Subject: A question to ask any "pro-gun" candidates who run businesses
All,
I wish I'd thought of this sooner, but for any who see this in time, here is what I think is a very valid--and VERY telling--question to pose to any candidate who professes to be "pro-gun" and who also happens to run a business.
Simply ask him/her what his/her business' policy is on weapons and does it make exceptions for those employees who have a CCW permit?
After all, if he/she REALLY supports RKBA and REALLY believes in the right to an effective self-defense (not mention that if he/she REALLY cares about his/her employee's welfare and safety, both on the job as well as while traveling to/from work) he/she would certainly not deny those employees the ability to defend themselves.
Most of us who work full time spend more waking hours in the workplace and commuting to/from work than anywhere else. Simple odds indicate a pretty good chance that we might just need to defend ourselves sooner or later.
You might want to preface this question with a few questions to first let the candidate profess his undying love for the 2nd amd. Be sure to ask a couple of specific questions about whether the candidate supports the right to an effective self-defense.
FWIW, my best, non-lawerly reading of Utah statute says that a business owner can carry a concealed weapon on his business property WITHOUT even needing a permit (just like you can do in your own home or yard). FURTHER, the business owne can authorize his employees to do likewise, again, no permit needed.
Now, that might be a bit radical for some, but at the VERY LEAST, any business owner (or officer of a corporation) who claims to support the right to an effective self-defense, should allow those employees with permits to keep their weapons close at hand at work.
However, the vast majority of businesses, have a standard anti-gun policy as the various national and local Human Resource groups seem to have a very anti-RKBA bent. A notable exception is local business, QSI. The last time I checked with the owner, their employee policies specifically allowed employees with CCW permits to carry their weapons at work.
If a self-professed "pro-gun" candidate won't come straight up and tell you his business allows employees to carry legal, permitted weapons, (or he claims to not know) push him to change that policy (or at least confirm it). If he is the boss, he can call his HR director on a weekend, they all carry cell phones these days. "Well, I can see this issue is new to you. Will you take 5 minutes to call your HR director and at least leave a message that the policy is to be changed to specifically allow those with permits to carry their weapons?"
Any candidate who is REALLY pro-gun should either already have a pro-self-defense employment policy at his business, OR, AT THE VERY LEAST, be completely willing to change it the moment it comes to his attention.
Not only will this line of questions give you some great insights into how pro-gun a candidate really is, but in pushing them to adopt pro-gun business policies, we start to make a dent towards maybe someday getting our own employers to respect our rights to self-defense.
As is commonly the case when the issue is guns, last week's column about the University of Utah's civil disobedience in refusing to comply with the recently passed state law (which allows firearms on the school's campus as long as the person carrying them has a concealed weapons permit) sparked a good deal of reader response.
What was surprising was the almost total lack of defense of the university.
Only one writer took up the U.'s cause that its constitutional rights have been usurped by the Legislature, thus giving the school's Board of Regents the right to thumb their nose at the law. "The University is asserting rights . . . which supersede the laws enacted by the Legislature," the e-mail stated.
Dozens of others piled on the other side of the debate, wondering why the University of Utah doesn't have to work within the system like the rest of us.
"The law is the law," wrote one e-mailer. "Change it if need be, but until then obey it."
Another e-mail, from a man who listed his address as "The Peoples Republic of California," said: "The argument is not if guns are right or wrong, or if they belong on campus. The argument is following or not following the law. And if it is a bad law, change it."
Still another: "The situation at the U. really ceased to be about guns quite some time ago. As it does on topics that affect all of us, the Legislature has spoken, passed a law, and that law should be obeyed, especially by government employees, including those at the U."
And on and on:
? "This 'it's OK for me, but not for you' attitude when it comes to following the laws of our state is embarrassing!"
? "I agree with the university on the question of gun control, but I do not agree with its current stance on compliance. It should abide by the law while its appeal is pending. That would send the right message."
? "I've never as much as held a gun, but I hold the Constitution as a sacred and divine document that must be upheld."
Some went for the jugular as far as the U. of U. Board of Trustees is concerned:
? "Any public officials who repeatedly and deliberately defy the clear language of the law (now made even clearer so that even a Ph.D. or JD can understand it) and wastes scarce tax dollars intended for higher education to engage in legalistic challenges is unfit to serve in any position of public trust. I would hope to see the Editorial Board (of the Deseret Morning News) call for the resignation (or dismissal) of the entire Board of Trustees."
? "I just wonder why no one in power has arrested the (members of the) Board of Trustees that are in open disobedience to the law."
? "I'm sick and tired of the U. thinking they have no obligation to obey the law when the rest of us have to abide by it regardless of the issue. I think it's time for the governor to call for the resignations of the trustees starting with Jake Garn. It's hard for me to fathom an ex-senator intentionally disobeying the law. To me, this is the only reason needed to force his resignation and let the issue die."
And finally, one person went outside the herd to pose this question:
? "I just don't understand why guns on campus (or at church) make any difference. To my knowledge, there has not been a single shot fired on any Utah campus or any church in my lifetime. Is that because no person with firearms has been in those locations or have the 'bad guys' been scared off by not knowing who is packing a gun? Either way, because there have been no incidents, somehow to me the whole debate is nonsense. It just doesn't matter. What am I missing?"
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, 13 May 2004 23:47:49 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: National news, "scary looking gun ban"
From packing.org. Fortunately, the ban will either expire or be renewed before the elctions. So now is a great time to pin down your congressman and Senators on where they stand on this and what they will do to protect your RKBA.
Charles
<http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/9638/>
A recent news story at thehill.com quoted Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) as being confident there were enough votes in the House to pass a ban renewal if it came to the floor, and indicated he was considering filing a discharge petition (which requires the support of a simple majority of House members) to force a vote on the bill.
While he might be overly optimistic on how the ban would fare in the House, we would be foolish to ignore the possibility of Republican leadership caving on this issue.
We must make it absolutely clear that, while many of us are willing to set aside our disappointment in the fact that Bush has expressed support for renewing the ban in the past, we WILL NOT vote to reelect him if the ban is actually signed into law. Plus, House leadership needs to be reminded of how they gained control in 1994, widely acknowledged as being a direct result of the original ban being passed.
In addition, you can point out the following:
╖ The government-funded study (conducted under the Clinton administration) on the effects of the ban found no detectable reduction in crime that could be attributed to the ban, as these guns were only rarely used in crime even before the ban.
╖ The firearms restricted by this ban are nearly identical to non-banned guns, differing only by "minor cosmetic changes" (a catch-phrase used by many anti-gun organizations in the context of complaining about how manufacturers changed their products to comply with the law). They do not fire any faster, nor are they any more powerful than non-banned guns, despite their menacing looks and scary-sounding names.
╖ The radically anti-gun Violence Policy Center freely admits the expiration of the ban will have no adverse effects, calling the ban "a joke."
Let us send a clear message of how strongly we feel about this issue. Take a few moments to contact the following people, and POLITELY make your opinion known. If possible, please call, as well as fax and mail a letter.
Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2976
Fax: (202) 225-0697
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
H-107 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4000
Fax: (202) 225-5117
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt
H-329 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-0197
House Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox
2402 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5611
Fax: (202) 225-9177
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone: 202-456-1111
Fax: 202-456-2461
In addition, contact your own representative, and urge him/her to not support a discharge petition on a bill to renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons." You can find the contact information for you representative by entering your zip code on this page:
http://www.house.gov/
Please send this to anyone you know who shares your view on this issue.
DuPage County has settled a federal lawsuit filed by a man whose arrest
on weapons charges two years ago became a rallying point for a group
advocating the right to carry concealed handguns.
John Horstman, 43, of Schaumburg picked up a check for $50,000 at the
DuPage County state's attorney's office Wednesday. DuPage County
sheriff's police had arrested Horstman on July 24, 2002, and charged him
with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon for carrying a 9 mm handgun in
a case in his backpack while bicycling along the Illinois Prairie Path.
DuPage County State's Atty. Joseph Birkett dropped the charges Aug. 8,
2002, saying the evidence failed to warrant the allegations. Horstman, a
computer systems engineer whose only previous brush with the law was a
speeding ticket, filed suit soon after.
"It's an equitable agreement, and I'm glad it's over and that
everybody's wiser for it," Horstman said. Horstman, who lost his job in
August 2002 at Argonne National Laboratory for reasons he said were
unrelated to the gun charges, is working as a part-time package handler
for a shipping service.
"The key is the jeopardy I was put in at the time," Horstman said when
asked why he filed the complaint. He spent about 24 hours in DuPage
County Jail and was released on a $25,000 cash bond, considered high,
before the charges were dropped. "That's quite a lot of jeopardy,
especially when I was bending over backward to comply with the law in
the first place," he said.
Horstman's arrest became a rallying point for Concealed Carry Inc., an
Oak Brook-based group promoting the right of law-abiding citizens to
carry weapons. The group, which also advocates the consolidation and
clarification of Illinois gun laws, used Horstman's case to draw
attention to a clause in the state gun law that allows registered owners
to carry an unloaded gun "enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box,
shipping box or other container."
"What we're looking at here is the first step of holding state's
attorneys responsible for arresting law-abiding gun owners," said John
Birch, president of Concealed Carry. "I'm a supporter of Joe Birkett.
This is not directed at Joe. This is directed at the process as it
exists in the state of Illinois."
DuPage County First Assistant State's Atty. Nancy Wolfe noted Wednesday
that the county admits no liability in the out-of-court settlement.
Birkett has called for Illinois to clarify its gun laws.
"We resolved the case by settlement for an amount agreed upon by both
parties," Wolfe said.
"I'm not going to comment any further on it."
The $50,000 settlement is significantly less than Horstman sought when
he filed the complaint in federal court two years ago. He had been
seeking more than $1 million for a wrongful arrest.
Horstman's settlement was completed 15 days after a Cook County judge
dismissed felony weapons charges against Roderick Pritchett, 26, who,
during a routine traffic stop in November 2002, told Chicago police
officers he had a registered handgun in a zippered pouch in his car."
kira
- ---
- -
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 03:01:32 GMT
From: "Charles Hardy" <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Been done a whil, hoping I'm back now
Friends (and others if there be any) ;) ,
Just in case anyone noticed, I've been missing for a while.
About 4 weeks ago I had the first really serious flare-up of colitis in some 15 years or so. So I've been completely off line for the past three weeks or so. I finally logged in tonight, of course found that my mail box was full, and so realized that I've probably been bouncing messages for some time.
So, if you've tried to email me and it bounced back, please resend. My email is still active and I've cleaned out my inbox. I hope to check it often enough now to keep it from overflowing.
I'm still nowhere near back to 100%, but I think I'm on my way back. I'm afraid with this illness, the downward slopes are very steep and fast, while the climb back up takes MUCH longer.
BTW, if anyone knows any really good gastro-internists, ODs, or other "real" doctors who are also versed in (or at least friendly towards "alternative" or holistic medicine) please drop me a private message here. I live in Sandy, so a good practice somewhere along the Wasatch Front is preferred.
The last time I had any kind of long term relationship with a medical doctor, she just couldn't wait to cut out my entire colon and hang a bag on my side. (This after another doctor did an endoscope on a fully enflamed bowel without bothering to wait for the anthesia to kick in on me!!) She swore up and down that such WOULD be necessary within 5 years. As a teenager, I checked myself out AMA at that point and haven't had much to do with doctors since. (We had a visit from whatever DCFS was called back then and narrowing escaped a "Parker Jenson" long before he was even a glimmer in his parents' eyes.) That was well over 15 years ago and my insides are still inside where they belong, with, the last month notwithstanding, very few problems to date.
Anyway, this time was serious enough (and I figured I'd eventually need a doctor's note for my employer) that I finally went and saw a doctor about it. (It only takes 2 to 8 weeks to get an appointment these days.) It is apparantly one of his specialties and while he seems more reasonable and competent than what I experienced as a teenager, I still came away reminded very forcefully why alternative medicine has grown so much. Simply put, there doesn't seem to be more than about 1 doctor in 100 (maybe not even that many) who is capable or interested in looking at a person as anything more than a case, an ailment, or a piece of meat; certainly not as a living soul who ought to be given some credit for the experience of having lived in that body for as many years as he has. (Apologies to the rare shining star among traditional medical practioners.)
Rambling a bit now, reminds me of what is currently happening with government day-care camps (aka "public schools"). Administrators, the teachers' union, and too many union drones masquerading as "teachers" (with full apologies to those really dedicated teachers), are doing everything short of smacking students and parents over the head with two by fours and shouting, "Go away, we don't really want your business." And so the home schooling and private school, and neighborhood co-operative schools continue to grow...along with chiropractic practices, midwives, herbalists, and other alternatives to the traditional medical doctor and his approach to medicine.
Back on topic, I hope I haven't missed anything too important and that nobody has thought I've snubbed them or refused to answer them. There is no way I'm even going to attempt to go back through 3 weeks of news groups to see what happened, so if somebody really wants me to see something, send it to me privately. Thanks.
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, 9 Jul 2004 15:33:10 GMT
From: "Charles Hardy" <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Some more equal than others?
From today's Deseret News. While I think it is great that police officers, current and retired will likely soon have a greater ability to protect themselves as they travel out of their home States, it's too bad our senior senator doesn't think abused women, witnesses in crimes, or any other law abiding citizen deserves the same rights.
(A couple of years ago I asked Hatch about this at the local Friends of the NRA dinner. He replied that for congress to require States to allow nationwide CCW for non-cops would vioate federalism. For police--active or retired--the public safety benefits outweighed those concerns.
For those who suggest that this is "step in the right direction," I will just ask two question:
Now that current and retired police officers have nationwide CCW (assumming Bush signs the bill), how many of them are going to lobby to get nationwide CCW for non-cops? What incentive is there for police officers (or their chiefs or union reps) to NOT lobby AGAINST nationwide CCW for non-cops?
Senate OKs bill to let police carry concealed weapons
By Pat Reavy
Deseret Morning News
A bill approved by the U.S. Senate late Wednesday puts law enforcement officers in Utah and the rest of the country a step closer to being allowed to carry concealed firearms at all times.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, HR218, is now on its way to President Bush's desk to be signed.
The bill would allow current and retired police officers who meet certain qualifications to carry a concealed weapon with them if they are not on duty and even if they cross state lines.
The bill does not, however, supercede state laws that allow private citizens to ban concealed weapons on their private properties such as schools and churches.
Sen. Orrin Hatch co-sponsored the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. He said in a statement that the bill passed Wednesday was important because officers never know when they might be confronted by a person they sent to jail years ago.
"While police officers may not remember the name and face of every criminal he or she has locked behind bars, criminals often have long and exacting memories which make officers a target in or out of uniform, active or retired, on duty or off," Hatch said in his statement.
Supporters of the bill argued the public would also be more protected by having additional off-duty officers, both current and former, prepared to respond to violent situations they happen to come across.
"I think it's a great piece of legislation," said Salt Lake County Sheriff Aaron Kennard, who is also head of the National Sheriff's Association.
Kennard already requires all his deputies to have reasonable access to their weapons at all times, even if they're off duty. He said it only helps to have qualified officers armed at all times.
"I've been left feeling somewhat naked when I come across situations (out of state) when I wish I had a weapon to back another officer," he said.
The bill specifically defines which officers are eligible to carry a firearm full-time across state boundaries.
Current officers must have arrest power and be qualified by their home department to carry a firearm.
Former officers must have at least 15 years experience and be retired in good standing. They must also requalify annually and meet the same firearm qualification standards as active law enforcers in the state in which they reside.
The bill does not allow officers to carry concealed weapons when intoxicated, and they have to have identification with them when carrying the firearm.
The state Department of Public Safety said Thursday it was in the process of reviewing the new bill to make sure it was in compliance.
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, 12 Jul 2004 15:00:31 GMT
From: "Charles Hardy" <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Fw: Ladies Trap Shooting Cilnic to be Held in Heber City
For those interested in trap shooting...
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
From: Wendy Mair
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 8:32 PM
Subject: Ladies Trap Shooting Cilnic to be Held in Heber City
For Immediate Release:
July 12, 2004
'Women on Target' & 'Becoming an Outdoors Woman' Present Ladies Only Trapshooting Clinic in Heber City, Utah
Women who would like to learn how to trapshoot, and those who would like to polish up their trapshooting skills, are invited to a Ladies Only Instructional Clinic at Heber Valley Gun Club on Saturday, August 7.
The clinic is sponsored by NRA's 'Women on Target' and Utah DWR's 'Becoming an Outdoors Woman' programs, both dedicated to introducing women to a variety of outdoor recreational activities in safe and comfortable environments. Pre-registration is strongly encouraged. Space is limited and filling up fast.
The clinic features gun safety and the fundamentals of shotgun shooting, with both classroom and range instruction. B.O.W. instructors, John and Louise Bradshaw and Gene Ekenstam, have many years of experience teaching women's shotgun clinics and are expertly equipped to the lead the Heber City clinic.
The $20 cost includes instruction, loaner guns, targets, one box of ammunition, ear/eye protection, take-home instructional materials and lunch. Lot of fun shooting contests for prizes will follow the instructional part of the clinic, later in the afternoon. To pre-register, please contact Wendy Mair 435-671-2365 or wendymair@earthlink.net.
For additional information or photos, please contact:
Ogden police were looking Monday for a man who allegedly stabbed two hikers in an apparently random attack.
Just before noon, a mother and her two daughters, ages 20 and 15, were hiking in the foothills above the Mount Ogden Golf Course when a man carrying a knife attacked them without warning, said Ogden Police Assistant Chief Randy Watt.
The women tried to fend off the attacker, who grabbed the sisters. The 20-year-old sister was stabbed in the torso, and the other received a cut on the arm, Watt said.
Despite being stabbed, the sisters were able to break free from the attacker and run for help. They found a group of golfers who took them to the clubhouse, Watt said.
The two victims were transported to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. Both were released Monday afternoon.
Ogden police with assistance from the FBI, K-9s and the Department of Public Safety helicopter searched the area for hours Monday but did not find the attacker.
He was described as a white male 25 to 30 years old with blond hair and blue eyes. He was last seen wearing a gray stocking cap and gray sweat suit.
Investigators did not have a lot of information about the case to release Monday. Watt said a motive for the attack was not known. He also could not comment on whether the assailant said anything to the women before or during the attack.
Anyone who was in the area near the Mount Ogden Golf Course up until 1 p.m. Monday is asked to call police at 801-629-8108. Anyone with information about the case can also call the same number.
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, 15 Jul 2004 00:44:27 GMT
From: "Charles Hardy" <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Rocky calls for more gun control
A short quote from yours truly near the bottom of this article.
Maybe a few letters to the editor explaining that city kids have legitimate reasons to be in possession of weapons as well as country kids, including plinking, organized sport shooting (didn't we recently host the winter Olympics with biathalon?), etc.
Indeed, even in the People's Republic of Massachussetts, my college had a very competitive pistol team. Is there any reason a kid under 18 should not be able to become proficient in those various aspects of the shooting sports (including everything from .22 slow fire right on up to the IPSC competitions?) Sounds like a legit reason for a minor to have a gun to me, though I'd hope he wasn't carrying it around Liberty park loaded and tucked into his waisteband. ;) It is all but impossible for a responsible young person to enjoy a perfectly legit sport these days unless mommy or daddy can baby sit him or her the whole time.
Also note that Rep. Ty McCartney thinks a pocketknife is a deadly weapon. Man, the folding buckknives that so many of us carried around in school would probably really freak this guy out. He gives both politicians AND cops a bad name.
I had a call today from a DesNews reporter on this same topic so look for that story tomorrow.
The law puts youths illegally handling guns on a par with littering.
Both violations are misdemeanors.
Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson says young people who illegally carry guns and those who get them the weapons should be more severely punished.
This week, he sent a letter to state lawmakers asking their help to increase the penalty for a minor possessing an illegal firearm and for providing a handgun to a minor, from class B misdemeanors to at least third-degree felonies.
He also wants parents or guardians who know their minor children have dangerous weapons to be charged at that higher level.
"A class B misdemeanor is an almost inconsequential penalty for something as serious as being in illegal possession of a gun -- a weapon which could easily be used to kill or maim another person," Anderson wrote. "In fact, being prepared to kill or maim another person -- or threatening to kill or maim -- is the only reason for these young people to be carrying firearms in our city."
The letter was prompted by last month's shooting at Salt Lake City's Liberty Park. A 14-year-old shooter and his 17-year friend who allegedly handed him the gun were charged with three counts of discharging a firearm. Darrell Johnson admitted Monday in court that he shot an 18-year old, sending him to the hospital for a gunshot wound to the back.
Anderson's suggestions wouldn't alter Johnson's situation. Discharging a firearm is already a second-degree felony. Deeda Seed, the mayor's spokeswoman, said the changes could make minors and adults "less cavalier" about illegally possessing or providing guns.
"We're not saying that adults shouldn't have the right to own guns," Seed said, noting the mayor owns a handgun. "This is about young people -- teenagers -- and guns. Young people should not have guns unless they live in the country and they're using them for hunting with their parents."
From July 1, 2003, to June 30, 645 minors were either suspects, victims or witnesses in incidents in which a firearm was illegally used in Salt Lake City, according to the letter. Police arrested 102 juveniles for gun-related crimes.
State law says minors under 18 cannot possess a handgun. They also cannot possess a "dangerous weapon" -- defined as being capable of causing death or serious injury -- without their parents' permission or oversight.
Rep. Ty McCartney, D-Salt Lake City, agrees there is no "legitimate reason a juvenile needs to have a handgun."
But the former detective with the Metro Gang Unit is hesitant to charge youths with a felony for possessing a "dangerous weapon," because pocketknives could be included in that definition.
"I would be willing to look at a class A [misdemeanor], but a felony for a pocketknife I'm just not comfortable with," he said.
Charles Hardy, public policy director of Gun Owners of Utah, opposes Anderson's idea. He says it would impede youths from learning "shooting sports."
"I'm tired of responsible persons . . . being collectively punished and pre-emptively punished for the actions of criminals. Criminals belong in jail. The rest of us deserve to be left alone."
He also said Salt Lake City's gun violence should be blamed on the "failure" of the mayor. "The mayor of Sandy city hasn't felt the need to call for tougher gun laws to keep the city safe." Sandy is the fourth-largest city in the state. Salt Lake is Utah's largest.
Marla Kennedy, with the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, supports Anderson's plan but says its chances are "slim to none" in Utah's gun-friendly Legislature.
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, 15 Jul 2004 16:26:03 GMT
From: "Charles Hardy" <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Rocky calls for more gun control--DesNews version
Here is the DesNews article on this topic. Compare what gun-grabber Marla Kennedy said her, compared to what she said in the SLTrib. Either she can't even keep her story straight across two days or the two reporters really made some goofs.
Marla yesterday in SLTrib:
"Marla Kennedy, with the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, supports Anderson's plan but says its chances are "slim to none" in Utah's gun-friendly Legislature."
Marla today in DesNews:
"Lawmakers have historically passed some penalty enhancement laws ù there are dozens on the books, including those that increase the penalties for crimes committed against police officers, legislators and for gang crimes ù which may give Anderson a chance on the hill, Kennedy added.
""This is changing policy; it's a penalty enhancement," she said. "I think this has a good shot.""
In Salt Lake City, it is a class B misdemeanor to let the weeds grow too tall in your front yard ù the same class of crime minors face for violating some state gun laws.
Mayor Rocky Anderson, who is dealing with the aftermath of a June shooting in Liberty Park, believes it's time to get serious about punishing the city's gun-toting juveniles, who committed 102 gun-related crimes in the 2003-04 fiscal year. In the June 6 shooting, which injured an 18-year-old man, a 14-year-old boy pulled the trigger.
In a letter sent Tuesday, Anderson let state lawmakers know that Utah gun laws produce "an almost inconsequential penalty" for certain juvenile gun crimes and don't help police officers in their efforts to keep citizens safe from teenage gangbangers packing heat.
"Given the proliferation of guns in our community and the fact that many of them are finding their way into the hands of children, we must take firm action," Anderson wrote.
The letter urges state lawmakers to increase three laws involving minors and guns from class B misdemeanors to at least third-degree felonies. Those laws include being a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon, providing a dangerous weapon to a minor and being a parent or guardian who knows a minor is in possession of a dangerous weapon.
"Because the rules governing the possession of firearms are solely within the Legislature's jurisdiction (since the Legislature denied cities of the power to regulate firearms), we need your help," Anderson wrote.
Gun rights advocates argue a penalty enhancement ù whether for the offending juveniles or adults ù is unnecessary.
"There are more than enough laws with more than enough penalties on the books," said Charles Hardy, policy director for Gun Owners of Utah (GOUtah!), who frequently lobbies the Legislature. "Any prosecutor serious about taking a criminal off the street, even a juvenile, doesn't need a felony enhancement. In Liberty Park, you essentially had an attempted murder. That's a felony in any jurisdiction."
In addition to state law, it is also a federal crime for any adult to sell, deliver or transfer a gun to a juvenile. The federal penalty for doing so is up to a year in federal prison, unless there is reason to believe the minor would use the weapon to commit a violent crime, and then the penalty is up to 10 years.
There are some exceptions, including those juveniles who have the written permission of a parent or if the gun is being used in connection with hunting, farm or ranch management, or as part of a safety instruction course.
Hardy also said he is unaware of any penalty laid out in state or federal statute that actually serves as a deterrent to crime.
"We're still a capital punishment state," said Hardy, who emphasized he was speaking on behalf of himself only and not for GOUtah! "If the big death penalty won't deter you from the attempted homicide, then a felony change (in gun laws related to juveniles) won't either."
Hardy said Anderson shouldn't be asking the Legislature to solve what appears to be a crime problem in Salt Lake City.
But the Legislature has left the mayor no other choice, said Marla Kennedy, executive director of Utah's Gun Violence Prevention Center. Twice in the last five years, bills have passed, stating that only the Legislature has the authority to make gun policy.
"The mayor has no choice but to go begging at (the Legislature's) feet," Kennedy said. "I think he's doing what he should be doing. If he has any luck with them, I've got a few more ideas for him."
Anderson's plea is a "good first step" toward changing Utah's "bad gun policy," Kennedy added. From concealed weapons permit laws to those that allows permit holders to carry guns onto school campuses, the state has a permissive attitude toward gun rights and has a poor record of passing laws that increase safety, she said.
Lawmakers have historically passed some penalty enhancement laws ù there are dozens on the books, including those that increase the penalties for crimes committed against police officers, legislators and for gang crimes ù which may give Anderson a chance on the hill, Kennedy added.
"This is changing policy; it's a penalty enhancement," she said. "I think this has a good shot."
