I've just learned that anti-gun, anti-self-defense HR managers are pressing conference committee members and members of the House of Reps to keep paragraph 7 in this bill. Apparantly a fair number of businesses want to be able to pull an AOL and fire employees just for having a gun in the parking lot.
Please call now.
Emails are better than nothing, but a phone call will allow you to leave messages for 3 or 4 legislators at a time and carry more weight. Faxes are also very good.
There are now FOUR committee members who need to hear from you:
Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5), Send Greg Bell (R-22), Rep. Curt Webb (R-5), Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75).
Also, your own Representative as well as Speaker Stephens need to hear from you on this ASAP.
Charles
GOUtah! Alert #197 - 1 Mar. 2004
Today's Maxim of Liberty:
"When stand up for your own rights, you start a chain of good events which
helps you - and lots of other people too, in ways that no one could
foresee."
- -- Dave Kopel
ACTION NEEDED ON SB 48 TODAY
Last Friday, Sen. Mike Waddoups, the sponsor of SB 48 (the bill designed to eliminate the University of Utah's ban on self-defense weapons), asked the Senate not to concur on the version of the bill that was passed by the House, so that a House/Senate conference committee could be formed under his leadership to improve the bill. The Senate approved his request. This means that the bill is now being re-designed by a committee of six legislators.
GOUtah! has suggested to Sen. Waddoups that Paragraph 7 be completely
removed from the bill (see Alert #48). This paragraph, which seems like an innocuous clause designed to protect the rights of individuals who own private property, is poorly worded and includes language that would
unnecessarily subjugate the Utah Legislature to the whims of future federal bureaucrats who might want to restrict gun ownership under the guise of property rights (such as in federally-subsidized housing, etc.).
GOUtah! has also suggested that, if Paragraph 7 is going to be replaced with anything, it be replaced with language that would affirm the right to carry a firearm for self-defense on all property that is open to the public.
This conference committee will be meeting, probably today (Monday), to come up with a new version of the bill, which will then be sent to the full Senate and the full House for a final vote.
Committee members are Sen. Mike Waddoups (R-6), Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5), Send Greg Bell (R-22), Rep. Curt Webb (R-5), Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75), and Rep. Ty McCartney (D-31).
We've been informed by a source inside the committee that two of these
committee members, Sen. Bell and Rep. Webb, are "on the fence" and will need encouragement from their constituents to come up with a bill that is fully consistent with your right to keep and bear arms and your right to self-defense. We also believe that Sen. Mayne, could use some friendly encouragement from his constituents. Although he has often been supportive of gun owners' rights in the past, he might be under a lot of pressure from his party's leadership to sabotage SB 48.
If any of the following three committee members is from your district,
please contact him immediately with a simple message, such as: "My name is so-and-so, from such-and-such a town. I live in your district. Please help Sen. Waddoups to create a final version of SB 48 that does not in any way compromise my right to carry a firearm for self-defense on all property that is open to the public", or any similar message that you can come up with yourself.
At this late date, we believe that the best way to contact your Senator orRepresentative is to leave a phone message during the day at the appropriate number at the State Capitol, or to fax him at the Capitol (you may use the pre-written letter below if you wish). You can also call them at home in the early evening. However, because the committee will probably be meeting today, we suggest that you act as soon as you can. Legislators are increasingly unlikely to read e-mail as the end of the session approaches.
Rep. Curt Webb (R-5) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801-538-1908 Home
phone: 435-753-0215 e-mail: Curtwebb@u...
Sen. Greg Bell (R-22) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: (801)538-1878
e-mail: gbell@u...
Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: 801-538-1449 Home
phone: (801) 968-7756 e-mail: emayne@u...
ANTI-GUN-SHOW AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL BILL
In Alert #195, we mentioned that an effort is being made in the U.S. Senate
to amend S. 659 (the bill designed to curb frivolous lawsuits against the
gun industry). In particular, we mentioned that anti-gun Senators were
attempting to attach legislation that would make the 1994 "assault weapon"
ban permanent. Also, we mentioned that an effort would be made to attach the
McCain-Reed anti-gun-show bill.
We've learned that the lawsuit-protection bill (S. 659) has been replaced
with S. 1805, which is essentially the same bill. However, the efforts to
attach anti-gun stuff to this bill continue apace. According to an alert we'
ve received from the Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC -
http://www.utahshootingsports.org), an attempt will be made on the floor of
the Senate to attach the anti-gun-show bill today or tomorrow. If you haven'
t already done so, please contact Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett to let
them know that you will not tolerate any anti-gun amendments to S. 1805,
including the McCain-Reed gun-show amendment or the Feinstein "assault
weapon" amendment.
Senator Orrin Hatch
Phone: 801-524-4380 Fax: 801-524-4379
e-mail: senator_hatch@h...
Senator Robert Bennett
Phone: 801-524-5933 Fax: 801-524-5730
e-mail: senator_bennett@b...
_________________________________________
That concludes GOUtah! Alert #197 - 1 Mar. 2004.
Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved.
PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW:
- ------------------------ Cut Here -------------------------
Date:
From:
To:
Dear ___________________:
As a constituent of yours and a gun owner, I encourage you to help create a
final version of SB 48 which cannot be interpreted in any way that would
compromise or interfere with my right to possess and carry a self-defense
weapon on all property that is open to the public.
Please get back to me and let me know how you voted.
Sincerely,
- ------------------- Cut Here ---------------------
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, 2 Mar 2004 04:45:05 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: USSC Urgent Action Alert
The latest from USSC.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
URGENT ACTION ALERT 3/1/04
FOR ALL USSC MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS
ACTION REQUIRED- Contact Representatives Lavar Christenen and Curt Webb IMMEDIATELY. (Do not make phone calls after about 9:30 at night, and always be polite.) Also contact your own Representative with same message. Contact information and pre-written fax or email message follows discussion of the issue
Bill number SB 48- Uniform Firearms Laws (Waddoups)
This is the bill that makes it clear that the Legislature, not the University of Utah writes the gun laws for the state. The bill has passed both houses with agreement on the language concerning the University issue.
However, business special interest groups have been bombarding the conference committee members and House members with demands that they KEEP the language that would allow restrictions on CCW Permit holders legally carried self defense weapons. This goes beyond employer/employee policies, and opens a Pandora's box of restrictions. Such language may allow private property owners to post their entire property, not just buildings, regardless of it being open for public access or business.
We are firmly opposed to ANY restrictions on legally carried self defense weapons. However, anyone who wants to impose restrictions certainly implies that they will guarantee the safety of every person on their property, and that they assume full liability for any incidents that take place, including deliberate criminal assaults by third parties. By denying the right of self defense, a failure to provide adequate safety should result in punitive as well as actual damages.
In addition to serious liability issues the property owner would assume, there are major unanswered questions about how a permit holder could be prosecuted when there is no reasonable method of notification that a property is "posted" nor any uniform standard for ALL guns. If they say "no guns" can drug dealers demand that police remove their guns before entering their property, and escape prosecution if they do not? How about private security (Brinks) guarding deliveries of money to banks, or collecting receipts from businesses? How is a permit holder to know what property they cannot carry on? Will they have big lines painted on the parking lot, or a confusing legal listing of metes and bounds? Does that mean all their property or just the actual buildings? Can a permit holder leave a gun in their vehicle (their private property) on someone else's parking lot?
Private property rights are a major issue that cannot be addressed by a line or two in a bill, but would require even more detail than was required to spell out the existing right to restrict guns from churches (who can restrict entry for many reasons unrelated to guns) and private residences where "a man's home is his castle." Note that both those ONLY restrict permit holders from the actual "house of worship or "residence", and NOT the grounds, yard, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks,. etc.
If there are going to be any private property restrictions (and we believer there should NOT be) they must be addressed in detail, so that permit holders can reasonably know of any restrictions, and that those imposing restrictions are aware of the liability that they assume by making them.
ACTION REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY
Contact the two House Conference Committee members who are holding up removal of the private property language: Call, fax and email!
Rep. LaVar Christensen (R-48)
Cell Phone: (801) 560-3948; Home phone (801) 571-8603; Fax:(801)538-1908
ALSO CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND AS MANY OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS AS YOU CAN: Phone is best, Fax is excellent, and email is good. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE- There are only about 48 hours left in the session and we MUST GET SB 48 PASSED.
How to identify and contact your Representative: A map tool to identify your Utah Representative
SAMPLE MESSAGE FOR FAX OR EMAIL (Send to Christensen and Webb first, then delete their names and insert name of your Representative)
Dear Representative Christensen and Representative Webb-
Please remove the private property language (Paragraph 7- lines 57a through 57d) from SB 48 Uniform Firearms Laws and forward it recommending passage by the full House.
There is absolutely NO evidence to justify excluding carefully screened, law abiding permit holders from any place in the state other than the specific restricted areas designated by statute (airport, courthouses, jails, etc). Emotional fear of guns is not sufficient grounds to restrict lawful self defense options in any area that is open to public access. Permit holders are no more likely to have any sort of accidental discharge than police officers, so if police officers can be armed, there is no rational reason to disarm permit holders.
If private property restrictions are the will of the Legislature, numerous complex details MUST be addressed, such as: notification, definition of areas, and any penalties. Even the allowed restrictions for churches and residences ONLY cover the actual house of worship and the residence, not to surrounding grounds, sidewalks or parking lots. Further the property owners need to understand that by restricting legal self defense options, they implicitly assume greater liability for ensuring the public's safety, even from criminal acts by third parties.
This is too complex an issue to be properly addressed in the time left in this session. Any sloppy drafting on this subject will undoubtedly result in expensive litigation for property owners. Those are difficult issues that can be studied in the future.
Please delete the private property language from SB 48 and pass that important bill NOW!
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, 2 Mar 2004 21:12:53 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fwd: FW: Deseret News Editorial re SB48
The following is from local pro-self-defense attorney and Utah gun law expert Mitch Vilos. Also, if you have not yet contacted your State Rep to ask him to support removal of paragraph 7 from SB 48, please make the call now. Also leave a message for Speaker Stephens, and Reps. Webb, Christensen, and Urqahart asking them to support removal of paragraph 7.
Messages for all Reps can be left at 801-538-1029.
With that paragraph removed, SB 48 deals ONLY with government entities (like the UofU). It does NOT affect private property rights at all.
Regardless of your position on self-defense rights vs private or semi-private property rights, SB 48 is NOT the proper bill to try to address that issue and a two line amendment is NOT the way to properly clarify the issue. PLEASE encourage your Rep to support removal of paragraph 7.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
- ----------
From: Mitch Vilos
That does it! This is justification for EVERY gun owner to cancel
their subscription to Deseret News (after telling them why!) You can read it on the internet anyway without having to pay these brainless traitors a red cent! How would they like "freedom of the press" restricted on college campuses? They STILL don't get it -- it's doubtful anything they could write in their paper would be worth paying for. Pancho V.
Walker should veto SB48 Deseret Morning News editorial
Some will accuse us of getting ahead of ourselves because the Utah
Legislature doesn't adjourn until Wednesday. But we would ask that
Gov. Olene Walker jot down a reminder to herself to veto SB48 when it comes across her desk.
SB48, sponsored by Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, would overturn
the University of Utah's campus gun ban, a policy that has served the
university well for many years. While some legislators feel it is their sole responsibility to create uniform gun policy in Utah, this issue would best be handled by the State Board of Regents, which governs state colleges and universities.
There are many reasons why guns don't belong in places of learning.
The primary one is that there are few places in a community that fill
roles similar to college campuses. These bring together people of diverse backgrounds, experiences and ideas. That dynamic requires an
atmosphere free from intimidation.
If the Board of Regents, which has authority over state colleges and
universities, developed a uniform policy for concealed weapons on
college campuses, wouldn't that allay concerns that institutions would have a hodgepodge of different policies that varied from campus to campus? This would be a considerable nod to local control.
But some lawmakers want to eat their cake and have it, too. Some of
the most ferocious rhetoric on Capitol Hill comes when the federal government forces its will on the states in the form of federal programs laden with a lot of strings and, often, not a lot of funding.
From a state's rights perspective, there is validity to questioning
sweeping federal mandates. But as a result of that experience, shouldn't it follow that state lawmakers would be less prone to step on the policymaking authority of subdivisions of state and local governments? Isn't the concept of local control valid below the state level, as well?
No question, a concealed weapons ban won't prevent people bent on
harm from committing gun crimes on college campuses. But the Regents, as a policy-making body, should have the authority to declare policies
that best facilitate proper conduct and order in a higher-education setting.
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, 3 Mar 2004 19:46:15 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: What does the DesNews really think of you and your opinions
Friends,
A correspondent from Arizona sent me the following email exchange. At the bottom, is his letter to the editor of the Deseret News rebutting a recent anti-self-defense editorial. In fact, save for his use of the term "yellow journalism," the letter is downright polite. (And one can argue that "yellow journalism" is an apt and accurate description of how the DesNews and most other media outlets handle news and stories about guns. See <http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/yellow.html> or <http://alt.tnt.tv/movies/tntoriginals/roughriders/jour.home.html> for a brief description of yellow journalism, including: "[the] practice [of] a newspaper to report the editor's interpretation of the news rather than objective journalism.")
Just above that is the email response he received from the Deseret News (or at least whomever has access to send email from that account) to his well thought out letter to the editor.
This is unusual. Even with all the letters to the editor of mine that have been printed, I've never received any kind of email response--other than maybe to inform me that my letter was being considered for publication.
But this unusual occurance offers yet another glimps into the mindset of those working the editorial room at the newspaper that once upon a time proclaimed in its banner "We believe the US Constitution was inspired." Presumably that included ALL of the bill of rights, not just the part by which their hobby is protected.
Notice the unprofessional tone of the email, the snide remarks. Note also the use of the spanish version of (I think) "the editors" as the sign off. Some kind of swipe at or condesention to the latino population in Arizona? I have no idea. Maybe the editor in chief or managerial board or even the Mexican Consulate could offer some insights. ;-)
But it is clear that the editors of the Deseret News hold lawful gun owners--and our opinions--in the worst kind of contempt.
With the permission of Mr. Reynolds, I forward this along, redacting only his address, city, zip, and email address.
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- --- Letters <letters@desnews.com> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:07:41 -0700
> To: "M. Scott Reynolds" [email address redacted for this forward]
> From: Letters <letters@desnews.com>
> Subject: Re: Regarding your "Editorial Opinion" March 2
>
> You said "Please help me out here."
> Okay.
> Stop saying "shame on you." Every letter writer uses that. Fine
> something original.
> And if you don't read our "yellow journalism" anymore, how did you
> know what we said.
> Los Editores.
>
>
>
> >Please help me out here. You say, "While some legislators feel it
> >is their sole responsibility to create uniform gun policy in
> >Utah...", as if there was something wrong with that. Well I'm
> >looking at Article I, Section 6, of the Utah Constitution which says:
> >
> >"The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for
> >security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the
> >state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed;
> >but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the
> >lawful use of arms."
> >
> >I'm having a hard time finding, "State Board of Regents", in that
> >section. Please tell me where in the Utah Constitution it says it
> >is wrong for the Legislature to create uniform gun policy.
> >
> >Shame on you for being a 1st amendment zealot and using that as an
> >excuse to lead your readership astray by not really reporting the
> >truth.
> >
> >Scott Reynolds
> >[Street Address, city, zip, and phone number redacted for this forward]
> >Arizona
> >
> >p.s. I'm a former Utahn who is very grateful I don't have to read
> >your yellow journalism anymore, but since I still have many family
> >and friends in Utah, and also a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit, I
> >still pay attention to the Utah Constitution and Utah law. Maybe
> >you ought to try it, you could learn something.
