From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Stupid professor FOLLOW-UP Date: 01 Jul 2003 15:09:04 GMT FWIW... ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Yesterday I forwarded a "guest commentary" in the Ogden Standard-Examiner by Robert C. Wadman, a professor at Weber State, denouncing the firearms industry. (See below.) While I found Wadman's comments stupid and fallacious, a friend decided to find out who Wadman really is. I think you'll find the results consistent with his anti-gun stance. Two questions: 1. Should this pervert be paid with tax money to teach our children? 2. Should this gross ill-informed individual be teaching any where? Please contact your state representative and the Weber State management. Little did I know how accurate my "Look who's teaching our kids" comment would prove. ----------------------- Look who's teaching our kids. ---------- The two commentaries below are from Sunday's "Ogden Standard Examiner". The first is by a professor of criminal justice who is obviously teaches his bias and bullcrap. We need to get this out to every firearms supporter and get them all to write in to counter this idiot. He is the epitome of the anti-gun rhetoric. He should not be teaching criminal justice. The second commentary is by two medical students. Again, they are so ignorant to the facts that it is absolutely ridiculous. Each of you needs to write to the Editor and let them know these guys are completely uninformed and ignorant. ****Below is the complete text of both commentaries**** #1: Guest Commentary: Gun industry concerned more by profits than safety Wed, June 25, 2003 By ROBERT C. WADMAN Special to the Standard-Examiner More than 28,663 Americans are killed every year as a result of guns. These deaths include murders, suicides, and accidental shootings. Gun violence in America is a national disgrace, and laws to protect citizens from these acts of violence need to be supported. The high rates of murder, robbery and aggravated assault in the United States are a byproduct of our collective failure to openly address gun issues in America. Twenty-two times to one, the gun in the American home is used against a family member rather than used to protect the family from criminals. From teenage suicides to domestic violence, the readily available gun is used against the family. Should we collectively ignore these problems and support more protection for gun manufacturers? The June 19 guest commentary in the Standard-Examiner by Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman, "American gun laws should favor citizens" constitutional rights," asks for support of laws that protect gunmakers and others involved in the gun industry. They suggest that judges "who coddle killers while demonizing gunmakers for crimes over which they have no control" are the problem. This is nonsense! The gun industry has demonized America"s criminal justice system in its attempts to protect gun industry profits. Labeling judges as "liberal" and suggesting that judges "coddle" criminals is the rhetoric of the uninformed. Prisons are currently overcrowded. Prisons are costly and often ineffective. Is the gun industry willing to pay for the increased costs their recommendations require? Are they supportive of tax increases to meet their recommendations? All the rhetoric from the get-tough-on-criminals-crowd is nothing more than a smokescreen. They know that prisons are overcrowded. They know judges have limited jail space in which to place convicted criminals. All they want is to deflect our attention so guns can be sold and they can make money. The gun industry should be held to the same standard of responsibility as everyone else. It is not above the U.S. Constitution. I strongly support gun ownership and I understand the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but I feel gun manufacturers, gun-show organizers and gun-shop owners should be held liable if they are responsible for guns being placed in the hands of criminals, children, felons and terrorists. From kids with guns involved in school shootings to guns used in acts of terrorism, the gun industry should be held to the same standards of responsibility that other industries are held. The 14th Amendment and the Fourth Amendment are being pushed aside as the gun industry hides behind the Second Amendment. Don"t let the gun industry get away with this brain- damaged swill. Yes, its advocates will attempt to call anyone who stands up against them a "liberal." And yes, they will point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution as their guiding light. But when all is said and done, what they really want is more money. More money, often at the expense of more gun violence. The legislative protection they want violates the very Constitution they state is the foundation of their position. Changing the Constitution to protect the Second Amendment of the Constitution seems absurd, but that is their position. I"m not a liberal. I"m not a current member of a gun-control group. I"m a gun owner and a private citizen. I think violent criminals belong in prison. I also feel extremists come in many forms. Don"t let gun extremists, in blind support of guns sales, change Utah"s ability to effectively deal with gun violence. Any reasonable attempts designed to address this growing problem have been consistently viewed as a threat by the gun lobby. Hiding behind a distorted interpretation of the Second Amendment, the gun lobby rhetoric flies in the face of reason. At this very moment, the gun industry is attempt- ing to protect gun manufacturers from any liability. These steps violate the principles of the very U.S. Constitution they claim is being violated. By passing laws that would make it illegal to sue a gun manufacturer or gun storeowner, the gun lobby is placing irresponsible gun manufacturers and gun storeowners above the law. If a company makes a faulty product, people hurt by the product have a right to be heard in court and are entitled to just compensation. Why should gun manufac- turers be above the laws to which every other product manufacturer is held? Attempting to wrap themselves in the American flag, the gun lobby is asking us to let the gun industry be above the law. As a responsible gun owner, and a former police officer, I want to support every effort to make our society secure and safe. The proliferation of guns is not the answer. The gun lobby consistently points the finger at Washington and states, "Don"t let these liberal Washington bureaucrats take your guns." Mr. Gottlieb is from Seattle. What in the hell is he doing trying to tell Utahns what to do? Remember the old saying, "follow the money." All the rhetoric aside, all the gun industry leaders want to protect profits. They couldn"t care less about our safety. Dr. Robert C. Wadman is an associate professor of criminal justice at Weber State University. ************************************************************ ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Jet Skis and Guns? -- And no, you can't shoot them when they buzz too Date: 01 Jul 2003 16:08:54 GMT From today's DesNews. Notice the divide and conquer technique used by the eco-freaks. Many boaters and fishermen don't really care for how some (many?) users of jet skis operate their toys. However, does anyone really think that once jet skis are banned, high speed (or noisy jet) motor boats won't be the next target? At that point, a whole segment of former motorized users (jet skiers) will have already been eliminated from the debate and it will be the fishermen and water skiers left to defend motorized use with too many fishermen just as happy to see some of those fast or loud boats off the lake anyway. This is the same tactic that has worked so well against gun owners. As short barreled shot guns or fully automatic machine guns or scary-looking guns or inexpensive self defense pistols or 50 calibre rifles or any number of other guns are targeted to be taxed out of reach or simply banned altogether, too many gun owners figure it isn't their fight. After all, what does a duck or deer hunter need with such guns? Besides, some of the people who choose to own and use such guns behave in ways that die-hard hunters may find objectionable. What does a small bore competitive shooter need with such guns? What do antique or curio collectors need with such guns or care if the cost of ownership goes up dramitically? But, of course, not every gun owner likes to hunt duck or deer. Not every gun owner has any interest in competitive shooting or collecting. Not every gun owner wants to carry a self defense weapon. And so on and so forth. EVERY time a gun is banned or taxed beyond normal reach or some currently legal use of firearms (such as carrying in some public place), we run the very real risk of losing some number of former gun owners from future fights. Some gun owners ONLY own a gun and care about guns because they are able to defend themselves while jogging in a public park or working in a hospital or public school. Some gun owners are ONLY involved with guns because they enjoy informal plinking with a military style rifle. If the hunters or competitive shooters or collectors sit out the gun battles this year because they do not directly, immediately affect their chosen firearms or uses thereof, they are likely to wake up tomorrow to find that they are under attack and most of their allies have already been eliminated from the fight. A school teacher who only owns a gun for self defense and losers her ability to legally carry that gun to work, is probably not going to spend any time or energy when large areas of public land are proposed as no hunting zones. However, a teacher who only cares about self defense who still has her ability to do that legally intact, may be motivated to help counter any and all fights against gun owners. More importantly, some battles are not likely to take place until others are won (or lost, depending on which side you're on). You can't attack the inner hold until the outer wall is breached. Jet skis, ATVs, machine guns, military style rifles, legal CCW in public places like schools or libraries or the workplace are all some of the "outer walls" of freedom. As they are allowed to crumble, rest assurred that attacks on the inner walls will start, or intensify. I will point out that even the current ruling from the park service does not bode well for many fishermen or other motorboaters. Jet Skis are not the only watercraft that make use of carbaurated two-stroke engines. MANY small engines used by fishermen or other boaters are also carbaruated two-strokes. If jet skis using these engines are banned, there is no logical reason to not also ban these engines when used on small fishing boats, ski boats, etc. As to being fast and manuverable, I learned a long time ago that some of the fasted boats on the lake belong to bass fishermen. ================== Charles Hardy Gas up the jet-skis Decision is final: They are welcome By Ray Grass Deseret Morning News The final decision is in: Personal watercraft will be welcome on Lake Powell — now and for years to come. [Image] Jet skis and other personal watercraft will be allowed on Lake Powell, thanks to a decision released by the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Monday. Tom Smart, Deseret Morning News Early Monday, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area released its final "record of decision." Of three possible alternatives, the National Park Service will place into law "Alternative B," which allows personal watercraft use lakewide but with closures in some portions of the Colorado, Escalante, Dirty Devil and San Juan rivers. It also requires that all personal watercraft meet certain emission requirements by 2012. (Basically, all carbureted two-stroke watercraft will be banned from the lake after 2012.) It is possible, however, that a lawsuit could be filed sometime this fall that would challenged the Park Service's decision. Sean Smith, with Bluewater Network, the San Francisco-based environmental organization that is seeking to end use of personal watercraft within national parks, said the decision is ripe for legal review. A similar decision regarding watercraft use on Lake Mead was released in April. Smith said then that staff and attorneys were looking at a legal challenge. "We are still moving forward," Smith said. "We'll be discussing this with our lawyers and decide if we want to sue independently or combine the suits. The issues here are very similar. . . . I would expect it wouldn't be before fall before we make a decision." After release of its final environmental impact statement in May, the Park Service issued three alternatives regarding personal watercraft use on the lake: • Alternative A followed guidelines that were in place prior to September 2002. • Alternative B, the Park Service-preferred option, allowed personal watercraft but imposed the partial river closures and more stringent emission requirements. <ilayer></ilayer><layer> </layer> • Alternative C banned personal watercraft from the lake. "After thorough analysis and public involvement, it was felt Alternative B was best because it met (Park Service) management objectives," said Charlotte Obergh, management assistant for the Park Service at Lake Powell. She pointed out that the decision had not been expected before mid-July or early August, "but this has been a priority and we've worked hard to get it out as soon as possible so it can be finalized before the September deadline." Back in May, the Park Service was given until the end of September to place into law its decision or personal watercraft would, for the second time, be banned from the lake. The record of decision will now go through governmental review before being written into law. But, as Obergh pointed out, "The decision has been made and this is now just a formality to make sure everything is correct." If a suit is filled, added Smith, it would likely challenge the results of the environmental impact statement, which he said, "Contained a number of holes," as well as the final decision at both Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Bluewater filed a petition in May 1998 asking for a ban on personal watercraft until an impact statement could be completed. In March 2000, the Park Service issued its first report to allow the jet-powered craft on the lake. Bluewater sued and a judge ruled the Park Service had until 2002 to complete an impact statement. In November of 2002, personal watercraft were banned from Lake Powell. In May of this year the ban was lifted and the Park Service was given until September to come up with a decision. Under Alternative B, special regulations prohibit use of personal watercraft on the Dirty Devil upstream from the U-95 bridge; on the Escalante River upstream of the confluence of Coyote Creek; on the San Juan River upstream from Clay Hills pullout; and on the Colorado River upstream from Sheep Canyon. There are wake restrictions on the Escalante River from the confluence of Cow Canyon to the confluence of Coyote Creek. And it includes strategies to better protect recreation-area resources, improve visitor safety and reduce visitor conflicts. The report that reviewed personal watercraft impact on Lake Powell stated that under Alternative B, the watercraft would have negligible to minor, direct adverse effects on water quality. It also pointed out that sound levels during peak times were "acceptable within the expressed purpose of the park to provide the motorized watercraft form of recreation." And, with respect to wildlife and wildlife habitat, it stated that use of personal watercraft would result in negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts. The environmental impact statement also pointed out that going with Alternative C would cause major, adverse long-term effects on the economy of Page, Ariz., a town founded during the building of the Glen Canyon Dam and which now bases its economy on tourists visiting Lake Powell. Steve Ward, public relations director for ARAMARK, concessionaire for the five lakeside marinas, said Monday's decision comes as a big relief, "knowing that after all this time the matter has been resolved." During the review process, more than 30,000 comments were received by the Park Service regarding the use of personal watercraft on Lake Powell. ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: FW: Stupid professor FOLLOW-UP Date: 01 Jul 2003 16:10:53 GMT Some links with info on the author that were missing. ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Charlie asks > Is there more information about this guy - web page or something? This is not > adequate information for action. The bottom part of the message was supposed to have the links. I have re-posted them here. Some tidbits from a quick GOOGLE search on Robert C. Wadman: Wadman has a checkered past and allegedly was forced to resign as Police Chief of Wilmington, NC. Check out http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/coverups/decamp.html He is alleged to have had sex with a 14 year old while Police Chief in Omaha, taken bribes, and "was run out of Omaha." http://www.iahf.com/other/20001202a.html "Former Omaha Police Chief, Robert Wadman was involved in the failed Franklin Savings and Loan scandal" http://www.marlinpals.com/ia/v13n16.htm A glowing story in the Weber State newspaper about his helping the Police in China, Nigeria, Haiti and Poland. http://www.wsusignpost.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/04/16/3e9cc37525dd1 In a BYU campus paper story: "According to Wadman, 52 percent of those in the penitentiaries are black males, while that group only makes up 4 percent of the U.S. population. The main problem with the current system is that America is fixated on the deterrence principle, meaning a strong punishment will deter future criminals from committing crimes, Wadman said. " [No mention of the fact that each of the inmates was found guilty beyond a reasonabale doubt of committing a specific crime. Perhaps professional criminals have not adopted racial quotas yet.] http://www.printz.usm.edu/news/1-15-2002prison.html An expanded version of this can also be found at http://www3.onu.edu/org/northernreview/Jan_14_2002/Pg5_Jan14.pdf Wadman is Program Director for the WSU Master Degree in Criminal Justice, established in 2001 "designed for criminal justice and social service professionals who wish to continue their education, and who plan to use the degree to bring about positive change in the justice system." according to the WSU 2002-2003 catalog. http://documents.weber.edu/catalog/0203/pages/cjms.htm http://www.printz.usm.edu/news/1-15-2002prison.html He is a chronic opponent of legal armed self defense, but I would bet an NRA membership that HE has a CCW permit. Wadman is probably the author of a 1993 book "Community Policing and Crime Prevention in America and England" which probably does not reflect the horrendous increase in violent crime since the near total English gun ban. Some employment history from the Omaha PD "1982 Utah Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety Robert C. Wadman was appointed Chief of Police for Omaha, becoming the first Chief appointed from the outside the ranks of the Omaha Police Division. 1986 Chief Robert C. Wadman was replaced by then Mayor Mike Boyle. Assistant Chief Jack Swanson was appointed as interim Chief of Police. Chief Wadman was re-instated in 1987 and remained as Chief of Police until he resigned in 1989. http://www.opd.ci.omaha.ne.us/media/history2.htm Education: Robert C. Wadman: B.S., Brigham Young University, 1970; M.P.A., Brigham Young University, 1975; D.A., Idaho State University, 1998. Organizing for the Prevention of Crime. Idaho State University. http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:W5-MXTMEc_wJ:www.apsanet.org/PS/dec98/d issertations/pa.cfm++%22Robert+C.+Wadman%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 WSU biography & photo Robert C. Wadman, Assistant Professor Ph.D. in Arts, Idaho State University [What the heck is PhD in Arts?] Weber State University since 1997 Teaches: Introduction to Criminal Justice, Community Policing, Research Methods in Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Management, Drugs and Crime, Victimology A former Nebraska subordinate commented "Wadman had people skills that didn't relate to police work; he lacked skills with cops." http://www.unoalumni.org/magazine/current_alum/street_cop/ He peddles himself as an expert witness DR. ROBERT WADMAN EXPERT WITNESS AND PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT Dr. Wadman is currently a Professor of Criminal Justice at Weber State University. His career has included positions as Police Chief of Omaha, NE, Orem, UT, Aurora, IL, and Wilmington, NC,Public Safety for the State of Utah, DEA/Agent in Charge and San Diego Police Sergeant.Dr. Wadman has been certified as an Expert Witness in Federal Court 2002. Will send attorney references on request. Prosecution or Defense work. Please E-mail for further information. This Expert Witness WebRing site owned by Robert Wadman. Email: rwadman1@weber.edu ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Save up to $400 on all notebooks. Get the notebook you want with all the features at a price you love. Price after rebates and savings http://us.click.yahoo.com/gx2HjB/wwSGAA/ySSFAA/8zNplB/TM LPUTAH LPUTAH -- unsubscribe: LPUtah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com LPUTAH -- support: elwell@xmission.com LPUTAH -- forum page: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/LPUtah LPUTAH -- LPUtah page: www.lputah.org LPUTAH Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: 'Light Weapons a Serious Threat' Date: 09 Jul 2003 09:30:57 -0600 Illicit Trade in Small Arms, Light Weapons a Serious Threat - State's Bloomfield terms them "Weapons of Local Destruction" (1430) The "illicit trade in small arms and light weapons" is a serious threat to security and stability in the Western Hemisphere as well as other parts of the world, according to Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Lincoln Bloomfield. Presenting the U.S. report at the United Nations July 7 to the first biennial meeting of states to implement the "Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects", Bloomfield said parts of Africa, South Asia and the Middle East are also among areas whose security and stability are threatened by the ready availability of these weapons in quantity. "This activity persists", Bloomfield said, "because of lax enforcement of laws and regulations, or their absence altogether. It occurs because of poor governance and an environment that tolerates illegal commerce, often involving corruption among government officials." The U.S. official described the arms as "Weapons of Local Destruction." Bloomfield reported that since 2001, U.S.-supported programs in 10 countries have resulted in the accumulation and destruction of 400,000 excess or illegal small arms and light weapons, along with 44 million rounds of ammunition. These weapons were mostly left over from the Cold War, he said, when many communist regimes held large stockpiles of such weapons. "Destruction of these weapons, therefore, represents progress - it takes them out of circulation for good", he said. http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=03070803.plt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Two items of interest--comments wanted on judicial nomiee and info on Date: 10 Jul 2003 15:30:14 GMT After the Senate's appalling, near-unanamous confirmation of anti-gun, activist Judge Nehring to the Utah SC, their calls for public comment about any judicial nominee ring a little hollow. OTOH, if nobody has any objections, we can't hardly complain about whomever they confirm. And some info on the new limits on administrative rulemaking. ================== Charles Hardy http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07102003/utah/74001.asp Comment invited about judge nominee The Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee is seeking public comment on Royal I. Hansen, nominee to the 5th District Court. Anyone with information about Hansen's qualifications to serve as a judge can send a statement including their name, telephone number and mailing address to: Jerry D. Howe, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, 436 State Capitol, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114. Statements must be received by noon Monday. http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07102003/utah/74006.asp Lawmakers wrestle with implications of 'rule' law By Kirsten Stewart The Salt Lake Tribune Retaliating against the University of Utah's campus gun ban, legislators passed a bill last winter limiting state agencies' rule-making powers. Now, legislators are wrestling with the definition of "rule" and implications of the new law -- the possibility that 35 state departments, from the Tax and Labor Commissions to the Board of Education, will bombard the Capitol with all manner of policies, guidelines and procedures in need of approval, tweaking or repealing. State agencies are eager to know "where do we go from here?" Kevin Carter, director of the School and Institutional Trustlands Administration, testified Wednesday at a legislative hearing. "Our board of trustees was empowered under [older] legislation to establish policies that could qualify as rules," he said. Among those are policies for property procurement and the handling of American Indian remains discovered on trust lands. Are these policies now null and void? Carter asked. "What is the role of our board or any number of policy-making boards throughout the state?" Advertisement <ilayer></ilayer><layer> </layer> Rule making has always been the Legislature's domain. But the 2003 Legislature broadened that power under Senate Bill 30, which prohibits agencies from writing anything but internal management policies. Policies aimed at the general public or that have the effect of law are considered rules, and as such, must go through the legislative rule-making process: a 30-day notice period and sometimes a public hearing. "It's the duck principle," explained Administrative Rules Chairman Rep. David Ure, R-Kamas. "If it walks and talks like a rule, it's a rule." Gov. Mike Leavitt signed the law, though his legal staff warned it would tip the balance of power toward the legislative branch. Indeed, signs of future power struggles between legislators and agencies surfaced Wednesday. Committee members chastised the Insurance Commission for adopting rules in concert with a new law on viatical settlements, the purchase of life insurance policies from the terminally ill. "I'm not saying your rules are right or wrong," said Ure. "But the law specifies what rules the commissioner can and can't adopt." Ure also asked staff for a briefing on a recent U.S. Supreme Court affirmative action ruling as it applies to the University of Utah medical school's admissions policies. He said he doesn't plan to meddle with U. admissions, but acknowledged the subject will probably come up in other committees. ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? Date: 10 Jul 2003 21:38:29 -0600 Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is not being used http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? Date: 11 Jul 2003 15:41:39 GMT When "life saving technology" is reliable and inexpensive enough that police and military personnel successfully make widespread use of weapons so equiped, I may just give it a serious look. But considering the number of military pilots who still choose a .357 revolver over a 9mm or .45 ACP simply because the revolver is more reliable when dirty, I'm not holding my breath. The great thing about modern firearms, and the very thing that drives the liberal elite nuts is the fact that these weapons are by and large, reliable, easy to use, easy to clean and service and otherwise maintain, easy to manufacture, easy to learn to use, and inexpensive. IOW, truly the GREAT equalizers as almost ANYONE can, with very modest training and effort, buy and use one well enough to pose a serious deterrent even to almost any criminal, private or government. Adding a bunch of cracker-jack box features will drive up the cost, the size, and the weight, make cleaning and service more difficult, all while decreasing the realiability. Sooner or later, any moving part will fail. Sooner, rather than later, electrical or electronic parts are likely to fail when you need them. (Anyone want a "Windows" style boot time before you self defense weapon is ready to use?) For now, a few functioning brain cells, education and training for the family members, adhearance to the basic safe handling rules, and storage appropriate for my individual/family situation are all the safety features I need or want on my firearm. ================== Charles Hardy --- Scott Bergeson wrote: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is not being used http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920 - ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Who's Packing? Date: 11 Jul 2003 15:44:38 GMT Not surprising given the publication, but still outrageous... ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Eternal vigilance is the price we must pay to keep and bear arms. The anti-gun crowd states lies as truth. Congrats to John Spangler for spotting this egregious falsehood and sending a correction. ---------- Jake- Your story on guns in the July 10, 2003 City Weekly http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2003/feat_2003-07-10.cfm states: "Nearly 100 of the over 800 [concealed weapon permit] revocations in 2001 were for felony convictions, including six for murder or attempted murder. Twenty-two permit holders were convicted of a crime involving rape or sexual assault, one was convicted of kidnapping and three were convicted of aggravated assault. " According to the official BCI report "FIrearms Statistical Review: 4th Quarter 2001" http://bci.utah.gov/CFP/firearmrev4thq.pdf the actual total number of permits revoked in 2001 was 184, not the 800 you stated. It appears that you are using a cumualtive total of revocations 1994 through 2001, as the specific reasons for revocation listed are the same as listed as for the cumulative period. There is ahuge difference between 800 revocations in one year and in 8 years. You owe the public a correction of this serious factual error. I heard that you are also related to a current or former offical of a gun control advocacy group. If that is correct, it would seem that even by todays badly tarnished standards of Journistic ethics, you owe the readers an admission of that simply as a matter of full disclosure, if not outright conflict of interest. John Spangler (Member of Utah Shooting Sports Council- for full disclosure on my part) ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? Date: 11 Jul 2003 12:41:19 -0600 You did send that in as a letter to the editor of "New Scientist"? best Chad On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 09:41 US/Mountain, Charles Hardy wrote: > > When "life saving technology" is reliable and inexpensive enough that > police and military personnel successfully make widespread use of > weapons so equiped, I may just give it a serious look. But > considering the number of military pilots who still choose a .357 > revolver over a 9mm or .45 ACP simply because the revolver is more > reliable when dirty, I'm not holding my breath. > > The great thing about modern firearms, and the very thing that drives > the liberal elite nuts is the fact that these weapons are by and > large, reliable, easy to use, easy to clean and service and otherwise > maintain, easy to manufacture, easy to learn to use, and inexpensive. > IOW, truly the GREAT equalizers as almost ANYONE can, with very modest > training and effort, buy and use one well enough to pose a serious > deterrent even to almost any criminal, private or government. > > Adding a bunch of cracker-jack box features will drive up the cost, > the size, and the weight, make cleaning and service more difficult, > all while decreasing the realiability. Sooner or later, any moving > part will fail. Sooner, rather than later, electrical or electronic > parts are likely to fail when you need them. (Anyone want a "Windows" > style boot time before you self defense weapon is ready to use?) > > For now, a few functioning brain cells, education and training for the > family members, adhearance to the basic safe handling rules, and > storage appropriate for my individual/family situation are all the > safety features I need or want on my firearm. > > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > --- Scott Bergeson wrote: > > Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? > Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but > existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is > not being used > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920 > > - > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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! > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? Date: 11 Jul 2003 20:04:11 GMT With a few modifications, I just did. Good idea. Thank you. ================== Charles Hardy --- Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc wrote: You did send that in as a letter to the editor of "New Scientist"? best Chad On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 09:41 US/Mountain, Charles Hardy wrote: > > When "life saving technology" is reliable and inexpensive enough that > police and military personnel successfully make widespread use of > weapons so equiped, I may just give it a serious look. But > considering the number of military pilots who still choose a .357 > revolver over a 9mm or .45 ACP simply because the revolver is more > reliable when dirty, I'm not holding my breath. > > The great thing about modern firearms, and the very thing that drives > the liberal elite nuts is the fact that these weapons are by and > large, reliable, easy to use, easy to clean and service and otherwise > maintain, easy to manufacture, easy to learn to use, and inexpensive. > IOW, truly the GREAT equalizers as almost ANYONE can, with very modest > training and effort, buy and use one well enough to pose a serious > deterrent even to almost any criminal, private or government. > > Adding a bunch of cracker-jack box features will drive up the cost, > the size, and the weight, make cleaning and service more difficult, > all while decreasing the realiability. Sooner or later, any moving > part will fail. Sooner, rather than later, electrical or electronic > parts are likely to fail when you need them. (Anyone want a "Windows" > style boot time before you self defense weapon is ready to use?) > > For now, a few functioning brain cells, education and training for the > family members, adhearance to the basic safe handling rules, and > storage appropriate for my individual/family situation are all the > safety features I need or want on my firearm. > > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > --- Scott Bergeson wrote: > > Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? > Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but > existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is > not being used > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920 > > - > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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! > > - > - ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? Date: 11 Jul 2003 15:04:01 -0600 I just sent this "In "Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? " you miss some very basic points. A gun is a self defense tool and the technologies you describe have not been perfected to the point where they are foolproof. If the military finds such technologies compelling and worthwhile, then I might be willing to accept them. Until the military and police find such technologies to be safe and effective and not a problem in making the gun not usable when needed, then the civilian population should also not consider them. Also a note to your stats on teenage homocide and suicide rates versus guns. They are a bunch of baloney. If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. Drug trade is the number one cause of death for African America teenagers -- if you get rid of the black market, and hence unreasonable demand for drugs, the number of black teenagers who are involved in illegal drugs will go drastically down and the number of black teenagers killing each other will go down. The gun is the tool, not the cause. Lastly, aggregating homocide and suicide together does not yield any valid data. A "Scientific" magazine such as yours should try and stay out of political issues when the only compelling science involved is junk science and politically motivated research and statistics." Chad On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 14:04 US/Mountain, Charles Hardy wrote: > > With a few modifications, I just did. Good idea. Thank you. > > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > --- Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc wrote: > > You did send that in as a letter to the editor of "New Scientist"? > > best > Chad > > On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 09:41 US/Mountain, Charles Hardy wrote: > >> >> When "life saving technology" is reliable and inexpensive enough that >> police and military personnel successfully make widespread use of >> weapons so equiped, I may just give it a serious look. But >> considering the number of military pilots who still choose a .357 >> revolver over a 9mm or .45 ACP simply because the revolver is more >> reliable when dirty, I'm not holding my breath. >> >> The great thing about modern firearms, and the very thing that drives >> the liberal elite nuts is the fact that these weapons are by and >> large, reliable, easy to use, easy to clean and service and otherwise >> maintain, easy to manufacture, easy to learn to use, and inexpensive. >> IOW, truly the GREAT equalizers as almost ANYONE can, with very modest >> training and effort, buy and use one well enough to pose a serious >> deterrent even to almost any criminal, private or government. >> >> Adding a bunch of cracker-jack box features will drive up the cost, >> the size, and the weight, make cleaning and service more difficult, >> all while decreasing the realiability. Sooner or later, any moving >> part will fail. Sooner, rather than later, electrical or electronic >> parts are likely to fail when you need them. (Anyone want a "Windows" >> style boot time before you self defense weapon is ready to use?) >> >> For now, a few functioning brain cells, education and training for the >> family members, adhearance to the basic safe handling rules, and >> storage appropriate for my individual/family situation are all the >> safety features I need or want on my firearm. >> >> >> ================== >> Charles Hardy >> >> >> --- Scott Bergeson wrote: >> >> Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? >> Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but >> existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is >> not being used >> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920 >> >> - >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________ >> 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! >> >> - >> > > > - > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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! > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: CTNOW: Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control Date: 11 Jul 2003 21:52:24 -0600 July 9, 2003 ctnow.com Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control Wary Of Losing Votes, Most Candidates Try To Keep Their Distance From A Loaded Issue By DAVID LIGHTMAN, Washington Bureau Chief ST. PAUL, Minn. - Gun control used to be an easy, reliable issue for Democrats. Presidential candidates could bring it up and audiences would cheer.... [More] http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc-guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3 --- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: CTNOW: Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control Date: 12 Jul 2003 00:33:02 -0600 Thanks! I appreciate good links to interesting gun articles... One note to all list members: when you post URLs, please put them inside of <> as in < http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc- guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3> This helps a mail client know not to break it up and it also makes things like people's signatures not get added to the URL so that it doesn't work! Thanks! On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 21:52 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > July 9, 2003 > > ctnow.com > > Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control > > Wary Of Losing Votes, Most Candidates Try To Keep Their > Distance From A Loaded Issue > > By DAVID LIGHTMAN, Washington Bureau Chief > > ST. PAUL, Minn. - Gun control used to be an easy, reliable issue > for Democrats. Presidential candidates could bring it up and > audiences would cheer.... > > [More] > http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc- > guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3 > --- > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: CTNOW: Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control Date: 12 Jul 2003 07:49:51 -0600 On 12 Jul 2003 00:33:02 -0600 Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc wrote: Thanks! I appreciate good links to interesting gun articles... One note to all list members: when you post URLs, please put them inside of <> as in < http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc- guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3> This helps a mail client know not to break it up and it also makes things like people's signatures not get added to the URL so that it doesn't work! Thanks! ----- Okay. However, it still broke (see above), and my mailer doesn't recognize what you posted as a single URL. Is this any better? Shabbat Shalom, Scott - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: CTNOW: Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control Date: 12 Jul 2003 08:37:05 -0600 Hi Scott In my email client (and in many other I think -- the various ones I use) all respect the <>. Not all do but many do. Your original email didn't break in my email program but there weren't any blank lines so the ---- you added (or you signature added) in my case had gotten added to it as part of the URL. Each mail client is different but the <> are supposed to be a "standard"... best regards Chad On Saturday, Jul 12, 2003, at 07:49 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > On 12 Jul 2003 00:33:02 -0600 Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc > wrote: > > Thanks! I appreciate good links to interesting gun articles... > > One note to all list members: when you post URLs, please put them > inside of <> as in < > http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc- > guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3> > > This helps a mail client know not to break it up and it also makes > things like people's signatures not get added to the URL so that it > doesn't work! > > Thanks! > ----- > > Okay. However, it still broke (see above), and my mailer doesn't > recognize what you posted as a single URL. > > Is this any better? > > guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3> > > Shabbat Shalom, > Scott > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: 'Coalition to Stop Gun Violence' unveils CandidatesOnGuns.org Date: 13 Jul 2003 09:33:20 -0600 On 13 Jul 2003 03:31:29 -0400 skypod-Melissa wrote: THIS SITE is going to be good to use as another test of how candidates think. Melissa (skypod) http://profiles.yahoo.com/skypod/ In Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. ******************************* Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Unveils CandidatesOnGuns.org for Candidates' Views on Gun Violence Prevention Contact: Desmond Riley of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (202) 408-0061 ext.104; http://www.csgv.org/ 7/10/03 9:00:00 AM The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) today unveiled http://www.CandidatesOnGuns.org/ - the only website designed as a clearinghouse for information on Presidential candidates' positions on the gun violence prevention issue. "This website will serve as a clearinghouse for voters, the media, and advocates who want to know where candidates stand on the critical issue of gun violence prevention", said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. One of the features of the website is CSGV's 2004 Presidential Candidate Survey, which asks questions on key policy issues such as the federal assault weapons ban and firearm industry immunity legislation. Several of the candidates have completed the survey, and CSGV will post candidate answers as they are received. In addition to the questionnaire responses, CandidatesOnGuns.org features: * Polling on the gun safety issue - including views of gun owners and NRA supporters - across the country and in key primary states * Background on key policy issues including the assault weapons ban, ballistic fingerprinting, closing the gun show loophole and federal firearm immunity legislation * Presidential candidates' voting records and public statements on gun violence prevention * "On Target '04 E-Newsletter," a regular election email update focusing on the gun issue in 2004 elections (coming soon) --- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: NEA teachers union stepping up anti-gun campaign Date: 14 Jul 2003 17:32:42 GMT There are many very good and dedicated teachers out there who fully support the RIGHT to keep and bear arms who join the UEA/NEA or maintain membership for reasons other than the non-educational political stands of the unions. Many may not even be aware that their union is taking positions on topics so far afield from the issue of education or collective bargaining. I hope they will withold their political donations from ANY group that works against their RKBA. I also hope they will use their influence inside the union to end these attacks on our gun rights. As for the rest of us, it's clear that the UEA is anti-gun rights. ================== Charles Hardy ---------- The NEA has been silent on gun issues for quite a while. NOTE BOTTOM ITEMS ON THEIR ALERT THIS WEEK, they are engaged again. Please take the time to follow their links and you will call up a series of NEA statements supporting: --reauthorization of the [expanded] assualt weapons ban -- closing the "gun show loophole" -- mandatory child safety locks on all guns -- "more about gun safety" including the NEA is parterned with the Americans for Gun Safety. -- opposition to SB 659 Frivolous Lawsuit protection If you click on their letter writing tool, thye have a selection of paragraphs to use in your comunication to elected officials with just a mouse click. (attached as a word document) We need to make everyone aware of these NEA policies, which is implicity that of the UEA since they have not repudiated it. Educators need to understand what their rights are regarding UEA membership, and especially any pressure to contribute to UEA/NEA political activities. John Spangler National Education Association statements on guns (pre-written for use in messages to congressmen)posted on their website It's time to get real about protecting our kids. Gun violence is a problem in our communities. And, while schools continue to be the safest place for kids, this safety is threatened because guns are too easily accessible to criminals and unsupervised children. It's time to get real about protecting our kids. Gun violence is a problem in our communities. And, while schools continue to be the safest place for kids, this safety is threatened because guns are too easily accessible to criminals and unsupervised children. The issue is SAFETY, not gun control. Our country needs responsible gun safety legislation. I urge you to join President Bush in supporting the Assault Weapons Ban and its renewal. Vote for S. 1034 and continue to keep military-style assault weapons off our streets. These guns are not necessary for hunting or self-defense -- but their light triggers and rapid-fire capability make them the weapons of choice for criminals. I also urge you to support the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation, sponsored by Senators Craig, Schumer, McCain and Kennedy in the Senate and Representatives McCarthy, Dingell and Pence in the House, would make 35 million missing records available to the system. The current system of background checks for gun purchasers is woefully inadequate, failing to prevent tens of thousands of criminals, domestic abusers and other prohibited buyers from obtaining guns. The NICS Improvement Act would make NICS checks faster and more accurate. Congress should focus on bills that fight gun crime. We cannot afford legislation such as S. 659, to protect gun dealers from lawsuits, when corrupt gun stores are not prosecuted, illegal buyers can avoid background checks at gun shows, the assault weapons ban is close to expiration, existing gun laws are not enforced, and Congress has not fixed the background check system to make instants checks truly instant and accurate. As an educator, I urge you to make our schools and communities safer by sponsoring and voting for responsible legislation that respects the rights of lawful gun owners and prevents guns from falling into the wrong hands. ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 9:40 AM Education Insider A weekly review of progress on the Quality Public Schools Agenda and other legislation that impacts our students, classrooms, and public education. July 10, 2003 Head Start - Vote Delayed A firestorm of opposition to the Administration's Head Start proposal, H.R. 2210, has delayed House action. The Head Start coalition's call-in line logged 2,455 calls in opposition within hours of its opening. Thank you for your support. Action Alert: Tell Congress: Cast your vote for children. Vote NO on H.R. 2210. AN UPDATE ON KEY ISSUES -- DC Vouchers The House committee votes today. Stay tuned. -- IDEA Reauthorization - Action Delayed It now appears that the full Senate will not take up the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization until after the August recess. (The House passed its bill on April 30.) Action Alert: Tell your Senators: "Please ensure that the Senate reauthorization bill provides for mandatory full funding of IDEA." -- Social Security Offsets (GPO/WEP) Repeal (www.nea.org/lac/socsec/) The cosponsor list continues to grow. H.R. 594 now has 243 - a House majority plus - as cosponsors. S. 349 has 21 cosponsors. On May 1, the Social Security Subcommittee held the first hearing on Social Security offsets repeal and heard directly from individuals who are adversely affected. NEA is pressing to move the legislation. THIS WEEK'S ACTION REPORT -- Education Funding - It's about broken promises. Debate continues today on the House education spending bill for Fiscal Year 2004 (Oct. 1, 2003 - Sept. 30, 2004). The bill offers more rhetoric than resources. NEA opposes the House bill in its current form. A House vote may come as early as today. The Senate takes up education spending for the 2004 budget year very shortly. "Never before have educators been asked to do so much with so little," NEA told Senators. Action Alert: Urge your U.S. Senators to move beyond misplaced budget priorities and hollow promises that will not educate our children. -- Keeping Assault Weapons Off Our Streets NEA urges the U.S. Senate to renew the Assault Weapons Ban (S. 1034). Military-style firearms are not needed for hunting or for self-defense - but their light triggers and rapid-fire capability make them weapons of choice for criminals. They pose an especially high risk to our nation's youth. Action Alert: Tell your U.S. Senators that the issue is SAFETY, not gun control. Urge them to support the Assault Weapons Ban (S.1034). Government Relations 202-822-7300 http://www.nea.org/lac 1201 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Education Insider is sent to your in-box once a week. We deliver inside information on developments in the federal government that affect children and public education. If you find this information useful, tell a friend. They can sign up for their very own copy at http://www.nea.org/lac and click on "Join our E-mail List". You may cancel your subscription at any time by sending an e-mail tomailto:nea_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. This list conforms to the Acceptable Use Policy of the National Education Association for electronic mailing lists. To receive a copy of that policy, send email to list-aup@list.nea.org ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: OFF-TOPIC: Hatch offers Con Amd to allow naturalized citizens to run f Date: 15 Jul 2003 22:19:31 GMT This is not a gun issue. But somehow, I suspect gun owners may have an opinion or two... ;) From today's DesNews: Give 'Terminator' a shot at White House? Hatch is pushing amendment to lift Oval Office limit By Lee Davidson Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — Sen. Orrin Hatch is pushing a constitutional amendment that could allow his pal, fund-raising helper and potential California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger, to also run for U.S. president someday. [Image] Orrin Hatch [Image] Arnold Schwarzenegger Hatch, R-Utah, introduced without fanfare last week an amendment to allow foreign-born people who have been naturalized U.S. citizens for at least 20 years to run for president. Currently, only native-born citizens may run for president. Hatch spokeswoman Margarita Tapia said the legislation was not drafted with Schwarzenegger or anyone else specifically in mind when Hatch came up with the 20-year requirement. "It was a policy judgment not associated with any one individual," she said. Schwarzenegger, the Austrian-born star of the current "Terminator 3" and numerous other hit movies, has been publicly toying with the idea of running for governor of California. Former actor Ronald Reagan did the same before also rising to the White House — something the Constitution would not allow Schwarzenegger (who has appeared at fund-raisers for Hatch) to even think about unless Hatch's amendment passes. In a statement Hatch gave to introduce his legislation, which is titled the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, he said many foreign-born citizens of all parties are loyal Americans who should have a legal opportunity to be considered for president. "These include former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; current Cabinet members Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez; as well as Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan and bright young star of the Democratic Party," he said. Also, he noted that thousands of foreign-born members of the military now never could be elected to lead the country for which they fought. "No matter how great their sacrifice, leadership or love for this country, they remain ineligible to be a candidate for president. This amendment would remove this unfounded inequity," he said. Hatch, a one-time presidential candidate himself, said the restriction against foreign-born candidates is "an anachronism that is decidedly un-American." He said it received scant debate during the Constitutional Convention but said it was apparently driven "by the concern that a European monarch, such as King George III's second son, the Duke of York, might be imported to the United States" to rule. Hatch noted that no similar requirement bars service by naturalized citizens in Congress, the Supreme Court or the presidential Cabinet. "I believe the time has now come to address the antiquated provision of the Constitution that requires our president to be a natural born citizen. It has long outlived its original purpose," Hatch said. A constitutional amendment must pass both houses of Congress by two-thirds votes and then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures to become law. The amendment was referred for consideration to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Hatch chairs. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: DesNews says only shoot at a professional range or don't shoot at all Date: 16 Jul 2003 17:14:12 GMT Read especially the last few paragraphs of this editorial. So now, in the name of fire prevention the anti-gun DesNews editorializes against all shooting except at a professional range. Simply taking prudent measures to avoid causing a fire is not sufficient for them. No bets on whether they'd support a few public ranges or even easing the zoning for private ranges. Letters to the editor of the DesNews can be sent to . Letters must include a full name, address, city and telephone number. ================== Charles Hardy http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,510040052,00.html Fire a reminder to developers Deseret Morning News editorial Drivers along I-15 in Davis County can now clearly see the ring of black, charred earth that hangs like a shroud on the mountainside above Farmington. They also can see where the ring ends, just to the east of houses and neighborhoods. Fortunately, no house was burned. As of Monday the fire was 50 percent contained and not expected to threaten homes. That's due to a combination of good firefighting and favorable conditions — and to the fact no homes exist higher up the mountainside. This fire should be a warning to anyone planning to build higher than anyone has gone before in any spot along the Wasatch Front — a popular notion among some developers. Fires can happen anywhere. On days like these, with temperatures rising to 100 degrees or more, tinder-dry vegetation is ready to burst at the slightest spark. But the hillsides, with mountainous and difficult terrain nearby, are particularly vulnerable and dangerous. Hillside homes are hazards for fires during hot, dry summers and for landslides during rainy periods. They could fall over in an earthquake. In addition, they mar the beauty of the mountains for everyone else who lives in the valley. Davis County, including Farmington, is undergoing a planning process that ultimately could protect its hillsides from development. In Salt Lake and Utah counties, however, policies vary from city to city, and often they allow for developers to keep testing new heights. Simply put, this is crazy. Mountainside homeowners don't have to worry simply about the odd lightning strike. They have to contend with the stupidity of man, which seems to be in abundant supply. Another wildfire started because people were shooting at targets outside of Saratoga Springs. Apparently, they tried to put out the fire, but it spread too quickly. A BLM official suggested shooters look for areas with little vegetation and that they bring fire extinguishers with them. We have a better solution. Go to a professional firing range, or don't shoot at all. Officials say target shooters start a fire a week on average during hot summer months in Utah. Generally, they don't shoot in the valleys. They shoot in the mountains, where they stand less chance of hitting people. Mountain fires aren't new here. The first recorded wildfire near present-day Farmington was in 1846, a full year before Mormon pioneers entered Utah. By now, everyone should have learned. Don't build houses where it's most difficult to pump water and douse a blaze ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Shoot only at public ranges Date: 17 Jul 2003 18:29:27 GMT In response to yesterday's DesNews articles telling us to ONLY shoot at a professional range, I've sent the following letter to their editor. I've also sent a note to the SLCo Mayor and County Council. I encourage others to do likewise. and , and . Charles Hardy Policy Director GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!) xxxxx Sandy, Utah xxxx xxx.xxx.xxxx Dear Editor, I'm writing in reference to your July 16th Editorial, "Fire a reminder to developers," in which you admonish shooters "Go to a professional firing range, or don't shoot at all. I would certainly enjoy shooting out of the hot sun and choking dust. How nice to practice self-defense tactics, duck hunting draws, or even sight in an Elk gun in a pleasant, controlled environment and without having to drive 60 minutes into the mountain or desert! Sanitation and concession facilities would also be welcome. Unfortunately, the existence of sufficient publicly accessible shooting ranges, especially those that allow the weapons or activities mentioned above, has escaped my attention. Please publish a list of ranges that are OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Please be sure to let your readers know what types of firearms may be discharged and which shooting activities may be pursued at each range along with the costs. Do some checking and you’ll find that in a State where the majority of homes have at least one firearm, there are almost no publicly accessible outdoor shooting ranges and very few indoor ranges—especially that are equipped to handle anything other than standing practice with a handgun or a .22 LR. In light of this, and with the history of taxes supporting an abundance of golf courses, health centers, tennis courts, soccer fields, swimming pools, skateboarding parks, musical presentations, arts festivals, and other public recreational facilities, I’m sure the Deseret News will advocate the desirability of using ZAP taxes to construct some public shooting ranges. I trust you desire is simply to increase the safety of the shooting sports, not to diminish participation by eliminating venues. Charles Hardy Policy Director GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!) www.goutahorg.org ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Poll: Should Residents of DC have Guns? Date: 17 Jul 2003 23:18:48 GMT One has to wonder why it has taken Hatch so long to finally introduce legislation such as this. The cynic in me says it is merely to bolster support among conservatives who are likely to disaprove of his latest Con Amd to let naturalized citizens serve as POTUS (or other non-conservative issues pushed by the Senator) and he has no real intention of burning much political capital on it. After all, nothing like this kind of bill to end coverage of his ConAmd. As a side note, I observe that for a man who claims to believe the Constitution is a document inspired of God, Hatch sure likes to offer up amendments to change it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. A lot of people might be persuaded to accept the Bible as inspired if only they could change a few passages here and there. ;) In any case, check out the poll. ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- It's a loaded question (notice how the "No" vote is phrased) but we're winning anyway. ---------- Poll by Washington DC TV station VOTE! ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Why is Hatch finally pushing for DC gun rights? Date: 21 Jul 2003 15:32:25 GMT FYI... Battle of the Ban by Robert A. Levy and Gene Healy Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute. Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses. Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council member Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal. Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest that Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker v. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds. In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception. Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the Court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child? Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment. Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive. Thankfully, on July 8, federal judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Sen. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists. Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Ashcroft when he's so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation." Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Anti-self-defense SLTrib Date: 21 Jul 2003 18:53:07 GMT While I have expressed some concerns about the timing and motivation of Hatch's bill to allow DC residents to keep guns in their homes and businesses (but, so far as I know does not provide any CCW or other means to carry legally in public), I do not oppose the bill. (I would hate to see it derail a good clean lawsuit.) The SLTrib, OTOH, opposses the bill on its merits. Today's editorial: Pistol-packing capital It may have escaped the notice of Sen. Orrin Hatch, busy as he is telling the District of Columbia what its laws should be, but one thing should be obvious. Washington ain't Utah. Hatch wants Congress to overturn the Washington City Council's strict gun-control laws. Hatch is acting on the intellectually flawed and morally bankrupt argument that pouring more guns into a violent city would somehow make it less violent. Worse, he is seeking to usurp the District's limited home-rule authority on the insultingly paternalistic grounds that Congress Knows Best. Washington does have exceptionally strict gun laws, at least by American standards, and crime is still a big problem. Legal gun ownership there is strictly limited, with every gun supposedly registered and every gun owner supposedly licensed. Supposedly is the word, because the laws of course aren't stopping people, law-abiding and criminal, from obtaining and carrying weapons. Really limiting the trade and possession of firearms is difficult in any circumstance and, with D.C. surrounded by the more gun-friendly states of Maryland and Virginia, it has proved nigh onto impossible. Still, Hatch's argument that arming more citizens would help quell Washington's murder rate, which floats between the third- and seventh-highest of major cities, is grounded in a culture that has watched far too many movies. In fiction, the good guys never have to fumble for their weapon when taken by surprise, never have it go off too soon or too late, never shoot themselves or an innocent passer-by. Matt Dillon never left his gun within reach of a child, or a drug addict. James Bond never caressed it while in the throes of suicidal despair. In real life, these things happen all the time, even to trained police officers. While there is little doubt that some criminals would be stopped in their tracks by a clear-eyed pistol-packing citizen, there is even less doubt that, overall, adding guns to ease violence is like adding gasoline to put out a fire. Hatch's Utah has looser restrictions on guns. And it has less crime. It also has a smaller, richer, more religious, more highly educated population, more intact families, more open spaces, less drugs and alcohol. Our people, not our guns, are the reason for our lower crime rate. If Orrin Hatch can find a way to make Washington more like Utah in all those other respects, he might have a chance of making the nation's capital a safer place to live. Otherwise, he should let the people of the District of Columbia make their own laws. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Mayor Workman suggests banning all shooting outside of professional ra Date: 21 Jul 2003 23:22:59 GMT I am astounded at the following response I've just received from our (GOP? or RINO?) SLCo Mayor to my email suggesting that ZAP taxes might appropirately be used for construction of public shooting ranges. While her suggestion to ban all shooting outside of professional ranges is probably a moot point as I believe all of SLCo is already off limits to recreational shooting, I'm disgusted that she would propose doing so and thought some here might want to respond. (In a professional, dignified manner, of course.) Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Dear Mr. Hardy: Thank you for your email. I appreciate your sharing of your thoughts concerning proper shooting ranges and encouragement of use of those venues by shooters. As you may be aware, I am acutely concerned with the potential for fire in this extremely dry summer. I have worked with our Fire Department to restrict illegal use of fireworks and outright bans of any fireworks in certain areas. It would seem to be an appropriate next step to consider a similar restriction on using firearms outside of approved ranges. I will work with the Fire Chief on this issue. Again, I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. Sincerely, Mayor Nancy Workman > > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Hardy [mailto:utbagpiper@juno.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:16 PM > To: Mayor Nancy > Cc: Randy Horiuchi; Jim Bradley; Steve Harmsen; Joe Hatch; Michael H > Jensen; David Wilde; Russell Skousen; Cortlund Ashton; Marvin > Hendrickson > Subject: > > > > > Dear Mayor Workman and SL County Council members, > > I've recently received your report on how my ZAP taxes are being > allocated and spent. Coincidentally, yesterday, the Deseret News ran > an editorial admonishing shooters to ONLY shoot at professional > shooting ranges. Below, is the Deseret News editorial and a letter > I've sent in response. > > What is the position of the SLCo Mayor and each Council member on the > topic of providing safe and appropriate shooting venues for the > residents of SLCo? > > I look forward to your individual responses. > > Charles Hardy > Policy Director > GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!) > charles@goutahorg.org > 801.523.3817 > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > > > Fire a reminder to developers > > Deseret Morning News editorial > > Drivers along I-15 in Davis County can now clearly see the ring > of black, charred earth that hangs like a shroud on the mountainside > above Farmington. They also can see where the ring ends, just to the > east of houses and neighborhoods. > Fortunately, no house was burned. As of Monday the fire was 50 > percent contained and not expected to threaten homes. That's due to a > combination of good firefighting and favorable conditions - and to the > fact no homes exist higher up the mountainside. > This fire should be a warning to anyone planning to build higher > than anyone has gone before in any spot along the Wasatch Front - a > popular notion among some developers. > Fires can happen anywhere. On days like these, with temperatures > rising to 100 degrees or more, tinder-dry vegetation is ready to burst > at the slightest spark. But the hillsides, with mountainous and > difficult terrain nearby, are particularly vulnerable and dangerous. > Hillside homes are hazards for fires during hot, dry summers and > for landslides during rainy periods. They could fall over in an > earthquake. In addition, they mar the beauty of the mountains for > everyone else who lives in the valley. > Davis County, including Farmington, is undergoing a planning > process that ultimately could protect its hillsides from development. > In Salt Lake and Utah counties, however, policies vary from city to > city, and often they allow for developers to keep testing new heights. > Simply put, this is crazy. > Mountainside homeowners don't have to worry simply about the odd > lightning strike. They have to contend with the stupidity of man, > which seems to be in abundant supply. > Another wildfire started because people were shooting at targets > outside of Saratoga Springs. Apparently, they tried to put out the > fire, but it spread too quickly. A BLM official suggested shooters > look for areas with little vegetation and that they bring fire > extinguishers with them. We have a better solution. Go to a > professional firing range, or don't shoot at all. > Officials say target shooters start a fire a week on average > during hot summer months in Utah. Generally, they don't shoot in the > valleys. They shoot in the mountains, where they stand less chance of > hitting people. > Mountain fires aren't new here. The first recorded wildfire near > present-day Farmington was in 1846, a full year before Mormon pioneers > entered Utah. By now, everyone should have learned. Don't build houses > where it's most difficult to pump water and douse a blaze. > > Charles Hardy > Policy Director > GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!) > 9442 David St. > Sandy, Utah 84070 > 801.523.3817 > > Dear Editor, > > I'm writing in reference to your July 16th Editorial, "Fire a reminder > to developers," in which you admonish shooters "Go to a professional > firing range, or don't shoot at all. I would certainly enjoy shooting > out of the hot sun and choking dust. How nice to practice > self-defense tactics, duck hunting draws, or even sight in an Elk gun > in a pleasant, controlled environment and without having to drive 60 > minutes into the mountain or desert! Sanitation and concession > facilities would also be welcome. > > Unfortunately, the existence of sufficient publicly accessible > shooting ranges, especially those that allow the weapons or activities > mentioned above, has escaped my attention. Please publish a list of > ranges that are OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Please be sure to let > your readers know what types of firearms may be discharged and which > shooting activities may be pursued at each range along with the costs. > > Do some checking and you'll find that in a State where the majority of > homes have at least one firearm, there are almost no publicly > accessible outdoor shooting ranges and very few indoor > ranges-especially that are equipped to handle anything other than > standing practice with a handgun or a .22 LR. > > In light of this, and with the history of taxes supporting an > abundance of golf courses, health centers, tennis courts, soccer > fields, swimming pools, skateboarding parks, musical presentations, > arts festivals, and other public recreational facilities, I'm sure the > Deseret News will advocate the desirability of using ZAP taxes to > construct some public shooting ranges. I trust you desire is simply > to increase the safety of the shooting sports, not to diminish > participation by eliminating venues. > > Charles Hardy > Policy Director > GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!) > www.goutahorg.org > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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! ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges. Date: 22 Jul 2003 17:21:57 GMT The following is a brief email exchange I've recently had with SLCo Mayor Nancy Workman. Notice that she carefully avoids taking a firm position on public shooting ranges. And she was VERY quick to suggest/support a total ban on all recreational shooting except in "approved" ranges. I think we ought to push Mayor Workman and our SLCo council to use some ZAP tax monies for shooting ranges and see how many the Republicans among them really support the RKBA and how many would rather see tax money spent only on high brow arts and parks for skate punks. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Dear Charles That is a new and interesting concept. Shooting is a recreational activity. ZAP funding is a function of the County Council in this new form of government. I will pass this on to County Council Chairman Jensen. Thank you. Nancy Workman County Mayor -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:06 AM Mayor Workman, My pleasure. Again, what is your position on using ZAP taxes to help fund public shooting ranges in SLCo? Thank you. Charles ================== Charles Hardy --- Mayor Nancy wrote: Thank you for the clarification. Mayor Workman -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 5:26 PM Dear Mayor Workman; Perhaps you misread my email. I am NOT suggesting that the county ban all recreational shooting outside of "approved ranges." I am suggesting that public shooting ranges are every bit as appropriate use of ZAP taxes as are theaters, zoos, and the other attractions currently funded by those taxes. I believe providing safe and appropriate venues for shooting is a far better solution than simply banning shooting while few if any such venues exist. ================== Charles Hardy --- Mayor Nancy wrote: Dear Mr. Hardy: Thank you for your email. I appreciate your sharing of your thoughts concerning proper shooting ranges and encouragement of use of those venues by shooters. As you may be aware, I am acutely concerned with the potential for fire in this extremely dry summer. I have worked with our Fire Department to restrict illegal use of fireworks and outright bans of any fireworks in certain areas. It would seem to be an appropriate next step to consider a similar restriction on using firearms outside of approved ranges. I will work with the Fire Chief on this issue. Again, I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. Sincerely, Mayor Nancy Workman > > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Hardy [mailto:utbagpiper@juno.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:16 PM > To: Mayor Nancy > Cc: Randy Horiuchi; Jim Bradley; Steve Harmsen; Joe Hatch; Michael H > Jensen; David Wilde; Russell Skousen; Cortlund Ashton; Marvin > Hendrickson > Subject: > > > > > Dear Mayor Workman and SL County Council members, > > I've recently received your report on how my ZAP taxes are being > allocated and spent. Coincidentally, yesterday, the Deseret News ran > an editorial admonishing shooters to ONLY shoot at professional > shooting ranges. Below, is the Deseret News editorial and a letter > I've sent in response. > > What is the position of the SLCo Mayor and each Council member on the > topic of providing safe and appropriate shooting venues for the > residents of SLCo? > > I look forward to your individual responses. > > Charles Hardy > Policy Director > GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!) > charles@goutahorg.org > 801.523.3817 > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > > > Fire a reminder to developers > > Deseret Morning News editorial > > Drivers along I-15 in Davis County can now clearly see the ring > of black, charred earth that hangs like a shroud on the mountainside > above Farmington. They also can see where the ring ends, just to the > east of houses and neighborhoods. > Fortunately, no house was burned. As of Monday the fire was 50 > percent contained and not expected to threaten homes. That's due to a > combination of good firefighting and favorable conditions - and to the > fact no homes exist higher up the mountainside. > This fire should be a warning to anyone planning to build higher > than anyone has gone before in any spot along the Wasatch Front - a > popular notion among some developers. > Fires can happen anywhere. On days like these, with temperatures > rising to 100 degrees or more, tinder-dry vegetation is ready to burst > at the slightest spark. But the hillsides, with mountainous and > difficult terrain nearby, are particularly vulnerable and dangerous. > Hillside homes are hazards for fires during hot, dry summers and > for landslides during rainy periods. They could fall over in an > earthquake. In addition, they mar the beauty of the mountains for > everyone else who lives in the valley. > Davis County, including Farmington, is undergoing a planning > process that ultimately could protect its hillsides from development. > In Salt Lake and Utah counties, however, policies vary from city to > city, and often they allow for developers to keep testing new heights. > Simply put, this is crazy. > Mountainside homeowners don't have to worry simply about the odd > lightning strike. They have to contend with the stupidity of man, > which seems to be in abundant supply. > Another wildfire started because people were shooting at targets > outside of Saratoga Springs. Apparently, they tried to put out the > fire, but it spread too quickly. A BLM official suggested shooters > look for areas with little vegetation and that they bring fire > extinguishers with them. We have a better solution. Go to a > professional firing range, or don't shoot at all. > Officials say target shooters start a fire a week on average > during hot summer months in Utah. Generally, they don't shoot in the > valleys. They shoot in the mountains, where they stand less chance of > hitting people. > Mountain fires aren't new here. The first recorded wildfire near > present-day Farmington was in 1846, a full year before Mormon pioneers > entered Utah. By now, everyone should have learned. Don't build houses > where it's most difficult to pump water and douse a blaze. > > Charles Hardy > Policy Director > GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!) > 9442 David St. > Sandy, Utah 84070 > 801.523.3817 > > Dear Editor, > > I'm writing in reference to your July 16th Editorial, "Fire a reminder > to developers," in which you admonish shooters "Go to a professional > firing range, or don't shoot at all. I would certainly enjoy shooting > out of the hot sun and choking dust. How nice to practice > self-defense tactics, duck hunting draws, or even sight in an Elk gun > in a pleasant, controlled environment and without having to drive 60 > minutes into the mountain or desert! Sanitation and concession > facilities would also be welcome. > > Unfortunately, the existence of sufficient publicly accessible > shooting ranges, especially those that allow the weapons or activities > mentioned above, has escaped my attention. Please publish a list of > ranges that are OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Please be sure to let > your readers know what types of firearms may be discharged and which > shooting activities may be pursued at each range along with the costs. > > Do some checking and you'll find that in a State where the majority of > homes have at least one firearm, there are almost no publicly > accessible outdoor shooting ranges and very few indoor > ranges-especially that are equipped to handle anything other than > standing practice with a handgun or a .22 LR. > > In light of this, and with the history of taxes supporting an > abundance of golf courses, health centers, tennis courts, soccer > fields, swimming pools, skateboarding parks, musical presentations, > arts festivals, and other public recreational facilities, I'm sure the > Deseret News will advocate the desirability of using ZAP taxes to > construct some public shooting ranges. I trust you desire is simply > to increase the safety of the shooting sports, not to diminish > participation by eliminating venues. > > Charles Hardy > Policy Director > GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!) > www.goutahorg.org > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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! ________________________________________________________________ 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! ________________________________________________________________ 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! ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Concealed Weapon Permit Holders get in trouble even less frequent Date: 22 Jul 2003 19:38:15 GMT Some more info on the comparision between police officers and private CCW permit holders provided by Scott Engen. Again, comparisions between police officers' and private CCW permitees' rates of problems are useful for CCW permit holders precisely because the police are such a trusted groups (and rightfully so in most cases). Hence, you'll note the subtle change in subject line, which I think may be a prudent change in language usage. We are NOT suggesting that police officers are bad people or untrustworthy. We are simply pointing out that, by at least some measures, private CCW permitees "get into trouble" even less frequently than do our sworn peace officers. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Regarding the Cops/CCW stats issue: I raised this very comparison in a joint House/Senate committee shortly after we did the Utah CCW reforms in the mid-1990's. While our dedicated police officers, just like CCW holders, are among the finest members of our society and are being asked to do a difficult and often thankless job, there are a few additional points to consider: -POST certifies some 8000-plus officers in Utah, but something less than half are Cat. 1 (Fully sworn officers with full arrest powers) and thus able to carry a firearm on or off duty per, their department's regs. The balance are Cat. 2 (Special Service Officers such as corrections, dispatchers, etc.) and generally only able to carry on duty per department regs. -Many of both the Cat 1 and Cat 2 officers also have a CCW, to allow them greater latitude in carrying a personal firearm off duty. Departments often encourage their people to get a CCW, usually to minimize their liability for any sort of off-duty confrontation from one of their employees. -Law enforcement as a group has demonstrated in numerous studies a higher rate of divorce, suicide, domestic violence and other potentially dangerous behaviors than those of the general public. -Utah CCW holders are the ONLY group that are subject to a DAILY criminal background check by Utah BCI. Not cops, illegal aliens, elected officials, judges or TV reporters. Just our nearly 60,000 CCW holders. -Thus it is possible, even probable that the figures demonstrating the highly responsible CCW holder behavior as [forwarded] by Mr. Hardy are actually even better in real life than the 1/3 less revocations compared to police as he stated. Scott ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: Re: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges. Date: 22 Jul 2003 19:42:29 GMT Some more good points about (the lack of) public shooting ranges both in SLCo and in the State of Utah as a whole. I wonder how much money the Utah legislature or any county commision has sought, much less obtained, from the feds for construction of shooting ranges. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- You might also want to note that SGMA's recreational participation research shows that target shooting sits between golf and tennis in number of particpants nationally, around 18-20 million annually, and would be higher than the national average in Utah. Also note that there is the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax of 11% on guns and ammo at point of manufacture earmarked for game preservation and range construction. ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: RE: Re: Fw: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges. Date: 22 Jul 2003 21:21:51 GMT Dear Mayor Workman, I believe much good could come from greater interactions between the shooting public and sworn peace officers. While there are certainly times when the police need exclusive use of certain facilities, I fear that having exclusive use of a segregated range insulates officers too much from a major segment of those they serve and protect. Unfortunately, the very segment they are thus insulated from, private gun owners many of whom hold state issued CCW permits and carry concealed firearms in public, are the segment where the greatest mutual understanding and respect is needed. Further, you will note that the 11% federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition applies to ALL guns and ammo, not just those purchased by or for the use of law enforcement. Hence, there should be federal money available--in addition to local ZAP funds--to fund ranges open to the general public. Ideally, such ranges would be constructed such that the public and sworn peace officers could practice and recreate side-by-side most of the time. Thank you for your time in considering such matters. I encourage you to actively work to ensure that there are safe and appropriate venues for recreational shooting as well as to practice the arts of defensive firearm use. If you'd like, representatives of the various gun owners and shooting sports organizations could meet with you to provide more information. Charles Hardy Policy Director GOUtah! ================== Charles Hardy --- Mayor Workman wrote: Hi Charles Our shooting range that is for law enforcement was financed by federal monies. However it is not open to the public. It is a highly patrolled and protected area and could not be open to the public. Nancy Workman County Mayor -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 1:42 PM Some more good points about (the lack of) public shooting ranges both in SLCo and in the State of Utah as a whole. I wonder how much money the Utah legislature or any county commision has sought, much less obtained, from the feds for construction of shooting ranges. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- You might also want to note that SGMA's recreational participation research shows that target shooting sits between golf and tennis in number of particpants nationally, around 18-20 million annually, and would be higher than the national average in Utah. Also note that there is the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax of 11% on guns and ammo at point of manufacture earmarked for game preservation and range construction. ________________________________________________________________ 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! ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: SLCo Mayor's non-position on public shooting ranges Date: 22 Jul 2003 15:51:03 -0600 Keep at it Charles. Don't let her divide and conquer by artificially separating police and public, and squandering public funds on exclusively elitist applications. While somewhat off-topic, I wonder if those "public" golf courses pay their own way when their tax exclusions are considered. If not, they are a theft from the rest of us. (Same could be said of tennis courts, opera, or whatever else ZAP tax is spent on; however, nearly all those uses sequester a far smaller amount of land from productive use, parking possibly excepted.) Does the Lee Kay Center receive ZAP or federal excise funds? If not, why not? (Shooting's an art, a range could be considered a park, and the antis certainly consider shooters exhibits at a zoo. Perhaps it could charge separate admission to a gallery.) Shalom, Scott (Below wrapped for legibility.) On 22 Jul 2003 21:21:51 GMT Charles Hardy wrote: Dear Mayor Workman, I believe much good could come from greater interactions between the shooting public and sworn peace officers. While there are certainly times when the police need exclusive use of certain facilities, I fear that having exclusive use of a segregated range insulates officers too much from a major segment of those they serve and protect. Unfortunately, the very segment they are thus insulated from, private gun owners many of whom hold state issued CCW permits and carry concealed firearms in public, are the segment where the greatest mutual understanding and respect is needed. Further, you will note that the 11% federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition applies to ALL guns and ammo, not just those purchased by or for the use of law enforcement. Hence, there should be federal money available - in addition to local ZAP funds - to fund ranges open to the general public. Ideally, such ranges would be constructed such that the public and sworn peace officers could practice and recreate side-by-side most of the time. Thank you for your time in considering such matters. I encourage you to actively work to ensure that there are safe and appropriate venues for recreational shooting as well as to practice the arts of defensive firearm use. If you'd like, representatives of the various gun owners and shooting sports organizations could meet with you to provide more information. Charles Hardy Policy Director GOUtah! ================== Charles Hardy --- Mayor Workman wrote: Hi Charles Our shooting range that is for law enforcement was financed by federal monies. However it is not open to the public. It is a highly patrolled and protected area and could not be open to the public. Nancy Workman County Mayor -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 1:42 PM Some more good points about (the lack of) public shooting ranges both in SLCo and in the State of Utah as a whole. I wonder how much money the Utah legislature or any county commision has sought, much less obtained, from the feds for construction of shooting ranges. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- You might also want to note that SGMA's recreational participation research shows that target shooting sits between golf and tennis in number of particpants nationally, around 18-20 million annually, and would be higher than the national average in Utah. Also note that there is the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax of 11% on guns and ammo at point of manufacture earmarked for game preservation and range construction. --- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Need info on judicial appointment Date: 30 Jul 2003 14:51:50 GMT If anyone has any info on where Mr. Pullan stands on RKBA, please let me know. Charles ================== Charles Hardy Extremely Urgent! Please Forward! The news article at the following link provides some very bad news! Wasatch County Attorney Derek P. Pullan has been appointed to the Fourth District Court bench by Gov. Mike Leavitt. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,510043226,00.html Pullan led the effort of the private property confiscation lobby to repeal a resolution overwhelmingly passed at the Republican Convention in 1998. This resolution resolved that forfeiture should be allowed only if (1) the property owner is convicted of related criminal wrongdoing, (2) full due process is restored, and (3) forfeiture proceeds are directed to the General Fund or preferably the Crime Victims Reparation Fund. This resolution may be viewed at the following link. http://www.xmission.com/~ajgaunt/forfeiture/Res4.PDF Without prior notice, Pullan was given an opportunity to convince the Republican Party Central Committee to support repeal of the convention resolution. Pullan sought to replace the resolution approved by the delegates with one that was written on behalf of property confiscators. His resolution follows. http://www.xmission.com/~ajgaunt/forfeiture/DP_Res.PDF Fortunately, his effort failed. This failure occurred despite Pullan having the written support of the Salt Lake County Law Enforcement Administrators & Directors, South Jordan Chief of Police, Statewide Association of Public Attorneys, Uintah Basin Narcotics Strike Force, Utah Department of Public Safety, Utah Sheriffs' Association, Weber/Morgan Narcotics Strike Force, West Valley Chief of Police, and the the Attorneys for Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Iron, Morgan, Salt Lake, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Wasatch, Wayne, and Weber Counties. Confiscation zealots such as Pullan represent an enormous threat to your right to own property, but possibly never more so when they occupy the office of judge. Fortunately, our constitutional form of government requires that judicial appointees must be confirmed by the Senate for their appointments to be effective. To protect yourself from the menace of Derek Pullan's confiscation zealotry, without delay (a hearing will be held in no more than thirty days) you must contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and your State Senator and request that he or she reject Pullan's appointment to the Fourth District Court. Contact information for Senators and members of the Judiciary Committee can be found at the following links: Senate Contact Information http://se15.utahsenate.org/perl/spage/roster2003.pl Senate Judiciary Committee Members http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2003&Com=SSTJLC I would be interested in any information pertinent to your contacts with Senators. Thank you. Arnold Gaunt ajgaunt@xmission.com ________________________________________________________________ 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! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw:Shurtleff on Dexter - 8/5 @ 11:30 Date: 30 Jul 2003 22:59:45 GMT For those who listen to talk radio, a great opportunity to ask our AG about the UofU gun suit or any other gun issues. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Attorney General Mark Shurtleff will be on my show next Tuesday, August 5, starting around 11:30 AM. He is scheduled to stay to the end of the show (1:00 PM) and probably will if callers are polite and civil when they rip him a new one over SB 31, the return of asset forfeiture, a/k/a "legalized theft." Since General Shurtleff, as he likes to be called, is an attorney, it's a very good idea to be familiar with the exact language of Senator John Valentine's bill. So here 'tis: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2003/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0031.htm. Mark has told me that he'd also like to discuss the U of U gun lawsuit or the applicability of Lawrence v. Texas to Utah laws. Keep in mind that call volume may require shorter calls so please ask your main question first and try not to cover areas already discussed unless you have a different angle. BTW, here is General Shurtleff's defense of SB 31: > I do believe that with all the due process in place and several disconnects > between seizure, forfeiture and appropriation, that some of the money seized, > and at least costs and fees associated with the seizure and forfeiture, should > be returned to law enforcement to continue to fight crime. I am a strong > advocate of private property and requiring law enforcement and government to > do their jobs properly, lawfully and constitutionally so as to protect the > rights of citizens, but I also have more faith than many of my detractors in > the legal system and our police and feel we need to supply them with the > reasonable opportunity to ensure domestic tranquility and protect the law > abiding and the innocent. It will be an interesting show. If you can't listen to the radio, tune in on the internet. "The Jim Dexter Show" Mondays & Tuesdays 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM (Mountain) KTKK-AM 630 -- The Voice of Utah Listen live @ http://www.k-talk.com Past shows archived @ http://www.mindcleaner.com ________________________________________________________________ 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! -