From: Scott Bergeson Subject: JPFO releases 'Death By Gun Control' Date: 15 Nov 2001 09:47:21 -0700 JPFO releases 'Death By Gun Control' ---------- JPFO "Death By Gun Control" points a finger at the real motives behind victim disarmament: the utter subjugation of the American people to statist authority. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Executive Director Aaron Zelman, in collaboration with attorney Richard W. Stevens, has produced a work to be reckoned with. (11/14/01) http://www.jpfo.org/alert20011113.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Capital security during games Date: 15 Nov 2001 14:34:17 -0700 The article below is from today's desnews. While the situation is not perfect as it does not allow for un-licensed open carry by right, it is a huge improvement over what many of the gun-phobes both in and out of the legislature wanted. This article does not address how CCW permited weapons wil be treated during those short periods when Bush, Cheney, etc may be addressing the legislature. Charles Capitol security would cost $710,000 After Sept. 11, lawmakers seek extra troopers By Zack Van Eyck Deseret News staff writer If state lawmakers want the Capitol to be more secure on a regular basis, they're going to have to find the money to fund it. With a current-year shortfall approaching $200 million and economic projections far from rosy, that could be a challenge. Department of Public Safety Commissioner Robert Flowers and Lt. Jim Keith of the state's Dignitary Protection Program told a legislative committee Wednesday it would cost $710,000 the first year and $470,000 in subsequent years to fortify protection at the Capitol. That money would buy eight additional state troopers who would be posted at the Capitol full-time, and two control-room operators. The amount for the first year is higher because of equipment purchases, Keith said. "That brings us to a level where we can have exterior security during the daylight and evening hours," Keith told the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee. The upgraded security proposal is in response to the Sept. 11 attacks on America and the country's war against terrorism. Flowers and Keith said the plan for securing the Capitol during the 2002 legislative session, which begins Jan. 8, is still being developed. But more troopers will be assigned to the building then, and a few other things are known for sure, they said. "During the session, the Capitol is not going to be a gun-free zone," Keith said. Some lawmakers said last month they wanted metal detectors at every door and hoped concealed-weapons permit holders would be required to hand over their guns before entering. While that won't happen, Keith said Capitol security will have the ability to narrow the building down to two entrances — the east and the north — and run everyone except lawmakers and staff (who can enter with pre-approved identification cards) through magnetometers. Concealed-weapons holders would have to show documentation that they are licensed before being allowed to carry their guns into the building, Keith said. The Capitol's east doors have been designated as the main public entrance for the session and during the 2002 Winter Games, Keith said. Flowers and Keith said during the Games there will be 24-hour security coverage at the Capitol, paid for from Olympic funds. Keith said the idea of putting a fence around the Capitol has been discussed but is likely to happen only after the Olympics as part of the permanent, beefed-up Capitol security plan — assuming lawmakers can find a way to finance it. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Bergeson" Subject: Phyllis Schafly weighs in Date: 16 Nov 2001 19:17:30 -0700 Second Amendments Rights In Reality and In Court October 31, 2001 by: Phyllis Schlafly If the hijackers had used guns for their crimes on 9/11, we would surely now be caught up in a frenzy of demands that this "lesson" calls for tough gun-control legislation. But they didn't use any firearms, just easily purchased box-cutters. The real lesson of 9/11 is that, if any pilot or off-duty policeman had had a gun on board, he could have averted supreme tragedy by doing what all our powerful FBI, CIA, and Armed Services could not do. That's why individuals, not government, are the ultimate protectors of a free society. The American people understand this. The 9/11 events have led to a big increase in gun purchases and the taking of courses at shooting ranges. Against the stunning reality of 9/11, the federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just issued a landmark decision in United States v. Emerson, affirming the constitutional right of individuals to own a gun. The Founding Fathers understood this, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. The Emerson case tackled the meaning of the right "to keep and bear arms" in the Bill of Rights. At issue was whether the Second Amendment defines an individual right, protecting defendant Emerson and all law-abiding citizens, or a collective right available only to government groups such as the National Guard. This disagreement about the meaning of the Second Amendment has been a matter of intense debate for many years. Unfortunately, federal court decisions in several circuits over the last several decades have muddied up the issue. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." For many years, the anti-gun lobby and some lower court decisions have touted the notion that the Second Amendment is limited to firearms carried in actual military situations rather than by civilians in peaceful self-defense. The Emerson decision thoroughly rejects that theory. The Court ruled: "The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." The court concludes: "It appears clear that `the people,' as used in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, refers to individual Americans." This is consistent with the use of the term "the people" in all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. As the Tenth Amendment shows, the Founders clearly understood the difference between "the states" and "the people." The Emerson decision also cites the renowned Black's Law Dictionary definition for "carry arms or weapons" as "being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person." At stake in the gun control debate is whether we control government and defend freedom, or government controls us. Should our defense against hijacking terrorism be limited to government fighter planes shooting down hijacked planes, killing everyone on board, or extended to allowing airplane crews and qualified passengers (such as off-duty law enforcement officials) to take defensive measures without fear of litigation or prosecution? The Emerson decision disposed of arguments that only formal state militias have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. As the Supreme Court explained over 60 years ago in United States v. Miller, the framers of the Constitution used the term "militia" to mean "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." It still does mean that. Current federal law (10 U.S. Code 311) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age. . . . The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." The males on board the hijacked airplanes constituted a militia, and some courageously acted, forcing one hijacked plane down in rural Pennsylvania instead of allowing it to continue to the terrorists' target. A disarmed public cannot protect a free society against terrorists' assaults. In Cuba, Castro first required all guns to be surrendered before he could impose his brutal dictatorship. After England banned private gun ownership, violence using guns against persons rose sharply and politics turned sharply left. Strict gun control creates vulnerable targets for the enemies of a free society. The Fifth Circuit's upholding of the constitutional right of individuals to keep and bear arms is a welcome development in our continued defense of freedom. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Read this column online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2001/oct01/01-10-31.shtml ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eagle Forum - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Clark Aposhian to debate anti gunners at noon on channel 2 Date: 19 Nov 2001 11:19:41 -0700 Sorry for the late notice many will not get it until it is past due, but Rod Decker just barely called Clark and myself on this issue. Clark will appear opposite the anti-gunners during the 12 noon Channel 2 newscast today (Monday, Nov 19). The antis are, yet again, calling for Brady Checks on all sales at gun shows. Of course, this call only affects private sales since dealers must do a background check on every sale regardless of where it takes place. But they don't say that, they just talk about the "gun show loophole." Make no mistake, the "gun show loophole" is just good cover for requiring that EVERY private sale require a background check or even take place via a licensed dealer as in California. And we all know Cali's crime rate is sooo much lower than Utah's. NOT! We don't know how much air time this issue, or each side might get, so "debate" may be a little strong. It may end up being nothing more than two sound bites. In any event, if you have the chance, tune in and let us know how things turn out. Charles ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Anti-gun Utah State personnel policy to be rescinded...for now Date: 20 Nov 2001 11:49:22 -0700 From today's DesNews. Good news as far as it goes, but we and pro-gun legislators need to be vigilant to avoid some new policy, worded differently but with the same end effect, from ever being enacted. We also need to push this issue with the UofU, school districts, and other government entities that are still in violation of the law. I, for one, would hope that non-LEO government employees at such places as water treatement plants, sewer plants, and other infrastructure that could become targets for terrorism would be allowed, if not encouraged, to get trained and carry a weapon for defense of both themselves and the facilities at which they work. My thanks to Mark Shurtleff, Sarah Thompson, Clark Aposhian, and others--including legislators who worked on this issue in various ways over the last couple of years--who have worked to bring about this much needed change in our State. Charles http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,355007191,00.html? Concealed weapons are OK for state staff By Bob Bernick Jr. Deseret News political editor State employees with concealed-weapons permits will be allowed to carry their guns to work. Utah state personnel officials, following an opinion written by Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, will soon rescind an internal rule that prohibits state employees from packing their legally permitted guns while on the job. The process of rescinding the rule starts Dec. 1, state human-resources spokesman Con Whipple said. Whipple said the change comes after Gov. Mike Leavitt's office brought up the issue after getting Shurtleff's opinion, which was apparently sent to them several months ago. Shurtleff spokesman Paul Murphy, citing attorney/client privilege, said he can't release the opinion. "But Mark wrote it himself" without being requested to do so by any state agency — not the governor's office, not state personnel officials, Murphy said. Shurtleff "is, as you know, a strong supporter of gun rights" and decided to look into the controversy himself, Murphy added. Whipple said, "We received a request from the governor, made after a legal opinion — which is covered by attorney/client privilege — saying that the rule is probably in conflict" with the state statute. The rule to be rescinded reads: "Employees shall not carry firearms in any facility owned or operated by the state, or in any state vehicle, or at any time or any place while on state business." Law officers or those who must carry weapons as part of their jobs are exempt from the rule. Likewise, there are exceptions to the concealed-weapons law — all weapons are banned in airports, jails and courts of law. They can also be banned from churches and private residences, but the owners of the property must somehow tell visitors all weapons are banned. Some Utah churches have posted "no weapons" signs at their doors. But outside of those exceptions, a law-abiding citizen with a concealed-carry permit can carry weapons almost anywhere — even though a number of state and local entities and school districts still have policies against firearms on their properties. Gun-control advocates say Utah has one of the most liberal concealed-carry laws in the nation. Elwood Powell, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, a Second Amendment rights group, said it's about time the state recognized that its personnel rule violated state law and got rid of it. "We always thought it was in conflict, and a legislative attorney's opinion said that more than a year ago," Powell said. Maura Carabello of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah said she's disappointed by the change. "I and other Utahns have to interact with government in state offices, and we should be able to presume that those places are safe" from those carrying concealed weapons. Her group is running a citizen initiative petition seeking to ban all weapons from public schools and churches. There's no way to determine how many of the state's 16,000 employees hold concealed-weapons permits or would bring guns to work if they did. The list of permit-holders is secret, known only to law enforcement officials. Across the state, just over 42,000 adults have concealed-carry permits. Whipple said there have been only a handful of problems with state workers bringing their concealed weapons to work. In cases where they were caught, disciplinary action was taken, starting with putting a letter of reprimand in the offender's personnel record. Whipple said after the rule is officially rescinded, "we will look at the alternatives" in controlling weapons in state buildings, state cars and on state employees who are engaged in state business. Other state entities, such as the University of Utah, have independent policies that ban all weapons from their facilities, whether carried by staff, students or visitors. If a new anti-weapon rule for state employees is adopted by state personnel officials, it won't be until next July, after the review is finished, Whipple said. Powell, an attorney, said he had no advice to give state officials should they try again to ban legally permitted concealed weapons from employees on the job. "Except I'd say if someone (in a state building) is harmed by some loony(who attacks them), then the state should pick up all the social and medical costs for denying the constitutionally protected right of self-protection." Leavitt, over the past two years, has often found himself on the political wrong side of Second Amendment rights advocates, many of them in his own Republican Party. Leavitt originally wanted action to clearly ban all guns — including those carried by law-abiding concealed-weapon permit-holders — from public schools and churches. A series of Deseret News/KSL public opinion polls shows most Utahns agree with that stand. GOP legislative leaders two years ago refused Leavitt's attempt to call a special legislative session to deal with some gun violence issues following two high-profile shootings in downtown Salt Lake City. Gun-rights advocates formed the core of an anti-Leavitt movement within the Utah Republican Party that saw Leavitt — popular among Utahns at large — denied renomination outright in the 2000 state GOP convention. Leavitt was forced into a primary with an unknown challenger from the right wing of his party. Ultimately, Leavitt won re-election to a third, four-year term in 2000. Shurtleff, a Republican who says he supports Second Amendment rights, helped out earlier this year when it appeared the State Republican Convention would ban concealed-weapons holders from packing their sidearms during a speech by Vice President Dick Cheney. The Secret Service routinely bans guns at events attended by the president and vice president. Shurtleff arranged for gun lockers to be set up outside the Sandy convention center and about two dozens conventioneers checked in their guns during Cheney's appearance. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: WTC Hijackers Obeyed Our Laws Until Date: 21 Nov 2001 09:03:34 -0700 -------- Original Message -------- The U.S. Government's response to the 9/11 attacks has been much like a hand grenade, exploding in all directions at once in order to (hopefully) catch the perpetrators or make new laws that will prevent future terrorism. But even a cursory analysis of the hijackers' behavior reveals that the political class still fails to recognize the ONE ACT OF DEFENSE that could have PREVENTED the hijackings, and to implement the proper remedy. The hijackers apparently obeyed all of our laws - until the final moment when they took over the planes. They immigrated LEGALLY. They lived within the law, renting apartments and motels, and paying their bills. They even got Social Security Numbers and credit cards. And they passed successfully through the airport checkpoints. So the INS, DMV, banks and credit agencies, and airport screeners, are NOT to blame for the 9/11 disaster. The hijackers also PAID for their own tickets, so the AIRLINES are not to blame. By obeying our laws, the hijackers made themselves INVISIBLE. So where did the breakdown come? The pilots are the LAST LINE OF DEFENSE against a hijacking. They are at the controls and must be captured, overcome, or neutralized. Once everyone is on-board, the doors shut, and the craft underway, everyone is at the mercy of any person(s) on-board who is willing to initiate aggression against others. Fortunately, pilots and crews just want to do their jobs. And passengers just want to reach their destinations. So there is seldom any conflict. But this time, a small group of dedicated terrorists, trained in stealth and cunning, and "armed" only with knives, but filled with intense determination, had a clear field of operation because everybody else had been disarmed. Thus the one act of defense that could have prevented the hijackings is ARMED RESPONSE by the pilots, crew and/or passengers. They were NOT armed, because of FAA policy. Thus the FAA is the one single, solitary culprit that deserves the final blame for the hijackings and subsequent catastrophe. FAA officials who implemented the 'no-arms' policy, should all be FIRED, then charged with dereliction of duty, manslaughter, and violation of the crew's and passengers' 2nd Amendment rights. The FAA, an unconstitutional agency anyway, should be PRIVATIZED asap and taken away from the government. Pilots should be armed. Crew members should likewise have tools of self-defense, whether they be guns, scissors or letter openers. And passengers should be allowed defensive tools, as well. The current policy of disarming people to the point of confiscating knitting needles, fingernail clippers and umbrellas, is insanity squared and cannot possibly prevent a repetition of 9/11. Writing more laws won't catch future terrorists, either, because they will just obey those laws, too-until they are ready to act. Even if government were competent, it couldn't protect everyone everywhere all the time. Each of us needs to be able to protect ourselves. We have a moral right to self-preservation. Instead of conquering the government, let the terrorists try to conquer 200 million individuals. The 2nd Amendment needs to be recognized IN THE AIR as well as on the ground. Don Hull Costa Mesa, CA *** Mr. Hull submitted this article for the JPFO Unpopular Speech page at http://www.jpfo.org/unpopularspeech.htm. NEVER AGAIN UNARMED.... LET FREEDOM FIGHT! --- > PROJECT: SAFE SKIES MAILING LIST > PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org > List Moderator: hunter@mva.net > TO UN/SUBSCRIBE: send blank email with command as subject - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises, Inc & Shire.Net LLC" Subject: chalk one up for the dummies Date: 23 Nov 2001 18:43:52 -0500 http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=401645 Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC Web and Macintosh Consulting -- full service web hosting Chad Leigh chad@pengar.com chad@shire.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: SLTRIB editorial Date: 28 Nov 2001 10:58:10 -0700 From today's SLTrib. Forwarded without comment other than to suggest it would probably be a very good use of time to be in attendance at and offer well-thought out written comments during whatever public comment meetings are held regarding the gun ban. With any luck, the exact same reasoning that has applied to the governor's illegal gun ban can and will be applied to the illegal gun bans at other goverment agencies like the University of Utah, public school districts, etc. Charles http://www.sltrib.com/11282001/opinion/152767.htm Release Gun Opinion Wednesday, November 28, 2001 So why all the secrecy? Utah Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff wrote an unsolicited opinion to Gov. Mike Leavitt declaring that a rule banning state employees with concealed-carry permits from bringing their weapons into the workplace violates state law. The opinion, apparently, reiterates what legislative attorneys had already said three years ago. Yet, Shurtleff refuses to release his opinion, citing attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege only applies when litigation is pending. Shurtleff has not mentioned any official challenges to the rule, so why not let the public know what legal reasoning supports public employees packing heat? The issue is particularly important since the next step toward withdrawal of the rule is a public comment period. The public can't make informed comments without knowing the legal reasoning behind the rule change. The attorney general is legal counsel for the governor. He has a general duty to protect his client's confidentiality. But he is also an elected official whose records are public information under the Government Records and Management Act. Shurtleff issued an unsolicited opinion. That opinion is reviewable by the public under GRAMA unless it is related to litigation. The opinion is, similarly, not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Moreover, whatever harm the attorney general fears from releasing his opinion must be minimal given the general consensus between the attorney general and the legislative counsel regarding the ban on weapons. Since the Legislature also has asked the attorney general for an official opinion, which will be public information, Shurtleff's original opinion for the governor hardly merits the claimed confidentiality. The issue is an important one for the public. Whatever side a person is on in the gun debate, the public has a right to know if its employees are permitted to carry concealed weapons to work. There is no legitimate excuse for hiding the legal reasoning of the state's counsel from those who will be impacted: public employees and the public at large. The news is out, the rule banning weapons is on the path to deletion. If the public is expected to comment on the change in a meaningful manner, Shurtleff must explain the reasons for the change. Release the original opinion to the public. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -