From: Charles Hardy Subject: Don't mess with them "womenfolk" Date: 11 Feb 2004 17:15:40 GMT Another reason to oppose the "lock up your safety bill." From FoxNews' website: Every Burglar's Worst Nightmare RANCHO CORDOVA, Calif. (AP) — A 53-year-old woman who fired nine shots with two handguns to ward off an intruder said she tried to avoid hitting her furniture. "Priorities, right?" said Carolyn Lisle of Rancho Cordova. "It was one of those nights. I have a few holes in my glass out front." The Sacramento County sheriff's department said William Kriske, a 47-year-old parolee, was treated for a gunshot wound to the arm, then jailed on suspicion of burglary and resisting arrest after he crashed through Lisle's sliding glass door Thursday evening. Lisle's three guests fled the home, but she took action, opening fire with a .357 caliber revolver. "He was like a mosquito hitting the window. Every time he turned around, poweee," she told the Sacramento Bee. She emptied her first handgun as the intruder crashed through another window to escape, then retrieved a second revolver as he broke into her garage. "I like to be prepared," she said. She opened fire again as the intruder fled the garage and approached the house, wounding him. Sacramento County Sheriff's Sgt. Lou Fatur said Lisle, a retired state worker who once worked as a correctional officer, won't be charged for defending herself with properly registered firearms. The intruder tried to steal a motorcycle from a home across the street, but was chased off by neighbors who also had armed themselves to come to Lisle's aid. As the burglar fled, one of the men yelled, "And that's just our womenfolk," Lisle said. A California Highway Patrol officer stopped Kriske nearby, and he was arrested by sheriff's deputies. "I don't think he'll be back," Lisle said. ================== 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: UofU student paper running on line poll on guns on campus Date: 13 Feb 2004 01:14:41 GMT Be sure to only vote once. Left side of the page, nar the bottom. "Should the Legislature pass Senate Bill 48, which would allow guns on campus? Yes No I don't know " So far the antis are winning this one. Charles ================== 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: SB 48 second reading vote totals Date: 17 Feb 2004 03:38:35 GMT Here is the vote on Waddoups' SB 48 that will, yet again, spell out that the UofU if part of Utah and must obey our gun laws. Note those who voted against your rights, or who failed to show up to vote at all. Charles Uniform Firearm Laws Waddoups, M. 23 YEAS 5 NAYS 1 ABSENT PASSED YEAS 23 Bell Evans, J. Jenkins Valentine Bramble Gladwell Killpack Waddoups Buttars Hatch Knudson Walker Dmitrich Hellewell Mayne Wright Eastman Hickman Stephenson Mansell Evans, B. Hillyard Thomas NAYS 5 Allen Davis Julander Arent Hale ABSENT 1 Blackham ================== 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: Senate committee votes to advance anti-gun SB 233 Date: 17 Feb 2004 16:15:47 GMT Yesterday, Monday the 16th, the Senate Transportation Committee voted 4-0, with 4 members absent, to advance SB 233, "Airport Security Amendments." This bill increases the panalty level for taking a weapon, including a firearm, beyond the metal detectors at the airport. We certainly do not condone illegally taking a weapon into a secure area. And we encourage gun owners to be mindful and dilligent in keeping track of their weapons. However, we don't think it serves either security or justice to impose unduly harsh punishment over innocent or minor mistakes. Increasing penalty levels by one degree as this bill does, so that the maximum penalty is a Class A, rather than a Class B misdemeanor, does NOTHING to deter real criminals or terrorists. It just continues the march down the path of demonizing anyone who may have a weapon--including folding utility knives, etc. GOUTah! has contacted Sen. Evans and let him know we oppose this bill. USDIN and the NRA attempted to work with the sponsor, Sen. Evans, as well as the airport in an effort to resolve gun owner concerns. It seems that the Sen. and the airport were unwilling to budge an inch. We know Sen. Evans is in for a tough re-election in a traditionally Democratic district. It seems he may be playing election year politics at gun owners' expense. Here is the vote report. Unfortunately, some claimed friends voted against us and some others who are generally pro-gun were absent. Please contact these committee members, as well as your own Senator, and ask them to oppose SB 233 on the floor. Charles Senate Transportation and Public Utilities and Technology Committee 2/16/2004 4:00:00 PM - Rm 403 Minutes Senate Comm - Favorable Recommendation SB0233 - Airport Security Amendments Yeas - 4 Hale, K. Killpack, S. Stephenson, H. Walker, C. Nays - 0 Absent - 4 Eastman, D. Hickman, J. Knudson, P. Mayne, E. ================== 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: "utbagpiper" Subject: Fwd: FW: NRA Alert: Attend Town Hall Meetings! Date: 17 Feb 2004 16:35:41 -0000 For any who live in Rep. Chris Cannon's district, it looks like there is a town meeting tonight. ---------- Attend Town Hall Meetings! The President's Day Work Period for Congress is scheduled for the week of February 16. During this time, your Senators and Representative will be back in their respective home states and districts meeting with constituents at town hall meetings. Please attend the town hall meeting for your lawmakers and be sure to: * Encourage your U.S. Representative to oppose H.R. 2038, the House bill seeking to expand the Clinton Gun Ban. For information on H.R. 2038 go to http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=143. * Urge your Senators to cosponsor and support S. 659 to end reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry, and to oppose S.1034 and S. 1431, which seek to vastly expand and reauthorize the Clinton Gun Ban respectively. For information on S. 659 go tohttp://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=770. For information on S. 1034 go to http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=144. Your lawmakers' town hall meeting information is listed below: Congressman Chris Cannon 2/17/2004 7:00 PM Kearns High School 5525 South Cougar Lane Kearns, UT 84118 For tips on how to maximize your participation at a town hall meeting, go tohttp://www.nraila.org/ActionCenter/GrassRootsActivism.aspx?ID=10. National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action --- End forwarded message --- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Latest KSL drivel against guns--OR calling all "fanatics" Date: 17 Feb 2004 21:51:24 GMT This is from the KSL web site and was probably read on-air on the 12th of this month. KSL needs to hear from those who understand why disarming law abiding citizens on openly accessable, government property like the UofU campus is not a good idea. As always, please be civil in all communications as the media love nothing better than to have someone write a letter that actually confirms their bigoted views of us as "fanatics." It looks like rebuttals can be sent to . Charles Speaking Plainly About Guns Feb. 12, 2004 Senate Majority Leader Michael Waddoups recently used what he described as “plain language” to explain his latest impudent effort to amend Utah’s liberal gun law. As far as the conservative senator from Taylorsville is concerned, only the state legislature can set policy regarding guns on public property, including Utah’s colleges and universities. May we use equally plain language to express KSL’s view . . . and what repeated public opinion polls suggest is the long-held majority view in this state: Senator Waddoups and his concealed carry cronies could use a good dose of common sense. Guns, concealed or otherwise, don’t belong on college campuses! The people charged with running Utah’s schools know what works and what is best for their institutions. The University of Utah, for example, has a 30-year-old gun policy that has helped maintain a safe haven for learning. Would forcing a policy change to allow concealed weapons, in reality, do anything to make the campus safer? Let’s continue to speak plainly. KSL is not against the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Guns have a place in American life. In recent years, though, the gun debate in Utah has gotten way out of whack. In plain language, it is time to do what’s best for all Utahns, not merely what will satisfy the narrow-mindedness of a few concealed carry fanatics. ================== 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: Roll call vote on SB 48 Date: 18 Feb 2004 16:39:54 GMT All, SB 48 is Sen. Waddoups' latest attempt to make the UofU obey Utah's gun laws (as well as overturning a really bad court decision that said they didn't have to). It passed out of committee but only after Sen. Bell amendmended the bill. This amendment has some troubling ramifications. This amendment will, for the first time in our statutes, give clear and explicit authority to ALL private property owners, including owners of so-called "places of public accomodation", to discriminate against those who legally possess self-defense weapons. This is an area that has never been clarified in State law and so both sides--gun owners and anti-gun (or just liability nervous) businesses have taken low-key approaches. The AOL case wherein three employees were fired for having legal weapons in their cars in the parking lot was the most visible face off yet. The Delta Center's banning of legal CCW is another ongoing case. Yesterday, Sen. Waddoups offered an amendment that would have made clear that places of business, open to the public cannot discriminate based on your ability to defend yourself while continuing to strictly limit the authority of government agents/entities to restrict your CCW. That amendment failed on a 13-13 vote with several members absent. Those Senators who were absent often claim to support RKBA. Had one or more of them been present to vote--and voted to support your RKBA--this amendment would have passed and SB 48 would have once again been a solidly pro-gun bill. Please note that claimed "pro-gun" Senator Evans has, once again, voted against RKBA. This in addition to running an anti-gun bill this year and previously voting to undermine our efforts to kill a very bad mandatory "lock up your gun" bill. Of course, it was claimed "pro-gun" senator Bell who offered the bad amendment in the first place. Please note that Senators Mansell, Bramble, and Valentine apparantly do not care enough about RKBA to be present to vote to support it. A yes vote is good. A no vote or being absent is bad. Voting in the affirmative (to adopt Waddoups GOOD amendment) were: Senators Bell Buttars Dmitrich Eastman J. Evans Hellewell Hillyard Jenkins Knudson Mayne Stephenson Waddoups Walker Voting in the negative (AGAINST RKBA) were: Senators Allen Arent Blackham Davis B. Evans Gladwell Hale Hatch Hickman Julander Killpack Thomas Wright Absent or not voting were: Senators Bramble Valentine Mansell Here is a story from today's SLTrib. Note that while Senator Walker voted in favor of the Amendment (a good vote), according to this story, she spoke against it and RKBA. She may have voted the right way only after seeing that her vote wouldn't matter. Ideally, the entire language dealing with private property will be removed in the House. This would be done by striking all of paragraph 7. That way, this bill would not deal at all with private property and would return to being just about whether local government entities, including universities, can infringe your RKBA. The debate over private property generally open to the public is best left for another day, IMO. Charles An attempt to dilute gun bill fails By Dan Harrie The Salt Lake Tribune The Utah Senate sent the House a gun bill Tuesday that would clarify for the first time in state law that stores, other businesses and private schools have the right to ban guns, including legally concealed weapons. Senate Bill 48 is an attempt to overturn the University of Utah's decades-old prohibition of students, faculty and staff bringing firearms onto campus. But a floor amendment approved Monday closes a big loophole in state gun policy -- spelling out that private property rights trump gun rights. Sponsoring Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, tried but failed Tuesday to water down the amendment. "This goes back to the way it was, which in my mind was silent on the issue" of whether businesses and private schools can ban all weapons. "That's an argument for another bill, for another debate," said Waddoups, the Senate majority leader. "I want to concentrate the debate on the University of Utah." Monday's amendment states that nothing in Utah law would prohibit a private property owner from restricting possession or use of a firearm on his or her property. But the Tuesday proposal would have carved out of that provision private property used "as a place of public accommodation" such as stores, amusement parks and privately owned schools and universities. The amendment failed on a 13-13 vote when several senators protested that businesses should have the right to ban guns on their premises. "We're almost muddying the water" by passing the amendment, said Sen. Carlene Walker, R- Cottonwood Heights. "I have a small business, employing five people. I don't want guns in my office." Sen. Karen Hale, D-Salt Lake City, raised the concern that Waddoups' proposal could interfere with the Delta Center's practice of barring concealed firearms from Jazz basketball games and other events at the facility in downtown Salt Lake City. She also said it could crimp LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University from enforcing its policy of no guns on campus. ================== 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: SB 48 assigned to house committee, calls needed Date: 18 Feb 2004 23:51:05 GMT SB 48 has just been assigned to the House Law Enforcement Committee. It is scheduled for a hearing this Thursday, at 4:30 pm in room 225. Please contact committee members, listed below, and let them know that paragraph 7 needs to be deleted from this bill. Paragraph 7, if it remains, will for the first time codify that businesses have the statutory authority to discriminate against gun owners. Your CCW permit will be far less useful if the grocery store, bank, shopping malls, and restraunts you frequent decide to post no gun signs and those signs have the backing of statutory authority. Messages for all representatives can be left at the main House number at 801-538-1029. Typically, the operator will take messages for 3 or 4 legislators per phone call. You can also email the members of the committee. Email addresses can be found at Charles AGENDA TO: Members of the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee FROM: Rep. DeMar 'Bud' Bowman, Chair Rep. Douglas C. Aagard, Vice Chair RE: Committee Meeting DATE: Thursday, February 19, 2004 TIME: 4:30 PM PLACE: Room 225 State Capitol - Call to order and approval of minutes - The following bills are scheduled for consideration: 1. HB0364 Profits from Sale of Crime Memorabilia (S. Daniels) (sca/jm1) 2. SB0048 Uniform Firearm Laws (M. Waddoups) (jlw/alh) COMMITTEE MEMBERS Rep. DeMar 'Bud' Bowman, Chair Rep. Douglas C. Aagard, Vice Chair Rep. Duane E. Bourdeaux Rep. LaVar Christensen Rep. Brad L. Dee Rep. Wayne A. Harper Rep. Patricia W. Jones Rep. David Litvack Rep. Michael T. Morley Rep. Peggy Wallace Rep. R. Curt Webb ================== 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: Please amend and then support SB 48 Date: 19 Feb 2004 00:56:18 GMT I've sent the following to each member of the House Law Enforcement committee who isn't so rabidly anti-gun as to ignore it anyway. Email addresses are: Lavarchristensen@utah.gov bdee@utah.gov Wharper@utah.gov Mikemorley@utah.gov Pwallace@utah.gov Curtwebb@utah.gov ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Dear Rep. XXXXXX, I'm writing to you because you are a member of the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee. This Thursday, February 19th, your committee is scheduled to hear SB 48, "Uniform Firearm Laws" by Sen. Waddoups. I urge you to be present, and to support an expected, friendly amendment to the bill that will strike what is currently paragraph (7). This paragraph deals with the ability of private property owners, including those who own businesses open to the general public, to ban otherwise legally carried self-defense weapons. This is not the time, nor the bill, to have this particular debate. SB 48 is intended to deal with local government entities, including public colleges and schools enacting policies contrary to State law. Please vote to remove paragraph 7 so that SB 47 deals only with the clear cut issue of local government. The issue of privately owned businesses and self-defense rights should be thoroughly studied--perhaps by an interim committee--before any legislation to address it is brought forward. A hastily drafted and adopted amendment is not the way to address that potentially thorny issue. Please vote to remove paragraph 7 and then vote to support the amended SB 48 and send it to the full House for their consideration. I appreciate your time and attention in this matter and would appreciate knowing your position at this time. Thank you. Charles Hardy Policy Director GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah) ================== 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: Sen Waddoups needs to hear from you on SB 48 Date: 19 Feb 2004 18:07:31 GMT I've just heard that apparantly someone has convinced Sen. Waddoups' that Sen. Bell's anti-gun amendment to SB 48 is a GOOD thing as it strengthens private property rights. That may be true, but only at the expense of RKBA. Private business owners do not gain ANY rights except the explicit ability to discriminate against lawful gun owners. Besides, this is not the right section of code to address that question and it has not received a thorough debate. The perpetually anti-gun SLTribune LIKES this amendment. Need I say more? We need to very quickly get messages into Waddoups that SB 48 is now an anti-gun bill and will be viewed as such unless paragraph 7 is stricken. Messages need to be left at the main senate switchboard at 538-1035. Please keep them short and polite. "Please don't gut CCW. Please support an amendment to remove paragraph 7 from SB 48." ================== 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: [goutah] GOUtah! Alert #191 (Emergency) Date: 19 Feb 2004 20:08:37 GMT Please, take 5 minutes and call NOW. If the phones or busy or you are put on hold, that is GOOD. It means lots of others are doing likewise. Please, either try again or stay on the line, as the case may be. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. GOUtah! Web Site: http://www.goutahorg.org To subscribe to or unsubscribe from GOUtah!'s free e-mail Alerts, send a blank e-mail message to one of the following addresses: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Send comments to: goutah@goutahorg.org ___________________________________ GOUtah! Alert #191 - 19 Feb. 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "Good people do not need laws telling them to act responsibly, while bad people will simply seek ways around the laws." -- Plato (420 B.C.) In this Alert: Please call Sen. Waddoups NOW! Corrections regarding Alert #190. Woman assaulted in LDS house of worship. EMERGENCY ACTION NEEDED ON SB 48 We have been informed that Sen. Mike Waddoups, the sponsor of SB 48, has been convinced by person or persons unknown that the Bell amendment that was attached on the floor of the Senate (which would empower owners of public-access places such as shopping malls and grocery stores to ban legally-carried self-defense weapons) should be left in his bill. The bill gets heard this afternoon at a meeting in room 225 of the Capitol, which starts at 4:30 p.m. It is second on the agenda, so it might get heard after 5:00. Any of you who can make it to the hearing should plan on briefly speaking, with the message that you are a gun owner and that you OPPOSE SB 48 as long as paragraph 7 remains in the bill. Sen. Waddoups appeared to have been opposed to the Bell amendment until today. According to our sources, he has done a 180 on the amendment sometime in the past few hours. Please leave a brief phone message at the Capitol AS SOON AS POSSIBLE for Senator Waddoups at 801-538-1035, asking him to oppose the Bell amendment, or at the very least paragraph 7 (which contains the main thrust of the amendment). Tell him that you as a gun owner will do everything you can legally do to get SB 48 killed unless paragraph 7 gets stripped from the bill. Even a single sentence like "Please delete paragraph 7 from SB 48" or "Please kill the Bell amendment" will suffice. TWO CORRECTIONS REGARDING ALERT #190 First correction: In Alert #190, we stated that "current law does not authorize landlords to prohibit residential tenants from possessing firearms in rented homes and apartments, nor does it explicitly prohibit them from doing so" (or words to that effect). Actually, we forgot that Section 76-10-500(1)(a) of the Utah Code appears to prohibit landlords from doing this. It reads: "Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence ..." Second correction: In Alert #190, we stated that current Utah law contains nothing that either empowers owners of public-access property (such as shopping malls and movie theaters) to ban guns nor is there anything that prohibits them from doing so. We stated that our interpretation of the current law was that it is left as a private matter between, for example, the store owner and the customer. We inferred from this that current law would allow a store owner to evict a customer from the premises if the owner had a no-gun policy and he found that the customer was legally carrying a firearm. Our thanks to Salt Lake attorney Mitch Vilos for correcting us on this. Mitch quotes a section from the state's current trespassing law: "It is a defense to prosecution under this section [criminal trespass] that the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property." Since it can be strongly argued that the legal carrying of a discretely concealed self-defense weapon does not "substantially interfere" with the operation of a grocery store or a movie theater or a gas station or whatever, we can say that, based on the above clause, it would be extremely difficult to successfully prosecute someone for trespassing on such public-access property based purely on his carrying of a concealed firearm, even if the property owner has a no-gun policy. Thus, although the law does not explicitly prohibit Home Depot from banning guns, for example, the above clause essentially strips Home Depot of any power to enforce such a ban, provided that the person carrying the firearm isn't doing anything to interfere with Home Depot's business. Our thanks to Mitch for pointing this out. We at GOUtah! are not attorneys, so it's nice to have an attorney out there who's on our side and who can point out such things to us. WOMAN ASSAULTED IN LDS HOUSE OF WORSHIP Thanks to a tip from an astute GOUtah! activist, we've learned that a 56-year-old Latter-Day Saint (LDS) woman was assaulted and severely beaten with a pipe last week while working as a volunteer in a small family history library located inside an LDS house of worship in Longview, Texas. For the full story, you can go to the website of The Tyler Morning Telegraph: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1994&dept_id=341384&newsid=10942310&PAG=461&rfi=9 Police are saying that the incident appears to have been a robbery attempt. When the suspect demanded money and the woman told him that there was no money in the library, he began to beat her with a pipe. Fortunately, another man in the building heard her screams and grappled with the attacker, who then fled the scene and has not yet been apprehended. The woman was rushed to a local hospital, where she underwent surgery to repair multiple fractures to her head and face, while her rescuer suffered only minor injuries. Texas law prohibits private citizens, including those with concealed-firearm permits, from carrying firearms in any house of worship, according to Packing.org (http://www.packing.org). Texas, incidentally, is where a madman went on a shooting spree inside a Baptist church in 1999, killing multiple people. While we should avoid drawing broad statistical conclusions from anecdotal evidence, we mention these incidents simply to point out that violent crime can happen inside a church. Utah law prohibits the carrying of firearms by private citizens in churches that have announced a no-gun policy, but does not prohibit it in churches that haven't announced such a policy. The LDS Church recently announced a no-gun policy for all its houses of worship, which means that self-defense weapons are now illegal in all LDS houses of worship in Utah, unless they are carried by certain government employees (see GOUtah! Alert #188). Had a similar attack occurred in an LDS house of worship located in Utah, and had the victim possessed a concealed-firearm permit, she would have been prohibited by law from having her self-defense weapon with her inside the building, just as in Texas. However, if she had been an off-duty peace officer (from any jurisdiction) or an off-duty USDA meat inspector or an off-duty prosecuting attorney or an off-duty justice of the peace or an off-duty national park ranger, or any one of a number of other off-duty government employees, she would have been legally entitled to carry a firearm in any Utah church, including an LDS house of worship or any other house of worship where guns are banned. Thus, our Legislature apparently believes that certain off-duty government employees are "more equal" than the rest of us when it comes to carrying self-defense weapons in churches that have no-gun policies. GOUtah! believes that this sort of statutory discrimination is unjust. We believe that if law-abiding Utahns are forced by statute to disarm before entering a house of worship, government employees should not be automatically exempt from this statute, with the possible exception of on-duty police officers who have a warrant to enter the building or who are responding to an emergency call. Any government employee wishing to be exempt from a church's gun ban should have to request such an exemption from church leaders, as is currently the case for private citizens. We will look into getting a legislator to sponsor a bill next year that would eliminate the automatic exemption for such government employees. _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #191 - 19 Feb. 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. To Subscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/goutah/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> 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: Charles Hardy Subject: HB 166 Hijacked, but then killed Date: 20 Feb 2004 00:08:14 GMT Rep. Hogue's HB 166, "Concealed Firearm Permit Amendments" was--as amended by the House Law Enforcement Committee, with Rep. Hogue's consent--essentially a neutral bill that added a statutory requirement for CCW instructors to teach their approved course material. This is already a requirement under administrative rules and according to USDIN, instructors HAVE had their credentials yanked for failing to teach their approved material. However, on the floor of the House today, Rep. Hogue offered an amendment to impose a MANDATORY live fire requirement. This would have significantly increased the time, cost, and hassle of getting a CCW permit while, as stats from States with training requirements varying from 0 hours to over 20 hours of formal training indicate, NOT doing a thing to improve public safety or reduce the already phenomially low rate of accidents and violations by those with permits. Carrying a gun is a heavy responsibility and almost everyone, it seems, naturally obtains what training they need for their particular situation and/or are careful to never exceed their training when it comes to the use of their weapons. Hogue's hostile amendment was adopted by a voice vote on the floor. This, of course, had the effect of turning a neutral bill into a VERY BAD, anti-RKBA, anti-CCW, anti-self-defense, bill. At that point USDIN, which had been following and sheparding this bill advised Rep. Hogue that the bill needed to be killed. On the mandatory roll call vote for the entire bill, the bill failed 24-50 with 1 member absent and Rep. Hogue voting against his own bill. Roll call vote below. Please note with Representatives voted against your right to an effective self defense. Our thanks to Rep. Hogue for defeating his own bill after it was hijacked. However, it looks like a fair number of unknown Reps are really fair weather friends when it comes to our gun rights. Many of them clearly were willing to vote against your rights when the vote was anonymous and only voted to support your rights when the light of a fully recorded vote loomed. This is not uncommon and is one reason why it is so important to look at committee votes, motions made, speaches given in an effort to influence fellow legislators, and votes conveniently missed as well as the final vote on bills in order to determine who is a real friend that will fight for our rights, and who are fair weather or even backstabbing friends who may do the right thing in an election year, when the lights are on, but will not actively defend, or even work to undermine our rights, when they think no one is looking. Remember, at election time, EVERYONE "supports the 2nd amd." It's what they do--or don't do--when they are actually casting votes (whether voice or roll call), making motions, avoiding casting votes, etc at the legislature that REALLY determines whether YOUR rights are important to those running for re-election, or whether they just want your vote and will happily ask for ride to the capital in gun owners' pick up trucks, but then expect us to park our trucks out of sight once we arrive. Charles SEQUENCE #299 STATE OF UTAH HB 166 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY Hogue, D. 2004 General Session of the 55th Legislature VOTE TABULATION Concealed Firearm Permit Amendments FEBRUARY 19, 2004 Stephens, M. 3:13:38 PM Concealed Firearm SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE Permit Amendments Amended YEAS - 24 Allen, S. Buxton Hendrickson Morgan Becker Daniels Hutchings, E. Moss Biskupski Dillree Jones Pace Bourdeaux Dunnigan Litvack Seitz Bowman Goodfellow McCartney Shurtliff Buffmire Hansen McGee Webb NAYS - 50 Aagard Clark, S. Harper Newbold Adams Cox, D. Hogue Noel Alexander Curtis Holdaway Peterson Anderson Dayton Hughes Philpot Barrus Dee Johnson, B. Snow, G. Bennion Donnelson King Styler Bigelow Dougall Kiser Thompson Bird Duckworth Last Ure Bryson Ferrin Lawrence Urquhart Bush Ferry Lockhart Wallace Buttars Frank Love Stephens, M. Christensen Gowans Morley Clark, D. Hardy Murray ABSENT OR NOT VOTING - 1 Mascaro ================== 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: CORRECTION to HB 166 Hijacked, but then killed Date: 20 Feb 2004 00:24:08 GMT In the email I just previously sent, I indicated, repeatedly!?!?!, that the hostile amendment to Rep. Hogue's HB 166 was offered by....Rep. Hogue. That is incorrect and my apologies to Rep. Hogue. Obviously, a bill has NOT been "hijacked" if the sponsor offers an amendment. It was, in fact, perpetually anti-gun, anti-CCW, anti-RKBA, anti-self-defense, Rep. DANIELS who offered the hostile amendment to hijack Hogue's bill. It was then a majority of the house, voting under cover of a non-recorded voice vote, who accepted that amendment. Fortunately, under the light of a recorded vote (and an election year), a super-majority of those same Reps. then voted to kill the bill outright. Again, my apologies for the error. Charles ================== 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: [goutah] GOUtah! Alert #192 Date: 20 Feb 2004 16:33:43 GMT It's a busy time for gun bills at the legislature. The latest from GOUtah! Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. GOUtah! Web Site: http://www.goutahorg.org To subscribe to or unsubscribe from GOUtah!'s free e-mail Alerts, send a blank e-mail message to one of the following addresses: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Send comments to: goutah@goutahorg.org _______________________________________ GOUtah! Alert #192 - 19 Feb. 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "...Political correctness [is] the intimidation of everyone else by the aggressively stupid." -- David Vestal In this Alert: An anti-gun bill gets a second chance. Two great pro-gun bills in the House. GUN-STORAGE BILL GETS RESURRECTED SB 36, Sen. Paula Julander's anti-gun bill that would make it a criminal offense to store a loaded firearm in a location where a child might find it, will be re-considered on Friday, Feb. 20 by the Senate Judiciary Committee. We believe that the bill can be defeated if Sen. James Evans and Sen. Al Mansell both vote against it. Sen. Mansell has had a nasty habit in the past of disappearing right when this bill is about to be voted on by the committee. We believe that Sen. Evans can probably be persuaded to vote against it if he hears from enough of you, even though he's the one who enabled the bill to be heard a second time this session. Friday's hearing will be at 4:00 p.m. in room 414 of the State Capitol. Please flip a coin and choose one of these two senators to contact. You can simply call the Senate switchboard Friday during the day at 801-538-1035 and leave a brief message for either senator. Or, send a fax to 801-538-1878. Just ask the senator of your choice to be present when the Judiciary Committee votes on SB 36, and to vote against SB 36. Sen. James Evans (R-1) e-mail: jevans@utahsenate.org Senate President Al Mansell (R-9) e-mail: amansell@utahsenate.org TWO PRO-GUN BILLS IN HOUSE HB 294 and HB 295, both sponsored by Rep. James Ferrin (R-58), passed the House Law Enforcement Committee and will soon be voted on by the entire House of Representatives. HB 294 loosens the state law regulating the purchase of long guns (rifles and shotguns) by people from other states. Astonishingly, current Utah law is more restrictive about this than is federal law. Although the federal law prohibits you from purchasing a handgun outside your state of residence, it does not prohibit you from purchasing a long gun in another state, provided that you purchase it from a federally licensed dealer and provided that the laws of your home state do not prohibit you from buying a gun out of state. However, Utah state law prohibits out-of-state people from buying long guns from dealers located in Utah, except for residents of adjoining states (Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and Nevada). HB 294 would eliminate this restriction, so that Utah law would be the same as federal law regarding this matter. Also, HB 294 eliminates the requirement for a second form of ID for gun purchases from dealers. GOUtah! strongly supports HB 294. HB 295 simplifies the concealed-weapon permit application process by eliminating the requirement for letters of recommendation. It also eliminates the requirement that the applicant provide a five-year history of employment and residence, and requires only one set of fingerprints and one photograph to be provided by the applicant, rather than two. GOUtah! strongly supports HB 295. Interestingly, the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) also supports HB 295. The extra paperwork required by the current law is of no use to them, because it is a holdover from the "old days" when permits were handed out on a discretionary basis. It just fills up their filing cabinets. Please contact your own state representative and ask him to vote for both HB 294 and HB 295 without any hostile amendments. Mention that you are a constituent of his. Contact info can be found at http://www.goutahorg.org, or you can leave a brief message for your representative on the House switchboard during weekdays by phoning 801-538-1029. (Example: "I'm Joe Shmo, and I live in your district. Please support HB 294 and HB 295 without any hostile amendments. Thanks.") Note: We wish to salute GOUtah! co-founder and Director Emeritus Scott Engen, who was instrumental in getting the concealed-weapon law changed back in 1995, so that anyone who meets a basic set of objective requirements can obtain a permit. This was a big improvement from the old system, under which you basically had to be an affluent well-connected white businessman in order to get a permit. _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #192 - 19 Feb. 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. To Subscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/goutah/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> 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: Charles Hardy Subject: NH legislature considering a real RKBA bill Date: 20 Feb 2004 20:55:18 GMT Notice what happens when this kind of bill is run. In addition to the obvious things, notice this testimony from the Million Mom Morons: >>Laurel Redden, board chairman of the state chapter of Million Mom March, was quoted as saying, "Instead of looking to get rid of our system of permits, responsible lawmakers should be seeking ways to improve gun laws so that only law-abiding citizens are able to secure and carry a firearm in the first place."< HERE is a MMM actually speaking, albeit somewhat sideways, IN FAVOR of "law-abiding citizens [being] able to ... carry a firearm." Nothing like properly shifting the terms of the debate. Charles http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37181 WEAPONS OF CHOICE New Hampshire to drop gun permits? Bill would allow residents to carry concealed firearm without license Posted: February 19, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com The New Hampshire Legislature is considering a bill that would do away with the requirement to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm. The bill, Senate Bill 454, eliminates all government involvement in a person's decision to carry a concealed pistol or revolver. Gun-rights groups are encouraging New Hampshirites to contact their state senators to urge a "yes" vote. Gun Owners of America notes the proposed law "allows Granite Staters to protect themselves, their businesses and their families." "The legislation is patterned after a system currently used in Vermont ­ which, along with New Hampshire, is one of the safest states in the country," the organization said in its appeal. State Rep. Packy Campbell, a Republican, testified last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of the bill. The lawmaker said he still has two bullets in his body from an attack while he was denied a permit to carry a gun to defend himself, reported the Manchester Union Leader. About a decade ago in Washington, D.C., a man who had attempted to rob Campbell and against whom he was planning to testify tracked him down, shot him in the head, back and arm, and left him for dead. The paper reported Campbell said at the time he had been unable to get a concealed-carry permit. "You don't have a lot of victims of violent crime come and testify on bills like this, because most victims of violent crimes are dead," Campbell said. "We have a simple right to protect ourselves. This is a very real issue for me." The bill was opposed at the hearing by the New Hampshire Police Association, the New Hampshire Women's Lobby and the Million Mom March of New Hampshire, the Manchester paper reported. Laurel Redden, board chairman of the state chapter of Million Mom March, was quoted as saying, "Instead of looking to get rid of our system of permits, responsible lawmakers should be seeking ways to improve gun laws so that only law-abiding citizens are able to secure and carry a firearm in the first place." Countered Norman Bernier of Concord, N.H., at the hearing: "Society is safer when criminals don't know who is armed." An editorial in the Union Leader argues the law would benefit those residents who need immediate protection from a threat: "Citizens who are given a sudden reason to fear for their safety would be the primary beneficiaries of SB 454. For example, this winter saw a rash of rapes in central Manchester. No one has been charged with those crimes, and the perpetrator probably remains at large. Under current law, Manchester women who want to stash a pistol in their purse for self-protection have to wait for their permit applications to go through. Advantage: rapist." The committee did not make an immediate recommendation on the bill. ================== 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-gun bill slipping through the cracks Date: 20 Feb 2004 21:00:31 GMT SB 140 has passed the Senate and is now in House rules awaiting assignment to a committee. According to the Senate Journal for the 12 of February, page 589, it was Sen. Buttars himself who added the amendment that allows the DHS to consider the presence of firearms in the issuance of licenses, including those required to be a foster parent. In addition to the explicit reference to guns, by changing "shall be limited to" to "may include" it looks like the door has been swung wide open for DHS to consider almost anything else they want to. "On motion of Senator Buttars, the circle was removed from 2nd Sub. S.B. 140, HUMAN SERVICES LICENSING AMENDMENTS, and it was before the Senate. Senator Buttars explained the bill. Senator Buttars proposed the following amendment: 1. Page 9, Lines 247 through 248 247 (xii) staff to client ratios; [[and]] 248 (xiii) segregation of children from adults;and (xiv) access to firearms. Senator Buttars' motion to amend passed on a voice vote" Charles FORWARDED info =============== 2Sub SB 140 contains provisions that jeopardize the 2nd amendment rights of anyone licensed by the "Office of Licensing within the Department of Human Services" (Including Foster Homes). THIS BILL HAS PASSED THE SENATE with the following amendment and language. 62A-2-106. Office responsibilities. 231 The office shall: 232 (1) make rules to establish: 233 (a) basic health and safety standards for licensees, which [shall be limited to] may 234 include the following: 248a (xiv) ACCESS TO FIREARMS. The bill must be stopped or the amendment must be removed. ================== 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: Demo primary tomorrow Date: 23 Feb 2004 23:50:31 GMT Just a note to remind you that tomorrow, Tuesday, is the Democratic primary for president. If I'm not mistaken, these primaries are "open" meaning that ANY registered voter can vote in them. I do not know of any other political party having primaries tomorrow. Gun owners may want to consider casting a vote for the most gun friendly of the Democratic candidates. ================== 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: FOLLOW-UP: Demo primary tomorrow Date: 24 Feb 2004 01:16:25 GMT I've just heard two interesting rumors that gun owners may want to consider before actually participating in the Demo presidential primary tomorrow: 1-I have heard that voters will be required to sign a form that they will not participate in the caucus of any other party. [Republicans might ask "Where is the press outrage at this 'closed primary'"?] 2-I have heard that some GOP county (or even the State) party(ies) may not allow persons who vote in this primary to participate in the March Caucases (Mass Meetings). ================== 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: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: FOLLOW-UP: Demo primary tomorrow Date: 23 Feb 2004 18:27:46 -0700 On Feb 23, 2004, at 6:16 PM, Charles Hardy wrote: > > I've just heard two interesting rumors that gun owners may want to > consider before actually participating in the Demo presidential > primary tomorrow: > > 1-I have heard that voters will be required to sign a form that > they will not participate in the caucus of any other party. > [Republicans might ask "Where is the press outrage at this 'closed > primary'"?] > > 2-I have heard that some GOP county (or even the State) party(ies) may > not allow persons who vote in this primary to participate in the March > Caucases (Mass Meetings). > What is the state law on primaries? The radio said that anyone who will be 18 as of November elections and who is a US citizen can vote in the primary. It said you did not even need to be a registered voter! This is what the radio news on KNRS said. Chad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: FOLLOW-UP: Demo primary tomorrow Date: 24 Feb 2004 01:43:11 GMT I do not know the exact State of the law, but I do know that parties can exclude those who are not registered as members of that party if they want to. I hope at least a few people go to vote to give first hand info on what does take place. Charles ================== Charles Hardy -- Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc wrote: On Feb 23, 2004, at 6:16 PM, Charles Hardy wrote: > > I've just heard two interesting rumors that gun owners may want to > consider before actually participating in the Demo presidential > primary tomorrow: > > 1-I have heard that voters will be required to sign a form that > they will not participate in the caucus of any other party. > [Republicans might ask "Where is the press outrage at this 'closed > primary'"?] > > 2-I have heard that some GOP county (or even the State) party(ies) may > not allow persons who vote in this primary to participate in the March > Caucases (Mass Meetings). > What is the state law on primaries? The radio said that anyone who will be 18 as of November elections and who is a US citizen can vote in the primary. It said you did not even need to be a registered voter! This is what the radio news on KNRS said. Chad - ________________________________________________________________ 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: Fwd: AWB Renewal Vote THIS WEEK - Call your Senators Tuesday!!! (fwd) Date: 23 Feb 2004 21:11:46 -0700 Have not checked this out but Bushmaster sent me a similar email today so I assume this is true! Chad Begin forwarded message: > > Date: February 23, 2004 9:07:31 PM MST > Subject: AWB Renewal Vote THIS WEEK - Call your Senators Tuesday!!! > (fwd) > Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com > > ---------- begin forwarded message from Charles Riggs ---------- > > Subject: AWB Renewal Vote THIS WEEK - Call your Senators Tuesday!!! > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:37:15 -0500 > From: Charles Riggs > > > ---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ---------------- > Date: 2/23/04 19:16 > Received: 2/23/04 19:36 > From: Melissa Seaman, skypod@DeadBangGuns.com > To: Women_To_Arms, Women_To_Arms@yahoogroups.com > > Melissa Seaman (married in SC) > http://skypod.deadbangguns.com/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sunset News" > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:18 PM > Subject: AWB Renewal Vote THIS WEEK - Call your Senators > Tuesday!!! > > S.659, the bill that will help eliminate frivolous lawsuits against the > firearms industry, will be taken up in the Senate this week, possibly > as > soon as tomorrow. It is widely reported that Sen. Feinstein will > attempt > to > amend the bill with a renewal of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban. > > The anti-gun lobby is staging a "phone-in" tomorrow (Tuesday, February > 24th) > in opposition to S.659. Though the bill already has enough co-sponsors > (54) > to ensure passage, a filibuster could still be attempted, which is > presumably what the anti-gun side is hoping for. > > To ensure our elected officials know they will lose more votes than > they > gain by supporting a renewal of the AWB, we all need to do our part by > calling our Senators and voicing our strong opposition to the Feinstein > AWB > renewal amendment that will be offered for S.659... not only should > this > ban > not be renewed, it should not be allowed to cloud the issue of whether > S.659, an unrelated bill, should be passed. > > The anti-gun folks are asking their people to call between the > following > hours: > > 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM Eastern Standard Time > 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM Central Standard Time > 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM Mountain Standard Time > 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time > > Call 202-224-3121 and ask for one of your Senators' offices (you'll > have > to > call back to reach the other one). > > Even if you've already called your Senators in the past few weeks, CALL > AGAIN tomorrow. Be polite, but firm in your opposition to Feinstein's > AWB > renewal amendment. Please spread the word to everyone you know. > > Thank you, everyone, for taking an active role in ensuring this useless > ban > does indeed sunset this September. > > http://www.awbansunset.com > http://www.awbansunset.com/forums > > > ----------------- End Forwarded Message ----------------- > > ---------- end forwarded message from Charles Riggs ---------- > > -- > *********************************************************************** > ********* > * * > RKBA! * Blessings on thee, oh Israel!!! * > 4-19! > * * > *********************************************************************** > ********* > > An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured by | All Matter is vibration. | Let he who > hath no > weapon in every | by Colt; | --Max Planck | weapon, sell > his > hand = Freedom | Dial | In the beginning was the | garment, and > buy a > on every side!! | 1-1911-A1 | Word. --The Holy Bible | sword. > --Jesus Christ > > *********************************************************************** > ********* > > Constitutional Government is dead! LONG LIVE THE > CONSTITUTION!!!!!! > > *********************************************************************** > ********* > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Report a crime, get your gun confiscated? Date: 24 Feb 2004 16:42:00 GMT While one hopes the rifles were taken only to do ballistics testing to clear them of having fired the illegal shot, this might very well be filed under the heading of "No good deed goes unpunished." From Sunday's DesNews. Hatch is cooperating in elk case Deseret Morning News Sen. Tom Hatch, R-Panguitch, says he is cooperating with state wildlife officers, who confiscated Hatch's rifle and that of his brother during the course of an investigation into the illegal killing of a bull elk during a cow elk-only hunt last year. "We found the elk and we reported it" to authorities, Hatch said. "We were the ones who took (Division of Wildlife Resources officers) to the elk. We have cooperated in every way since that time." Hatch, who had a permit for a cow elk, said he was hunting on horseback with his brother on Mount Dutton northeast of Panguitch in a basin where several others were also hunting. Hatch said they came across a wounded bull elk in a patch of trees but had nothing to do with shooting it. Hatch said he never fired his rifle, and his brother fired only once at a cow elk. A witness reportedly told officers he saw a man on horseback shoot the elk. "I understand an investigation has to be done, but I know the facts will clear us of any involvement," he said. Hatch, a leader of the Cowboy Caucus, is chairman of the Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the Division of Wildlife Resources. Kevin Conway, division director, confirmed Hatch contacted wildlife officials and has "cooperated 100 percent." Conway said the killing was probably a mistake, given it happened while both deer and elk hunts were taking place. But the investigation is proceeding and should be wrapped up soon. "It's not an unusual case. These things happen frequently during the hunt," he said. ================== 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: What zero-tolerance (at the airport) hath wrought Date: 24 Feb 2004 16:36:25 GMT Is this REALLY the best use of our limited law enforcement and judicial resources? Is the airport authority REALLY incapable of making any rational judgements about those who pose a danger, intended to do some harm, and those caught in a moment of forgetfullness? I'd also like to know who the judge was who couldn't render better judgement than to impose the maximum penalty on the least of such an offender--even if he did suspend part of it. Excerpt: >>Looking back, he wonders how much of a deterrent the law is. He hadn't intended to bring the gun to the airport in the first place. "No one in his right mind would do that," he says. "The only people who really are affected by this are the absent-minded, idiots like me, not terrorists."<< From today's DesNews. Charles Tuesday, February 24, 2004 Flight is fright for forgetful gun owner By Doug Robinson Deseret Morning News Attention, air travelers. If you plan to board an airline soon, please listen closely as we run through a checklist of things you can and can't bring on board in your carry-on bag. Book? Check. Magazine? Check. Canoe? Sorry. A pony? No. Wallet? Check. Keys? Check. .44 Magnum? Check. Laptop? Check. NO, WAIT! Uncheck the pistol. Ixnay on the .44 Magnum! My bad. Airline people have a strong aversion to passengers carrying guns, obviously. You're probably wondering who would be dumb enough to bring a gun to the airport. You'd be surprised. During one six-month period, 22 guns were discovered at security checkpoints in Salt Lake International. For most passengers, it was a mistake, but now it makes little difference. A zero-tolerance policy was adopted, which means virtually everyone will be prosecuted. Just ask "David Jones." Well, actually you can't ask him, because that's not his real name. Anyway, Jones is a model citizen who found himself getting the Public-Enemy-No.-1 Treatment because he accidentally showed up at the airport with a pistol. Before you jump to any conclusions . . . Jones is a good guy. If you were asked to describe the ideal neighbor, you would describe Jones. He's a leader in his church, a father/husband of a large family, a salt-of-the-earth guy. In his 50-plus years he has never gotten so much as a speeding ticket. The worst thing he ever did was get ticketed for turning right on a yellow light in 1971. Jones is considered brilliant in his profession. He works hard. In his spare time, he likes to shoot guns. Some men like to hit golf balls on the driving range to relax; he likes to shoot pistols at the gun range. He has a concealed-weapons permit. One evening he returned home after work and a range outing. Before getting out of his truck, he put the gun in his backpack, thinking he would place it in the gun safe in his house, as was his habit. But when he walked in the house, he was distracted by visitors and children vying for his attention. Two days later, he was scheduled to fly out of town on business. It was a frantic morning. Realizing he was late, he put his laptop in his backpack, which he used as a carry-on for travel, and hurried out the door. He rushed through the airport and placed his backpack on the conveyor belt for security check. And then it hit him. "Uh, there's a gun in that pack," he told the security officer. Following procedure, the police were called. Before marching him through the airport in cuffs, past crowds, a police officer told him, "Let's hope we don't see anyone you know." He was taken to a building adjacent to the terminal and locked in a room. For two hours he sat there with his hands cuffed behind his back — leaving red welts in his wrists — while federal officers were summoned. He was sick with fear, worry and humiliation. After a long interview, an FBI agent determined there was no criminal intent, but under the zero-tolerance policy charges had to be pressed. Jones returned home. For two days he barely left his room, too shamed to face the world. During his court appearance, a judge blistered him for his mistake and then levied the maximum penalty — 90 days in jail and a $1,850 fine. The jail time was suspended and the fine was reduced to court costs ($250) and he was placed on probation. Looking back, he wonders how much of a deterrent the law is. He hadn't intended to bring the gun to the airport in the first place. "No one in his right mind would do that," he says. "The only people who really are affected by this are the absent-minded, idiots like me, not terrorists." A few weeks later, Jones returned to the airport. After passing through the security check, he had to sit down in a restaurant and wait for his hands to stop trembling. Doug Robinson's column runs on Tuesdays. E-mail drob@desnews.com. ================== 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: Open Closed Demo Presidential Primary Date: 24 Feb 2004 17:00:49 GMT Here is the latest on the Democratic Presidential primary, for any gun owners who may desire to participate. You can vote at ANY of their polling places which are primarily public libraries. See for a full list. Polls are open from Noon today until 8:00 pm. They will be asking for id and will require voters to sign an affidavit that you will only vote once, that you are participating as a Democrat, and that you will not participate in the presidential nominating process of any other party. Apparantly, you do NOT have to be registered to vote. YOu do need to be 18 years old and (at least claim to be) a citizen of the U.S. However, according to the nice fellow who answered the phone at the Utah Democratic Party HQ (801-328-1212), there are no other party primaries for president this year in Utah and they will NOT be asking you what your party affiliation is. So, technically speaking, one might say this primary is closed, based on the honor system. But practically speaking, it is essentially open. This election is being run by the Democratic party which is also funding it without taxpayer support. So while the DP can probably do whatever it wants with its records of did or did not vote, I'd think that such records are not "public records" the way government run primary elections are. The Chairman of the SLCo GOP was unaware of any GOP plans to limit participation in GOP functions by those who might vote in the Demo primary. I have not contacted the State GOP. Charles ================== 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: Roll Call vote on Litvack hostile amendment to HB 295 Date: 24 Feb 2004 17:38:42 GMT Prior to be approved by the full house, HB 295 was subject to an attempt to attach a hostile amendment. While worded somewhat vaguely, I believe the intent of this amendment, offered by anti-gun Rep. Litvack, was to lay the groundwork for a live fire (range) requirment before issuance of a CCW permit. Fortunately, this amendment failed. However, rather than looking at just the final vote on this bill (which was passed by a supermajority), I'd suggest that savvy gun owners consider this vote. Many times, especially in an election year, legislators will attmpt to weaken a good bill or even turn a pro-gun bill into an anti-gun bill. Only when those efforts fail, and it is clear that the bill is going to pass regardless of how they vote, will they then vote the right way on the final bill, just so they can claim to be pro-gun. Just because a guy sends you flowers in the hospital, doesn't make him your friend; especially if he is the one who put you in the hospital by stabbing you in the back. Here is the roll call vote. The 21 legislators who voted "YEA" on this amendment were voting AGAINST your gun rights. they were all savvy enough to not vote agains the final bill (they either vote for the bill or chose to not vote). Please be savvy enough to rememeber them when it comes time to file for office, to support challangers, and to vote--whether in a convetion, a primary, or a general election. Yeas, 21; Nays, 48; Absent or not voting, 6. Voting in the affirmative (AND AGAINST YOUR GUN RIGHTS) were: Representatives S. Allen Becker Biskupski Bowman Buffmire D. Cox Daniels Duckworth Goodfellow Hansen Hogue E. Hutchings Jones Litvack Mascaro McCartney McGee Morgan Moss Pace Shurtliff Voting in the negative (AND TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS) were: Representatives Aagard Adams Alexander Anderson Barrus Bennion Bigelow Bird Bryson Bush Buttars Buxton Christensen D. Clark S. Clark Curtis Dayton Dee Dillree Donnelson Dougall Dunnigan Ferrin Ferry Frank Gowans Harper Hendrickson Holdaway Hughes B. Johnson Kiser Last Lawrence Lockhart Love Morley Murray Newbold Noel Peterson Philpot Seitz G. Snow Thompson Ure Wallace Webb Absent or not voting were: Representatives Bourdeaux Hardy King Styler Urquhart M. Stephens ================== 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-gun SB 140 S2, "Gun owners don't make good foster parents" assign Date: 24 Feb 2004 17:55:31 GMT Sen. Buttars' SB 140 S2 (second substitute), "Human Services Licensing Amendments" makes two dangerous changes as far as gun owners are concerned. Lines 233-234 eliminates the limits on what items the Department of Human Services may consider or regulate in issuing licenses (including licenses to be a foster parent). The current law says: The office shall: (1) make rules to establish: (a) basic health and safety standards for licensees, which shall be limited to the following: SB 140S2 amends (a) to read: (a) basic health and safety standards for licensees, which may include the following: I'm not a lawyer, and so may be wrong, but this **might** allow the Department of Human services to look at items beyond the list. In any event, line 248a is the killer for gun owners. It adds "248a (xiv) ACCESS TO FIREARMS" as an explicit item that the Deparment of Human services can consider and regulate when issuing licenses. Bear in mind, this is the same department that had an illegal rule preventing those with CCW permits from being foster parents. It has been assigned to the House Natural Resources Committee. This bill is last on the agenda for today's meeting that starts at 4:30 pm in room 129 of the State capital. Phone messages can be left at the main House Switchboard for several legislators at a time. The number is 801-538-1029. Ask committee members to strike line 248a so as to eliminate any references to firearms. Otherwise, they need to vote against this bill. Charles Committee members are: Rep. Craig W. Buttars, Chair Cbuttars@utah.gov Rep. Darin G. Peterson, Vice Chair Dpeterson@utah.gov Rep. Eli H. Anderson Ehanderson@utah.gov Rep. Roger E. Barrus Rogerbarrus@utah.gov Rep. Jackie Biskupski Jbiskupski@utah.gov Rep. David N. Cox dncox@utah.gov Rep. Margaret Dayton Mdayton@utah.gov Rep. Glenn A. Donnelson Gdonnelson@utah.gov Rep. James R. Gowans Jgowans@utah.gov Rep. Bradley T. Johnson Bradjohnson@utah.gov Rep. Michael E. Noel Mikenoel@utah.gov Rep. Michael R. Styler Mstyler@utah.gov Rep. David Ure Dure@utah.gov Rep. Stephen H. Urquhart Surquhart@utah.gov ================== 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: SB 48 passes house with no hostile amds Date: 26 Feb 2004 20:25:15 GMT The legislative web page is reporting that SB 48, Sen. Waddoups' "Uniform Firearm Laws" that is intended to finally put an end to the UofU's illegal gun ban has passed the House with no hostile amendments. Final vote in the house was 59-14-2. Only Demos voted against the bill with Reps. Adams and Hughes absent. I'll check later and see if anyone attempted to make hostile amendments and if so, report on who voted to accept such amendments. In this case, that vote, if there was one, will be a far better indicator of who really supports RKBA than is the final vote on this bill. Recall that the House committee did make one amendment which changed paragraph 7 from very bad to "not great, but probably tolerable." Hence, the Senate must still concur with the House amendment. I **BELIEVE** (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that if the Senate does not concur, then an ad hoc, joint committee with members from both bodies will try to work out a compromise. I believe at this point, that we are more likely to get a worse bill out of such a committee than a better bill. Since this bill is, I believe, overall a net gain to CCW and RKBA in general, I think it is in our best interest to encourage our Senators to concur with the bill as it stands. Charles ================== 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: USSC URGENT ACTION ALERT Date: 26 Feb 2004 21:38:54 GMT The latest from the USSC / NRA. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- UTAH SHOOTING SPORTS COUNCIL URGENT ACTION ALERT 2/26/04 FOR ALL USSC MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS --- National Rifle Association Alert for Utah --- Utah Asset Forfeiture Reform Information NRA ALERT FOR UTAH (February 25, 2004) Utah Gun Owners! Contact Your State Representatives! Utah gun owners need to contact their state representative and urge a "no" vote on SB 175, which will affect the civil liberties of innocent gun owners and all Utah citizens if they are involved with a seizure-of-assets procedure. SB 175 would allow the transfer of a forfeiture procedure to a federal agency where there is no presumption of innocence and where it is extremely difficult to recover fees and costs, rights guaranteed in Utah. It puts in place the old incentives for law enforcement agencies to aggressively pursue seizures of assets, again circumventing Proposition B. The seizure of illegal assets is an effective law enforcement tool, but the civil and due process rights of citizens must be held paramount. Please contact your state Representative [End of NRA Alert. Information below is provided by USSC] Dear Representative ______________ Please vote AGAINST SB 175 (2nd substitute). This bill removes many of the safeguards for innocent property owners, and a potential source of funds for our schools. Utah citizens should never be considered "guilty until proven innocent" as is the case in the federal asset forfeiture process. No one can afford to challenge any seizure unless it involves real estate since the legal fees would be ruinous. Although we have great confidence in our law enforcement officers, the inexplicable decline in forfeitures after the reforms of 2000 are very troubling. You can use a map tool to identify your Utah Representative: www.le.state.ut.us/house/DistrictInfo/newMaps/State.htm Email addresses for all Utah Representatives: http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/members2003/membertable1.asp ****************** UTAH ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM INFORMATION THIS BILL HAS PASSED THE UTAH SENATE, AND A HOUSE COMMITTEE AND IS WAITING FOR A FINAL VOTE IN THE HOUSE. YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW TO STOP THIS POTENTIAL THREAT TO LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS. Although not directly a gun issue, SB 175 (2nd substitute) is an attempt to reverse the reforms enacted in 2000. That changed the former process where there was a financial incentive for law enforcement officers to seize private property, usually on the allegation that it was purchased with the proceeds from drug trafficking. The property was usually turned over to the federal court system where an owner had to prove that it was NOT the result of illegal activity, rather than the government being required to prove the owner's guilt. Anyone wanting to get their property back had to challenge to the huge Justice Department organization. Legal costs would be $10,000 or more, making it impractical for innocent owners to ever get their property returned. Directing the proceeds from seized property to the Utah Uniform School Fund removed the apparent conflict of interest because previously the police department got to keep most of the money they seized. Many people claim that there was no conflict and all seizures were motivated strictly by a desire to enforce the laws. However, it is a proven fact that after the changes were made asset forfeiture seizures dropped from millions of dollars a year to almost nothing and the school fund received virtually nothing. This raises serious questions about actual or potential abuses. SB 175 (2nd substitute) will take the proceeds from seized property away from schools and put it back into police departments. Worse, it will divert most property forfeiture cases into federal courts, turning justice upside down with their "guilty until proven innocent" process. This issue has been hotly debated, with opponents very public, but supporters being very secretive about the contents of the bill and clever in their strategy in the legislature. For more information see the stories in the Deseret News and Tribune. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590045906,00.html http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02262004/utah/142659.asp You can review a .pdf version of a presentation on this topic at http://www.xmission.com/~ajgaunt/forfeiture/Innocent_Owner_Fact_Sheet.pdf If you would like more information on Asset Forfeiture, send an email to ajgaunt@xmission.com To be removed from this mailing list click on the link below http://www.ugca.org/cgi-bin/plistussc/mwmail.cgi?utbagpiper@juno.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: [goutah] GOUtah! Alert #196 Date: 26 Feb 2004 23:51:59 GMT The latest from GOUtah! ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. GOUtah! Web Site: http://www.goutahorg.org To subscribe to or unsubscribe from GOUtah!'s free e-mail Alerts, send a blank e-mail message to one of the following addresses: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Send comments to: goutah@goutahorg.org ___________________________________ GOUtah! Alert #196 - 26 Feb. 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "A corrupt society has many laws." -- Tacitus In this Alert: U. of U. gun bill goes back to Senate. Hearing on foster-parent gun bill postponed. Asset-forfeiture bill on House floor. SB 48 PASSES HOUSE WITH MODIFICATION. SENATORS NOW NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU. SB 48, the bill that's designed to drive a stake through the heart of the U. of U.'s illegal ban on self-defense weapons, passed the Senate early last week with a serious anti-gun amendment attached to it, which GOUtah! opposed (see Alert #190). Thanks to your phone calls, faxes, and e-mail messages late last week, the House removed this bad amendment. They replaced it with an amendment which is still not to our liking, but which we consider tolerable. This latest version of SB 48 passed the House today (Thursday) by a wide margin. Since this version is different from the version that passed the Senate, the bill now goes back to the floor of the Senate for a "concurrence vote". At this point, there is no realistic opportunity for us to improve the bill. GOUtah! believes that the current version of SB 48, though not perfect, represents a net gain for gun owners, and we encourage you to contact your own State Senator with a simple message: "Please vote for concurrence on SB 48". You can leave a message for your senator by calling the Senate switchboard, or you can send him a fax or e-mail. If you send a fax, please put your senator's name at the top of the page, and limit your fax to one page. If you send e-mail, please put the main point of your message in the subject header. Utah Senate switchboard: (801)538-1035 Fax for Republican senators: (801)538-1878 Fax for Democratic senators: (801)538-1449 E-mail addresses, district numbers, and other contact info for individual senators can be found on the GOUtah! website at http://www.goutahorg.org (click on "Legislative Contacts" in the left-hand column). This "concurrence vote" is a simple yes-or-no vote on the floor of the Senate. If the vote is "yes", then the bill passes in its current form and goes to the Governor's desk. If the vote is "no", then an ad-hoc committee of Senators and Representatives will be created to hammer out a compromise version of the bill, which will then go simultaneously to both the Senate and the House for a simple "yes or no" vote. GOUtah! believes that such a compromise version is unlikely to be any better than the current version, and there's a pretty good chance that it would be worse. Hence, we advocate that the bill be passed as-is. For a little more detail about this bill, read on. Otherwise, please skip to the next section. SB 48 was originally designed to make it super-extra-crystal-clear that the only governmental entity in the state of Utah with power to regulate firearms is the State Legislature. In particular, the bill is aimed at eliminating the U of U's illegal gun ban - something we've been trying to achieve for several years now. Unfortunately, various parties on both sides of the gun debate have attempted to use this bill as a vehicle to address the separate issue of private property rights vs. gun rights. Several hastily-written and poorly-worded clauses regarding this matter have been added to and deleted from the bill during its journey through the Legislature. We have neither the time nor energy to go into a lengthy discussion of this subject at the moment. GOUtah! believes that this is a subject worth discussing during the "off season" between legislative sessions, and that if a bill needs to be run to address the issue, such a bill should be carefully worded and should fit into the appropriate section of the Utah Code. SB 48 would fit into the "State and Local Government Procedures" section of the code, which is certainly the place to address the U's gun ban, but not the place to address private property rights. Thanks to your phone calls last week, the House Law Enforcement Committee voted to remove the bad amendment added by the Senate. However, Rep. LaVarr Christensen persuaded the committee to replace it with his own amendment, which reads: "Individual private property rights under state and federal law shall not be restricted by this section." While this clause is certainly better than the one it replaces, and appears innocuous enough, especially to activists who support both property rights and gun rights, there are some potential problems with it. For example, although this clause does not change anything in the current law, we're a bit concerned about the inclusion of "federal law" in the clause, as we have no idea what, if any, "individual private-property rights" are defined in the federal laws. The whole point of SB 48 is about state legislative sovereignty, and including this phrase in the bill goes against the grain of that. GOUtah! attempted to get a floor amendment in the House to remove this clause, but was unsuccessful. Nonetheless, we've concluded that, all things considered, this clause is basically toothless. If we were to address the issue of property rights vs. gun rights in future legislation, such legislation would almost certainly modify a different section of the Utah Code. UPDATE ON SB 140 2nd SUBSTITUTE SB 140 2nd Substitute, which contains the amendment on line 248a that would empower state bureaucrats to prohibit foster parents from having firearms at home, was supposed to have been heard by the House Natural Resources Committee this past Tuesday. GOUtah! strongly opposes this amendment. However, the committee didn't have time to hear the bill. We don't yet know when they'll take it up, but we'll endeavor to keep you posted. In the meantime, if you haven't already contacted any committee members, we encourage you to take a minute to do so (see Alert #194 for details, viewable at http://www.goutahorg.org ). You can leave a message such as "Please oppose SB 140 2nd Substitute unless line 248a gets removed." Note: There are two versions of this bill. The current version is the one that was amended on Feb. 12, and which contains line 248a. Some people haven't been able to find line 248a, because they were reading from the earlier version, dated Feb. 3. SB 175 2ND SUBSTITUTE TO BE VOTED ON IN HOUSE In Alert #193 we discussed this bill, which would make it much easier for state and local law-enforcement agencies to confiscate private property (including, theoretically, firearms) without having to arrest you or charge you or convict you with a crime. We can't devote much effort to this bill, because it is somewhat peripheral to the right to keep and bear arms, but we would like to let you know that the bill will be voted on by the House very soon (perhaps today). If you oppose this bill, you may wish to leave a phone message at the House switchboard for your representative, at (801) 538-1029. However, we would recommend that you give first priority today to contacting your senator in support of SB 48, as outlined above. _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #196 - 26 Feb. 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. To Subscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/goutah/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> 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: Re: 022704 STANLEY SCOOP MEDIA RELEASE: From A Cop About Gun Control - Date: 28 Feb 2004 17:11:59 -0700 Correction; sorry for the need to bother you again. [Excerpt] There is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon": We know that the firearms that have been demonized as so-called "Assault Weapons" are no more dangerous than any other common rifle. We know that these firearms were discriminated against simply because they look similar to current military firearms. We know that looks are totally irrelevant to function. We know that many of these targeted firearms are in fact less lethal than most common firearms, because the ammunition is of lower power. We know that the propagandists misused the German term "Sturmgewehr" ("Assault Rifle"), a firearm by definition a "machine gun" or "full-automatic" rifle, and bastardized the term "Assault Weapon". Then, using the "Big Lie" technique (itself pioneered by Nazi master propagandist Josef Goebbels) by substituting the [literally translated] term "Assault Weapon" for "semi- automatic" or "self-loading" rifles. The latest definitional "bait and switch" buzzword is to refer to any self-loading firearms, rifle or pistol, as so-called scary "Semi-Automatic weapons". --- -