select a prewritten email. You will have to fill in a form with name, and address (so they can ignore mail from people outside Utah). When you click "send message" another screen will open up and you will have to pick a subject and click "send" again before it actually goes out. This takes less than a minute, so please do it NOW!
PHONE AND FAX INFORMATION:
Senator Orrin Hatch
104 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-4402
Phone: (202) 224-5251
Fax: (202) 224-6331
Sen. Hatch's Salt Lake Office:
Federal Bldg., 125 S. State St. (Suite 8402)
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Phone: (801) 524-4380
Fax: (801) 524-4379
Senator Robert Bennett
Washington Office:
431 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-4403
Phone: (202) 224-5444
Fax: (202) 228-1168
Sen. Bennett's Salt Lake Office:
Federal Bldg., 125 S. State St., Suite. 4225
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Phone: (801) 524-5933
Fax: (801) 524-5730
Remember when you call- You will not talk to the Senator, just a nice staff member who really only wants to know what bill, and if you are for it or against it, so you don't need to be ready for a big debate.
The message is simple: "SUPPORT SB 1805- Frivolous Lawsuit Protection, but we are counting on you to DEFEAT any "assault weapon ban" or "gun show" amendments.
