Subject: SB 140 S2 with anti-gun provision is on House Senate Calander
Senator Buttars' "Human Services Licensing" bill, SB 140, Second Sub has popped out of rules and is now on the House's Senate Calander. This means that despite not being heard by a house standing committee, it will likely receive a floor debate a full vote. This bill has almost nothing to do with guns, so it is unlikely that very many legislators even know it is a problem.
Everything I can find indicates that this bill still contains two bad amendments:
1-Line 248a which allows the division to consider "access to firearms" in granting licenses, making rules, and otherwise regulating licensees.
2-On line 223, current language of "which shall be limited to" is changed to "which may include."
Line 248a HAS to go.
Line 223 may or may not be a backdoor attempt to allow the division to consider lots of other things.
This is the same agency that in the past has illegally denied much needed, qualified foster parents simply because they owned guns or had a CCW permit. They MUST not gain ANY toe hold into regulating firearms.
Please leave (polite) messages for Rep. Chad Bennion (the house sponsor of the bill), Speaker Stephens, and your own Representative asking them to remove line 248a and changing line 223 back to the original language.
Messages for all three can be left with a single phone call to 801-538-1029.
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 23:35:07 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: [goutah] GOUtah! Alert #201
The latest from GOUtah!
I've also just learned that pro-gun amendments to SB 140 Second Substitute have been prepared. Encourage your Reps to support pro-gun amendments when they come forth.
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 #201 - 3 Mar. 2004
Today's Maxim of Liberty:
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
- -- Edward R. Murrow
ANTI-GUN BILL RESURFACES IN HOUSE.
PHONE CALLS NEEDED.
In Alert #194, we mentioned that the current version of SB 140 2nd
Substitute includes a line, line 248a, which states that bureaucrats at the
Utah Department of Human Services may make arbitrary rules regarding "access
to firearms" when issuing licenses to individuals or organizations. Thus,
for example, since all foster homes in Utah must be licensed by the
Department of Human Services, this bill would allow the Department to revoke
a license from a foster couple if they kept firearms in their home.
This bill was to have been considered by the House Natural Resources
Committee last week, and we commend those of you who took the time to
contact committee members. However, the committee ran out of time before the
bill could be heard. The bill got sent back to the House Rules Committee,
which just released it directly to the floor of the House this afternoon.
That means that the House might have a chance to vote on it this evening.
Please call the House Switchboard as soon as you can and leave a message for
your own representative. Tell him that you live in his district, and ask him
to vote against SB 140 2nd Substitute unless line 248a gets removed. Make
sure you clearly say "line 248a" rather than "line 248", because line 248
contains something entirely different.
Once you've done this, we would encourage you to leave a message for House
Speaker Marty Stephens. He can exercise considerable control in the House
regarding the fate of bills that are listed to be heard this evening. His
contact info is given at the bottom of this alert. If nobody answers at his
office, then you can call the main House switchboard and leave a message
there. Tell him simply that line 248a of SB 140 2nd Substitute has to go
because it could be used to ban firearms in foster homes. Rep. Stephens is
running for Governor this year, so he might listen to us if enough of us can
send messages to him this afternoon.
House switchboard: 801-538-1029
House fax for Republican representatives: 801-538-1908
House fax for Democratic representatives: 801-538-9505
e-mail addresses for representatives can be found at
http://www.goutahorg.org , where you can click on "Legislative Contacts" in
the left-hand column.
House Speaker Marty Stephens --- Capitol phone: 801-538-1930 Capitol fax:
801-538-1908 e-mail: Martystephens@utah.gov
_________________________________________
That concludes GOUtah! Alert #201 - 3 Mar. 2004.
Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved.
To Subscribe, send a blank message to:
goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/goutah/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:07:00 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Create "news" to help defeat SB 48?
Before SB 48 had even passed both Houses of the Legislature, the Deseret News was editorializing in favor of a veto. Now, less than 48 hours after it passes, suddenly we're hearing horror stories about foster kids killing their foster parents? Mere Coincidence?
Why are children and youth who are so violent even being put into our neighborhoods rather than "rehabilitated" in a more secure environment? A teenager doesn't need a gun to seriously harm a toddler or for that matter, a sleeping adult.
I wonder whether the rules against guns apply to police officers who also take in foster kids. Had the incident in the 80s involved fatal stabbings using kitchen cutlery, would there now be a total ban on knives in foster homes?
And let us not forget, that their requirement that guns be kept locked up went so far as to prohibit anyone with a CCW permit from being a foster parent.
Letters to the editor can be sent to <letters@desnews.com>. Letters to the author of the article can be sent to <amyjoi@desnews.com>. As always, be polite in any correspondence.
Families who agree to take in troubled Youth Corrections children have long been banned from having a firearm in their house.
But with the Legislature's passage of Sen. Michael Waddoups' so-called "U." gun bill, that apparently won't be the case anymore.
Waddoups' SB48 prohibits any state entity from restricting the possession of firearms via an administrative rule or policy, unless authorized in statute.
That worries Ken Stettler, director of the Department of Human Services Licensing, which licenses child foster care services through a couple of state agencies ù the Division of Child and Family Services and Youth Corrections.
The agencies have adopted rules governing firearms as part of the determination of where children are placed and as ongoing restrictions after placement.
For foster-care homes under the purview of DCFS, the rule says foster parents have to make sure the guns are inaccessible to children at all times. Firearms and ammunition stored together have to be locked up in vaults or cases ù and not a glass-fronted display case.
It is even more restrictive for those who agree to take in Youth Corrections children ù no guns at all.
Stettler said the rules came about as a result of a Utah shooting in the mid-1980s. A husband and wife who took in a Youth Corrections child were killed with their own firearm, Stettler said.
"It was a huge and tragic deal at the time," he said, and agencies began to look for ways to minimize the risk of it happening again.
"We know that in the foster homes that we license there are going to be children who are in state custody who are are there because they are not capable of making rational choices," he said. "Some are suicidal, some are impulsive or have been involved in criminal or delinquent behavior. Certainly we don't want to jeopardize the health and safety of the child or the foster family in any way."
Stettler said he believes with the passage of Waddoups' bill, the Department of Human Services will have to repeal those rules.
"We will not be able to withhold licenses based on firearms," he said.
But Waddoups said perhaps the issue needs to be revisited regarding its impact on foster care licensing rules.
"It is a debate that needs to happen," he said. "The Legislature needs to understand there is a problem and decide how we are going to address it."
Proposed legislation to give agencies the ability to impose restrictions on firearms didn't pass.
Waddoups did say well-meaning foster care parents should exercise prudence and caution if they decide to take a Youth Corrections child.
"They are not just normal foster kids ù these are kids who have been taken into custody for problems. They may not be criminals per se, but they are headed down that road as juveniles. . . . If you have a teenage kid with a history of beating someone or using a weapon, how much access do you want to give them to a weapon in your own home?"
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:01:16 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: Today's article on foster homes and firearms
This was sent to the author of the DesNews article and the editor of the Deseret News. Feel free to use it for ideas if you'd like.
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Charles Hardy
xxx
xxx
Policy Director
Gun Owners of Utah (GOUtah!)
xxx
xxx
5 March 2004
Amy Joi Bryson
CC Steve Fidel
Dear Ms. Bryson,
I write regarding your article about firearms in foster homes that appears in today's (Friday, March 5th) edition of the Deseret News.
Your article certainly paints a scary picture. But it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. First among those is how long has this story been in the works and how was the topic chosen?
You see, I hate to be cynical, but there are several disturbing facts that may be nothing more than coincidental, but taken in total, make me wonder about what is going on.
First, the Deseret News editorialized in favor of a veto of SB 48 before it had even passed both houses of the Legislature. Now, less than 48 hours after it passed both houses by veto-override super-majorities, a story implying that if it becomes law troubled children will be given access to guns appears in the same paper.
Second, without any prior debate, and without any media mention, a last minute floor amendment was added to SB 140, Second Substitute, "Human Services Licensing Amendments," by Sen. Buttars. This amendment gave the Depeartment of Human Services explicit power to regulate "access to firearms" in the issuance of various licenses. This bill did not receive any public debate in its House committee, but was pulled from the Rules Committee and placed on the House calander in the final day of the legislative session. Thus, had the bill passed, the Department of Human Services would have received broad and sweeping powers to regulate private firearms without ANY public input or debate. Fortunately, the clock ran out and the bill never received a final vote.
Finally, the Department of Human Services was called on the carpet in the last couple of years specifically for exceeding their authority by prohibiting anyone with a State issued permit to carry a concealed, self-defense weapon from serving as a foster parent--regardless of whether the children in question were "troubled" or just in need of a loving home. In short, this department has already shown that it is not interested in taking a limited, rational view of which special cases may warrant increased concern or security when it comes to access to weapons. Rather, like too many other executive branch agencies, they have shown forth a clear bias against the private ownership of firearms--particularly those firearms useful for self-defense against criminals.
That they must reach back 20 years to a single, tragic incident as justification for a blanket rule suggests to me they are standing on very shaky ground. That they attempted to gain statutory authority to continue a policy that HAS been illegal for many years by sneaking a last minute, one line amendment into a 500+ line bill, thus avoiding any public debate or discussion, indicates an unwillingness, or inability to make their case to the public based on its merits.
If you will go check the minutes from both the Senate and House committees that heard SB 48, you'll find that the Department of Human Services did not even bother to offer input on the bill. It is clear they don't want to debate their politically biased rules in a fair and open forum. Rather, they try to gain authority via dark-of-night techniques, and then when those fail, they complain that a bill they weren't even willing to offer input on might actually say, yet again, that the people of Utah are not willing to allow an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat to impose his political biases or phobias unilaterally on the very citizens who pay his salary.
The timing of your article also opens up some serious questions as to whether the Deseret News is manufacturing news stories in an attempt to influence public opinion to achieve their editorial goals. I'm sure, like every reporter, will find that allegation offensive. And I'm sorry, I don't mean to impugn your integrity. But I am curious as to when this assignment was given, by whom, and what relation it may have to the timing of the very recent editorial against SB 48.
Here are some of the questions your story doesn't address:
Does the gun ban on foster parents apply to police officers who may also wish to host foster children? If not, why? Are police able to use a gun safe differently than everyone else?
Since firearms are not, by any stretch, the only dangerous weapon in a typical home, does the Department have rules regarding access to kitchen knives, razor blades, power tools, gasoline and glass bottles, cigarette lighters, robes, natural gas appliances, car keys, etc? IOW, had the tragic and seemingly isolated case from two decades ago involved a stabbing or arson, rather than a shooting, would foster homes be prohibited from containing cutlery or matches?
Why hasn't the Department offered testimony of this issue during the legislative session? Why did it attempt to sneak amendments through at the 11th hour and without public debate? Regardless of your position on any issue, intelligent and honest persons--and especially members of the media, I would expect--MUST believe that ANY good policy/rule can and should survive the scrutiny of full and open public debate. Secrecy is NOT a good way to pass laws, make policy, or conduct the business of the people.
Why has the Department singled out holders of concealed self-defense weapons for discrimination even in cases where the children are not "troubled" but simply in need of a safe, loving home?
Finally, if children are so "troubled" that they cannot be safely placed in a home with firearms, even if those firearms are stored in a safe, is their placement in our neighborhoods really the best course of action in the first place? A teenager doesn't need a firearm in order to gravely injure or even kill a younger child, or even an adult caught off guard. Further, well over half the homes in our State have at least one firearm. Are the children and parents living near foster homes alerted as to the degree to which the foster children moving in and out of their neighborhoods, schools, and local churches are "troubled?" Are they given full notice that such youth should not be trusted with the same level of access to homes, children, etc. that may be given to other neighbors? Is this long illegal rule against guns merely a "CYA" on the part of the department that is placing highly dangerous youth into family neighborhoods without notice to other residents?
I apologize for the length, Ms. Bryson, but really, your story leaves FAR more questions unanswered than it adequately addresses. And after writing my final point above, I'm starting to think that an anti-gun bias at the Department of Human Services is not the most serious concern, even for me. I'm far more concerned that Youth Corrections and the Department of Human Services have a complete willingness to do their work in secret, without public disclosure or input, and that such behavior puts us all at risk, not just from bad legislation, but more importantly from highly dangerous youth who may belong in a more secure setting rather than in our neighborhoods, schools, and our children's circle of friends.
Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any help on this or any future story regarding privately owned firearms.
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:05:31 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Legislative winners and loser
Dear SL Tribune,
I write in regard to the unsigned "Legislative Winnders and Losers" article in today's (Friday, March 5) SL Tribune. I really must protest. Are you guys sloppy, lazy, or so biased that you are willing to flat out lie, to make up "news" from whole cloth?
Under the bullet point lising "Concealed-carry permit holders" as "winnders" your unnamed writer states that those with these State issued permits can potentially take their weapons into their neighbors' homes. The implication is that permit holders can legally do so against the express wishes of their neigbors.
This is BLATANTLY false and any reporter writing about firearms in Utah should be fully aware of that given all the publicity that has surrounded this issue the past year.
SB 48 deals ONLY with GOVERNMENT entities like the University of Utah. It contains an explicit provision, listed as paragraph 7, that the bill does NOT affect "private property" rights at all.
Existing Utah Statute, 76-10-530, specifically empowers private home owners and churches to exclude privately owned weapons if they so desire simply by making visitors aware that weapons are not welcome. It is CRIME for anyone (other than a government employee, of course) to carry a weapon into a private residence whose owner has given notice that weapons are not welcome.
NOTHING passed by the legislature this year even comes close to dealing with, much less overturning the ability of a homeowner to control access to his house in this fashion.
The SL Tribune's editorial position against the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in public has been made very clear on your editorial pages. Please try to keep those opinions on the editorial page where they belong rather than allowing them to leak over into your "news" pages in the form of skewed stories, loaded language, or blatantly false information.
I request that a correction be run in the same section and with the same prominence as the story that contains this gross error of well-known fact.
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, 17 Mar 2004 23:10:54 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Friends of the NRA dinner
Passing along this info for any who are interested.
This year's Friends of the NRA Dinner and Auction will be held Friday, March 26, 6:00 pm at Totem's, 538 South Redwood Road.
The cost is $30.00 per person. Proceeds go to youth education, range devlopment, conservation efforts, etc.
Tickets (either individuall or sponsorship packages) can be purchased by calling 801-699-7610 or 801-577-2403 or by emailing <slcfriendsofnra@hotmail.com>.
The following dress code will be enforced:
NO tank tops, t-shirts, cut-off pants, torn or holey clothing, hats or fatigues.
I will add my personal opinion here that unless the event one is attending is actually taking place at a shooting range or backwoods cabin, gun owners should always give serious consideration to wearing what I like to call "urban cammo." The purpose of cammo is to blend in with one's environment, to not stick out. In an urban environment--including government meetings, TV interviews, rallies, political events, dinners, etc--the way to not stick out is to wear at least, business casual or better: dresses or skirts/blouses for the fairer gender (at least a nice pants suit) and at the very least, slacks and a button down for the gentlemen (as much as I personally dislike them, I doubt wearing a tie has really killed very many men). Gun owners do NOT do themselves any favors when they show up to public functions or nice meals dressed as if they were going bow hunting or purchased all of their shirts at gun shows. END EDITORIAL COMMENTS
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, 18 Mar 2004 17:07:30 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Gov. "inclined" to veto SB 48 S1
We've learned that Gov. Walker is under pressure from the Department of Human Services to VETO SB 48 S1.
As you'll recall, SB 48 S1 is Sen. Waddoups' bill that should finally end the UofU gun ban. As a side affect, it seems that it also makes super clear that the Department of Human services cannot discriminate against gun owners or holders of CCW permits when it issues licenses to be foster parents.
Like many other agencies, the department of human services doesn't like actually having to follow the law when it comes to respecting your rights. Neither do they like having their rules and policies subjected to open, public debate. This department attempted to gain statutory authority to discriminate against gun owners during a last minute floor amendment added to SB 140. Fortunately, gun owners were alerted, and that bill died in the house.
The Department of Human Services NEVER testified on SB 48 or otherwise offered up any concerns. We've made it clear that we are willing to sit down with the Department to find workable solutions to any REAL problems they have. What we don't do, of course, is agree to any kind of zero-intelligence, blanket ban on gun owners.
As a side note, I'll add that this very department is now running ads trying to convince more persons to become foster parents. This even as they turn away otherwise willing and qualified couples simply because they own a few guns or have a CCW permit!!!!
SB 48 passed by veto-override margins in both houses. This bill MUST be signed and implemented.
Please contact governor Walker at (801) 538-1000 and let her know you expect her to sign this bill. If you are (or are planning on becoming) a GOP State delegate, let her know that as well.
Please also contact your own Senator and Representative, along with Speaker Stephens and Sen. President Mansell and let them know that you expect them to override any veto of SB 48 S1. Contact info for all legislators can be found at <http://www.goutahorg.org>.
