From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: USSC URGENT ACTION ALERT Date: 01 Mar 2004 16:09:19 GMT The latest from USSC... ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- MAJOR THREAT TO GUN SHOWS IN U.S. SENATE MONDAY AND TUESDAY ONE MORE TIME!! CALL SENATORS HATCH AND BENNETT- ESPECIALLY BENNETT If you can only email, that helps, but they REALLY need to get PHONE CALLS and FAXES in their Washington and local offices all day Monday and early Tuesday. The message is simple: "SUPPORT SB 1805- Frivolous Lawsuit Protection, but we are counting on you to DEFEAT any "assault weapon ban" or "gun show" amendments. According to our sources, it looks like the pro-gun rights forces in the Senate have the votes to pass the lawsuit protection bill. We think we have the votes to keep the "assault weapons and magazine ban" from being attached. It is NOT CLEAR if they can keep the McCain Reed "Gun Show Loophole" bill from being attached to the frivolous lawsuit ban We expect Hatch to vote against it, but Senator Bennett (up for reelection this year) may or may not be as committed to a solid pro-gun position. This is the critical vote where we are counting on him to support gun rights.. NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO! to gun show restrictions! The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics studies in 1991 and 1997 proved that LESS THAN 1% of criminals get their guns from gun shows. They mainly get them from family, friends, or illegal sources. Gun shows are not a crime problem. The McCain-Reed bill is not just aimed at making sales by non-dealers at gun shows go through a background check. It is aimed at putting gun shows out of business, and implementing a process that will enable de facto registration system for all firearms transfers between law abiding citizens. The next step will be to force newspaper sales and family member transfers into the dealer record system. This is the bill that will require everyone taking a gun to a show to register and provide ID. If anyone so much as mentions a possible sale or trade at a show, the transfer MUST go through a dealer, or they will be guilty of a felony, even if the transaction takes place months or years later, and nowhere near a gun show. This bill makes the show promoter liable for any illegal transactions at (or after) a show, a risk that no sane person would accept. In short, it will end gun shows in the United States forever. One aspect of gun shows that politicians may appreciate (or fear) is that they are a gathering point for political free speech among people with generally conservative beliefs. Besides looking at guns, people at gun shows learn how be politically active, meet candidates, register to vote, and organize to share information about candidates and their positions. Putting an end to such "dangerous" meetings is probably as big a goal of the gun grabbers and their allies as their attack on gun rights. It is imperative that every gun owner ONCE AGAIN, contact your Senators and tell them Vote YES on SB 1805, and vote NO on any amendments dealing with "assault weapon bans" or "gun show loopholes." The assault weapon and gun show provisions are not anti-crime measures, they are deceptive gun control schemes that are unacceptable to law abiding citizens. HOW TO CONTACT SENATORS HATCH AND BENNETT EMAIL ADDRESSES: This link will call up the NRA-ILA list of Senators and their sponsorship status. http://www.capwiz.com/nra/issues/bills/?bill=5044436&cs_party=all&cs_status=all&cs_state=ALL Go to Utah, and click on the envelope shape after Sen. Hatch or Sen. Bennett's name. This will open up a window to select a prewritten email. You will have to fill in a form with name, and address (so they can ignore mail from people outside Utah). When you click "send message" another screen will open up and you will have to pick a subject and click "send" again before it actually goes out. This takes less than a minute, so please do it NOW! PHONE AND FAX INFORMATION: Senator Orrin Hatch 104 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-4402 Phone: (202) 224-5251 Fax: (202) 224-6331 Sen. Hatch's Salt Lake Office: Federal Bldg., 125 S. State St. (Suite 8402) Salt Lake City, UT 84138 Phone: (801) 524-4380 Fax: (801) 524-4379 Senator Robert Bennett Washington Office: 431 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-4403 Phone: (202) 224-5444 Fax: (202) 228-1168 Sen. Bennett's Salt Lake Office: Federal Bldg., 125 S. State St., Suite. 4225 Salt Lake City, UT 84138 Phone: (801) 524-5933 Fax: (801) 524-5730 Remember when you call- You will not talk to the Senator, just a nice staff member who really only wants to know what bill, and if you are for it or against it, so you don't need to be ready for a big debate. The message is simple: "SUPPORT SB 1805- Frivolous Lawsuit Protection, but we are counting on you to DEFEAT any "assault weapon ban" or "gun show" amendments. 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: GOUtah! Alert. Action needed on SB 48 Date: 02 Mar 2004 00:03:37 GMT I've just learned that anti-gun, anti-self-defense HR managers are pressing conference committee members and members of the House of Reps to keep paragraph 7 in this bill. Apparantly a fair number of businesses want to be able to pull an AOL and fire employees just for having a gun in the parking lot. Please call now. Emails are better than nothing, but a phone call will allow you to leave messages for 3 or 4 legislators at a time and carry more weight. Faxes are also very good. There are now FOUR committee members who need to hear from you: Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5), Send Greg Bell (R-22), Rep. Curt Webb (R-5), Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75). Also, your own Representative as well as Speaker Stephens need to hear from you on this ASAP. Charles GOUtah! Alert #197 - 1 Mar. 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "When stand up for your own rights, you start a chain of good events which helps you - and lots of other people too, in ways that no one could foresee." -- Dave Kopel ACTION NEEDED ON SB 48 TODAY Last Friday, Sen. Mike Waddoups, the sponsor of SB 48 (the bill designed to eliminate the University of Utah's ban on self-defense weapons), asked the Senate not to concur on the version of the bill that was passed by the House, so that a House/Senate conference committee could be formed under his leadership to improve the bill. The Senate approved his request. This means that the bill is now being re-designed by a committee of six legislators. GOUtah! has suggested to Sen. Waddoups that Paragraph 7 be completely removed from the bill (see Alert #48). This paragraph, which seems like an innocuous clause designed to protect the rights of individuals who own private property, is poorly worded and includes language that would unnecessarily subjugate the Utah Legislature to the whims of future federal bureaucrats who might want to restrict gun ownership under the guise of property rights (such as in federally-subsidized housing, etc.). GOUtah! has also suggested that, if Paragraph 7 is going to be replaced with anything, it be replaced with language that would affirm the right to carry a firearm for self-defense on all property that is open to the public. This conference committee will be meeting, probably today (Monday), to come up with a new version of the bill, which will then be sent to the full Senate and the full House for a final vote. Committee members are Sen. Mike Waddoups (R-6), Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5), Send Greg Bell (R-22), Rep. Curt Webb (R-5), Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75), and Rep. Ty McCartney (D-31). We've been informed by a source inside the committee that two of these committee members, Sen. Bell and Rep. Webb, are "on the fence" and will need encouragement from their constituents to come up with a bill that is fully consistent with your right to keep and bear arms and your right to self-defense. We also believe that Sen. Mayne, could use some friendly encouragement from his constituents. Although he has often been supportive of gun owners' rights in the past, he might be under a lot of pressure from his party's leadership to sabotage SB 48. If any of the following three committee members is from your district, please contact him immediately with a simple message, such as: "My name is so-and-so, from such-and-such a town. I live in your district. Please help Sen. Waddoups to create a final version of SB 48 that does not in any way compromise my right to carry a firearm for self-defense on all property that is open to the public", or any similar message that you can come up with yourself. At this late date, we believe that the best way to contact your Senator orRepresentative is to leave a phone message during the day at the appropriate number at the State Capitol, or to fax him at the Capitol (you may use the pre-written letter below if you wish). You can also call them at home in the early evening. However, because the committee will probably be meeting today, we suggest that you act as soon as you can. Legislators are increasingly unlikely to read e-mail as the end of the session approaches. Rep. Curt Webb (R-5) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801-538-1908 Home phone: 435-753-0215 e-mail: Curtwebb@u... Sen. Greg Bell (R-22) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: (801)538-1878 e-mail: gbell@u... Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: 801-538-1449 Home phone: (801) 968-7756 e-mail: emayne@u... ANTI-GUN-SHOW AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL BILL In Alert #195, we mentioned that an effort is being made in the U.S. Senate to amend S. 659 (the bill designed to curb frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry). In particular, we mentioned that anti-gun Senators were attempting to attach legislation that would make the 1994 "assault weapon" ban permanent. Also, we mentioned that an effort would be made to attach the McCain-Reed anti-gun-show bill. We've learned that the lawsuit-protection bill (S. 659) has been replaced with S. 1805, which is essentially the same bill. However, the efforts to attach anti-gun stuff to this bill continue apace. According to an alert we' ve received from the Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC - http://www.utahshootingsports.org), an attempt will be made on the floor of the Senate to attach the anti-gun-show bill today or tomorrow. If you haven' t already done so, please contact Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett to let them know that you will not tolerate any anti-gun amendments to S. 1805, including the McCain-Reed gun-show amendment or the Feinstein "assault weapon" amendment. Senator Orrin Hatch Phone: 801-524-4380 Fax: 801-524-4379 e-mail: senator_hatch@h... Senator Robert Bennett Phone: 801-524-5933 Fax: 801-524-5730 e-mail: senator_bennett@b... _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #197 - 1 Mar. 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW: ------------------------ Cut Here ------------------------- Dear ___________________: As a constituent of yours and a gun owner, I encourage you to help create a final version of SB 48 which cannot be interpreted in any way that would compromise or interfere with my right to possess and carry a self-defense weapon on all property that is open to the public. Please get back to me and let me know how you voted. Sincerely, ------------------- Cut Here --------------------- ================== 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: 02 Mar 2004 04:45:05 GMT The latest from USSC. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- URGENT ACTION ALERT 3/1/04 FOR ALL USSC MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS ACTION REQUIRED- Contact Representatives Lavar Christenen and Curt Webb IMMEDIATELY. (Do not make phone calls after about 9:30 at night, and always be polite.) Also contact your own Representative with same message. Contact information and pre-written fax or email message follows discussion of the issue Bill number SB 48- Uniform Firearms Laws (Waddoups) This is the bill that makes it clear that the Legislature, not the University of Utah writes the gun laws for the state. The bill has passed both houses with agreement on the language concerning the University issue. However, business special interest groups have been bombarding the conference committee members and House members with demands that they KEEP the language that would allow restrictions on CCW Permit holders legally carried self defense weapons. This goes beyond employer/employee policies, and opens a Pandora's box of restrictions. Such language may allow private property owners to post their entire property, not just buildings, regardless of it being open for public access or business. We are firmly opposed to ANY restrictions on legally carried self defense weapons. However, anyone who wants to impose restrictions certainly implies that they will guarantee the safety of every person on their property, and that they assume full liability for any incidents that take place, including deliberate criminal assaults by third parties. By denying the right of self defense, a failure to provide adequate safety should result in punitive as well as actual damages. In addition to serious liability issues the property owner would assume, there are major unanswered questions about how a permit holder could be prosecuted when there is no reasonable method of notification that a property is "posted" nor any uniform standard for ALL guns. If they say "no guns" can drug dealers demand that police remove their guns before entering their property, and escape prosecution if they do not? How about private security (Brinks) guarding deliveries of money to banks, or collecting receipts from businesses? How is a permit holder to know what property they cannot carry on? Will they have big lines painted on the parking lot, or a confusing legal listing of metes and bounds? Does that mean all their property or just the actual buildings? Can a permit holder leave a gun in their vehicle (their private property) on someone else's parking lot? Private property rights are a major issue that cannot be addressed by a line or two in a bill, but would require even more detail than was required to spell out the existing right to restrict guns from churches (who can restrict entry for many reasons unrelated to guns) and private residences where "a man's home is his castle." Note that both those ONLY restrict permit holders from the actual "house of worship or "residence", and NOT the grounds, yard, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks,. etc. If there are going to be any private property restrictions (and we believer there should NOT be) they must be addressed in detail, so that permit holders can reasonably know of any restrictions, and that those imposing restrictions are aware of the liability that they assume by making them. ACTION REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY Contact the two House Conference Committee members who are holding up removal of the private property language: Call, fax and email! Rep. LaVar Christensen (R-48) Cell Phone: (801) 560-3948; Home phone (801) 571-8603; Fax:(801)538-1908 e-mail: Lavarchristensen@utah.gov Rep. Curt Webb- (R-5) Home- 435-753-0215, Fax: (801)538-1908 e-mail: Curtwebb@utah.gov ALSO CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND AS MANY OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS AS YOU CAN: Phone is best, Fax is excellent, and email is good. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE- There are only about 48 hours left in the session and we MUST GET SB 48 PASSED. How to identify and contact your Representative: A map tool to identify your Utah Representative http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/DistrictInfo/newMaps/State.htm Phone and Email address for all Utah Representatives http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/DistrictInfo/newMaps/State.htm SAMPLE MESSAGE FOR FAX OR EMAIL (Send to Christensen and Webb first, then delete their names and insert name of your Representative) Dear Representative Christensen and Representative Webb- Please remove the private property language (Paragraph 7- lines 57a through 57d) from SB 48 Uniform Firearms Laws and forward it recommending passage by the full House. There is absolutely NO evidence to justify excluding carefully screened, law abiding permit holders from any place in the state other than the specific restricted areas designated by statute (airport, courthouses, jails, etc). Emotional fear of guns is not sufficient grounds to restrict lawful self defense options in any area that is open to public access. Permit holders are no more likely to have any sort of accidental discharge than police officers, so if police officers can be armed, there is no rational reason to disarm permit holders. If private property restrictions are the will of the Legislature, numerous complex details MUST be addressed, such as: notification, definition of areas, and any penalties. Even the allowed restrictions for churches and residences ONLY cover the actual house of worship and the residence, not to surrounding grounds, sidewalks or parking lots. Further the property owners need to understand that by restricting legal self defense options, they implicitly assume greater liability for ensuring the public's safety, even from criminal acts by third parties. This is too complex an issue to be properly addressed in the time left in this session. Any sloppy drafting on this subject will undoubtedly result in expensive litigation for property owners. Those are difficult issues that can be studied in the future. Please delete the private property language from SB 48 and pass that important bill NOW! [Your name, address] Thanks for your time. 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! Alert #198 (Emergency) Date: 02 Mar 2004 04:57:46 GMT The latest from GOUtah! Please take a moment and act on this one. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Today's Maxim of Liberty: "Free people, remember this maxim: We may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost." -- Jean Jacques Rousseau MORE ACTION NEEDED ON SB 48 TONIGHT Action Item: SB 48 is in trouble, mainly because House members who are on the conference committee for this bill are reluctant to remove Paragraph 7 from the bill (a paragraph with anti-self-defense ramifications; see below for further analysis). Please contact at least four of the legislators listed below, tonight before 10:00 p.m. or tomorrow morning at the latest, EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIVE IN THEIR DISTRICTS. Use phone, fax, or e-mail, and ask them to completely remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. Committee members have been receiving lots of e-mails today from various anti-self-defense people, asking them to leave Paragraph 7 in the bill. You may leave a brief message such as "Please remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. I do not want legislation to pass that will in any way compromise my right to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for self-defense on all property that is open to the general public". Or, you may use the pre-written letter at the end of this alert. On such short notice as this, e-mail is acceptable, but a fax or phone call would be preferable. If you send e-mail, please include your main point in the subject header (such as "Please remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48"). Based on what we've heard, we've place asterisks next to the names of the four legislators who are the highest priority to contact at this time. *House Speaker Marty Stephens (R-6) Capitol phone: 801-538-1930 Fax: 801-538-1908 Home Phone: 801-731-5346 e-mail: Martystephens@u... *Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801- 538-1908 Home phone: 435-673-4424 e-mail: Surquhart@u... *Rep. Curt Webb (R-5) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801-538-1908 Home phone: 435-753-0215 e-mail: Curtwebb@u... Sen. Greg Bell (R-22) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: (801)538-1878 e-mail: gbell@u... Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: 801-538-1449 Home phone: (801) 968-7756 e-mail: emayne@u... *Your own representative. House switchboard: 801-538-1029 Fax for Republican representatives: 801-538-1908 Fax for Democratic representatives: (801)538-9505 Home phone and e-mail: Visit http://www.goutahorg.org and click on "Legislative Contacts". Analysis: Paragraph 7 states: "Individual private-property rights under state and federal law shall not be restricted by this section." Paragraph 7 is supposedly designed to protect the right of private property owners to restrict firearms on their property, and appears innocuous enough, especially to those of us who believe in both the right to own and control property and the right to keep and bear arms. However, there are several real problems with this paragraph. Although Paragraph 7 doesn't really change anything in the existing law, it will likely be used as a springboard in the future for the state to impose statutory restrictions on the carrying of self-defense weapons in public-access areas, such as shopping malls, theaters, etc. Furthermore, in the meantime, business owners who wish to restrict self-defense weapons on their own property are likely to interpret this clause in a manner which is not consistent with Utah's existing trespass law, and this paragraph is likely to encourage them to adopt self- defense weapons on their property. The existing trespass law (Section 76-6-206(4) of the Utah Code) basically states that you are NOT trespassing if you are on private property that is open to the general public, as long as you are not acting in a way that substantially interferes with the owner's operation of that property. GOUtah! interprets this to mean that if you are carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense at a shopping mall or in a movie theater or any other private property that's open to the general public, you are not interfering with the operation of that property as long as you are not brandishing or otherwise misusing the weapon. Thus, you are not trespassing. However, nothing has yet been placed in the code to clarify this point with regard to self-defense weapons, and the courts have not yet considered a case of this sort, which means that Paragraph 7 is likely to be interpreted in a way that conflicts with our interpretation of this law. This would get us off on the wrong foot if we try to clarify the issue in future legislative sessions. Another problem with Paragraph 7 is that it refers to "private property rights.under federal law." We have no idea what this means, and are concerned that a future anti-gun Congress or administration could implement gun restrictions under the guise of "property rights", as perhaps in the case of federally-subsidized housing. SB 48 is supposed to be all about state legislative sovereignty, and there is no need for the Legislature to surrender any such sovereignty. Thus, although there is some difference of opinion within the gun- rights community on the matter of the right to keep and bear arms vs. property rights, GOUtah! believes that most of us can at least agree on several points: 1 - The lawful carrying of a concealed weapon for self-defense on any property that is open to the general public should not be prohibited. This is already implicitly reflected in the state's trespassing law, but has not yet been clarified explicitly in the code or in the courts. Paragraph 7 is therefore likely to be interpreted in a manner contrary to this by some owners of theaters, stores, etc., and is also likely to "get us off on the wrong foot" when addressing the issue of self-defense weapons on private property in future legislative sessions. 2 - Paragraph 7 could be used as a springboard next year to enact various statutory restrictions of guns on private property, in addition to the statutory restrictions that already exist for homes and churches. 3 - Paragraph 7 needlessly surrenders state legislative authority to the federal government. Thus, GOUtah! recommends that you do all you can tonight and tomorrow morning to get Paragraph 7 removed from SB 48. _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #198 - 1 Mar. 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW: ------------------------ Cut Here ------------------------- Dear ___________________: I encourage you to remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. While I respect the rights of property owners, I do not want the bill to pass if it can be interpreted in any way that would compromise or interfere with my right to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for purposes of self-defense on all property that is open to the general public. Current trespassing law (Section 76-6-206(4) of the Utah Code) is consistent with this right, but I'm concerned that Paragraph 7 would be interpreted in a way that is not consistent with it. Thanks for taking time to consider my opinion on this matter. Sincerely, ------------------- Cut Here --------------------- ________________________________________________________________ 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: GOUtah! Alert #198 (Emergency) Date: 02 Mar 2004 16:39:48 GMT Sorry, that is what I get for cutting and pasting from yahoo. For all senators emails end with "@utahsenate.org". For all Reps, emails end with "@utah.gov". But at this point, I HIGHLY suggest leaving a phone message or sending a fax instead. Charles ================== Charles Hardy -- Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc wrote: The email addresses are not complete -- can you resend or update with a full email address for the folks? Thanks Chad On Mar 1, 2004, at 9:57 PM, Charles Hardy wrote: > > The latest from GOUtah! > > Please take a moment and act on this one. > > Charles > > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > Today's Maxim of Liberty: > "Free people, remember this maxim: We may acquire liberty, but it is > never > recovered if it is once lost." > -- Jean Jacques Rousseau > > > MORE ACTION NEEDED ON SB 48 TONIGHT > > Action Item: > > SB 48 is in trouble, mainly because House members who are on the > conference > committee for this bill are reluctant to remove Paragraph 7 from the > bill (a > paragraph with anti-self-defense ramifications; see below for further > analysis). > > Please contact at least four of the legislators listed below, tonight > before > 10:00 p.m. or tomorrow morning at the latest, EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIVE > IN > THEIR DISTRICTS. Use phone, fax, or e-mail, and ask them to completely > remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. > > Committee members have been receiving lots of e-mails today from > various > anti-self-defense people, asking them to leave Paragraph 7 in the > bill. > > You may leave a brief message such as "Please remove Paragraph 7 from > SB 48. > I do not want legislation to pass that will in any way compromise my > right > to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for self-defense on all > property that > is open to the general public". Or, you may use the pre-written > letter at > the end of this alert. > > On such short notice as this, e-mail is acceptable, but a fax or > phone call > would be preferable. If you send e-mail, please include your main > point in > the subject header (such as "Please remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48"). > > Based on what we've heard, we've place asterisks next to the names of > the > four legislators who are the highest priority to contact at this time. > > *House Speaker Marty Stephens (R-6) Capitol phone: 801-538-1930 Fax: > 801-538-1908 Home Phone: 801-731-5346 e-mail: Martystephens@u... > > *Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801- > 538-1908 > Home phone: 435-673-4424 e-mail: Surquhart@u... > > *Rep. Curt Webb (R-5) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801-538-1908 > Home > phone: 435-753-0215 e-mail: Curtwebb@u... > > Sen. Greg Bell (R-22) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: (801)538-1878 > e-mail: gbell@u... > > Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: 801-538-1449 > Home > phone: (801) 968-7756 e-mail: emayne@u... > > *Your own representative. House switchboard: 801-538-1029 > Fax for Republican representatives: 801-538-1908 > Fax for Democratic representatives: (801)538-9505 > Home phone and e-mail: Visit http://www.goutahorg.org and click on > "Legislative Contacts". > > > Analysis: > > Paragraph 7 states: > > "Individual private-property rights under state and federal law shall > not be > restricted by this section." > > Paragraph 7 is supposedly designed to protect the right of private > property > owners to restrict firearms on their property, and appears innocuous > enough, > especially to those of us who believe in both the right to own and > control > property and the right to keep and bear arms. However, there are > several > real problems with this paragraph. > > Although Paragraph 7 doesn't really change anything in the existing > law, it > will likely be used as a springboard in the future for the state to > impose > statutory restrictions on the carrying of self-defense weapons in > public-access areas, such as shopping malls, theaters, etc. > > Furthermore, in the meantime, business owners who wish to restrict > self-defense weapons on their own property are likely to interpret > this > clause in a manner which is not consistent with Utah's existing > trespass > law, and this paragraph is likely to encourage them to adopt self- > defense > weapons on their property. > > The existing trespass law (Section 76-6-206(4) of the Utah Code) > basically > states that you are NOT trespassing if you are on private property > that is > open to the general public, as long as you are not acting in a way > that > substantially interferes with the owner's operation of that property. > GOUtah! interprets this to mean that if you are carrying a concealed > firearm > for self-defense at a shopping mall or in a movie theater or any other > private property that's open to the general public, you are not > interfering > with the operation of that property as long as you are not > brandishing or > otherwise misusing the weapon. Thus, you are not trespassing. However, > nothing has yet been placed in the code to clarify this point with > regard to > self-defense weapons, and the courts have not yet considered a case > of this > sort, which means that Paragraph 7 is likely to be interpreted in a > way that > conflicts with our interpretation of this law. This would get us off > on the > wrong foot if we try to clarify the issue in future legislative > sessions. > > Another problem with Paragraph 7 is that it refers to "private > property > rights.under federal law." We have no idea what this means, and are > concerned that a future anti-gun Congress or administration could > implement > gun restrictions under the guise of "property rights", as perhaps in > the > case of federally-subsidized housing. SB 48 is supposed to be all > about > state legislative sovereignty, and there is no need for the > Legislature to > surrender any such sovereignty. > > Thus, although there is some difference of opinion within the gun- > rights > community on the matter of the right to keep and bear arms vs. > property > rights, GOUtah! believes that most of us can at least agree on several > points: > > 1 - The lawful carrying of a concealed weapon for self-defense on any > property that is open to the general public should not be prohibited. > This > is already implicitly reflected in the state's trespassing law, but > has not > yet been clarified explicitly in the code or in the courts. Paragraph > 7 is > therefore likely to be interpreted in a manner contrary to this by > some > owners of theaters, stores, etc., and is also likely to "get us off > on the > wrong foot" when addressing the issue of self-defense weapons on > private > property in future legislative sessions. > > 2 - Paragraph 7 could be used as a springboard next year to enact > various > statutory restrictions of guns on private property, in addition to the > statutory restrictions that already exist for homes and churches. > > 3 - Paragraph 7 needlessly surrenders state legislative authority to > the > federal government. > > Thus, GOUtah! recommends that you do all you can tonight and tomorrow > morning to get Paragraph 7 removed from SB 48. > _________________________________________ > That concludes GOUtah! Alert #198 - 1 Mar. 2004. > Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. > > > PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW: > > ------------------------ Cut Here ------------------------- > > > > Date: > From: > > > > To: > > > > Dear ___________________: > I encourage you to remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. While I respect the > rights > of property owners, I do not want the bill to pass if it can be > interpreted > in any way that would compromise or interfere with my right to > lawfully > carry a concealed firearm for purposes of self-defense on all > property that > is open to the general public. > Current trespassing law (Section 76-6-206(4) of the Utah Code) is > consistent > with this right, but I'm concerned that Paragraph 7 would be > interpreted in > a way that is not consistent with it. > Thanks for taking time to consider my opinion on this matter. > Sincerely, > > > > > > ------------------- Cut Here --------------------- > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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: Fwd: FW: Deseret News Editorial re SB48 Date: 02 Mar 2004 21:12:53 GMT The following is from local pro-self-defense attorney and Utah gun law expert Mitch Vilos. Also, if you have not yet contacted your State Rep to ask him to support removal of paragraph 7 from SB 48, please make the call now. Also leave a message for Speaker Stephens, and Reps. Webb, Christensen, and Urqahart asking them to support removal of paragraph 7. Messages for all Reps can be left at 801-538-1029. With that paragraph removed, SB 48 deals ONLY with government entities (like the UofU). It does NOT affect private property rights at all. Regardless of your position on self-defense rights vs private or semi-private property rights, SB 48 is NOT the proper bill to try to address that issue and a two line amendment is NOT the way to properly clarify the issue. PLEASE encourage your Rep to support removal of paragraph 7. ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- ---------- That does it! This is justification for EVERY gun owner to cancel their subscription to Deseret News (after telling them why!) You can read it on the internet anyway without having to pay these brainless traitors a red cent! How would they like "freedom of the press" restricted on college campuses? They STILL don't get it -- it's doubtful anything they could write in their paper would be worth paying for. Pancho V. Walker should veto SB48 Deseret Morning News editorial Some will accuse us of getting ahead of ourselves because the Utah Legislature doesn't adjourn until Wednesday. But we would ask that Gov. Olene Walker jot down a reminder to herself to veto SB48 when it comes across her desk. SB48, sponsored by Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, would overturn the University of Utah's campus gun ban, a policy that has served the university well for many years. While some legislators feel it is their sole responsibility to create uniform gun policy in Utah, this issue would best be handled by the State Board of Regents, which governs state colleges and universities. There are many reasons why guns don't belong in places of learning. The primary one is that there are few places in a community that fill roles similar to college campuses. These bring together people of diverse backgrounds, experiences and ideas. That dynamic requires an atmosphere free from intimidation. If the Board of Regents, which has authority over state colleges and universities, developed a uniform policy for concealed weapons on college campuses, wouldn't that allay concerns that institutions would have a hodgepodge of different policies that varied from campus to campus? This would be a considerable nod to local control. But some lawmakers want to eat their cake and have it, too. Some of the most ferocious rhetoric on Capitol Hill comes when the federal government forces its will on the states in the form of federal programs laden with a lot of strings and, often, not a lot of funding. From a state's rights perspective, there is validity to questioning sweeping federal mandates. But as a result of that experience, shouldn't it follow that state lawmakers would be less prone to step on the policymaking authority of subdivisions of state and local governments? Isn't the concept of local control valid below the state level, as well? No question, a concealed weapons ban won't prevent people bent on harm from committing gun crimes on college campuses. But the Regents, as a policy-making body, should have the authority to declare policies that best facilitate proper conduct and order in a higher-education setting. --- End forwarded message --- ________________________________________________________________ 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 does the DesNews really think of you and your opinions Date: 03 Mar 2004 19:46:15 GMT Friends, A correspondent from Arizona sent me the following email exchange. At the bottom, is his letter to the editor of the Deseret News rebutting a recent anti-self-defense editorial. In fact, save for his use of the term "yellow journalism," the letter is downright polite. (And one can argue that "yellow journalism" is an apt and accurate description of how the DesNews and most other media outlets handle news and stories about guns. See or for a brief description of yellow journalism, including: "[the] practice [of] a newspaper to report the editor's interpretation of the news rather than objective journalism.") Just above that is the email response he received from the Deseret News (or at least whomever has access to send email from that account) to his well thought out letter to the editor. This is unusual. Even with all the letters to the editor of mine that have been printed, I've never received any kind of email response--other than maybe to inform me that my letter was being considered for publication. But this unusual occurance offers yet another glimps into the mindset of those working the editorial room at the newspaper that once upon a time proclaimed in its banner "We believe the US Constitution was inspired." Presumably that included ALL of the bill of rights, not just the part by which their hobby is protected. Notice the unprofessional tone of the email, the snide remarks. Note also the use of the spanish version of (I think) "the editors" as the sign off. Some kind of swipe at or condesention to the latino population in Arizona? I have no idea. Maybe the editor in chief or managerial board or even the Mexican Consulate could offer some insights. ;-) But it is clear that the editors of the Deseret News hold lawful gun owners--and our opinions--in the worst kind of contempt. With the permission of Mr. Reynolds, I forward this along, redacting only his address, city, zip, and email address. Charles ================== Charles Hardy --- Letters wrote: > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:07:41 -0700 > To: "M. Scott Reynolds" [email address redacted for this forward] > From: Letters > Subject: Re: Regarding your "Editorial Opinion" March 2 > > You said "Please help me out here." > Okay. > Stop saying "shame on you." Every letter writer uses that. Fine > something original. > And if you don't read our "yellow journalism" anymore, how did you > know what we said. > Los Editores. > > > > >Please help me out here. You say, "While some legislators feel it > >is their sole responsibility to create uniform gun policy in > >Utah...", as if there was something wrong with that. Well I'm > >looking at Article I, Section 6, of the Utah Constitution which says: > > > >"The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for > >security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the > >state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; > >but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the > >lawful use of arms." > > > >I'm having a hard time finding, "State Board of Regents", in that > >section. Please tell me where in the Utah Constitution it says it > >is wrong for the Legislature to create uniform gun policy. > > > >Shame on you for being a 1st amendment zealot and using that as an > >excuse to lead your readership astray by not really reporting the > >truth. > > > >Scott Reynolds > >[Street Address, city, zip, and phone number redacted for this forward] > >Arizona > > > >p.s. I'm a former Utahn who is very grateful I don't have to read > >your yellow journalism anymore, but since I still have many family > >and friends in Utah, and also a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit, I > >still pay attention to the Utah Constitution and Utah law. Maybe > >you ought to try it, you could learn something. > ________________________________________________________________ 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 #200 Date: 03 Mar 2004 19:47:17 GMT The latest from GOUtah! There are phone calls to be made in defense of your right to defend yourself and loved ones. ================== 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 #200 - 3 Mar. 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "The typical lawmaker of today is a man devoid of principle - a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism." - H. L. Mencken "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN DIES IN U.S. SENATE According to Gun Owners of America (http://www.gunowners.org), the Senate voted to kill S. 1805, the bill designed to protect U.S. gun manufacturers against frivolous lawsuits. As we've mentioned in recent alerts, various anti-gun senators were attempting to attach various anti-gun amendments to this bill. One of these was designed to make the 1994 federal "assault weapon" ban permanent. Another one was designed to shut down gun shows. Another one was designed to facilitate the banning of certain types of hunting ammunition by commissioning a study to determine whether such ammo should be placed in the phony "cop-killer bullet" category established by the federal government back in 1986. Although GOUtah! is opposed to the various frivolous lawsuits that have been brought against gun manufacturers, and S. 1805 was designed to curb such lawsuits, we stated clearly in Alert #195 that we would prefer to see the entire bill die than to see it pass with any of this anti-gun stuff attached to it. Thanks to your phone calls, e-mails, and faxes to Sen. Hatch, Sen. Bennett, and President Bush, that is exactly what happened. Unfortunately, there will be other opportunities for the "assault weapon" renewal and other anti-gun legislation to get resurrected in the Senate this year. However, we've scored a great victory with the defeat of the final version of S. 1805. According to GOA, the vote was 90-8 against the final bill. STILL A FEW HOURS FOR ACTION ON SB 48 The House/Senate conference committee working on SB 48 probably won't meet until this afternoon (Wednesday), so you still have a few hours to contact committee members if you haven't already, and ask them to remove Paragraph 7 from the bill and make it into the clean bill that Sen. Waddoups wants it to be. You may use the pre-written letter at the bottom of this alert if you wish. The representatives listed below are, in our opinion, the most important ones to contact at this time. House switchboard: 801-538-1029 House fax: 801-538-1908 House Speaker Marty Stephens (R-6) Martystephens@utah.gov Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75) Surquhart@utah.gov Rep. Curt Webb (R-5) Curtwebb@utah.gov Your own representative (mention that you are from his district). _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #200 - 3 Mar. 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW: ------------------------ Cut Here ------------------------- Dear ___________________: I encourage you to remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. While I respect the rights of property owners, I do not want the bill to pass if it can be interpreted in a way that would compromise or interfere with my ability to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for purposes of self-defense on all property that is open to the general public. Current trespassing law (Section 76-6-206(4) of the Utah Code) is consistent with this right, but I'm concerned that Paragraph 7 would be interpreted in a way that is not consistent with it. Thanks for taking time to consider my opinion on this matter. Sincerely, ------------------- Cut Here --------------------- To Subscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.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: SB 140 S2 with anti-gun provision is on House Senate Calander Date: 03 Mar 2004 22:25:53 GMT Senator Buttars' "Human Services Licensing" bill, SB 140, Second Sub has popped out of rules and is now on the House's Senate Calander. This means that despite not being heard by a house standing committee, it will likely receive a floor debate a full vote. This bill has almost nothing to do with guns, so it is unlikely that very many legislators even know it is a problem. Everything I can find indicates that this bill still contains two bad amendments: 1-Line 248a which allows the division to consider "access to firearms" in granting licenses, making rules, and otherwise regulating licensees. 2-On line 223, current language of "which shall be limited to" is changed to "which may include." Line 248a HAS to go. Line 223 may or may not be a backdoor attempt to allow the division to consider lots of other things. This is the same agency that in the past has illegally denied much needed, qualified foster parents simply because they owned guns or had a CCW permit. They MUST not gain ANY toe hold into regulating firearms. Please leave (polite) messages for Rep. Chad Bennion (the house sponsor of the bill), Speaker Stephens, and your own Representative asking them to remove line 248a and changing line 223 back to the original language. Messages for all three can be left with a single phone call to 801-538-1029. 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 #201 Date: 03 Mar 2004 23:35:07 GMT The latest from GOUtah! I've also just learned that pro-gun amendments to SB 140 Second Substitute have been prepared. Encourage your Reps to support pro-gun amendments when they come forth. 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 #201 - 3 Mar. 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow ANTI-GUN BILL RESURFACES IN HOUSE. PHONE CALLS NEEDED. In Alert #194, we mentioned that the current version of SB 140 2nd Substitute includes a line, line 248a, which states that bureaucrats at the Utah Department of Human Services may make arbitrary rules regarding "access to firearms" when issuing licenses to individuals or organizations. Thus, for example, since all foster homes in Utah must be licensed by the Department of Human Services, this bill would allow the Department to revoke a license from a foster couple if they kept firearms in their home. This bill was to have been considered by the House Natural Resources Committee last week, and we commend those of you who took the time to contact committee members. However, the committee ran out of time before the bill could be heard. The bill got sent back to the House Rules Committee, which just released it directly to the floor of the House this afternoon. That means that the House might have a chance to vote on it this evening. Please call the House Switchboard as soon as you can and leave a message for your own representative. Tell him that you live in his district, and ask him to vote against SB 140 2nd Substitute unless line 248a gets removed. Make sure you clearly say "line 248a" rather than "line 248", because line 248 contains something entirely different. Once you've done this, we would encourage you to leave a message for House Speaker Marty Stephens. He can exercise considerable control in the House regarding the fate of bills that are listed to be heard this evening. His contact info is given at the bottom of this alert. If nobody answers at his office, then you can call the main House switchboard and leave a message there. Tell him simply that line 248a of SB 140 2nd Substitute has to go because it could be used to ban firearms in foster homes. Rep. Stephens is running for Governor this year, so he might listen to us if enough of us can send messages to him this afternoon. House switchboard: 801-538-1029 House fax for Republican representatives: 801-538-1908 House fax for Democratic representatives: 801-538-9505 e-mail addresses for representatives can be found at http://www.goutahorg.org , where you can click on "Legislative Contacts" in the left-hand column. House Speaker Marty Stephens --- Capitol phone: 801-538-1930 Capitol fax: 801-538-1908 e-mail: Martystephens@utah.gov _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #201 - 3 Mar. 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: Create "news" to help defeat SB 48? Date: 05 Mar 2004 16:07:00 GMT Before SB 48 had even passed both Houses of the Legislature, the Deseret News was editorializing in favor of a veto. Now, less than 48 hours after it passes, suddenly we're hearing horror stories about foster kids killing their foster parents? Mere Coincidence? Why are children and youth who are so violent even being put into our neighborhoods rather than "rehabilitated" in a more secure environment? A teenager doesn't need a gun to seriously harm a toddler or for that matter, a sleeping adult. I wonder whether the rules against guns apply to police officers who also take in foster kids. Had the incident in the 80s involved fatal stabbings using kitchen cutlery, would there now be a total ban on knives in foster homes? And let us not forget, that their requirement that guns be kept locked up went so far as to prohibit anyone with a CCW permit from being a foster parent. Letters to the editor can be sent to . Letters to the author of the article can be sent to . As always, be polite in any correspondence. Charles From today's DesNews: Guns legal in foster homes? By Amy Joi Bryson Deseret Morning News Families who agree to take in troubled Youth Corrections children have long been banned from having a firearm in their house. But with the Legislature's passage of Sen. Michael Waddoups' so-called "U." gun bill, that apparently won't be the case anymore. Waddoups' SB48 prohibits any state entity from restricting the possession of firearms via an administrative rule or policy, unless authorized in statute. That worries Ken Stettler, director of the Department of Human Services Licensing, which licenses child foster care services through a couple of state agencies — the Division of Child and Family Services and Youth Corrections. The agencies have adopted rules governing firearms as part of the determination of where children are placed and as ongoing restrictions after placement. For foster-care homes under the purview of DCFS, the rule says foster parents have to make sure the guns are inaccessible to children at all times. Firearms and ammunition stored together have to be locked up in vaults or cases — and not a glass-fronted display case. It is even more restrictive for those who agree to take in Youth Corrections children — no guns at all. Stettler said the rules came about as a result of a Utah shooting in the mid-1980s. A husband and wife who took in a Youth Corrections child were killed with their own firearm, Stettler said. "It was a huge and tragic deal at the time," he said, and agencies began to look for ways to minimize the risk of it happening again. "We know that in the foster homes that we license there are going to be children who are in state custody who are are there because they are not capable of making rational choices," he said. "Some are suicidal, some are impulsive or have been involved in criminal or delinquent behavior. Certainly we don't want to jeopardize the health and safety of the child or the foster family in any way." Stettler said he believes with the passage of Waddoups' bill, the Department of Human Services will have to repeal those rules. "We will not be able to withhold licenses based on firearms," he said. But Waddoups said perhaps the issue needs to be revisited regarding its impact on foster care licensing rules. "It is a debate that needs to happen," he said. "The Legislature needs to understand there is a problem and decide how we are going to address it." Proposed legislation to give agencies the ability to impose restrictions on firearms didn't pass. Waddoups did say well-meaning foster care parents should exercise prudence and caution if they decide to take a Youth Corrections child. "They are not just normal foster kids — these are kids who have been taken into custody for problems. They may not be criminals per se, but they are headed down that road as juveniles. . . . If you have a teenage kid with a history of beating someone or using a weapon, how much access do you want to give them to a weapon in your own home?" E-mail: amyjoi@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: Fw: Today's article on foster homes and firearms Date: 05 Mar 2004 17:01:16 GMT This was sent to the author of the DesNews article and the editor of the Deseret News. Feel free to use it for ideas if you'd like. ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Charles Hardy xxx xxx Policy Director Gun Owners of Utah (GOUtah!) xxx xxx 5 March 2004 Amy Joi Bryson CC Steve Fidel Dear Ms. Bryson, I write regarding your article about firearms in foster homes that appears in today's (Friday, March 5th) edition of the Deseret News. Your article certainly paints a scary picture. But it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. First among those is how long has this story been in the works and how was the topic chosen? You see, I hate to be cynical, but there are several disturbing facts that may be nothing more than coincidental, but taken in total, make me wonder about what is going on. First, the Deseret News editorialized in favor of a veto of SB 48 before it had even passed both houses of the Legislature. Now, less than 48 hours after it passed both houses by veto-override super-majorities, a story implying that if it becomes law troubled children will be given access to guns appears in the same paper. Second, without any prior debate, and without any media mention, a last minute floor amendment was added to SB 140, Second Substitute, "Human Services Licensing Amendments," by Sen. Buttars. This amendment gave the Depeartment of Human Services explicit power to regulate "access to firearms" in the issuance of various licenses. This bill did not receive any public debate in its House committee, but was pulled from the Rules Committee and placed on the House calander in the final day of the legislative session. Thus, had the bill passed, the Department of Human Services would have received broad and sweeping powers to regulate private firearms without ANY public input or debate. Fortunately, the clock ran out and the bill never received a final vote. Finally, the Department of Human Services was called on the carpet in the last couple of years specifically for exceeding their authority by prohibiting anyone with a State issued permit to carry a concealed, self-defense weapon from serving as a foster parent--regardless of whether the children in question were "troubled" or just in need of a loving home. In short, this department has already shown that it is not interested in taking a limited, rational view of which special cases may warrant increased concern or security when it comes to access to weapons. Rather, like too many other executive branch agencies, they have shown forth a clear bias against the private ownership of firearms--particularly those firearms useful for self-defense against criminals. That they must reach back 20 years to a single, tragic incident as justification for a blanket rule suggests to me they are standing on very shaky ground. That they attempted to gain statutory authority to continue a policy that HAS been illegal for many years by sneaking a last minute, one line amendment into a 500+ line bill, thus avoiding any public debate or discussion, indicates an unwillingness, or inability to make their case to the public based on its merits. If you will go check the minutes from both the Senate and House committees that heard SB 48, you'll find that the Department of Human Services did not even bother to offer input on the bill. It is clear they don't want to debate their politically biased rules in a fair and open forum. Rather, they try to gain authority via dark-of-night techniques, and then when those fail, they complain that a bill they weren't even willing to offer input on might actually say, yet again, that the people of Utah are not willing to allow an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat to impose his political biases or phobias unilaterally on the very citizens who pay his salary. The timing of your article also opens up some serious questions as to whether the Deseret News is manufacturing news stories in an attempt to influence public opinion to achieve their editorial goals. I'm sure, like every reporter, will find that allegation offensive. And I'm sorry, I don't mean to impugn your integrity. But I am curious as to when this assignment was given, by whom, and what relation it may have to the timing of the very recent editorial against SB 48. Here are some of the questions your story doesn't address: Does the gun ban on foster parents apply to police officers who may also wish to host foster children? If not, why? Are police able to use a gun safe differently than everyone else? Since firearms are not, by any stretch, the only dangerous weapon in a typical home, does the Department have rules regarding access to kitchen knives, razor blades, power tools, gasoline and glass bottles, cigarette lighters, robes, natural gas appliances, car keys, etc? IOW, had the tragic and seemingly isolated case from two decades ago involved a stabbing or arson, rather than a shooting, would foster homes be prohibited from containing cutlery or matches? Why hasn't the Department offered testimony of this issue during the legislative session? Why did it attempt to sneak amendments through at the 11th hour and without public debate? Regardless of your position on any issue, intelligent and honest persons--and especially members of the media, I would expect--MUST believe that ANY good policy/rule can and should survive the scrutiny of full and open public debate. Secrecy is NOT a good way to pass laws, make policy, or conduct the business of the people. Why has the Department singled out holders of concealed self-defense weapons for discrimination even in cases where the children are not "troubled" but simply in need of a safe, loving home? Finally, if children are so "troubled" that they cannot be safely placed in a home with firearms, even if those firearms are stored in a safe, is their placement in our neighborhoods really the best course of action in the first place? A teenager doesn't need a firearm in order to gravely injure or even kill a younger child, or even an adult caught off guard. Further, well over half the homes in our State have at least one firearm. Are the children and parents living near foster homes alerted as to the degree to which the foster children moving in and out of their neighborhoods, schools, and local churches are "troubled?" Are they given full notice that such youth should not be trusted with the same level of access to homes, children, etc. that may be given to other neighbors? Is this long illegal rule against guns merely a "CYA" on the part of the department that is placing highly dangerous youth into family neighborhoods without notice to other residents? I apologize for the length, Ms. Bryson, but really, your story leaves FAR more questions unanswered than it adequately addresses. And after writing my final point above, I'm starting to think that an anti-gun bias at the Department of Human Services is not the most serious concern, even for me. I'm far more concerned that Youth Corrections and the Department of Human Services have a complete willingness to do their work in secret, without public disclosure or input, and that such behavior puts us all at risk, not just from bad legislation, but more importantly from highly dangerous youth who may belong in a more secure setting rather than in our neighborhoods, schools, and our children's circle of friends. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any help on this or any future story regarding privately owned firearms. Sincerely Charles Hardy Policy Director GOUtah! ================== 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: Legislative winners and loser Date: 05 Mar 2004 21:05:31 GMT Dear SL Tribune, I write in regard to the unsigned "Legislative Winnders and Losers" article in today's (Friday, March 5) SL Tribune. I really must protest. Are you guys sloppy, lazy, or so biased that you are willing to flat out lie, to make up "news" from whole cloth? Under the bullet point lising "Concealed-carry permit holders" as "winnders" your unnamed writer states that those with these State issued permits can potentially take their weapons into their neighbors' homes. The implication is that permit holders can legally do so against the express wishes of their neigbors. This is BLATANTLY false and any reporter writing about firearms in Utah should be fully aware of that given all the publicity that has surrounded this issue the past year. SB 48 deals ONLY with GOVERNMENT entities like the University of Utah. It contains an explicit provision, listed as paragraph 7, that the bill does NOT affect "private property" rights at all. Existing Utah Statute, 76-10-530, specifically empowers private home owners and churches to exclude privately owned weapons if they so desire simply by making visitors aware that weapons are not welcome. It is CRIME for anyone (other than a government employee, of course) to carry a weapon into a private residence whose owner has given notice that weapons are not welcome. NOTHING passed by the legislature this year even comes close to dealing with, much less overturning the ability of a homeowner to control access to his house in this fashion. The SL Tribune's editorial position against the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in public has been made very clear on your editorial pages. Please try to keep those opinions on the editorial page where they belong rather than allowing them to leak over into your "news" pages in the form of skewed stories, loaded language, or blatantly false information. I request that a correction be run in the same section and with the same prominence as the story that contains this gross error of well-known fact. Sincerely, Charles Hardy Policy Director GOUtah! ================== 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: scottb@xmission.com Subject: Re: FW: Information Alert For All Date: 05 Mar 2004 20:40:23 -0700 Quoting Utah Shooting Sports Council on 5 Mar 2004 16:08:33 -0700: YOU NEED TO PARTICIPATE IN PARTY CAUCUSES MARCH 23rd "The World is run by those who show up" is a very true statement. Another true statement is that people fit into one of three groups- (a) those who make things happen; (b) those who watch things happen; and (c) those who wonder what happened. In Politics, the elected officials make the decisions. It is a whole lot easier to protect gun rights when you have pro-gun candidates win elections, and that means we all need to help get good candidates elected. If you go back one step further, you need to have pro-gun candidates nominated before you can get them elected. In Utah, candidates are selected sometimes by primary elections, but usually at the state Party Convention, by about 2,500 "Delegates". The Delegates are mostly selected at the "Caucus" (previously called a "neighborhood mass meeting") held in every voting precinct in the state. At a "Caucus" the people who show up (not the ones who stay at home) pick the Delegates. Often there are only 10-20 people at the Caucus, so if you can round up 5-10 people who will vote for a pro-gun rights person, they can be selected to be a Delegate. Usually the caucuses are loaded with school teachers and their friends, who tend to be anti-gun, so if you don't show up, you may not like the choices your delegate makes. FINAL REPORT ON SB 1805- LAWSUIT PROTECTION On Tuesday (March 2, 2004) the anti-gun folks in the U.S. Senate won the battle to load anti-gun amendments on to SB 1805 which would have provided immunity from lawsuits for gun makers when their legal products were illegally misused by other people. Even President Bush asked for a "clean bill", but since he did so in a written "statement of Administration Policy" the night before the debate started, this appeared to be a pretty timid endorsement, and as far as we know, the White House did not work to get the bill passed, but let the NRA do all the real work. That may show that President Bush is not the best friend that gun owners could have. However, Senator John Kerry finally showed up and voted for the first time this year in the Senate- voting FOR the anti-gun amendments, and giving a rousing speech about how much he supported gun control. Kerry is clearly the worst enemy of law abiding gun owners. ----- 20-30 people may show up at a *legislative district* (many precincts, i.e. 0-2 people per precinct) caucus in the Democratic Party. The Utah GOP seems hopelessly lost to the fascists. The DPU may seem even worse, but considering the total neglect gun activists have given it, it's hardly surprising a mere handful of statist oppressors can so effectively control it. Likewise, why did you let Howard Dean drop from the presidential race? While I've seen no indication he be pro-gun, he's also not anti-gun, which is a far shot better than any of the other contenders, most esp. including John Kerry. If you must beat your head against a wall, choose a softer and thinner wall. Shabbat Shalom, Scott - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: [goutah] GOUtah! Alert #202 Date: 10 Mar 2004 15:27:15 GMT The latest from GOUtah! ================== Charles Hardy 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 #202 - 8 Mar. 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "Marxism seems to have become almost thoroughly abandoned, except in United States academia." -- Jeff Cooper GREAT JOB, PEOPLE! The 2004 General Session of the Utah Legislature adjourned last Wednesday night at midnight. . We're currently preparing a complete list of the gun-related bills and how they fared. Basically, at the state level, there were no anti-gun bills that passed (although SB 175 2nd Substitute, the asset-forfeiture bill, did pass, and could perhaps be considered to be an anti-gun bill in a peripheral sort of way). At the same time, several pro-gun bills passed, and we are not aware of any pro-gun bills that were defeated. At the federal level, a pro-gun bill was hijacked by anti-gun members of the U.S. Senate and was turned into an anti-gun bill, which was then defeated. So, in a nutshell, we took several significant steps forward and no significant steps backward in protecting and expanding the right to keep and bear arms, thanks to your numerous phone calls, faxes, letters, and e-mail messages to politicians over the past six weeks. Congratulations! GET READY FOR ELECTION SEASON! If you are not registered to vote, please do so as soon as possible, either at your County Clerk's office or at your local DMV office. On Tuesday, March 23, at 7:00 p.m., each political party will hold its own caucus meeting in each voting precinct where party members reside. You should choose which party you want to get involved with (Democrat, Libertarian, Republican, Green, etc.) and attend the caucus meeting of your choice. At this meeting, you will have the chance to run for party offices. The most important office, from the standpoint of protecting your Second-Amendment rights, is the office of delegate. You can run to become a state delegate or a county delegate, or both. As a state delegate, you'll be able to vote at your party's state convention to select nominees for statewide offices (governor, state attorney general, etc.) and for the U.S. Congress. As a county delegate, you'll be able to attend your party's county convention and select nominees for the State Legislature, as well as for local offices such as county council or county commission. In some rural areas, a single state legislative district might include more than one county, in which case the nominees for the State Legislature will be selected at the state convention rather than the county convention. Incidentally, those of you wishing to participate in a Republican caucus meeting should be aware that you'll need to be registered as a Republican in order to participate in the meeting. If you are not yet registered as a Republican when you arrive at the meeting, it is our understanding that registration forms will be provided at the door so that you can register on the spot and participate in the meeting. Other parties do not have this registration requirement for participation in their caucus meetings, as far as we know. GOUtah! does not endorse any political party. We're only providing this information about the Republican Party's registration requirement so that you'll be aware of it if you happen to choose to get involved with that party. Locations of the caucus meetings for the various parties will be printed in the state's major daily newspapers on the 20th or 21st of March, the weekend prior to the meetings. Or, you can contact your party's local county office to get the location. You might want to prepare a brief speech that you can give at the meeting, to let people know why you'd make a good delegate. If you can get friends, relatives, and neighbors who live in the same precinct to show up and endorse you and vote for you at the meeting, this will be a big help. If you wish to compose a one-page flyer explaining who you are and why you'd make a good delegate, you can make copies of this and hand them out at the meeting. UTAH SHOOTING-SPORTS ENTHUSIASTS MOURN THE DEATH OF BOB WALTERS It is with great sadness that we report the sudden death of Bob Walters, a long-time competitive shooter and great supporter of the shooting-sports tradition in Utah. A veteran of WW II, Walters, 81, was an avid outdoorsman, an expert pistol shot and a volunteer with the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources who taught hunter safety and winter survival courses to numerous aspiring hunters. Always willing to help move the shooting sports forward, Walters served in many capacities with several local and state organizations, providing both recreational and competitive shooting opportunities to several generations of Utahans. Walters is survived by his wife of 58 years, Hendrika, their three children, Gary, Kathy and Jeff, along with 11 grandchildren and 26 great-grand children. Friends are invited to visit the family on Thursday, March 11th at beginning 10:00 am at the Redwood Memorial Mortuary, 6500 South Redwood Road in West Jordan. Those assembled may share their fondest memories of Bob beginning at 11:00. Interment will follow at the Provo City Cemetery, 610 South State Street in Provo. U. OF U. WANTS TO KEEP GUN BAN, YET ADMITS CAMPUS EMERGENCY PHONE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK The following eye-opening piece is from GOUtah! Director Emeritus Scott Engen: It's a case of academic arrogance and hypocrisy that is striking, even by the standards of the University of Utah's anti-gun administration. The powers that be at that shining college on the hill continue to demand that all students, staff, and faculty members be disarmed while on campus (all in the name of enhancing people's safety) while at the same time admitting that the U's much-touted campus-wide network of emergency telephones doesn't work reliably. In a pair of stories in the March 4th issue of The Daily Utah Chronicle, the official student newspaper of the University of Utah, its writers lament the Utah Legislature's passage of SB 48, a bill intended to compel that school to conform to uniform state law regarding firearms possession, while at the same time admitting in an editorial that the campus-wide network of emergency phones intended to help ensure the safety of students, staff and faculty is only marginally functional. "If you ever plan on being attacked or having any other physical emergencies on campus, make sure you are in an area where the emergency phones work - or where an emergency phone even exists," the editorial writers advise in their column. According to the Chronicle editorial, there are 53 free-standing and 29 hanging phones in the network, and nobody seems to know how many of these actually work. The faulty network costs the University some $24,000 taxpayer dollars per month to operate, and the addition of a single phone station to the network is pegged at $20,000. Assuming these figures are accurate, the emergency phone network must thus have cost something on the order of $1,640,000 to install and about $300,000 a year to maintain and monitor. The editorial loudly laments the lack of funding to maintain the network. "Funds are hard to come by," the missive questions. ".but isn't the safety of students of utmost importance?" Yes, GOUtah! heartily agrees with the Chronicle's editorial statement that the safety of the students, and staff, faculty and all campus visitors is of the utmost importance. That's why GOUtah! has lobbied tirelessly for several years to enact legislation that would compel the University of Utah to stop discriminating against their students, staff and faculty when it comes to lawful possession of the most effective means of self-defense while on campus. We find it odd that the University of Utah's administration is readily able to find the needed economic resources in a tight budget to engage in ongoing Quixotic litigation against the state in order to keep their patently unlawful gun ban in place, yet they can't seem to find the funding to keep their campus emergency telephone network up and running. Perhaps the University of Utah might do better to comply with existing state law in the matter and allocate the funds now wasted on lawsuits to the expansion and maintenance of their emergency phone system. It sounds to us like a resounding wake-up call from both the state legislature and the faculty, staff and students of the University of Utah. Obey the existing state law regarding firearms, and use those scarce budget resources to keep the emergency phones up and running. Can you hear us now? Good! _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #202 - 8 Mar. 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. Reproduction and redistribution of this alert is permitted, as long as authorship is attributed to GOUtah! 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: Friends of the NRA dinner Date: 17 Mar 2004 23:10:54 GMT Passing along this info for any who are interested. This year's Friends of the NRA Dinner and Auction will be held Friday, March 26, 6:00 pm at Totem's, 538 South Redwood Road. The cost is $30.00 per person. Proceeds go to youth education, range devlopment, conservation efforts, etc. Tickets (either individuall or sponsorship packages) can be purchased by calling 801-699-7610 or 801-577-2403 or by emailing . The following dress code will be enforced: NO tank tops, t-shirts, cut-off pants, torn or holey clothing, hats or fatigues. I will add my personal opinion here that unless the event one is attending is actually taking place at a shooting range or backwoods cabin, gun owners should always give serious consideration to wearing what I like to call "urban cammo." The purpose of cammo is to blend in with one's environment, to not stick out. In an urban environment--including government meetings, TV interviews, rallies, political events, dinners, etc--the way to not stick out is to wear at least, business casual or better: dresses or skirts/blouses for the fairer gender (at least a nice pants suit) and at the very least, slacks and a button down for the gentlemen (as much as I personally dislike them, I doubt wearing a tie has really killed very many men). Gun owners do NOT do themselves any favors when they show up to public functions or nice meals dressed as if they were going bow hunting or purchased all of their shirts at gun shows. END EDITORIAL COMMENTS ================== 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: Gov. "inclined" to veto SB 48 S1 Date: 18 Mar 2004 17:07:30 GMT We've learned that Gov. Walker is under pressure from the Department of Human Services to VETO SB 48 S1. As you'll recall, SB 48 S1 is Sen. Waddoups' bill that should finally end the UofU gun ban. As a side affect, it seems that it also makes super clear that the Department of Human services cannot discriminate against gun owners or holders of CCW permits when it issues licenses to be foster parents. Like many other agencies, the department of human services doesn't like actually having to follow the law when it comes to respecting your rights. Neither do they like having their rules and policies subjected to open, public debate. This department attempted to gain statutory authority to discriminate against gun owners during a last minute floor amendment added to SB 140. Fortunately, gun owners were alerted, and that bill died in the house. The Department of Human Services NEVER testified on SB 48 or otherwise offered up any concerns. We've made it clear that we are willing to sit down with the Department to find workable solutions to any REAL problems they have. What we don't do, of course, is agree to any kind of zero-intelligence, blanket ban on gun owners. As a side note, I'll add that this very department is now running ads trying to convince more persons to become foster parents. This even as they turn away otherwise willing and qualified couples simply because they own a few guns or have a CCW permit!!!! SB 48 passed by veto-override margins in both houses. This bill MUST be signed and implemented. Please contact governor Walker at (801) 538-1000 and let her know you expect her to sign this bill. If you are (or are planning on becoming) a GOP State delegate, let her know that as well. Please also contact your own Senator and Representative, along with Speaker Stephens and Sen. President Mansell and let them know that you expect them to override any veto of SB 48 S1. Contact info for all legislators can be found at . 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 #203 Date: 18 Mar 2004 20:52:38 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 #203 - 18 Mar. 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "Let us remind ourselves again that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution should be referred to as the Statute of Liberty." -- Jeff Cooper In this Alert: Possible veto of pro-gun bill. Party caucuses this coming Tuesday evening. POSSIBLE VETO THREAT TO IMPORTANT PRO-GUN BILL. PLEASE CONTACT GOV. WALKER'S OFFICE. We've been told that the Utah Department of Human Resources is pressuring Gov. Olene Walker to veto SB 48 1st Substitute, the bill that makes it crystal clear that the State Legislature is the only Utah government entity with authority to regulate the possession and carrying of firearms. The bill passed on the final day of the legislative session by large margins in both the House and Senate. The infamous Paragraph 7 which we had been concerned about was revised and basically neutered at the last minute, so we consider SB 48 1st Substitute to be a good pro-gun bill that deserves to become law. For those of you who are curious, the final version was re-classified as a substitute bill on the last day of the session. Hence the "1st Substitute" suffix. We encourage you to contact Gov. Walker's office as soon as possible and leave a message asking her to sign SB 48 1st Substitute. A simple phone call is probably the quickest way. You can leave a brief message such as "I'm so-and-so from such-and-such a place (give the name of your town or city of residence) and I encourage the Governor to sign SB 48 1st Substitute. Thank you." Phone: (801) 538-1000 Fax: (801) 538-1557 Toll-free phone outside of Salt Lake & Davis County area: (800) 705-2464 Web-based e-mail: http://www.governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html If you happen to be a member of Gov. Walker's political party (the Republican Party) and you hold some sort of party office (state delegate, county delegate, precinct chairman, etc.), please mention this when you contact the Governor's office. While SB 48 1st Substitute mainly targets the University of Utah's gun ban, it also affects all other state and local government agencies. It appears that the Department of Human Resources either has or would like to have a policy of placing restrictions on gun storage and/or gun ownership for foster parents in Utah. An attempt was made by Sen. Chris Buttars (R-10) during the recent legislative session to give the Department statutory authority to enact such a policy. Fortunately, this legislation (SB 140 2nd Substitute) was defeated, thanks to your phone calls, faxes, and e-mail messages. We have not had time to absolutely verify that the Department is pressuring the Governor for a veto, but we think there's a very good chance that our source is correct and that such pressure is in fact being applied. Either way, we think that it's important for you to act. If our source is correct, then your actions can help prevent a veto of this important bill. If our source is not correct and it turns out just to be a rumor, your actions will still be useful because they will show the Governor that gun owners in Utah will not stand idly by when there is even the slightest indication that she might try to do something that threatens your right to keep and bear arms. Gov. Walker is new to her job, and has perhaps not yet come to understand that you take your rights seriously. REMINDER OF TUESDAY CAUCUS MEETINGS As we mentioned in GOUtah! Alert #202, on Tuesday March 23 at 7:00 p.m. the various political parties in Utah will be hosting local caucus meetings in the individual voting precincts. Even if you are not currently registered to vote, you can attend a caucus meeting in your local precinct and register at the meeting. The only requirement we are aware of is that you must be old enough so that you will be eligible to vote by Nov. 2, 2004. Please look in your local newspaper over the next few days for a list of caucus locations, or contact the county or state headquarters of the party of your choice (Democrat, Libertarian, Republican, Green, etc.). GOUtah! is not affiliated with any political party and does not endorse any particular party, but we encourage you to become involved with the party of your choice and try to become a delegate for your party. This will give you a lot more clout with politicians than if you're just an ordinary voter. _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #202 - 18 Mar. 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: Fw: Aussies: Guns banned, now going for swords Date: 23 Mar 2004 02:08:19 GMT One more reason to be involved in tomorrow night's (Tuesday's) caucases. Don't think you're safe to stand idly by just because nobody has proposed banning your favorite gun or other weapons yet. Rest assured, if "assualt weapons," or "saturday night specials" or "50 caliber" weapons are banned, gun grabbers will certainly come after semi-auto duck guns or highly accurate (aka "sniper rifles") big game weapons. If the UofU and Department of Human Services succeed in maintaining gun bans, other agencies and departments will follow suite. More and more public lands will be closed off and range development/protection laws will be attacked. Taxes on "sporting" weapons, ammo, and accessories will go up, even as funds spent on game animals will decrease and hunting areas will be closed. And you can COOUNT on nearly every employer in the State asserting its right to fire you just for having your rifle or shotgun inside the trunk of your own car if you happen to park that car in their lot. Antique guns or gun collections will be attacked. In England it is now all but impossible for their Olympic shooters to even practice inside their own country. Self defense and concealed carry ARE the bulwarks that stand on the front lines against the gun grabbers. You can fight the battle with us or you can wait until we've been eliminated and then fight a losing battle without us. As the Colonists said over 200 years ago, "We can hang together or we shall surely hang seperately." GET INVOLVED!!! Charles ================== Charles Hardy I have a great interest in history. As a result, I'm familiar with the maxim of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The nutty fuitcakes running the Aussie government are a case in point. As a former resident of Australia, gun owner, and practitioner of the historic Western martial arts (longsword &c.), I've been following the insane attempts to rid the Aussies of crime by taking aways weapons. As we know, when the common person is disarmed, the criminals note that their victims are easy prey, and violent crime skyrockets. Just as it has happened historically, when royalty fears the citizenry, it confiscates modern weaponry. Whenever it does this, brigands and peasants resort to the next most effective weapon. In our Western tradition, that's the ever-effective, elegant, and lethal sword. Thus it should be no surprise to see the following from earlier this month. Swords are already regulated as "controlled" weapons in Australia. One needs a permit and must register the weapon with the government. As with guns, first they are regulated, registered, then confiscated. Note that the rhetoric against swords is identical to the anti-gun rhetoric. If one substitutes the word "gun" for "sword," one has a pre-gun-ban article. Other miscellaneous links: http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/000711.shtml http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html http://perpetualbeta.com/woifm/archive/002347.html http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594279264.html Attacks spark sword ban March 8, 2004 - 1:39PM Swords will be banned in Victoria under new laws to be introduced from July. Police Minister Andre Haermeyer today said owners of swords, which are currently listed as controlled weapons, would have to hand them into police or sell them to a dealer under the new laws. Anyone caught in illegal possession of a sword could face up to six months in prison or a $12,000 fine. "The Bracks government is implementing these new regulations to help Victoria Police overcome this culture of young people arming themselves with swords," Mr Haermeyer said. "Vendors will only be legally permitted to sell a sword to an individual who can produce evidence that they fall within an exempt category or have a specific approval from the (police) chief commissioner." Mr Haermeyer said the government would establish exempt categories to ensure legitimate sword owners were not disadvantaged. "There are some cultural, religious, military and collector groups that have legitimate reasons to own swords," he said. "Such groups will be able to apply for an order exempting their members from the need to obtain individual approvals." The move to list the swords as prohibited weapons comes following a string of incidents involving them, a state government spokesman said. "There has been a number of incidents involving swords... and we want to make sure these weapons are not freely available," a state government spokesman said. A 13-year-old boy was last week arrested and charged with possession of a controlled weapon and other offences after he allegedly ran at officers with a samurai sword in central Victoria. A 21-year-old man had his hand severed by what was believed to be a samurai sword during a brawl in Melbourne last month. Huy Huynh, 19, was allegedly hacked to death near a Melbourne nightclub in July last year by a group that used samurai swords or machetes. - AAP This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594279264.html ________________________________________________________________ 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: Walker signs SB 48 S1 Date: 24 Mar 2004 17:14:28 GMT According to today's SLTrib, SB 48 S1, overturning the UofU gun ban (and making perfectly clear that agencies like the Department of Human Services cannot adopt their own, anti-gun policies) was signed into law by Gov. Walker. We'll have to see whether GOP Gubernatorial Candidate and Board of Regents member Nolan Karras and his buddies in the ivory towers of taxpayer funded higher education continue with lawsuits or finally accept the will of the elected legislature. Walkers actions (veto or signing) on several other bills are also likely to be of interest to any who are politically active--and all gun owners should be: from educational bills, child welfare, and taxes. But, of course, since opinions on these topics likely vary among gun owners it would not be appropriate to discuss any of them specifically here. I'd expect the legislative web page to be updated in the next couple of days, but for starters, the story in today's SLTrib has a partial list. 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: Scott Bergeson Subject: Press release from the Liberty Round Table Date: 30 Apr 2004 21:16:31 -0600 Quoting Sunni Maravillosa on 30 Mar 2004 20:12:19 -0500: PRESS RELEASE FROM THE LIBERTY ROUND TABLE 3/30/04; For Immediate Distribution Liberty Activist Retroactively Fired by Verizon Communications On March 29, 2004, Jeffrey "the Hunter" Jordan, a resident of New Hampshire, received notice dated 3/26/04 that Verizon Communications had fired him, retroactive to January 7, 2004. In the letter, the stated reason for the firing was "failure to comply with the policies outlined within Verizon's Code of Business Conduct". No details on how Mr. Jordan failed to comply with the company's policies were provided. Jordan is planning to fight this action. Friends of his at the Liberty Round Table, a group that advocates individual liberty and personal responsibility, have begun calling for a boycott of Verizon over the company's questionable actions regarding his case. There is reason to believe the firing is related to Mr. Jordan's arrest on 12/29/03 in Ohio for carrying a concealed weapon. At that time he was on his way home from a holiday visit to his family in Kansas. After being detained a few days in the Ashland County jail, and despite having arranged for extra time off from Verizon, Jordan returned home to a phone message from his employer stating that he was suspended from his position. Why has Mr. Jordan been suspended and then retroactively fired, without any hearing on either action, as is required by the terms of his employment contract? These questions have gone unanswered, as requests to Verizon seeking information on its activities have not brought any response. Sunni Maravillosa, a friend of Jordan's and a fellow Liberty Round Table activist, said, "It is curious that Verizon is apparently firing Hunter for actions taken hundreds of miles from his Verizon work sites, in his own vehicle, and while on personal time. Also, that they've taken this action in violation of his contract, and without any due process or presumption of innocence, should be very troubling to all Americans." Carl Bussjaeger, a friend of Jordan's in New Hampshire, commented, "I look forward to Verizon explaining in court why they met with Hunter's union after January 7th to discuss his ongoing suspension. If he was already fired, wouldn't that have been a dandy time to mention the fact?" Jordan has issued the following statement: "I have for years now been subject to the day-to-day thoughtless tyrannies inherent in any big corporation. I have consciously chosen to tolerate these very real oppressions as part of the cost of earning a living, but now the corporate bureaucrats have gone too far. "Verizon has consciously chosen to ignore one of the fundamental assumptions of American jurisprudence - that a man is innocent until proven guilty. They've also chosen to blatantly violate the contract that tens of thousands of union employees fought long and hard over the years to hammer out. "I am confident that justice will prevail in the end, and am fully prepared to fight these petty tyrants hiding behind the corporate veil just as strongly as I have every other sort I've run across in my journey through life." People interested in joining the fight against this injustice are encouraged to write to Verizon, for which address information and letter templates can be found here: http://www.gbronline.com/cwb/samizdat/huntersamples.html For the latest news on Mr. Jordan's case, see the official "Free Hunter" web pages: http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter/ For further comments, please contact Sunni Maravillosa, co-founder of the Liberty Round Table (http://www.libertyroundtable.org/), at Sunni@free-market.net. --- -