From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Gun Control Misfires in Europe Date: 01 May 2002 08:41:40 -0600 [The Wall Street Journal] April 30, 2002 http://online.wsj.com/img/b.gif COMMENTARY Gun Control Misfires in Europe By JOHN R. LOTT JR. Sixteen people were killed during Friday's school shooting in Germany. This follows the killing of 14 regional legislators in Zug, a Swiss canton, last September, and the massacre of eight city council members in a Paris suburb last month. The three worst public shootings in the Western world during the past year all occurred in Europe, whose gun laws are exactly what gun-control advocates want the U.S. to adopt. Indeed, all three occurred in gun-free "safe zones." Germans who wish to get hold of a hunting rifle must undergo checks that can last a year, while those wanting a gun for sport must be a member of a club and obtain a license from the police. The French must apply for gun permits, which are granted only after an exhaustive background and medical record check and demonstrated need, with permits only valid for three years. Even Switzerland's once famously liberal laws have become tighter. Swiss federal law now limits gun permits to only those who can demonstrate in advance a need for a weapon to protect themselves or others against a precisely specified danger. The problem with such laws is that they take away guns from law- abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them, leaving potential victims defenseless. The U.S. has shown that making guns more available is actually a better formula for law and order. The U.S. has seen a major change from 1985 when just eight states had the most liberal right-to-carry laws, which automatically grant permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees, and, when required, complete a training class. Today the total is 33 states. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78% in states that passed such laws. In Europe, by contrast, violent crime is rising. Many factors are responsible, but it's clear that strict gun control laws aren't helping. In 1996, Britain banned handguns. The ban was so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the six years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Britain now leads the U.S. by a wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults. Although murder and rape rates are still lower than in the U.S., the difference is shrinking quickly. Dave Rogers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said that, despite the ban, "the underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all." Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%. And both Britain and Australia have been thought to be ideal places for gun control because they are surrounded by water, making gun smuggling relatively difficult. By contrast gun- smuggling is much easier on the Continent or in the U.S. Another inconvenient fact is frequently ignored by gun control advocates: Many countries with high homicide rates have gun bans. It is hard to think of a much more draconian police state than the former Soviet Union, with a ban on guns that dated back to the communist revolution. Yet newly released data show that from 1976 to 1985 the USSR's homicide rate was between 21% and 41% higher than that of the U.S. Many French politicians complained during their presidential election that the shooting in Paris meant "It's getting like in America, and we don't want to see that here." Americans may draw a different lesson from the evidence, and hope that they don't become more like the Europeans. Mr. Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2000). URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1020116142169084480.djm,00.html Updated April 30, 2002 Copyright 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Printing, distribution, and use of this material is governed by your Subscription agreement and Copyright laws. For information about subscribing go to http://www.wsj.com -- John T. Wenders Professor of Economics University of Idaho 2266 Westview Drive Moscow, ID 83843 Voice: 208/882-1831 Fax: 208/882-3696 Cell: 509/336-5811 Alpine, AZ: 928/339-4342 http://www.uidaho.edu/~jwenders/ http://www.zolatimes.com/V5.27/volunteerism.html http://www.zolatimes.com/V5.8/modlib_ideal.html Idaho Libertarian Activist Conference addresses and sites: Post message: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: idaho_libs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: idaho_libs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: moderator@liberty-northwest.org Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/ Libertarian Party of Idaho Web link: http://www.lp-idaho.org/ Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/idaho_libs - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Chalk one up for the good guys Date: 01 May 2002 18:07:47 -0600 From today's desnews. Looks like getting the court gun-locker bill passed was a bigger accomplishment than some of us initially thought. If I may opine for a moment, am I the only one getting really tired of EVERYONE in this state claiming to "respect the second amendment as much as the next person," or "working harder to protect gun rights than anyone," and then felling compelled to ALWAYS follow that statement with a "BUT"? How about a few more people willing to say, "I support the right to keep and bear arms. PERIOD."? FWIW, Charles Hardy, Policy Director for GOUtah! and Dr. Sarah Thompson, Executive Director of UTGOA worked closely with Rep. Swallow on his bill and pushed for and obtained the change from only providing storage for firearms carried pursuant to a CCW permit to providing storage for ALL legally carried firearms. At this time, that only includes concealed firearms carried with a CCW permit and legally "unloaded" firarms carried openly as well as firearms carried unloaded and fully cased. However, when we achieve true right-to-carry in Utah, this is one section of law that will not discrminate between those who carry with a permit, and those who carry by right. We originally wanted to change from "firearms" to all "weapons" which would include pocket knives, knitting needles, and anything else not allowed into secure areas these days. However, that would have resulted in such a large fiscal note the bill would have died. So we took what we could get this year, gaining a fair bit, but giving up nothing. Thanks to all those who made calls and sent faxes to support this bill. Thanks also to Rep. John Swallow for running this bill and getting it passed. Charles http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,385006999,00.html? Gun-locker law targeted Judge says courthouse rule poses a safety hazard By Linda Thomson Deseret News staff writer A 3rd District judge is calling it "a bad idea" for the state to require district courthouses to provide free gun lockers for anyone toting a firearm to court. Judge Ronald Nehring, the district's presiding judge, said the requirement approved by the Legislature this year could present a safety hazard. "I respect the Second Amendment as much as the next person," Nehring said. "But the fact of the matter is that it creates what I think — and what law enforcement thinks — is a risky situation. It jeopardizes the safety of the public and employees of the court, and their safety is important." The law requires that all district courthouses in Utah offer citizens some place to safely stash their guns, whether the weapons are concealed or carried openly. The requirement does not apply to federal courts. The bill allocates $183,000 for the gun lockers, which technically are supposed to be ready by May 6. However, funding won't be available until July 1 so there likely will be a transition period. "Its intent was that in order to meaningfully exercise their Second Amendment rights, court patrons need to carry their weapons to court," said Richard Schwermer, assistant state court administrator for the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts. But Nehring said that although the Constitution allows people to keep and bear arms, there are some places where the presence of guns poses a greater hazard than other places. "Consider how many angry people leave this building. If what you do before leaving this building angry is get your weapon and you're still in the building, it certainly isn't going to promote general safety and tranquility," Nehring said. "I'm a 'small d' democrat, and if the public wants this and their representatives want to enact this and think it's a good idea, God bless them," Nehring said. "I happen to think, along with my law enforcement colleagues, that it's a bad idea." The bill was sponsored by Rep. John Swallow, R-Sandy. He said the law solves a problem the state has had for several years. Legally permitted concealed weapons carriers holders leave their guns in vehicles when visiting secure facilities like airports or courthouses. "It's easy to break a window or get into the trunk of a car," said Swallow, who is running for the GOP nomination to the 2nd Congressional District. The new law does not apply to many law enforcement officials and prosecutors who can carry weapons into a secure area and keep them while in court. Schwermer said court executives and sheriffs in each county are preparing a plan for the best way to handle things at the courthouse in their area. Those plans probably will be finished in a few weeks, and then bids will be prepared for the type of gun locker suitable for each building. Some, for example, don't have a big enough place for gun lockers without infringing on the "secure area," so some type of structure might have to be installed outside the building, Schwermer said. "We have to find out what each courthouse needs and how to apply the legislation to each courthouse," Schwermer said. "Go to Parowan. It doesn't have perimeter security. In Parowan, the Iron County auditor is there, the treasurer is there. Those are public facilities, and people can bring weapons into the public portions of the building. "The only time they can't bring them into court is when court is in session," Schwermer said. "Where do you stop them? In the front of the building? On the second floor where the court is? That goes back to our definition of a 'secure area.' " The bill originally applied only to concealed weapon permit holders but was revised to cover anyone who is lawfully carrying a firearm. Plans are to create gun lockers that can hold handguns, but they won't be big enough for rifles or shotguns. "The vast majority of traffic we anticipate is handguns. If there's a shotgun, the sheriff will have to figure out a way (to store it)," Schwermer said. "I don't remember when anybody walked up with a rifle. I don't think that's going to be the norm." ________________________________________________________________ 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-self-defense editorial in the DesNews Date: 06 May 2002 16:41:55 -0600 Here is an editorial in Today's DesNews that is against the new gun safes at court buildings. In this case, I might point out the following items for consideration of any who may choose to write a letter to the editor of the DesNews. 1-If this poses such problems, why didn't the judges, courts, or the DesNews comment on the bill while it was being debated in the last session? It received a full hearing in committee and was debated in both houses before being passed. Perhaps the DesNews should devote more resources to covering what our legislature is doing. It seems the laws passed by that body have a greater effect on our lives than the scores and intimitate details of professional, college, and HS sporting events that get plenty of coverage in the paper. It's not like this bill was a last minute, middle-of-the night measure. Where was the DesNews when the issue was being debated? 2-While the DesNews focuses on defendants in various cases, what about the rights of jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others who may be required to attend to business at the courts to defend themselves? Besides which, if a defendant is too dangerous to have access to a weapon, he shouldn't be released to the streets OR at the very least, if he has put his weapon into a court controlled lock box, the court could limit his ability to retrieve the weapon. If the gun was left in the trunk of a car, NOTHING prevents a released defendant from retrieving his gun and returning to the court house. 3-The DesNews asks how many guns have been stolen from cars parked in the parking lot so as to diminish concerns about that happening. Having done this, may we now count on the DesNews to NOT editorialize in favor of more gun control or penalties for gun owners when a gun IS stolen from a parked car and used in a crime? Also, what about laws making it illegal to have a loaded gun in a car unless you have a CCW permit? There is some question about whether leaving a loaded gun unattended in a car is even legal (not to mention safe or wise). Would the DesNews prefer to have people loading and unloading their self defene weapons in a parking lot, or in a controlled environement under the supervision of court personnel? 4-Even if a trunk, glove box, or other area of a car IS a secure, prudent, and legal place to leave a loaded gun (and I don't think it is), what does this do for those who may choose (or have) to use mass transit to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about those who walk, or ride a bike? Is the DesNews now reversing its previous editorial stance encouraging the use of mass and alternate transit and suggesting that only those who drive a private automobile are entitled to self defense? After all, if the DesNews had their way, only those who drive a private car would have anyplace at all to leave a personal CCW weapon while attending to court business. The DesNews accepts email submission of letters to the editors at: (letters@desnews.com). Remember, you must include your full name, home address and a phone number to have your letter considered for publication. Only your name and city/State will be printed Charles http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,395007331,00.html? Gun lockers in courthouses? Deseret News editorial While we're on the subject of guns, it should be noted that courtrooms are places where emotions run high. In some cases, a prison term may hang in the balance. In others, fortunes may be lost. They are not places to which people should be encouraged to bring firearms. Earlier this year, Utah lawmakers passed a bill requiring state courts to provide gun lockers, free of charge, outside all courtrooms. The intent, court officials said, was to allow people to exercise their Second Amendment rights. People who legally carry weapons, whether concealed or not, have had to leave them in the trunk or glove compartment when they pull up to a courthouse. It's too easy to break into a car. Presiding 3rd District Judge Ronald Nehring had the courage last week to speak out against this nonsense, calling it something that "jeopardizes the safety of the public and employees of the court." He's right. We doubt anyone checked to see how often guns are stolen from cars while people are inside state court buildings. We are, however, fairly certain that the existence of gun lockers will encourage people to bring handguns to court with them. That means some people who are angered by the outcome of a case will be stopping to retrieve their weapons on the way out. It also poses more opportunities for people with ill intent to wrestle a firearm away from a law-abiding gun owner. Do not forget how, on April 2, 1985, Ronnie Lee Gardner tried to escape from his murder trial at the Metropolitan Hall of Justice when he used a gun his girlfriend had slipped him to kill an attorney and wound a bailiff. Many prisoners are desperate. By inviting more guns near courtrooms, the state is increasing the chances that similar tragedies might occur. The Second Amendment does indeed guarantee the right to bear arms. But like all constitutional rights, this can be reasonably constrained using common sense. The courts do not provide soap boxes for people to exercise their rights to free speech. They do not provide chapels so that people may preserve their right to worship freely. It is entirely reasonable to declare courthouses off-limits to firearms and to leave it at that. Unfortunately, the law is in place and the lockers must be built. We don't blame Nehring and his colleagues for feeling uneasy about it. We only hope the lockers become oddities that are seldom used. ________________________________________________________________ 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: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Date: 06 May 2002 17:30:39 -0600 On Mon, 6 May 2002 16:41:55 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >1-If this poses such problems, why didn't the judges, courts, or the >DesNews comment on the bill while it was being debated in the last >session? Cuz they're even more out of touch than the DesNews? Aren't these the same people who claim "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? >3-The DesNews asks how many guns have been stolen from cars parked in the >parking lot so as to diminish concerns about that happening. Having done >this, may we now count on the DesNews to NOT editorialize in favor of >more gun control or penalties for gun owners when a gun IS stolen from a >parked car and used in a crime? Also, what about laws making it illegal >to have a loaded gun in a car unless you have a CCW permit? There is >some question about whether leaving a loaded gun unattended in a car is >even legal (not to mention safe or wise). Unless the car has a solid safe (making the car unnecessarily heavy), leaving a gun in an unattended cars strikes me as rather imprudent, perhaps even recklessly negligent. >to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about >those who walk, or ride a bike? Thank you for considering bikers and peds. I hope the DesNews editorial staff can be persuaded to do likewise. >if the DesNews had their way, only those who drive a private >car would have anyplace at all to leave a personal CCW >weapon while attending to court business. There goes fuel economy if we must install safes in our cars. (I guarantee you I'm not planning on installing one on my bicycle.) >The DesNews accepts email submission of letters to the editors at: >(letters@desnews.com). Remember, you must include your full name, >home address and a phone number to have your letter considered for >publication. Only your name and city/State will be printed Too bad that with the NAC monopoly (despite it's being in litigation), talking to the advertisers does little good. Where else can they advertise; the City Weekly (rabidly hoplophobic)? Fwiw, I don't find most letters to the editor very persuasive. Seems to mostly be a venting forum for nut cases. Perhaps someone on these fora could construct a persuasive guest editorial? They run those on Sunday, and occasionally on other days. While nut cases submit those as well, they are more frequently persuasive. Scott - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Date: 06 May 2002 17:56:10 -0600 On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:30:39 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > Unless the car has a solid safe (making the car unnecessarily > heavy), leaving a gun in an unattended cars strikes me as > rather imprudent, perhaps even recklessly negligent. Actually, I've seen at least one product on the market that looks to make a fairly secure storage environment for handguns or other small valuables that may need to be left in a car. It is a small lock box made out of heavy guage steel. It is fitted with either a key lock (generally an "Ace" round key like those used on vending machines) or else a 4 digit "simplex" type combo lock meant to be easy to open by touch without the need to see the lock. It is intended to be bolted to the floor/frame of the car under a seat or within the trunk. At that point, it cannot be removed from the car except via very destructive means, unless one has the key or combination as the bolts are accessed from inside the box. Total weight is only a few pounds. Far to bulkly and heavy for a bicycle, but probably completely feasable (though maybe overkill) on larger motercycles with exisiting storage boxes on them. Also, trunks on older cars (without the drop down seats or in car trunk releases) are, or could be made, fairly secure. Of course, that is assumming the increase in security from the obscurity of no one knowing for sure whether anything valuable is in the trunk. Advertise that guns are present by being forced to disarm in a public parking lot and someone is likely going to be willing to expend a fair bit more energy to get into the trunk than if he was just fishing for possible scores. And, I suspect that the various locking devices used in police cars to hold the riot shot guns and such probably offer at least a modest level of security. Finally, while I don't advise leaving a gun in a car if it can be avoided I would never suggest it is recklessly negligent. Guns can be used to kill or injure. But so to can a car and given that cars kill more people than guns, if leaving a gun inside a locked car is negligent, then leaving the car unattended in the first place is even more so. It COULD be stolen and used in some crime like robbery or kidnapping. The driver could be drunk or get into a highspeed chase with police and crash it, killing people. These days we should also consider that a stolen car could be used to deliver a car bomb. And stealing the car is not much more difficult than stealing the contents, especially if those contents are in a secure trunk, glove box, or storage safe. Let's not demonize guns or suggest they need to be treated differently than any other potentially dangerous item. > > >to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about > >those who walk, or ride a bike? > > Thank you for considering bikers and peds. I hope the DesNews > editorial staff can be persuaded to do likewise. I encourage you to drop them a letter pointing out the error of their ways, from you perspective as a frequent biker. You could, of course, leave details about your CCW status in the "theoretical" or implied catagory. > Perhaps someone on these fora could construct > a persuasive guest editorial? You seem to write well and you have a unique perspective as a frequent biker. I encorage you to pen something. 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: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Date: 06 May 2002 17:56:10 -0600 On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:30:39 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > Unless the car has a solid safe (making the car unnecessarily > heavy), leaving a gun in an unattended cars strikes me as > rather imprudent, perhaps even recklessly negligent. Actually, I've seen at least one product on the market that looks to make a fairly secure storage environment for handguns or other small valuables that may need to be left in a car. It is a small lock box made out of heavy guage steel. It is fitted with either a key lock (generally an "Ace" round key like those used on vending machines) or else a 4 digit "simplex" type combo lock meant to be easy to open by touch without the need to see the lock. It is intended to be bolted to the floor/frame of the car under a seat or within the trunk. At that point, it cannot be removed from the car except via very destructive means, unless one has the key or combination as the bolts are accessed from inside the box. Total weight is only a few pounds. Far to bulkly and heavy for a bicycle, but probably completely feasable (though maybe overkill) on larger motercycles with exisiting storage boxes on them. Also, trunks on older cars (without the drop down seats or in car trunk releases) are, or could be made, fairly secure. Of course, that is assumming the increase in security from the obscurity of no one knowing for sure whether anything valuable is in the trunk. Advertise that guns are present by being forced to disarm in a public parking lot and someone is likely going to be willing to expend a fair bit more energy to get into the trunk than if he was just fishing for possible scores. And, I suspect that the various locking devices used in police cars to hold the riot shot guns and such probably offer at least a modest level of security. Finally, while I don't advise leaving a gun in a car if it can be avoided I would never suggest it is recklessly negligent. Guns can be used to kill or injure. But so to can a car and given that cars kill more people than guns, if leaving a gun inside a locked car is negligent, then leaving the car unattended in the first place is even more so. It COULD be stolen and used in some crime like robbery or kidnapping. The driver could be drunk or get into a highspeed chase with police and crash it, killing people. These days we should also consider that a stolen car could be used to deliver a car bomb. And stealing the car is not much more difficult than stealing the contents, especially if those contents are in a secure trunk, glove box, or storage safe. Let's not demonize guns or suggest they need to be treated differently than any other potentially dangerous item. > > >to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about > >those who walk, or ride a bike? > > Thank you for considering bikers and peds. I hope the DesNews > editorial staff can be persuaded to do likewise. I encourage you to drop them a letter pointing out the error of their ways, from you perspective as a frequent biker. You could, of course, leave details about your CCW status in the "theoretical" or implied catagory. > Perhaps someone on these fora could construct > a persuasive guest editorial? You seem to write well and you have a unique perspective as a frequent biker. I encorage you to pen something. 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: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Date: 07 May 2002 08:09:08 -0600 On Mon, 6 May 2002 17:56:10 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >I've seen at least one product on the market that looks to make >a fairly secure storage environment for handguns or other small valuables >that may need to be left in a car. It is a small lock box made out of >heavy guage steel. It is fitted with either a key lock (generally an >"Ace" round key like those used on vending machines) or else a 4 digit >"simplex" type combo lock meant to be easy to open by touch without the >need to see the lock. It is intended to be bolted to the floor/frame of >the car under a seat or within the trunk. At that point, it cannot be >removed from the car except via very destructive means, unless one has >the key or combination as the bolts are accessed from inside the box. >Total weight is only a few pounds. Fascinating. Effective, yet not much heavier than sheet metal? Could you provide more, such as brand name, suppliers, gun magazine reviews or a URL? >I suspect that the various locking devices used in police cars to >hold the riot shot guns and such probably offer at least a modest level >of security. Modest, yes. I've been aware of at least one theft from such a device. >Finally, while I don't advise leaving a gun in a car if it can be avoided >I would never suggest it is recklessly negligent. Guns can be used to >kill or injure. But so to can a car and given that cars kill more people >than guns, if leaving a gun inside a locked car is negligent, then >leaving the car unattended in the first place is even more so. Considering the relative sizes, I'd compare leaving a gun in an unattended car more comparable to leaving the keys in it. >I encourage you to drop them a letter pointing out the error of their >ways, from you perspective as a frequent biker. Heh. Speaking from the nontheoretical, I nearly got arrested at the Temple of Set (Scott Matheson courthouse) once when I had a roofing gutter nail in my backpack. They let me leave it with security and retrieve it later. >You seem to write well and you have a unique perspective as a frequent >biker. I encorage you to pen something. Sarah Thompson has already done so. I trust you saw her response? Scott Bergeson South Salt Lake (Is this really necessary, Jim? Don't the member profiles provide this information?) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Date: 07 May 2002 11:55:04 -0600 On Tue, 07 May 2002 08:09:08 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > > Fascinating. Effective, yet not much heavier than sheet metal? Sorry, I suspect some confusion created by my lack of clarity. The car gun safes I've seen are probably 3/16 inch plate steel. However, they are only big enough to hold one or two handguns. So total weight is not excessive for use in a car. They are simply somewhat modified versions of the small safes meant to be mounted to a bed frame or inside a closet and opened quickly by touch. Obviously, a determined thief, with enough time, could breach them, or even get them removed from a car (cutting the bolts that mount it to the frame or floorboard from the underside of the car) and carry it away for final opening later. I wouldn't leave $50k worth of diamonds in one, advertise they were there, and then leave the car parked in airport long term parking. But for storing a self defense gun (or a modest amount of other valuables) where the presence of such items is not generally known and for a couple hours in a court house parking lot it probably provides plenty of security. > Could you provide more, such as brand name, suppliers, gun > magazine reviews or a URL? Not off the top of my head. Stop in at Super Dell's gun store on the west side. I know they have the models made to be mounted in a closet or under a bed. I suspect they could quickly point you to one meant for installalation in a car. > Considering the relative sizes, I'd compare leaving a gun in > an unattended car more comparable to leaving the keys in it. Then I hope you never get elected to the legislature. We've got more than enough anti-gunners trying to demonize guns and provide special penalties to those who are unfortunate enough to have a firearms stolen. We don't need a gun owner making such nonsense sound legit. I don't think handguns should be left on a dashboard or deliberately left lying around a park or school. Of course, I also don't think leaving a hunting rifle in a rear window gun rack of a locked truck should net the owner a jail sentence if some punk breaks into the truck, steals the gun, and later uses it in some crime. You can bet that no one has ever been charged with a crime because their pocket or hunting knife fell out of a pocket or scabbard and was later found by some school kid. But if you happen to have a self-defense gun come lose you are at risk for some serious charges. Now, I don't condone sloppiness or recklessness. But I do support an equal and equitable standard. How many parents lock up their car keys when they get home? How many would expect to face criminal charges if their 8 year old son managed to get the keys, start the car, and head down the street causes various property damage to someone else's home? And yet a growing number of these people think that anyone who owns guns but doesn't use a gun safe and/or trigger locks 100% of the time ought to be sent to prison if anyone ever gets ahold of one of the guns. As a child I once made the mistake of playing with a spare tire from the truck in my driveway. The tire got away from me, rolled the down the hill, and ended up destroying a neighbor's front door. It could have killed someone. Fortunately, no one was hurt. And my parents paid to repair the damages. But with no ill intent on my part or their part, criminal charges would have been ridiculous. There are LOTS of dangerous items in the world and we can't expect that all of them will be locked up all the time and that unfortunate things will never happen. > > Sarah Thompson has already done so. I trust you saw her response? Yes. And I still encourage you to write a letter to the editor. In the amount of time you spend on one of these posts you could easily have a letter written. 1 letter to the editor is kook, 100 letters is something else and less easy to ignore or discount. Charles Hardy SLCo Utah ________________________________________________________________ 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: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Date: 07 May 2002 12:55:09 -0600 On Tue, 7 May 2002 11:55:04 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >>Considering the relative sizes, I'd compare leaving a gun in >>an unattended car more comparable to leaving the keys in it. >Then I hope you never get elected to the legislature. We've got more >than enough anti-gunners trying to demonize guns and provide special >penalties to those who are unfortunate enough to have a firearms stolen. Special penalties? Unlikely, even in the near-impossible situation I were elected to the legislature. More like "attractive nuisance". (Look it up.) You don't want to arm your enemies or the incompetent. >You can bet that no one has ever been >charged with a crime because their pocket or hunting knife fell out of a >pocket or scabbard and was later found by some school kid. But if you >happen to have a self-defense gun come lose you are at risk for some >serious charges. So don't engrave your knife with your name or similar identifying info, even though that might facilitate its return if lost? >Now, I don't condone sloppiness or recklessness. But I do support an >equal and equitable standard. How many parents lock up their car keys >when they get home? How many would expect to face criminal charges if >their 8 year old son managed to get the keys, start the car, and head >down the street causes various property damage to someone else's home? I won't object if you leave your keys in a reasonably secure, out-of-sight safe in your car. Cavers do something similar to avoid losing them somewhere in many miles of dark passages. However, I would expect the parents to pay the damages. Scott Bergeson South Salt Lake - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Date: 07 May 2002 13:39:09 -0600 On Tue, 07 May 2002 12:55:09 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > Special penalties? Unlikely, even in the near-impossible > situation I were elected to the legislature. More like > "attractive nuisance". (Look it up.) You don't want to > arm your enemies or the incompetent. True. But no less true, IMHO, if the "weapon" in question happens to be a knife, gasoline and glass bottles, or a car or airplane, rather than a firearm. I simply want firearms treated like any other object that is occassionally used for ill or criminal intent or simply involved in unfortunate accidents. > So don't engrave your knife with your name or similar > identifying info, even though that might facilitate its > return if lost? I think you either miss or deliberately obfusicate the point. The point is, there is no good reason to treat firearms differently than knives or other potential weapons. There are differences between reckless endangerment, negligence, and simple accidents. Not every mistake is criminal. > I won't object if you leave your keys in a reasonably secure, > out-of-sight safe in your car. So do you have a different standard for guns, or will you refrain from objecting if someone leaves his firearm in a reasonably secure, out-of-sight safe in the car? And what about someone who doesn't use a safe, but simply keeps the weapons out of sight in a locked trunk, behind the seat of a locked truck, or in the glove box or under the seat of a locked car? In short, how much effort must one expend to secure property against theft in order to be held blameless if that property is, in fact, stolen and used to injure someone? Car windows can be smashed and car ignitions can be fairly easily and quickly bypassed. So is locking a car and taking the keys sufficient to avoid criminal and civil liability if the car is stolen and used to injure? Or must a seperate steering wheel/brake pedel lock or car alarm with ignition cut off be installed? What efforts must be taken to secure the tire iron or gasoline against theft and possible subsequent criminal misuse or accident in order to be held blameless in the event one or the other is actually stolen? Finally, would you require a higher level of diligence with, and/or impose greater punishment for incidents involving, a firearm than with gasoline, a tire iron, or even the car itself, and if so, on what basis? > Cavers do something similar to > avoid losing them somewhere in many miles of dark passages. > However, I would expect the parents to pay the damages. Civil liability for the damages inflicted by minor children makes sense. Criminal sanctions every time a child gets ahold of something he maybe should not have, seems out of line to me. Charles Hardy SLCo Utah ________________________________________________________________ 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: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Date: 07 May 2002 15:37:55 -0600 Tue, 7 May 2002 13:39:09 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >>You don't want to arm your enemies or the incompetent. >True. But no less true, IMHO, if the "weapon" in question happens to be >a knife, gasoline and glass bottles, or a car or airplane, rather than a >firearm. I simply want firearms treated like any other object that is >occassionally used for ill or criminal intent or simply involved in >unfortunate accidents. Now you're starting to catch on. Be careful what you wish for, as you just might get it. Several jurisdictions have also subjected knives to severe restrictions. Perhaps gasoline and glass bottles may follow. The Australian Revolutionary Movement sent an article in one of its newsletters telling how to fight with a broken beer bottle. >>So don't engrave your knife with your name or similar >>identifying info, even though that might facilitate its >>return if lost? >I think you either miss or deliberately obfusicate the point. Do you really want to be prosecuted if you lose your knife? Firearms are already traceable, as they are required to have serial numbers, which were recorded on the federal sales forms. >will you refrain from objecting if someone leaves his firearm in a reasonably secure, out-of-sight safe in the car? I might still object if left in an obscure place for a long time, such as at a trailhead, or in a known high break-in area. >And what about someone who doesn't use a safe, but simply keeps >the weapons out of sight in a locked trunk, behind the seat of >a locked truck, or in the glove box or under the seat of a >locked car? This reduces defenses in a civil negligence case. There are ways to open truck doors without a key, and most glove boxes afford little protection other than visual. >Car windows can be smashed and car ignitions >can be fairly easily and quickly bypassed. So is locking a car and >taking the keys sufficient to avoid criminal and civil liability if the >car is stolen and used to injure? Or must a seperate steering >wheel/brake pedel lock or car alarm with ignition cut off be installed? Perhaps so in some places. One could expect a car to get broken into eventually in some parts of Wilmington, Delaware. Care to buy an ignition cut off? >What efforts must be taken to secure the tire iron or gasoline against >theft and possible subsequent criminal misuse or accident in order to be >held blameless in the event one or the other is actually stolen? In a high security area such as a prison, quite a lot. >Finally, would you require a higher level of diligence with, and/or >impose greater punishment for incidents involving, a firearm than with >gasoline, a tire iron, or even the car itself, and if so, on what basis? Yes. The firearm is more easily used, and requires less specialized training to misuse. As I wrote previously, it is roughly comparable to the car *keys*. I suppose leaving it unloaded would be comparable to leaving the keys in a car, but removing the fuel, battery, or spark plugs. Scott Bergeson South Salt Lake --- Smith & Wesson (pre-sellout): the original point-and-click interface - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Date: 07 May 2002 16:17:40 -0600 My final post on this thread. On Tue, 07 May 2002 15:37:55 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > Do you really want to be prosecuted if you lose your knife? Quite the contrary. My point was that I don't want to be prosecuted for losing my knife AND neither do I want to be prosecuted for losing my firearm. > Firearms are already traceable, as they are required to have > serial numbers, which were recorded on the federal sales forms. That they are traceable does NOT automatically mean that we should further punish someone who has his property stolen. Someone who accidently loses his property should also not be subject to prosecution unless it can be shown he was grossly negligent. Deliberately leaving a weapon (of any kind) in a playground seems negligent to me. Having a securing strap come undone and a knife or gun falling out on the playground, un-noticed by the carrier, is not automatically negligent in my book. The deputy who is the father of the 4 year old boy who shot at his neighbors is now charged with both reckless endangerment AND child abuse. The abuse charge stems from the fact that the boy was injured by the recoil of the gun!! Now, I'm not happy about any child misusing a gun. The weapon probably should not have had a shell chambered and the child most certainly needed to have received greater instruction in gun safety and morals over his short lifetime. But unless there was some history, I don't like the idea that a one time, unexpected act on the part of 4 year old subjects his father to being charged as a criminal. And I'd say the cut hand from the recoil is a far cry from child abuse. Closer to just deserts. The gun was put up on a high shelf and it's not like the guy handed it to his kid or left it on the kitchen table or in the toy box. He wasn't even away from home for any extended period. He was in his backyard working at the time. My question is, if the kid had stolen one of his mother's kitchen knives and threatened his neighbors, would the mom have been charged with a crime for not keeping her cutlerly locked up? Of course not unless the kid had some history of violence involving knives. So why should the father get charged for the same thing involving a gun. I'm guessing the gun was more difficult to get to and more difficult for a 4 year old to use, than one of the kitchen knives would have been. [Answering whether car owners have a duty to do more than just lock the car and take the keys.] > Perhaps so in some places. I disagree. I do not place such burdens on decent law abiding persons. The criminal who defeats the locks, breaks the glass, etc, etc, etc, is responsible. PERIOD. I do not believe in double victimizing the owner who has already had his property stolen. [Answering what measures should be required to secure a tire iron or gasoline in a car.] > In a high security area such as a prison, quite a lot. Not my question at all, and you know it. If some thug steals my tire iron from a business parking lot while I've spent 10 hours away from my car, I should have NO liability for what he does with it. > Yes. The firearm is more easily used, and requires less > specialized training to misuse. I disagree. A child can hurt himself much easier with a knife than with a gun, especially if the gun does not have a round in the chamber. And if specialized training is the criteria, I'm guessing we have FAR more people in this country who have received formal training in the use of automobiles (drivers ed) than in the use of firearms. I've made my points. The last word is yours. Charles Hardy SLCo ________________________________________________________________ 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: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Date: 07 May 2002 17:14:29 -0600 On Tue, 7 May 2002 16:17:40 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >The deputy who is the father of the 4 year old boy who shot at his >neighbors is now charged with both reckless endangerment AND child abuse. >The abuse charge stems from the fact that the boy was injured by the >recoil of the gun!! That seems excessive. While perhaps not politically feasible, I should think censuring and prosecuting the prosecutor responsible for malicious prosecution would be in order. >My question is, if the kid had stolen one of his mother's kitchen knives >and threatened his neighbors, would the mom have been charged with a >crime for not keeping her cutlerly locked up? It may come to that, but if warranted, inadequate supervision, i.e. "neglect", would be more appropriate. >[Answering whether car owners have a duty to do more than just lock the >car and take the keys.] >>Perhaps so in some places. >I disagree. I do not place such burdens on decent law abiding persons. >The criminal who defeats the locks, breaks the glass, etc, etc, etc, is >responsible. PERIOD. I do not believe in double victimizing the owner >who has already had his property stolen. I'd hesitate to issue you comprehensive automotive insurance. IOW, with that attitude, expect higher than usual rates. >If some thug steals my tire iron from a business parking lot >while I've spent 10 hours away from my car, I should have NO >liability for what he does with it. Depends on your contract with the lot owner, but I would expect him to suffer most of the liability, at least to you for loss of the iron and damage to your car during its removal. >>Yes. The firearm is more easily used, and requires less >>specialized training to misuse. >I disagree. A child can hurt himself much easier with a knife than >with a gun, especially if the gun does not have a round in the chamber. Itself, yes. ("Child" is neuter.) However, the question involved harm to others, either negligently such as by a naive child, or intentionally when a thug steals it. >And if specialized training is the criteria, I'm guessing we have >FAR more people in this country who have received formal training >in the use of automobiles (drivers ed) than in the use of firearms. At least in Utah, drivers' ed does not typically teach how to force entry into or hotwire a car. To take the analogy to guns, this would compare to defeating a lock or safe. Scott Bergeson SSL - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: World War II -- won the battle, lost the war Date: 09 May 2002 12:01:36 -0600 Freedom News provides: World War II -- won the battle, lost the war ---------- JPFO by Aaron Zelman "You sacrificed your youth, you saw your buddies die before your eyes, you gave up life and family and love as you fought in Europe or the Pacific -- all to save the world from fascism [but] America is becoming a lot like the countries you fought against..." (05/08/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/42968930.html From 'anti-gunner' to 'firearms instructor' in 4 months ---------- KeepAndBearArms.Com by Susan Erline White "In December 2001, I was a member of the 'Brady Bunch' and a woman afraid of having my father's guns in my home. By April 19, 2002, I had applied for a concealed carry license, been certified as a pistol instructor, had purchased my own 9mm Beretta..." (05/08/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/51299518.html Liberty Belles ---------- Liberty Belles "Putting the Second Amendment first." http://www.free-market.net/rd/332699527.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Democrats tone down anti-gun stance Date: 10 May 2002 10:15:44 -0600 Democrats tone down anti-gun stance ---------- Christian Science Monitor After years of publicly opposing the right to bear arms, Democrats are falling silent on the issue -- or even switching sides. Driving this change is a realization that their anti-gun stance has cost them dearly at the polls. (05/10/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/371055011.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Judges flaunt law Date: 21 May 2002 12:32:47 -0600 Feel free to forward. From today's SLTrib. What is the world coming to when those charged with judging the law flat out refuse to obey the law? I encourage everyone to contact their legislators, the governor, and Attorney General Shurtleff to demand that these rogue judges be reigned in. Flat out refusal to obey a properly passed and signed law really should be grounds for impeachment and removal from the bench, IMO. Contact information for the governor and all State legislators can be found on the GOUtah! web page at: http://www.goutahorg.org/ Click on the "Legislative Contacts" link on the left side of the page. AG Shurtleff may be reached at General Office Numbers: (801) 366-0300, (801) 538-9600 Toll Free within the State of Utah: (800) AG 4 INFO (244-4636) E-Mail: uag@utah.gov Utah State Capitol Office 236 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810 FAX: (801) 538-1121 http://www.sltrib.com/05212002/utah/738687.htm Board Says 'No' to Guns In Courts Tuesday, May 21, 2002 BY DAWN HOUSE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Setting up a classic separation-of-powers battle, a board representing Utah's 70 district judges has voted to ignore a new state law ordering all courthouses to install gun storage lockers for holders of concealed-weapon permits. The Board of District Judges, representing the trial benches throughout Utah, announced Monday that its 10 elected leaders unanimously declined to install gun lockers, opting instead to continue a longtime policy of prohibiting the public from carrying guns in courthouses. "Citizens come to us to resolve their most serious and sometimes life-altering disputes," said 3rd District Judge Ron Nehring. "We owe them as safe of an environment as we can possibly provide." Fourth District Judge Tony Schofield said the gun prohibition is "not a rural-urban issue. It concerns in the most fundamental way all courts of the state." The resolution endorses an order issued earlier this month by 6th Judicial District Presiding Judge K. L. McIff, who instructed administrators in Sanpete, Sevier, Wayne, Piute, Kane and Garfield counties to disregard the law in favor of Judicial Council rules that ban firearms in Utah courthouses. "Security in and about courthouses is an essential and core function of the judiciary," wrote McIff, who also heads the Board of District Judges. "The judiciary's inherent power includes the right to prohibit weapons in courtrooms and, where the circumstances warrant, the entire courthouse." The orders are in response to the Utah Legislature, which overwhelmingly passed legislation mandating that all Utah courthouses erect gun storage lockers. In March, Gov. Mike Leavitt signed the bill into law. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said Monday the "Legislature has the right to make laws, and the judges are required to obey them. "I call upon the judges to obey the law," he said. "If they don't, I'll seek input from the Legislature and the governor before I take any action, which could include a lawsuit." The district court board, in turn, appealed to the Utah Judicial Council to ratify its resolution and asked all state district and juvenile judges to adopt similar gun-ban orders. The Judicial Council, the panel that makes rules for Utah courts, will consider the gun issue next week. State Rep. John Swallow, R-Sandy, who sponsored the gun locker bill, said judges may not decide unilaterally which laws they will obey. "I would be surprised if any judicial rule would supersede state law that has been codified by the Utah Legislature," said Swallow, who is a 2nd Congressional District candidate. "When there's a question if a law is constitutional, right or fair, I would encourage any judge, any court or any individual in the state to go through the legitimate process and not simply take the law into their own hands." Swallow said "appropriate forums" would be for the judges to go before lawmakers "for help in solving what they may perceive as a problem," asking for a declaratory judgment or filing a lawsuit. Yet when University of Utah President Bernie Machen refused to bend to the Legislature's demand and filed a friendly lawsuit that seeks to uphold a campus gun ban, lawmakers threatened to cut his salary. "For anyone to ignore the law without going through the proper process doesn't seem right to me," said Swallow. "My bill doesn't open up courtrooms for guns. Instead of someone hiding a gun somewhere outside the courthouse, people holding a concealed-weapon permit would simply have a safe place to store their weapons." The rejection by the judges of Swallow's House Bill 82 comes on the heels of the Legislature's move this year to exercise greater influence on judicial disciplinary matters. Leavitt vetoed HB136 that reorganizes the Judicial Conduct Commission, but the Legislature overrode the veto. ________________________________________________________________ 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: Re: Judges flaunt law Date: 21 May 2002 12:54:45 -0600 On Tue, 21 May 2002 12:32:47 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >What is the world coming to when those charged with >judging the law flat out refuse to obey the law? I encourage everyone to >contact their legislators, the governor, and Attorney General Shurtleff >to demand that these rogue judges be reigned in. Flat out refusal to >obey a properly passed and signed law really should be grounds for >impeachment and removal from the bench, IMO. If not imprisonment for treason. Looks like open rebellion, by those charged with enforcing the law, to me. Send the State Guard to round them up. (Oops, Gov. Leavitt disbanded it.) Whatever, looks like the AG, the Governor, and the Legislature have their hands full. Will they fumble? Scott - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Apologies for muliple posts Date: 22 May 2002 13:37:41 -0600 My apologies for the recent mulitiple copies of the same post from me. Email handler problems it seems. 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: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Bad "compromise" on gun lockers Date: 22 May 2002 14:10:29 -0600 Oops. Charles, please correct the posting address of this list in your address book. -------- Original Message -------- CC: utah-firearms@xmisison.com, Mark L. Shurtleff , Ric Cantrell On Wed, 22 May 2002 13:28:53 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >With the greatest of respect >to our Attorney General I have some serious concerns about his >"compromise" to "fix" HB 82. It seems to me all it does is cave in to >judges desire to ban guns without providing any kind of storage. >I know nobody is anxious to go to court to have a judge determine whether >other judges have broken the law, but I hope our lawmakers reject this >quick "fix". Exactly. Fire all the rebellious judges and render them incapable of ever again holding any office of trust or profit in or under the State of Utah. (Same goes for Machen.) Don't even allow them to practice law or lobby. Scott >http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,400010032,00.html? >Shurtleff calls for a 'fix' in gun law >By Bob Bernick Jr. and Amy Joi Bryson >Deseret News staff writers >"We don't want to go to court," said Shurtleff, who realizes that >it would be judges deciding his case. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Ding-dong the witch is dead Date: 30 May 2002 17:43:43 -0600 I just received a phone call from SLTrib reporter Dan Harrie. According to Mr. Harrie the (misnamed) "Safe-to-Learn/Safe-to-Worship" citizen petition initiative is now officially dead. Sometime in the next couple of days marks the end of the 4 year window during which signatures could be gathered for their petition and they have admitted that they are no where close to having the signatures they need. If they wish to start again, they will have to start fresh with NO signatures from past efforts! They, of course, are claiming that the signature threshold is simply far too high to be achieved by ANYONE running a volunteer initiative. Heaven only knows what, if anything, I said, Mr. Harrie will chose to use in whatever story I presume he is preparing. However, I made the following points: 1-I'm glad, and not terribly surprised, that they have failed in their efforts. 2-This is proof positive they did not have the "overwhelming" public support they claimed they did. If the legislature really were as out of touch on this issue as they claimed, or if they had the huge levels of public support they claimed, they should have been able to gather the singatures needed in just a couple of years, even with volunteers. That they failed to do so after 4 years of efforts, proves there isn't any where close to the levels of support they have claimed. 3-They were deceptive in their efforts. They talked about kids bringing guns to schools when their petition did not address that at all. It only addressed those law-abiding adults who jumped through all the hoops and had obtained a CCW permit. And there simply haven't been any real problems with CCW permitees that would justify a change in our current law. 4-I suggested that as the people of Utah learned more about the real language and intent of the petition, support dropped even lower that it started out. 5-Whether we individually choose to carry a gun or not, we as a society and as individuals are all safer when those law-abiding adults who do choose to carry guns for self defense are able to do so with the fewest restrictions possible. Bad guys are placed in the position of asking themselves, "What are the odds my intended victim is going to have a gun and be able to shoot me?" 6-Churches are free to ban guns now and it requires nothing more than a small sign, similar to a no-smoking sign, to effect that ban. That so few churches have chosen to exercise that peragative is another indication that this really is not an issue of concern to most Utahns. 7-The lack of financial backing from average Utahns (and the subsequent need for an all volunteer signature gathering force) is another indication that support was mostly from a small number of vocal individuals and groups rather than from any widespread majority of voters. 8-The signature threshold is designed to be non-trivial. Whether it is too high, too low, or just right, is another question. But the fact remains that other petitions which were far more controversial than this one claimed to be did manage to get on the ballot. If this petition really had the support that its backers claimed, it should have been a shoe in. The end of this petition speaks for itself. I'm no media or PR expert, so as you're giving thanks that this effort has finally failed, ask that my comments don't end up making the pro-gun community look bad. :) Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ 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/. -