From: scott bergeson Subject: Massachusetts women want guns for self defense Date: 01 Feb 2002 19:08:12 -0700 Massachusetts women want guns for self defense ---------- CNS At Mount Holyoke, a women's college in the anti-self-defense state of Massachusetts, the Second Amendment Sisters are raising eyebrows by lobbying for students' right to carry firearms. "We shouldn't have to depend on others to take care of ourselves," says the group's organizer. (02/01/02) http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200201/CUL20020131b.html Gun rights backers push for reciprocity among states ---------- Washington Times Self-defense advocates, having won concealed-carry firearms laws in more than a dozen states in the 1990s, are now working to try to get states to recognize firearms permits issued in other states. (02/01/02) http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020201-85287048.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott bergeson Subject: Poll closed Date: 02 Feb 2002 10:04:23 -0700 The Deseret News poll is closed. The results were: http://deseretnews.com/dn/poll/history Utahns who want a concealed-weapons permit have to take a class, familiarizing them with weapons and Utah's deadly force laws, and pass a test. Proposed legislation would eliminate those requirements. Part of the rationale is that the class is ineffective. What is your position? (01/24/2002) Keep the class and test 313 13% Eliminate the class and test 969 41% Keep and improve the class and test 1077 46% Total votes: 2359 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: [goutah] Alert #114 Date: 02 Feb 2002 21:21:23 -0700 The latest from GOUtah! Please note the hotline number below--give it a call and see if recognize the voice. ---------------- 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! Website: http://www.goutah.org Mirror Site: http://www.goutahorg.org New! GOUtah! Telephone Alert Hotline: (801)296-GUNS 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 To receive GOUtah! Alerts free of charge via fax, send a fax to: (801) 944-9937 (Note: Fax Alerts must sometimes be transmitted late at night, so you'll need a fax system that doesn't make your home telephone ring) Send comments to: goutah@goutahorg.org ______________________________ GOUtah! Alert #114 - 2 February 2002 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense." -- Thomas Paine ASK YOUR REP. TO SUPPORT HB 183 As reported in GOUtah! Alert #113, HB 183, sponsored by Rep. Morgan Philpot of Sandy, was forwarded to the floor of the House of Representatives by the House Judiciary Committee with a favorable recommendation. The bill will be voted on by the House of Representatives in the near future. This bill would eliminate the $7.50 fee paid with each gun purchase in Utah to fund the redundant background check conducted by the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI), and would require that BCI immediately destroy all records of gun purchase applications as soon as the purchaser passes the background check. As we've stated in previous alerts, we support HB 183 as a step toward eliminating the redundant BCI gun-purchase check altogether. We encourage you to contact your Utah State Representative and ask him to vote for HB 183. You don't have to make a long-winded speech. You can just say something like this: "I live in your district, and I would like you to vote for HB 183. Please let me know afterwards how you voted on this bill. Thank you." You can send a fax or a letter to your representative at the Capitol. Make sure to put your representative's name on the envelope or on the fax, so that the people in the mailroom will know to whom it is to be delivered. Utah State House of Representatives 318 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Phone (801) 538-1029 Fax (801) 538-1908 You can also phone, fax, or visit your representative at his home. To view a list of representatives sorted according to district number, along with each representative's e-mail address and home phone number and fax number, visit GOUtah!'s legislative directory at: http://www.goutahorg.org/address.html Our thanks to GOUtah! Webmaster Martin Glantz for assembling this information on a single convenient page. SB 147 NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT Sen. Michael Waddoups' bill, SB 147, is not purely a gun bill per se, but has direct relevance to gun rights. The inspiration for this bill came from the blatant refusal of several state colleges and universities to eliminate their illegal bans on the carrying of legally concealed firearms on campus. Even after being told by the Attorney General's Office that their gun bans were illegal, administrators of these schools thumbed their noses not only at the attorney general, but at the state legislature, essentially telling legislators during a recent hearing that laws passed by the legislature don't necessarily apply to state-operated institutions of higher learning. SB 147 was born out of the dismay experienced by legislators during that hearing, as a way to encourage state bureaucrats to obey the law. GOUtah! has decided to support this bill, which will be heard by the Senate State and Local Affairs Committee on Tuesday February 5 at 8:00 a.m. In room 403 of the state capitol. This bill would make it easier for the legislature to deal effectively with state agencies that violate state law. Of course, the legislature already has the power of the purse, but has rarely used it to punish rogue bureaucrats who enact illegal policies, because the current appropriations procedures were not designed with this in mind. They were designed at a time when it was fairly safe to assume that state bureaucrats wouldn't blatantly try to break the law. Mainly, SB 147 would create a procedure whereby any legislator could call on a state agency to explain a policy that appears to violate state law. If the agency does not provide an adequate explanation, or if the agency fails to respond, the appropriations subcommittee that funds that agency is required to convene a hearing into the matter, and is given subpoena power. If the subcommittee finds that the agency is violating the law, the subcommittee can formally recommend to the relevant appropriations committee that the administrative budget of the agency be cut by as much as 50%. The administrative budget is that portion of an agency's budget that is earmarked to pay the salaries and expenses of administrators (who are the people responsible for creating illegal gun bans and other types of illegal rules). Other parts of the agency's budget would not be affected. Thus, for example, if SB 147 were to pass and the U. of U. maintained its illegal gun ban, the legislature could cut up to 50% of that portion of the U's budget that goes to pay the salaries of the U.'s administration. Most of the U's budget would be unaffected, including faculty and staff salaries, infrastructure, etc. Only the administrators would lose money. One political commentator has recently remarked that unelected state and local bureaucrats pose the greatest threat to liberty in the United States today. We are not inclined to disagree. Contrary to what opponents of the bill have been saying, SB 147 does not give prosecutorial or judicial power to the legislature. These powers belong to the executive and judicial branches of government, respectively. SB 147 simply enables the legislature to more effectively utilize is existing constitutional power to control how much taxpayer money goes to unelected bureaucrats. Please contact members of the Senate State and Local Affairs Committee as soon as possible and encourage them to support SB 147. If one of the committee members is from your district, please let him know that you are a constituent. Below is a pre-written letter that you can copy, fill out, sign, and send if you wish. Feel free to edit it on your word processor if you want to. Members of the Senate State and Local Affairs Committee: Carlene Walker (Sen. Dist. 8) 4085 E. Prospector Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 Phone(801)733-4599 Beverly Ann Evans, Sen. Dist. 26 HC 65, Box 36 Altamont, Utah 84001 Office(435)722-4523 Ext 126 Home(435)454-3719 Fax(435)454-3072 Scott K. Jenkins, Sen. Dist. 20 4385 W. 1975 N. Plain City, Utah 84404 Phone(801)731-5120 Paula F. Julander, Sen. Dist. 1 1467 Penrose Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Office(801)538-1405 Home(801)363-0868 Peter C. Knudson, Sen. Dist. 24 1209 Michelle Dr. Brigham City, Utah 84302 Home(435)723-2035 Al Mansell, Sen. Dist. 10 6995 Union Park Ctr. #100 Midvale, Utah 84047 Office (801)567-4200 Home(801)942-6019 Fax(801)567-4201 Millie M. Peterson, Sen. Dist. 12 7131 West 3800 South West Valley City, Utah 84128 Home(801)250-5944 ****** NOTE: You can also send messages to senators at the State Capitol ***** Utah State Senate 319 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Phone (801) 538-1035 Fax (801) 538-1414 __________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #114 - 2 February 2002. Copyright 2002 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW: ----- Cut Here ------- Dear Senator ________________: I am writing to encourage you, as a member of the Senate State and Local Affairs Committee, to support SB 147, the bill by Senator Waddoups which would enable the State Legislature to more effectively use its existing constitutional power of the purse to rein in unelected bureaucrats who implement policies and rules that directly violate state law. I'm tired of government administrators and bureaucrats who think that they can blatantly violate the law, and I believe that the Utah Legislature should begin to assert its power in such matters by more vigorously exercising its budgetary clout. Thanks for taking the time to hear my opinion. 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 ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Anti-gun amendment proposed to co-opt HB 183 Date: 04 Feb 2002 12:33:35 -0700 Lamont Tyler (RINO) and the Democrats are proposing and supporting a floor amendment to Morgan Philpot's HB 183. HB 183, as you recall, eliminates the $7.50 fee, for the redundant State "brady" check conducted before you are allowed to exercise your Constitututional right to purchases a firearms (see Utah Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 6). See previous alerts for arguments and talking points on why our right to purchase firearms should be subect to special fees or taxes. Tyler's proposed amendment (officially titled House Amendment #2) will do worse than gut the bill, it will co-opt it into a completely different and anti-gun animal. The amendment, if passed, will do the following: 1-Remove the requirement that all recods of criminal check be immediately destroyed for all checks that pass. BCI will continue to be allowed to keep records of law abiding citizens' gun purchases for up to "20 days" before those records are destroyed. 20 days is simply too long and too much mischief can take place. 2-Changes the title of section 76-10-256 by deleting the specific exemption for CCW permit holders. This may well be setting the stage to require CCW permit holders to undergo the same brady background check on purchases as non-permit holders. This is a complete waste of time as CCW permit holders have not only gone through a criminal background check but are currently being subjected to daily checks as well. Further, the way the amenment is written, CCW permit holders would no longer be exempted from background check fees. Under the orginal bill, this language was removed because there would be no fee. But if the fee remains, and CCW permitees are no longer exempt from that fee...your guess is as good as mine. 3-Instead of eliminating the fee, changes the fees charged each quarter based on the percentage of purchases that were approved in the previous quarter. However, it maintains the same total income to the State. EVERYONE wanting to purchase a firearm would pay the now MUCH HIGHER FEE up front. Those who are approved, would have their fee refunded to them, at some point, in the future, by the BCI. Those who are not approved, would lose their money permanently and presumably, pay the full cost for the background check system. No details on how this scheme may affect those denied wrongly. The upfront fee would be $7.50 divided by 1 minus the fraction of those background checks passed the previous quarter. So, if 90% of brady checks were approved the prior quarter, the fees this quarter would be $7.50 / (1 - 0.9) = $75.00!!!!! If 99% of brady checks were approved the prior quarter, the fees this quarter would go to $7.50 / (1 - 0.99) = $750.00!!! And of course, if we ever had a quarter where 100% of all brady checks were approved, the fees the next quarter would be infinate ($7.50 / 0). If those numbers do not represent an impediment to gun ownership, I don't know what does. BCI would have an indefinate period of time in which to refund this money. (Nice interest free loan to the State.) This amendment will come up for a vote either Tuesday or Wednesday. It is critical that you call or fax your Representative today and tell them to oppose this ill conceived, "poison pill" amendment. A full list of legislators, along with email and home phone numbers can be found at http://www.utgoa.org/resources/legcontact02.html Messages for all Representatives can be left at the main house switchboard at: 801-538-1029. Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: A Word About Gunnies in Orem Date: 04 Feb 2002 17:55:40 -0700 (MST) I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete reloading "bench". and at least one handgun. They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter. I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left at the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my assumption was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, I decided I better call them, especially since I didn't "check in" at the front on my previous visit because of how absurd I figured it would be for them to think I should. The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant ALL guns, even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for their safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this request or not. I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a request that my truck doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of course, unlike my children, my truck does whatever I say. Okay, now that I've put the facts down, can I rant a little? Do they not trust CCW permit holders? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW permit holders, in "checking" their guns at the front door, are violating the terms of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder. After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at their store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think she tried to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to put the phone on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude and they won't consider my call very important. But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at their obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly, foolishness. I'm pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so I'll be giving more of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very polite owner/operator of Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I live in Utah County. As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my decision because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and I can no longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust others can't be trusted" has more often than not been proved true. In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's Gunnies info: Gunnies (mailto:Gunnies@earthlink.net) 396 South State Orem, Utah 84062 801-226-7080 or 800-696-4867 And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all (they have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page: AOL users click here Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like my daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively speaking. -- Karl L. Pearson Senior Consulting Systems Analyst Senior Consulting Database Analyst karlp@ourldsfamily.com My Thoughts on Terrorism In America: http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. Subject: Re: A Word About Gunnies in Orem Date: 04 Feb 2002 20:04:03 -0500 Thanks Karl I will avoid them as well whenever I am in Utah. I have done lots of business with them as well in the past, but no more. Anyone with that kind of mindset just "doesn't get it". They don't care about my safety because they want to disarm me. And it reduces their own safety as well. Chad On Monday, February 4, 2002, at 07:55 PM, wrote: > I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and > have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete > reloading "bench". and at least one handgun. > > They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that > firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I > noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter. > > I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left > at > the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my > assumption > was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, I > decided I > better call them, especially since I didn't "check in" at the front on > my > previous visit because of how absurd I figured it would be for them to > think > I should. > > The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant ALL > guns, > even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for their > safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this request or > not. > I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a request that my > truck > doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of course, unlike my > children, my > truck does whatever I say. > > Okay, now that I've put the facts down, can I rant a little? Do they not > trust CCW permit holders? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW > permit > holders, in "checking" their guns at the front door, are violating the > terms > of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder. > > After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at > their > store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think she > tried > to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to put the > phone > on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude and they won't > consider my call very important. > > But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at > their > obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly, foolishness. > I'm > pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so I'll be giving > more > of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very polite owner/operator > of > Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I live in Utah County. > > As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I > doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my > decision > because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and I can no > longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust others > can't be > trusted" has more often than not been proved true. > > In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's > Gunnies info: > > Gunnies (mailto:Gunnies@earthlink.net) > 396 South State > Orem, Utah 84062 > > 801-226-7080 or > 800-696-4867 > > And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all > (they > have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at > www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page: > > > > AOL users click here > > > > Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like > my > daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively > speaking. > > -- > Karl L. Pearson > Senior Consulting Systems Analyst > Senior Consulting Database Analyst > karlp@ourldsfamily.com > My Thoughts on Terrorism In America: > http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml > > > - > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: A Word About Gunnies in Orem (fwd) Date: 05 Feb 2002 11:44:59 -0700 (MST) I received a response from Gunnies management. I thought you might be interested in both my response and their email which elicited my response. Mine appears next. To read them in order, go to the end and start at Dear Valued Customer. KLP I appreciate your response, especially in light of the tone and tenor of my original email, however, the damage has been done. Your sign, first of all, was ambiguous and no effort was made to correct the wording before it offended customers. Second, why did the girl who answered the phone tell me that yes, the sign does apply to CCW permit holders, too? Your email indicates that either she lied on the phone, or you are lying now to hope to cover your original intentions. Yes, I know I'm being tough on you. But you are dealing with hundreds of CCW permit holders who know about that sign now. At the least, you are guilty of not communicating the gravity of the situation to your employees appropriately or effectively. I stand by my previous email because in business, actions taken can never be done hastilly and thoughtlessly. As such, I prefer to believe you knew the consequences of your ambiguous sign and are now back-peddling. Why wasn't the consequence of the sign discussed completely with all employees, especially those who greet the customer? How can you expect to be trusted where such a tremendous lack of judgement shows such lack of respect for your customers? I await your response. Perhaps the prosperity of your business hangs in the balance. You are, I'm certain, aware that many hundreds of individuals saw my first email and I'll be sure to pass this communication on to them, negative or positive. Thank you, -- Karl L. Pearson Senior Consulting Systems Analyst Senior Consulting Database Analyst karlp@ourldsfamily.com My Thoughts on Terrorism In America: http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Valued Customer: Thanks for bringing to our attention the poorly written sign on our front door. Gunnies respects the rights of CWP holders and has long supported the Utah CWP program. Our Store Policy is to have firearms that enter the store for repair, or trade-in be signed in at the cashier's desk. This has been necessary because frankly some people are just not honest. Hence, we have tightened control measures for firearms entering and leaving to minimize gunsmithing losses. Thanks Gunnies Management > [Original Message] > From: > To: ; ; ; > Cc: > Date: 2/4/2002 5:55:43 PM > Subject: A Word About Gunnies in Orem > > I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and > have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete > reloading "bench". and at least one handgun. > > They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that > firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I > noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter. > > I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left > at the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my > assumption was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the > doubt, I decided I better call them, especially since I didn't "check > in" at the front on my previous visit because of how absurd I figured it > would be for them to think I should. > > The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant > ALLCWPs, even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for > their safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this > request or not. I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a > request that my truck doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of > course, unlike my children, my truck does whatever I say. > > Okay, now that I've put the facts doCWPcan I rant a little? Do they not > trust CCW permit hCWPrs? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW > permit holders, in "checking" their guns at theCWPont door, are > violating the terms of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder. > > After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at > their store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think > she tried to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to > put the phone on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude > and they won't consider my call very important. > > But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at > their obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly, > foolishness. I'm pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so > I'll be giving more of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very > polite owner/operator of Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I > live in Utah County. > > As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I > doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my > decision because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and > I can no longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust > others can't be trusted" has more often than not been proved true. > > In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's > Gunnies info: > > Gunnies (mailto:Gunnies@earthlink.net) > 396 South State > Orem, Utah 84062 > > 801-226-7080 or > 800-696-4867 > > And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all > (they have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at > www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page: > > > > AOL users click here > > > > Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like > my daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively > speaking. > > -- > Karl L. Pearson - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Potentially OFF-TOPIC PSA Date: 05 Feb 2002 12:08:22 -0700 This may well be off topic to some of the lists that recieve it, for which I apologize. I want to take a moment to air a public service announcement that there are several areas holding special bond elections today. In some cases, if these bonds pass, property taxes will be affected. I'm not going to take a position on any of these (especially since 2/3rds of the elections I know about do not affect me), but I do encourage you to take whatever time you can today to acquaint yourself with the issues and to make sure and get to the polls to vote. It is likely that the polling location for these bond elections will NOT be at the usual primary/general election location. I am aware of two or maybe three bond elections today. In Davis county, the school board is having a bond election today. This has received a fair bit of coverage in the local papers. I think Washington County School board is also having a bond election today. Finally, in SLCo, the Sandy Suburban Improvement District (Sewer and wastewater folks) is holding a bond election today to upgrade facilities. There is only 1 polling location for this election--the Sandy Suburban Improvement District office building on 700 East 9115 South (east side of the road, little white building). Again, I encourage you to take time to vote. Otherwise, don't complain about the outcome. Charles ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: A Word About Gunnies in Orem (fwd) Date: 05 Feb 2002 13:08:42 -0700 (MST) Hi all. The email that follows is a response from Gunnies. Although this response seems to placate nicely my concerns, why in the world did the nice girl who answered the phone tell me the sign meant everyone, including CCW permit holders? -- Karl L. Pearson Senior Consulting Systems Analyst Senior Consulting Database Analyst karlp@ourldsfamily.com My Thoughts on Terrorism In America: http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Valued Customer: Thanks for bringing to our attention the poorly written sign on our front door. Gunnies respects the rights of CWP holders and has long supported the Utah CWP program. Our Store Policy is to have firearms that enter the store for repair, or trade-in be signed in at the cashier's desk. This has been necessary because frankly some people are just not honest. Hence, we have tightened control measures for firearms entering and leaving to minimize gunsmithing losses. Thanks Gunnies Management > [Original Message] > From: > To: ; ; ; > Cc: > Date: 2/4/2002 5:55:43 PM > Subject: A Word About Gunnies in Orem > > I have, for some time, shopped almost exclusively at Gunnies in Orem and > have probably spent several hundred dollars on ammunition, my complete > reloading "bench". and at least one handgun. > > They now have a sign posted on their front door which indicates that > firearms must be checked at the front door by one of the sales clerks. I > noticed it as I walked in a week or so ago with my wife and daughter. > > I'm a reasonable person. I assumed this meant guns that were to be left at > the store to be repaired by their fine gunsmith. Wondering if my assumption > was correct and wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, I decided I > better call them, especially since I didn't "check in" at the front on my > previous visit because of how absurd I figured it would be for them to think > I should. > > The nice girl who answered the phone told me that the sign meant ALLCWPs, > even those carried by CCW permit holders, and the policy is for their > safety. I don't know if they have a legal right to make this request or not. > I don't really care. They've made it and I can make a request that my truck > doesn't park in their parking lot anymore. Of course, unlike my children, my > truck does whatever I say. > > Okay, now that I've put the facts doCWPcan I rant a little? Do they not > trust CCW permit hCWPrs? Obviously not. Do they understand that CCW permit > holders, in "checking" their guns at theCWPont door, are violating the terms > of their CCW permit? Do they care? I wonder. > > After informing the nice girl that I would no longer be shopping at their > store because trust was no longer felt there, I hung up. I think she tried > to say something, but my brain had already signaled my hand to put the phone > on the receiver and so I guess I am now considered rude and they won't > consider my call very important. > > But, in writing this, I hope you can let them know your displeasure at their > obvious bureaucratic mentality of distrust and, frankly, foolishness. I'm > pretty sure where I'll not be shopping from now on, so I'll be giving more > of my business to Frank, the unassuming and very polite owner/operator of > Patriot Arms on Redwood Road, even though I live in Utah County. > > As with breaches of trust in the past at establishments such as this, I > doubt their reversal of this policy will make a difference to my decision > because the minds that brought it about are still in charge and I can no > longer trust them. The old adage, "the man who doesn't trust others can't be > trusted" has more often than not been proved true. > > In case you feel a need to let them know how this strikes you, here's > Gunnies info: > > Gunnies (mailto:Gunnies@earthlink.net) > 396 South State > Orem, Utah 84062 > > 801-226-7080 or > 800-696-4867 > > And if you want to visit their website and notice the irony of it all (they > have a link to the Concealed Firearms Accessories Center at > www.utahgun.com), here's a link to their home page: > > > > AOL users click here > > > > Thanks for letting me vent a little, though I have to admit I feel like my > daughter was just molested by my best friend's son, figuratively speaking. > > -- > Karl L. Pearson > Senior Consulting Systems Analyst > Senior Consulting Database Analyst > karlp@ourldsfamily.com > My Thoughts on Terrorism In America: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Quick Update on SB147 and HB 219S1 Date: 05 Feb 2002 14:08:51 -0700 All, More details will surely follow this evening or tomorrow, but I wanted to give a quick update on two bills of particular interest to gun owners. All in all a good morning to be at the capital. SB 147, Restriction of Funding on State Entity whose Policy, Rule, or Action is Contrary to Law , Sen. Waddoup's bill that would make it easier to cut the ADMINSTATIVE portion of the budget of any agency or department whose rules, polices, or actions are contrary to State law was heard this morning in the Senate STate and Local Affairs committee. I was not there due to attendance at the house committee hearing mentioned below. This bill would put some real teeth into the power of the purse strings and likely force agencies like the UofU and other colleges to drop illegal gun bans. Reports this morning from those who attended indicated that 4 persons spoke to the bill, all in favor. But then, no one on the committee offered a motion to pass the bill on to the full senate so the bill was effectively held having received no action. However, the legislative web site indicates the bill was held on a 5-0-2 vote. More info later as I can get it. In any event, this bill appears to be still very much alive. Contact members of the Senate State and Local Affairs committee and ask them to support this bill. H.B. 219 S1 Firearm Fee Amendments, Rep. Philpot's bill to eliminate fees for obtaining a CCW permit, was heard in the House Judiciary Committee this morning. The bill was last on a very full agenda and followed another bill that was subject to intense and long debate. Even with the meeting starting at 7:00 am, only 15 minutes remained in the meeting by the time Rep. Philpot was able to begin presenting his bill. Fiscal Analysis STILL has failed to return a fiscal note for this bill. Calls of complaint to Speaker Stephens are probably in order on that point. To the credit of Chairman Ferrin, the committee chose to hear the bill and act on it anyway. Reps. Arent and Daniels were most hostile to the bill. Reps. Bennion, Way, Ferrin, and Thompson all either asked very good questions supporting the bill or made statements in support of the bill. Rep. Philpot did an outstanding job of presenting and defending his bill in the very short time available. Cudos to Rep. Ferrin for running a very tight ship during the final 15 minutes of the meeting and seeing that this bill was discussed and acted on. However, placing such an important bill last on the agenda, and then allowing all the preceeding bills to run so long is an issue that concerns me. Whether by design (on the part of anti-gunners) or simply by nature, we frequently find good gun bills dying in committee due to time running out and/or we expend far more energy and time than we should have to because our bills get held over several committee meetings. Only a single person spoke agains the bill, Ms. Carbella (sp?) from the Utah Firearms Violence Preventin Center. Her commends were poorly framed IMO, and, thanks to a timely question from Rep. Bennion, did as much to help our side as anything else. Due to time constraints, Rep. Ferrin asked if those in favor of the bill would select two persons to speak to the bill. Charles Hardy for GOUtah and Dana Dickson for UTGOA both spoke very briefly in favor of the bill. Finally, a spokeswoman from BCI offered some info and basically spoke against the bill. She noted that the fiscal note was of concern AND THAT IF THE FEES WERE DROPPED MORE PEOPLE WOULD APPLY FOR PERMITS thus increasing the workload. Rep. Thompson seized on that comment to say that he was even more convinced this was the right bill becuase if more people would apply for permits if the fees were dropped, then clearly SOME number of people WERE be dissuaded from exercising their rights becuase of the fees. Rep. Daniels and Rep. Arent attempted some last minute procedural motions in an attempt to prevent a vote on the bill. Both failed and the bill was passed out to the full house with a favorable recomendation on an 8-3-2 vote. Reps. Arent, Daniels, and one other person voted against. All Republicans voted in favor except two (Curtis and one other) who were absent. Please contact your Representative as well as Speaker Stephens and ask that they support this bill on the floor while opposing all hostile amendments that may come. Charles ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott bergeson Subject: Ban Screwdrivers.com -- Your source for screwdriver activism Date: 05 Feb 2002 14:40:00 -0700 http://www.banscrewdrivers.com/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: GOUtah does NOT support Tyler's Amendments to HB 183 Date: 05 Feb 2002 16:18:09 -0700 Last night GOUtah was contacted by one of Rep. Lamont Tyler's constituents. This constituent had phoned Tyler asking that he withdraw his anti-gun amendment to HB 183. As you will recall, Tyler's amendment would require that all persons purchasing a gun pay a much increased fee (easily $75.00 and likely as high as $500+) for the State brady background check Those who pass the background check would have their money refunded back to them at some point. Of course fiscal records would almost certainly be kept forever showing a payment of x dollars for refund of brady check to joe gun owner. Defacto gun owner list on top of all the other problems. Tyler had told this constituent that he was running the amendment either with the support of GOUtah or to make GOUtah happy, or other words to that effect. A conference call was quickly arranged to determine whether Tyler was crazy, or just a bald faced liar. On direct confrontation with both the constituent and GOUtah on the phone, Tyler claimed GOUtah supported this amendment due to a comment made by Policy Director Charles Hardy in answer to a question during testifying in support of HB 183. During that testimony, Hardy stated that it "is particularly repugnant to charge law abiding gun owners in order to maintain a database of criminals." Tyler asked whether GOUtah would support charging only those who failed the background check. Hardy responded that such a proposition was more just than charging law abiding gun owners, and if someone wanted to bring such a bill, we'd certainly look at it to see whether we would support it, but that we were supporting HB 183 as is without reservation. From this exchange, Tyler extrapolated to telling this constituent that GOUtah supported his amendment. After a few moments he backed off a bit and admitted the he had only "gotten the idea for it" during the hearing on HB 183. GOUtah made perfectly clear that we do not, in any way shape or form, support Tyler's amendment and that there was nothing he could do to it to cause us to support it. We requested that he withdraw, drop, decline from offering, or otherwise junk this amendment. Tyler suggested that HB 219 will certainly die if the fiscal note is not reduced. GOUtah made clear that we would rather Philpot's good bill fail due to fiscal constraints than that the anti-gun monster that would be created by Tyler's amendments pass. At the hearing on HB 219 this morning, Tyler visited briefly with GOUtah and assured us he would NOT be representing his amendment as having the support of GOUtah. We hope Tyler is good to his word, but want to pre-emptively clarify our position once again. GOUTAH DOES NOT SUPPORT TYLER'S AMENDMENTS TO HB 219. WE OPPOSE THEM COMPLETELY. Tyler voted for HB 219 in committee and did not offer any amendments in committee. To offer such an amendment now is clearly an effort to kill the bill. To try to claim such an amendment benefits gun owners and potential gun owners in any way, shape, or form, is either the height of arogance, or the depths of insanity. If anyone PERSONALLY hears Tyler or any other legislator making such false claims in the future, please contact GOUtah or the other affected pro-gun organization at once to get the truth. Charles Hardy Policy Director -- GOUtah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott bergeson Subject: Urgent News Flash Date: 08 Feb 2002 13:14:19 -0700 Please take 5 minutes to read this important, one topic, message about gun confiscation taking place in Chicago. http://www.privategunsale.com/urgent_pgs_newsflash.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Air marshalls too far undercover Date: 12 Feb 2002 10:11:38 -0700 From today's SLTrib. Certainly, air-marshall cannot look like air marshalls until such time as they are needed. But once they are needed--especially for anything short of a head shot--I would hope they would immediately identify themselves in such a way as to be credible and convincing. Gee, Sept. 11 happened because of a generation of conditioning to not resist and everything will be ok. I sure hope the next hijacking isn't made easier by conditioning to immediately submit to anyone claiming to be a cop and carrying a badge. Charles ====================== Suspect Says He Doubted Marshals http://www.sltrib.com/02122002/utah/utah.htm BY MICHAEL VIGH THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Richard Bizzaro claims that when three young men in street clothes took control of a commercial airliner bound for Salt Lake City, he believed they were hijackers posing as sky marshals. And he wasn't going to let them get away with it. "I believed I was witnessing a hijacking of our airplane," Bizzaro said Monday in his first public statement since he was charged two days earlier with felony interference with a flight crew. But when the Park City man's Delta Air Lines flight from Los Angeles touched down Saturday night, he was the one arrested by the same trio of federal agents, who had taken over the flight after Bizzaro improperly left his seat. "I believe the situation was aggravated by my and other people's attitudes prompted by the Sept. 11 attacks where we are all fearful of one another," Bizzaro said in a written statement in which he apologized for his actions. About 30 minutes before landing, Bizzaro, who happened to have appeared on an in-flight video feature about his business, left his first-class seat and went to the restroom. Under Olympic security rules, passengers on commercial flights into Salt Lake City may not leave their seats during the final half-hour in the air. Bizzaro, a frequent traveler, said he had never heard the restriction announced before, and no one stopped him when he stood up. When he exited the restroom, Bizzaro said he was confronted by a flight attendant, whose comments he interpreted as rudeness. "I now know she was just doing her job," Bizzaro said. Federal prosecutors say he intimidated the attendant with his stares and his size -- 6 feet, 2 inches and 235 pounds. After he finally sat down, Bizzaro was seen giving a "thumbs up" to a pair of passengers, an FBI agent alleges. Bizzaro, 59, vehemently denies that allegation and says the three air marshals looked young enough to be his grandchildren and may have had fake badges. One marshal was wearing a baseball cap backward, he added. "They did not give the appearance they were law enforcement officers and I did not pay them the proper respect," Bizzaro said. "I overheard conversations between the young men that they were observing something going on at the back of the plane. It did not occur to me that I was seen as the problem until I was informed afterwards." The agents said Bizzaro continually looked at the coach cabin, making his behavior appear suspicious. Bizzaro's attorney, Max Wheeler, said his client looked back because "he thought a hijacking was going on in the back of the plane." After he demanded a closer look at the badges, he realized they were real and began to comply, Wheeler said. Until that time, he said, Bizzaro was thinking he may have to take action against the trio as the passengers appear to have done on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11. U.S. Attorney Paul Warner wasn't sounding mollified on Monday, two days after he charged Bizzaro with a federal crime that could net him up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. "This is an important point: We're taking a heightened look at anything that appears to have an impact on the safety and security of the Games," Warner said. Bizzaro is CEO of Unicity Network of Orem, a multilevel marketing company with $100 million in annual sales of herbal supplements. The company was featured in an in-flight CNN news segment. Bizzaro found it "kind of surreal," Wheeler said. "He was arrested just after seeing his business featured on the flight." _________ Tribune reporter Kevin Cantera contributed to this report. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott bergeson Subject: 'Have gun, will boycott,' group warns Date: 13 Feb 2002 10:09:54 -0700 'Have gun, will boycott,' group warns ---------- The Roanoke Times "Valley View Mall management has never seen such a flurry of negative feedback. More than 20 gun-rights activists have called, written e-mails or sent letters vowing to boycott the mall until it reverses its policy forbidding guns." (02/11/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/757753110.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott bergeson Subject: Pro-gun Amendment Vote Today! Date: 13 Feb 2002 14:17:43 -0700 Gun Owners of America's alert Contact Your Congressman! -- Tell him or her to support the Pickering amendment to the Incumbent Protection Bill Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org (Wednesday, February 13, 2002) -- Late tonight, the U.S. House of Representatives will consider the anti-gun Incumbent Protection Bill (H.R. 2356). Shays-Meehan (so-called Campaign Finance Reform) is particularly a dagger at the heart of pro-gun groups. Groups like GOA would be prohibited from engaging in many forms of communication to the public which mention the names of incumbent legislators within 60 days of an election. This would give anti-gunners a decisive advantage. For instance, if anti-gun groups were prohibited from broadcasting ads depicting pro-gun candidates, they would have little trouble getting the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Enquirer, L.A. Times, etc., (all of which are exempt from the legislation) to run the ads as Editorials. Pro-gun groups rarely receive any positive attention from the major media outlets. Thus, GOA members and supporters often rely on our advocacy to inform them of how their Representatives in Washington are voting -- and to alert them when important votes are pending, no matter how close to an election such votes may occur. To protect the right of groups like GOA to communicate to the public, an amendment to Shays-Meehan has been offered by pro-gun Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS), which would: exempt Second Amendment groups from the bill's requirements. In addition to protecting the rights of groups like GOA to communicate with the public, the Pickering amendment draws a line in the sand in reaffirming that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. The Pickering amendment would also: declare that the Second Amendment applies to ALL AMERICANS and NOT just to the National Guard. As you know, there are many politicians who pretend to support the Second Amendment in order to secure your votes, but sabotage gun rights once they are elected. Today's vote on the Gun Owners Protection amendment will distinguish our friends from our enemies. NO POLITICIAN WHO VOTES TO LIMIT THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL GUARD -- BY OPPOSING THIS AMENDMENT -- SHOULD EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS ANYTHING BUT ANTI-GUN. ACTION: Please e-mail or call your congressman IMMEDIATELY. Tell him or her to support the pro-gun amendment to the Shays-Meehan Incumbent Protection Bill. You can call your Representative at 202-225-3121. To identify your Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website. ----- Pre-written message ----- Dear Congressman, An amendment to the Shays-Meehan Incumbent Protection Bill to protect the right of Second Amendment groups to communicate effectively to the public is being offered today. I cannot count on the major media to inform me of what's going on concerning my gun rights. I must rely on GOA and other groups to inform me of pending legislation or congressional votes, no matter how close to an election these issues arise. In fact, the primary concern of the First Amendment is to protect exactly the type of political communication Shays-Meehan is trying to destroy. The Pickering amendment reaffirms that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not one reserved to the National Guard. I urge you to support the Pickering Gun Owners Protection amendment. Sincerely, **************************** To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location. Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address mailto:goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights. END OF GOA ALERT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Fw: [UTGOA] Pro-gun Amendment Vote Today! Date: 13 Feb 2002 14:33:33 -0700 I personally believe that the entire campaign finance reform bill is unconstitutional and full of hypocrisy. Apparantly the Senate (McCain Feingold) version specifically exempts Indian Tribes from the rules imposed on the rest of us. I'm sure it is only coincidence that the number one recipient of Indian Tribe money just happens to be Sen. McCain. Normally, I'd have some reservations about putting in a special exemption for gun groups. For, while I value the 2nd amd very highly, I am no less attached to the first amd. I do want and need to hear what the GOA, UTGOA, GOUtah, and other gun groups have to say about who has really supported or betrayed my gun rights. However, I cannot support silencing the CATO Institute, HCI, the Sierra Club, SUWA, gay/lesbian groups, or anyone else regardless of the issues the track or which side they take. To do so is to allow the first amd to die a death by a thousand cuts. However, in this case, the exemption being proposed below is likely to be a "poison pill" amendment that will doom the entire bill if it is attached. And even if it isn't attached, the vote on it may well expose who really supports the 2nd amnd. Last night on MSNBC, Alan Keyes discussed this very topic. It was amazing to see how those who support this piece of "incumbant protection" refused to debate the specifics. Everytime the discussion turned to the limits placed on grassroots organizations, the anti-free-speech camp shifted into talking about "soft money," "Enron," or some other topic not related to the issue of gagging grassroots groups prior to elections. Charles The latest from Ut-GOA: --------- Forwarded message ---------- Due to the urgency of this message, we are forwarding Gun Owners of America's alert to you, rather than writing a new one. Apologies to those of you who receive duplicates. Contact Your Congressman! -- Tell him or her to support the Pickering amendment to the Incumbent Protection Bill Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org (Wednesday, February 13, 2002) -- Late tonight, the U.S. House of Representatives will consider the anti-gun Incumbent Protection Bill (H.R. 2356). Shays-Meehan (so-called Campaign Finance Reform) is particularly a dagger at the heart of pro-gun groups. Groups like GOA would be prohibited from engaging in many forms of communication to the public which mention the names of incumbent legislators within 60 days of an election. This would give anti-gunners a decisive advantage. For instance, if anti-gun groups were prohibited from broadcasting ads depicting pro-gun candidates, they would have little trouble getting the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Enquirer, L.A. Times, etc., (all of which are exempt from the legislation) to run the ads as Editorials. Pro-gun groups rarely receive any positive attention from the major media outlets. Thus, GOA members and supporters often rely on our advocacy to inform them of how their Representatives in Washington are voting -- and to alert them when important votes are pending, no matter how close to an election such votes may occur. To protect the right of groups like GOA to communicate to the public, an amendment to Shays-Meehan has been offered by pro-gun Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS), which would: exempt Second Amendment groups from the bill's requirements. In addition to protecting the rights of groups like GOA to communicate with the public, the Pickering amendment draws a line in the sand in reaffirming that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. The Pickering amendment would also: declare that the Second Amendment applies to ALL AMERICANS and NOT just to the National Guard. As you know, there are many politicians who pretend to support the Second Amendment in order to secure your votes, but sabotage gun rights once they are elected. Today's vote on the Gun Owners Protection amendment will distinguish our friends from our enemies. NO POLITICIAN WHO VOTES TO LIMIT THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL GUARD -- BY OPPOSING THIS AMENDMENT -- SHOULD EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS ANYTHING BUT ANTI-GUN. ACTION: Please e-mail or call your congressman IMMEDIATELY. Tell him or her to support the pro-gun amendment to the Shays-Meehan Incumbent Protection Bill. You can call your Representative at 202-225-3121. To identify your Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website. ----- Pre-written message ----- Dear Congressman, An amendment to the Shays-Meehan Incumbent Protection Bill to protect the right of Second Amendment groups to communicate effectively to the public is being offered today. I cannot count on the major media to inform me of what's going on concerning my gun rights. I must rely on GOA and other groups to inform me of pending legislation or congressional votes, no matter how close to an election these issues arise. In fact, the primary concern of the First Amendment is to protect exactly the type of political communication Shays-Meehan is trying to destroy. The Pickering amendment reaffirms that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not one reserved to the National Guard. I urge you to support the Pickering Gun Owners Protection amendment. Sincerely, **************************** To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location. Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights. END OF GOA ALERT Copyright 2002, Utah Gun Owners Alliance, Inc. and Sarah Thompson PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091 801-566-1625 http://www.utgoa.org Director@utgoa.org PLEASE SUPPORT UTAH GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE! JOIN US TODAY! Did someone forward this to you? Please SUBSCRIBE NOW! That way you'll receive our FREE alerts as soon as they're released. During the legislative session, we send urgent, time limited alerts. Don't risk missing important information because someone else neglected to forward important information. Our alerts are low volume and average less than one alert per day. To subscribe to the UTGOA list, send a blank email to utgoa-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or use the form on our web site, http://www.utgoa.org. For more information, see http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/UTGOA. Utah Gun Owners Alliance is completely dependent on your generosity to cover our operating costs. Please consider joining us or sending a donation. Membership information is at: http://www.utgoa.org/pages/join.html Donations may be sent to: PO Box 1185, Sandy, UT 84091 Checks should be made payable to Utah Gun Owners Alliance, Inc. or UTGOA. Thank for your support! UTGOA is written and distributed by, Utah Gun Owners Alliance, Inc. www.utgoa.org, and Sarah Thompson, M.D. All information contained in these alerts is the responsibility of the author, unless otherwise attributed. Permission is granted for distribution of these alerts so long as no changes are made, UTGOA is clearly credited, and this message is left intact. Archives of the UTGOA alerts can be found at: http://www.utgoa.org/cgi-bin/alerts Utah Gun Owners Alliance, Inc. is a Utah non-profit corporation. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott bergeson Subject: UPI Report Links Kmart Money Woes To Pro-Gun Boycott Date: 14 Feb 2002 10:31:46 -0700 http://www.sierratimes.com/02/02/13/argw021302.htm UPI Report Links Kmart Money Woes To Pro-Gun Boycott Sierra Times/GunWeek.com Gun Week.com : 02.13.02 United Press International (UPI) has not exactly been friendly to gun rights over the years, but on the heels of Kmart's announced bankruptcy filing in January, UPI carried a news item that seemed a bit surprising. The UPI report suggested that a boycott of the department store chain by "Pro-Second Amendment activists . . . because of the vocal anti-gun activity of Kmart spokesman (sic) Rosie O'Donnell" had an impact on Kmart's collapse. UPI failed to also mention Kmart's equally foolish moves in pulling handguns and ammunition off the shelves, which was also seen by gunowners as a bigoted slap in the face toward firearm civil rights and the hunting tradition. Gun Week heard from countless gunowners and hunters who, in the wake of the announced firearms and ammo sales policy changes, simply said they would shop elsewhere. The bigger impact, of course, apparently was in reaction to O'Donnell's appearance as a Kmart spokeswoman. After O'Donnell used her afternoon television program to attack actor Tom Selleck for appearing in an "I'm the NRA" advertisement, Kmart was flooded with angry calls and mail, and gunowners mounted a boycott. O'Donnell eventually parted ways with Kmart (or vice versa), with both the ultra-liberal talk host and the store claiming it had nothing to do with the boycott. UPI noted: "Outraged firearms owners have been encouraging people to shop at WalMart instead." That may change, too, apparently because some WalMart stores are also now pulling some guns and ammunition from their inventories. In accordance with Title 17 Section 107 of the United States Code, all material contained herein is distributed for educational purposes, and for other fair use purposes including, but not limited to, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and/or research. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl Pearson Subject: [Concealed_Carry] Recap: Legally armed citizen shot 8 times in Date: 15 Feb 2002 19:19:31 -0700 (Mountain Standard Time) FYI: http://www.indystar.com/article.php?shot15.html Authorities haven't reviewed shooting of citizen Man who was attempting to help officers apprehend suspects in deputy's slaying was mistakenly targeted. By Vic Ryckaert vic.ryckaert@indystar.com February 15, 2002 When police shoot an innocent civilian, an outcry usually follows. But Stephen Flynn was shot in the midst of a virtual war zone, an injury eclipsed by the death of a Marion County sheriff's deputy slain moments before by suspects toting assault rifles. Four months after the Near- Northside incident, police have yet to review and make public the evidence that suggests two officers mistakenly fired on Flynn amid the chaos and confusion of Sept. 17. Two men died that night -- the 24-year-old deputy and a 20- year-old suspect. An officer, another civilian and Flynn were wounded. Flynn was shot eight times in the legs and hips and left partially blind by a round that hit near his right eye. All that shooting usually requires extensive study by each agency's firearms review board. A killing by police requires a grand jury review. So far, in the case of Sheriff's Reserve Deputy Lawrence Conley and Indianapolis Police Officer Brandon Mills, no such steps have been taken. In part, that's because Police and Sheriff's department officials say there's no sign of impropriety in the shootings. Flynn had been helping police on the night Deputy Jason Baker was slain. Flynn gave several officers information about where the suspects fled. But when two other officers came upon Flynn -- to them an unidentified man carrying a gun -- they shot him. Marion County Prosecutor Scott Newman has barred police from discussing the incident, but he concedes that someone might have made a mistake that night. "I'm extremely sympathetic to any citizen or police officer who is injured in friendly fire," Newman said. "Things like that happen in the chaotic atmosphere that's created when police are being fired upon by suspects with assault rifles." Flynn, who carries two police bullets in his body and an inch-long scar on his nose near his right eye, said, "I wasn't trying to be a hero. That was the furthest thing from my mind." Flynn, 36, saw the suspects flee after crashing their car behind his home. He told several officers where the men ran and pointed to where the one carrying an AK-47 was hiding. Neither officer involved in the Flynn shooting was suspended or placed on administrative leave after the incident. Sheriff's Col. Larry Logsdon said he has no reason to believe his deputy fired the shots unjustly. Indianapolis Police Department spokesman Lt. Paul Ciesielski said the same goes for the officer involved. But Flynn believes there's no question about who was wrong that night. The hospital security guard was identified in early news stories as a bystander caught in the crossfire. But even the Indianapolis Police Department recognized that's not the whole story -- the department awarded Flynn a Certificate of Appreciation in December. Flynn said he was following the orders of an Indianapolis police officer who told him to crawl toward better cover. That officer, Frank Wooten, was awarded a Purple Heart and Medal of Valor during a Dec. 11 ceremony. During that ceremony, Ciesielski told the audience that Wooten was shot in the leg as he attempted to protect an "innocent civilian." The shotgun pellet that hit Wooten has been described by some officials as "friendly fire." Newman, the prosecutor, said it is not proper for police to speak publicly about this high-profile case before trial. Michael Shannon, accused of murdering Baker, could face the death penalty if convicted, and Newman fears publicity would make it harder to select an impartial jury. Allen Dumperth, the armed man whom Flynn saw jump the fence, was killed that night by two members of the sheriff's SWAT team -- Deputies Charles Deblaso and Larry Stipe. Flynn intends to sue the two departments. Marion County Sheriff Jack Cottey refused to dispute Flynn's claims and said the courts will have to sort out the facts. "I'm not going to try to second-guess Mr. Flynn or second-guess the officers," Cottey said. "There were a lot of shots being fired. Any evidence of what happened that night will be presented in court." Elder Lionel T. Rush, pastor of Greater Harvest Institutional Church of God in Christ, said the incident shows there was a breakdown in communication between the officers on the scene. "I wish (Flynn) had stayed with the police officers instead of being somewhere in no-man's land," Rush said. "With that many officers approaching, I could see room for confusion, but the onus is still on the officers to shoot (or) don't shoot." Rush, a vocal police critic, said the departments need to provide better training on the use of deadly force and ought to practice working together in the event of this kind of crisis. They also need to take responsibility for the damage and pain Flynn suffered, Rush said, and they need to compensate him "without hesitation." "They have to say they made a mistake," Rush said. "If they don't say they made a mistake, some of us won't be so generous with our statements." Call Vic Ryckaert at 1-317-635-7592. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Larry Elder Date: 18 Feb 2002 18:17:11 -0700 On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:53:58 -0500 TJC says: Okay, everybody who's surprised about the way the media treated this, raise your hand. http://NewsAndOpinion.com/cols/elder1.asp -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Original Intent - The National Firearms Act Date: 20 Feb 2002 19:30:36 -0700 -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 11:37 PM Here's an interesting write up of the basis of the federal claim to the regulation of firearms. It never seemed right to me that they should be able to write so many regulations when the Constitution says that the federal government may not infringe the right to bear arms. This article makes some very interesting claims. Jed [][][][][][][] http://www.originalintent.org/chapter44.shtml - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: RLC News & Views - February 21, 2002 Date: 21 Feb 2002 14:11:22 -0700 Excerpted Gun-Grabbers On the March Again "Representatives of the self-evidently named National Campaign to Close the Newspaper Gun Ad Loophole are scheduled to release a study this week that purports to show that classified ads are "a potential source of guns (including assault weapons) for terrorists, criminals, and the mentally ill’" "The group says such sales permit gun purchasers to avoid mandated background checks in the 16 states surveyed -- where more than 75 percent of the surveyed newspapers allow guns to be sold through classified ads. "Sales of guns through newspaper classifieds offer the anonymity and ability to avoid law enforcement checks, which make them a potential source of guns for terrorists,’ John Johnson, executive director of the Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, said in a release." - UPI's "Capital Comment" 2/20/02 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: WARNING: Project Safe Neighborhoods comes to Utah Date: 22 Feb 2002 14:30:36 -0700 This is from today's SLTrib. West Valley City is getting Project Safe Neighborhoods. While it sounds nice at first glance, there are many problems with this program including the federalization of local crime issues. Charles http://www.sltrib.com/02222002/utah/713679.htm Grant May Toughen Gun-Crime Penalties In West Valley City Friday, February 22, 2002 BY IRENE HSIAO SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE WANTED: A new West Valley City prosecutor who will collaborate with the U.S. Attorney's Office in imposing stiffer sentences on criminals illegally possessing guns or using them in violent crimes. The city received a three-year, $120,000 grant from the federal government in January to hire a "street savvy" prosecutor who will prosecute West Valley City cases in federal court, said John Huber, West Valley City chief enforcement attorney. The "Project Safe Neighborhoods" initiative is part of a nationwide effort to charge criminals with federal gun offenses. President Bush and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft have declared the gun project second in importance only to terrorism, said Paul Warner, the U.S. attorney for Utah. "This is an anti-criminal program, not an anti-gun program," Warner said. "This isn't against the Second Amendment or anything else." The West Valley City program will emphasize domestic violence and drug abuse cases involving guns. About 40 percent of West Valley City homicides are in the home, much higher than the national average of 11 percent. "We want to find those cases and pluck those people out of our neighborhood," Huber said. West Valley City wants to prosecute the cases in federal court because sentences there are generally tougher than in state court, he said. That will help keep the criminals off the streets longer, Huber added. "Project Safe Neighborhoods" is an expansion of a similar state initiative called Project Criminal Use of Firearms by Felons, said Warner. Project CUFF has filed charges in 389 federal cases statewide in the past two years. The context of the crime will determine whether it can be brought to federal court, Warner said. West Valley City is the only city in Utah that will have a special prosecutor for such crimes. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: BAD substitute to HB 219 Date: 25 Feb 2002 10:43:47 -0700 Friends, Scott Daniels ((home) 801-582-8080 (office) 801-583-0801 (fax) 801-583-0802 E-mail Address: sdaniels@le.state.ut.us) has offered a substitute bill to HB 219. HB 219 is Rep. Philpot's bill that would eliminate fees for CCW permits. Rep. Daniels' substitute would raise fees from $35 (plus $24 for fingerprints to the FBI) to $53 (plus the $24 for the FBI). This is a 51% increase!! It also increases renewal and replacement fees by 1/3 from $10 to $15. It then provides for a waiver of fees for those who cannot afford to pay them. The bill requires the disclosure of all income, assets, etc, but provides no qualifications other than completing the form. My guess is he plans to make the form so onerous and intrusive to fill out, that no one will fill it out. Any future attempts to reduce or eliminate the fees will be met with him retorting, "Anyone who can't afford a permit can get one for free now by filling out the waiver. No one has (or Only x number have and the average income among those was a million dollars a year) so obviously there is no problem." This is a typical liberal class-warfare type approach. "From each according to his ability..." for those who enjoy Marx. It completely misses the point of the bill which is "we should not charge for rights" even IF someone can "afford to pay." I suggest alerts to your respective groups about this clearly anti-gun substitute to a very good, principled bill. While I (and BCI--recall the testimony offered during the hearing on HB 219) believe that current fees DO keep some number of people from getting a permit to CCW, that is NOT the point of HB 219. Under the Utah constitution, we enjoy an individual right to BOTH OWN AND CARRY (eg "keep and bear") weapons for self defense. We should not charge to exercise a right. And even if CCW is not a right, there is no reason why those CCW holders who can pay, should subsidize those who cannot. Welfare should be explicitly labeled and tracked as such so we can keep track of how much of it there is. On the plus side, the existance of such a substitute may help HB 219 move up the calander for a vote at a quicker pace than otherwise. And we've got to give the anti's credit for knowing and using the process. They've been completely shut down in committee hearings the last few years. So now they're trying to use our good bills to advance their statist agenda. Not only do they avoid a committee hearing, they also stand some chance of derailing our good bills. Charles ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: 25 Feb 2002 14:24:11 -0700 (MST) Below I've excerpted from an article that appeared in the Washington Times on the 21st. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan hopes you won't read it and it's also one the establishment media won't likely be letting you know about. "Assault rifles for Annan guards investigated" by The Washington Times, 2/21/02 http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020221-14729320.htm The article can be viewed for the next six days free. It will be available afterwards for $1.95 from the Times' archives. -- Karl L. Pearson Senior Consulting Systems Analyst Senior Consulting Database Analyst karlp@ourldsfamily.com My Thoughts on Terrorism In America: http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml Assault rifles for Annan guards investigated By Stewart Stogel SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES NEW YORK -- The U.S. government is investigating whether the United Nations illegally imported and issued paramilitary assault rifles to Secretary-General Kofi Annan's security detail. Sources in the U.N. Security and Safety Service say that the members of Mr. Annan's personal protective detail have been using the German-made MP5 submachine guns since 1998, despite an apparent failure to obtain U.S. clearance for their use. U.N. officials say that the use of the highly restricted firearm has been cleared with U.S. authorities. But Mike Campbell, a spokesman for the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, confirmed in an interview that an inquiry into the U.N. personnel's use of the weapon was initiated two weeks ago. The dispute is made even more sensitive by the fact that Mr. Annan himself led a U.N. effort last summer to stem the production and sale of small arms around the world, an effort that drew criticism from U.S. gun-ownership groups and from the Bush administration. "There is no single tool of conflict so widespread, so easily available and so difficult to restrict as small arms," Mr. Annan told a special meeting of the Security Council in July. The MP5, described by its German manufacturer Heckler and Koch GmbH as a "paramilitary assault rifle" commonly used by police SWAT squads, is just one of several varieties of assault weapons currently in the possession of the United Nations, said one U.N. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. America's use of the MP5 is normally limited to law-enforcement organizations, Mr. Campbell said. Importation of the submachine gun is tightly controlled, he said. The United States does not consider the U.N. security service a law-enforcement organization and thus deems it ineligible to possess weapons such as the MP5, according to a State Department official. "If the United Nations had applied for permission to obtain these guns, most likely it would have been rejected" again, said the official, who requested anonymity. The State Department official said the United Nations first approached the U.S. government for permission to purchase the MP5 in early 1998 and was refused. Just how Mr. Annan's security detail obtained the weapons is the focus of the U.S. government probe. Michael McCann, who has directed U.N. security operations since 1994, refused to comment on the issue, but U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard denied any wrongdoing. Mr. Eckhard said he had checked with the security service and was told that all the necessary licenses for the weapons carried by U.N. personnel had been obtained. "I flatly reject the notion any laws have been broken," he said. An American citizen and a veteran of the New York Police Department, Mr. McCann has been a frequent target of criticism by both U.N. diplomats and staff over security at the New York site. < start deletion > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Never disarm! Date: 26 Feb 2002 11:14:57 -0700 Warlord's men commit rape in revenge against Taliban ---------- Boston Globe The ouster of the Taliban by the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance did not stop the use of rape as a way to demoralize and dominate. Pashtun families make easy targets because they were disarmed when Dostum's troops, assisted by US special forces, drove out the Taliban. (02/24/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/863655264.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: HB 82 -- CCW storage bill to be heard in the morning Date: 26 Feb 2002 16:14:48 -0700 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----__JNP_000_58c6.16ff.2004 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HB 82, Storage of Concealed Firearms on Facilities with Secure Areas -- Swallow, J. will be heard in the house standing Judiciary Committee, in room 405 starting at 7:00 am. This bill is first on the agenda. The bill is simple and straightforward. It clarifies existing law and specifically requires that IF a courtroom or courthouse establishes a "secure area" then it MUST provide free, on premise storage for those legally carrying a concealed weapon may safely store their weapons prior to entering the secure area. The bill is not perfect, in that it does not apply to legally carried weapons carried without a permit--open carry, or pocket knife or other items that a court may not allow into a secure area--especially now that EVERYTHING is a weapon for pursposes of airplanes--but for which a person does not need a permit. We hope we can ammend that, but even if we can't, I believe the bill moves us in the right direction as many courts throughout the State have secure areas but do not provide storage. Please contact committee members today at the legislature: 538-1029 or tonight at home. I would suggest focusing on those who are at least nominally pro-gun. Ask members to ATTEND the hearing AND to support this bill while opposing all anti-gun amendments, substitutions, or procuderal tactics that might be used to derail the bill. If at all possible, please attend the hearing tomorrow morning. With the time and schedule, most of us should be able to attend and still get to work at least close to on time. Public Parking is on street or in the northwest parking lot. For those using I 15, I find 600 North to be a nicer route than 600 So. Charles Committee members: Rep. Glenn L. Way, Chair 801-798-2295 Rep. James A. Ferrin, Vice Chair (home) 801-224-6823 (office) 801-224-9867 Rep. Patrice M. Arent Rep. Chad E. Bennion (home) 801-281-1607 (office) 801-468-2876 (fax) 801-288-2144 Rep. Ron Bigelow 801-968-4188 Rep. Katherine M. Bryson 801-226-2061 Rep. Greg J. Curtis (home) 801-943-3091 (office) 801-942-7464 Rep. Scott Daniels Rep. Ben C. Ferry (home & office) 435-744-2997 (fax) 435-744-2999 Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson Rep. Eric Hutchings Rep. Mike Thompson (home) 801-226-5032 (office) 801-223-9044 Rep. A. Lamont Tyler Committee ----__JNP_000_58c6.16ff.2004 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
HB 82,  Storage of Concealed Firearms on Facilities with Secure = Areas=20 -- Swallow, J. will be heard in the house standing Judiciary Committee, in = room=20 405 starting at 7:00 am.  This bill is first on the agenda.  The = bill=20 is simple and straightforward.  It clarifies existing law and = specifically=20 requires that IF a courtroom or courthouse establishes a "secure area" then= it=20 MUST provide free, on premise storage for those legally carrying a = concealed=20 weapon may safely store their weapons prior to entering the secure area.
 
The bill is not perfect, in that it does not apply to legally carried= =20 weapons carried without a permit--open carry, or pocket knife or other = items=20 that a court may not allow into a secure area--especially now that = EVERYTHING is=20 a weapon for pursposes of airplanes--but for which a person does not need a= =20 permit.  We hope we can ammend that, but even if we can't, I believe = the=20 bill moves us in the right direction as many courts throughout the State = have=20 secure areas but do not provide storage.
 
Please contact committee members today at the legislature: 538-1029 or= =20 tonight at home. I would suggest focusing on those who are at least = nominally=20 pro-gun.  Ask members to ATTEND the hearing AND to support this bill = while=20 opposing all anti-gun amendments, substitutions, or procuderal tactics= that=20 might be used to derail the bill.
 
If at all possible, please attend the hearing tomorrow morning.  = With=20 the time and schedule, most of us should be able to attend and still get to= work=20 at least close to on time.  Public Parking is on street or in the = northwest=20 parking lot.  For those using I 15, I find 600 North to be a nicer = route=20 than 600 So.
 
Charles
 
 
Committee members:
 
Rep. Glenn L. Way,=20 Chair         = 801-798-2295
 
Rep. James A. Ferrin, Vice Chair   <= FONT=20 face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(home) 801-224-6823 (office) 801-224-= 9867=20

Rep. Patrice M. Arent

Rep. Chad E. Bennion   (home) 801-281-1607  (office)=20 801-468-2876 (fax) 801-288-2144

Rep. Ron Bigelow  801-968-4188

Rep. Katherine M. Bryson  801-226-2061

Rep. Greg J. Curtis  (home) 801-943-3091 (office)=20 801-942-7464

Rep. Scott Daniels

Rep. Ben C. Ferry   (home & office) 435-744-2997 (fax= )=20 435-744-2999

Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson

Rep. Eric Hutchings

Rep. Mike Thompson  (home) 801-226-5032 (office) 801-223-= 9044=20

Rep. A. Lamont Tyler Committee

----__JNP_000_58c6.16ff.2004-- ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: update on HB 82 Storage of Concealed Firearms on Facilities with Secure Areas (Swallow, J.) Date: 27 Feb 2002 16:04:40 -0700 HB 82 Storage of Concealed Firearms on Facilities with Secure Areas (Swallow, J.) was heard in the house Judiciary committee this morning. While turnout from the pro-gun side was sparse, thanks to those who did turn out. Thanks also to any and all who made phone calls or otherwise contacted the committee members ahead of time. HB 82 was passed out of committee with a favorable recommendation after it was substituted by the sponsor. Under the substitute bill, the bill only affects courts that have secure areas. Airports and Olympic venues were excluded. We had hoped for a minor amendment so that the bill would apply to all items prohibited inside the secure area (pocketknives, guns, kniting needles, mace, etc) rather than just concealed firearms carried under a state issued CCW permit. However, fiscal concerns in committee prevented that amendment from being offered. We hope to see a limited amendment offered on the floor to have the bill cover all "legally carried weapons" while still omitting other items. The hope is to make the requirement to store items as broad as possible while not increasing the current fiscal note. Only two Reps voted against the bill in committee, Daniels and Arent. However, several were not present. Please contact your own rep, house leadership, and the house rules committee and ask them to give this bill their full support. Charles ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles C Hardy Subject: FW: Dell Computers becomes anti-gun. Date: 27 Feb 2002 16:51:40 -0700 I've made no attempts to verify the following, but assuming it is accurate, it looks like Dell computers are not a good place for gun owners to spend money. --------- Forwarded message ---------- Not to be confused with Superdell and Totally Awesome. ---------- > > Subject: To all of my friends > > I am writing this because I feel every Firearms owner should know this > story. > > I placed an order for a Dell notebook computer on February 13 on line > with Dell. I was given a tentative delivery date of February 21st. I was > watching the order through the Dell on line tracking system; I also > opted for the automatic email notification of when the machine was to be > shipped. > > Well the 21st came and went, I am a Pistolsmith I know things > can happen. I made a phone call on the 25th, did a voice mail message > for my salesman to get back to me and I was looking for the delivery > date. > > The 25th came and went with no callback. On the 26th I placed > another call this time to cancel the order. After a few hours I got a > call back, with this amazing reason for the delay. It seems someone in > Dell had already canceled my order, when I asked why I was told Dell was > afraid I was going to use the machine for illegal purposes. > > When I askedwhy someone would think that I was told > it was because of the name of my business "Weigand Combat Handguns Inc.". > Because I am involved in firearms I might be doing something illegal. Now > keep in mind I was never called or informed of this decision the order was > just canceled. > > Many of you know me personally and know I run my business about as > squeaky clean as possible. In addition being the President of the > American Pistolsmiths Guild I am under additional scrutiny as to how I > run my business, if I am not clean how can I be the President of an > organization that promotes just that! I was informed by a Dell > supervisor not long after all of this the reason I was refused was > because of their post September 11th policy of screening buyers. > > I would like to respectfully ask the firearms community to do the > following. If you intended to buy a Dell and because of this letter you > do not, email Dell and let them know why. Feel free to distribute this > account to all you know in the Firearms community, I think they need to > know. > > I for one am sick and tired of people assuming just because we are > involved with firearms that we are doing something illegal. I also do > not believe Dell deserves our business if this is how they intend to > treat us. > > God Bless > Jack Weigand > President > American Pistolsmiths Guild Inc. > > > ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc. Subject: Fwd: Dell Update (fwd) Date: 28 Feb 2002 01:58:42 -0500 Begin forwarded message: > From: Bill Vance > Date: Wed Feb 27, 2002 10:31:31 US/Eastern > To: 2roc@xpresso.com > Subject: Dell Update (fwd) > Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com > > -------------------- begin forwarded message from Neal > Atkins -------------------- > > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:43:46 -0600 > From: Neal Atkins > Subject: Dell Update > > Update 2/27/02 > > After fielding hundreds of emails and dozens of phone calls today my > heart felt thanks to all who responded. > > I was contacted by a Dell representative this morning a Mr. John Hood. > John made the following remarks. He extended Dells sincerest apologies > for > the incident. > > He said Dell would review and possibly change the screening policies to > prevent this from happening again. > > Dell offered to ship the machine I ordered to me at no charge, I > respectfully > declined the offer. > > John told me he would have a statement sent to me sometime Thursday > morning > the 28th stating Dells position on this issue for me to post here for > all to > see. > > I will post the statement as soon as I receive it. > > > I thank the Firearms community as a family for being so willing to come > to my aid. > > > God Bless > Jack Weigand > President > Weigand Combat Handguns Inc. > > http://www.jackweigand.com > > -------------------- end forwarded message from Neal > Atkins -------------------- > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** > 4-19! > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath > no > weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his > hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and > buy a > on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus > Christ > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > > Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > -