From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #141 Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest Sender: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk utah-firearms-digest Friday, June 18 1999 Volume 02 : Number 141 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Jun 99 18:14:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Twice Damned, Ben Fulton * CARBON COPY: * Original was to COMMENTS@SLWEEKLY.COM I just read your June 3, 1999 issue (Vol 16. No. 1). Kudoes to David Owen for the last two paragraphs of his Voices column. I was beginning to think the SALT LAKE City Weekly favored extermination of the populace, or at least draconian suppression of civil rights. However, I fail to see why Ben Fulton is opposed to proprietors of houses of worship exercising their right to freedom of speech if they "want to remain firearm free". My religious beliefs demand that worshipers take good care of the stewardship their Creator gave them; as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life" ... Please apprise Mr. Fulton that I do not appreciate his relegating my religious beliefs to the trashbin, by demanding that I forfeit my Right to Life should I wish to peaceably assemble for religious worship. If he wants to post his house and places of business and worship as safe criminal zones that is his business, but don't give the criminals free reign at mine. His column borders on a declaration of war (death threat) against anyone who wishes to visit a school or house of worship. Scott Bergeson scott.bergeson@ucs.org - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:50:57 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Willie the Salesman http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_rockwell/19990614_xclro_the_clinto.sht= ml=20 The Clinton gun boom=20 One ironic legacy of the Clinton administration is the rearming of the = American citizenry. Each time Clinton and his friends in Congress threaten = another round of anti-gun regulations, the American people respond by = stocking up on as many guns as possible. This is all to the good: an armed = citizenry translates to less crime and more security, and reminds the = government that its bureaucrats aren't the only ones with firepower.=20 The trend began in 1989 with the passage of restrictions on so-called = "assault weapons," which brought about the initial boom in gun sales. = After a brief respite, the Brady Bill, which imposed background checks on = buyers, was passed in 1993. The politicians claimed they were only after = the criminals. But the main effect was to convince people that the federal = government was determined to disarm the public.=20 Of course the politicians always say that they are only after the = criminals, not hunters and not people who only desire self-protection. But = by definition, criminals aren't interested in regulations. Legal restrictio= ns on gun sales only make it more difficult for people who scrupulously = keep the law to defend themselves against those who do not.=20 This point may be too complicated for politicians to understand, but = average people get the point. After the Brady Bill, another gun boom = ensued, as people loaded up in anticipation of further regulations.=20 Public perceptions were right on the money. Without missing a beat, the = feds banned the domestic manufacture of military-style guns and clips = holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The result was the biggest = regulatory backfire of them all. The limited number of "assault" (i.e., = government-style) weapons still in circulation are selling at twice their = pre-ban prices. And since it takes more clips to equal the old firepower, = clip manufacturers are profiting as never before, according to data = assembled by the Wall Street Journal.=20 Finally, sending the market into overdrive was the threat that gun makers = will be bankrupted by lawsuits. People saw what the courts did to tobacco = companies, and what happened to cigarette prices in the aftermath. Unlike = cigs, guns are not perishable, so people figured they might as well stock = up now, before judges do to gun makers what they did to cigarette = makers.=20 The flurry of legislation introduced after the Littleton, Colo., shootings = (in which the killers paid no attention to all the existing laws) = underscored the message that government does not want private individuals = to own guns. The gun industry is benefiting once again from people's fears = of what government may be prohibiting in the future.=20 Anti-gun fanatics view all this stockpiling as a catastrophe, since their = goal is the disarming of Americans. But they are caught on the horns of a = dilemma. Weaving gun bans through the legislative process takes more time = than the waiting periods and regulatory barriers already enacted into law. = The existing windows of freedom permit people to defy the intentions of = the gun banners while there is still time.=20 The countrywide stockpiling now taking place should cheer the hearts of = even people who have no interest in owning a gun.=20 That is because wide ownership of guns confers what economists call = "positive externalities" on people who do not wish to own them. For = example, if you do not own a gun, you still benefit from the perception = that you may, a perception that can only continue so long as the reality = of widespread ownership is true. The fear of people willing to fight back = is what keeps criminals at bay.=20 A massive and detailed literature has proven time again time that the more = guns that are owned in a community, the less crime that community has to = put up with. The data are so overwhelming that no reasonable person can = deny them. (The "Firearms Fact Sheet" should be in every thinking person's = favorites list). Why, then, does the gun-ban lobby continue to say that = restrictions on guns are the key to cutting crime?=20 It's time that the ideological orientation of the gun grabbers be examined = more carefully. Notice that their theory about gun ownership does not = appear in isolation; it is part of a larger package of political beliefs = about the role of government in society. Almost to a man, they favor the = entire big-government/politically-correct agenda. What they want is not a = disarmed society, but a society where government has a monopoly on gun = ownership.=20 Consider this shocking reality: the present anti-gun hysteria is taking = place in the very month in which the federal government's guns have laid = waste to an entire nation. The U.S. has brought about a large-scale = massacre in Yugoslavia, and set back its standard of living some fifty = years. It is a display of brutality that hasn't been seen on Europe's soil = since the 1940s.=20 Also consider that the Congress' feeble attempt to place controls on the = warfare state's use of guns has amounted to nothing. Clinton's war was = defiantly illegal. The White House has put the War Powers Act through a = shredder, and when a few brave congressmen tried to sue, a federal judge = (which is to say, a judge in the pay of the Clinton administration) threw = out the case.=20 This is in keeping with the general principle that criminals don't obey = the law -- and it doesn't matter whether those criminals are street = hoodlums or the holders of high elected office. Just as the Littleton = killers ignored anti-gun statutes already on the books, Washington's war = party ignored legal strictures designed to restrain their ability to kill = and destroy.=20 Where are the gun control advocates when it comes to preventing politicians= from the unrestrained use of violence and weapons of mass destruction? = They avert their eyes, because what they want is not a disarmed America, = but an America in which only criminals in the public sector own guns. In = short, the attempt to strip regular Americans from owning guns is a = totalitarian agenda unaffected by any amount of facts and data that = contradict their claims.=20 Thank goodness for what is left of the free market in guns, which has made = it possible for people to respond to the threat of gun regulation by = stockpiling. If we truly value freedom and security, we need not more = restrictions on private ownership, but repeal of existing restrictions. = And given recent events in the Balkans, it should be clear that Congress = needs to pass very severe restrictions on the ability of bureaucrats and = warmongers to acquire and use weapons.=20 The danger to a free society is not the guns owned by the citizens but an = unconstrained government, especially one that is better armed than the = public. An armed society is a self-governing society, just as a disarmed = people are vulnerable to arbitrary power of every kind.=20 Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute = in Auburn, Alabama. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:11:12 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: Another angle on the CCW debate I will not be able to attend the hearings this afternoon. However, I did call several members of the Law Enforcment Committee last night. The angle I took was this: "I'm concerned about what federal laws may come into effect if Utah changes the validity of CCW permits at schools. The federal gun free school act applies not only to schools and the grounds themselves, but extends 1000' (nearly 1/5 mile or 2 city blocks) in all directions. Currently, a Utah CCW permit is valid on school grounds so the federal law doesn't apply to permit holders. However, I'm worried that if CCW permits are invalidated at schools, the federal law could come into play and CCW permit holders would commit a federal felony every time the drove or walked withing 2 city blocks of a school, day care, pre-school etc. "This is very concerning to me because I live within 1000' of Mt. Jordan Middle School. Now this has seemed to be a fairly decent area and I'm not terribly concerned about criminals. But, we do have a huge number of very large, very potentially dangerous dogs (pit bulls, rottwhilers (sp), Huskies, dobermans, etc) which are not contained nearly as well as the should be. My wife and I do enjoy taking walks in the evening, seeing the neighborhood and the neighbors, but becuase of the dogs, and bearing in mind the off-duty police officers who have had to defend themselves against loose dogs in the last year, we feel it is only prudent to carry a firearm on these evening walks. I hope and pray we never need it. But, I simply am not prepared to see me or my wife end up in the emergency room over an improperly restained, 90 pound, dog. "If my permit is no longer valid in school zones, I'm afraid I will guilty of a federal felony the moment I step off my driveway and onto the sidewalk for my evening walks. I don't want to live with a "bunker mentality" where I come home at night and hide behind locked doors. I want to be out and about and neighborly. But becuase of these dogs it simply isn't safe to do so without some means of protection. I don't want to have to choose between obeying the law and being a good, friendly, outgoing neighbor. If you allow CCW permits to be invalidated on school grounds, you will turn me from a perfectly respectable, law-abiding citizen, into a potential federal felon. Please don't do that. "Please remember that the Utah legislature does not work in a vacum and there are myriad federal laws that could adversly affect us." You'll note I work in the "bunker mentality" used recently by Pres. Hinckley and do so in such a way as to show that not having the means to defend myself is what leads to living behind locked doors. I also make it clear I am concerned about my wife's safety (even better if women simply point out they can't stop a dog, etc). I also change the focus from criminals to dogs, simply becuase it is more accurate in my case, and because I think it probably hits home a little better. Honestly, most of the legislators (or the rest of us) have never confronted a criminal. But who hasn't had close calls with loose dogs. Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a criminal attack with a gun. But we've had a couple of well publicized cases of at least off-duty cops having to shoot a stray dog that was attacking. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 99 11:05:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: The Hill's Hidden Crime Agenda (CATO Commentary) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: lputah@qsicorp.com Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:17:56 -0600 Subject: LPU: FW: The Hill's Hidden Crime Agenda ( CATO Commentary) From: "Jim Dexter" - --------------------------------------------------------------------- June 15, 1999 The Hill's Hidden Crime Agenda by Dave Kopel Dave Kopel is an adjunct professor at New York University Law School and an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute. As the House is poised to vote on a major crime bill, the media can be expected once again to focus only on the bill's gun control provisions. Unfortunately, by ignoring the other provisions, a wide variety of dangerous measures may sneak past public scrutiny. That is just what happened with the recently passed Senate "juvenile crime bill," S. 254. The bill is laden with provisions to expand forfeiture, increase wiretapping without warrant, promote drug testing and immunize police who commit violent crimes from criminal punishment. When senators are presented with a 648-page-long bill, few bother to read it. Thus, many senators who voted for S. 254 may have been unaware that the bill contains a sweeping new forfeiture provision that allows U.S. attorneys to base forfeiture on violations of state law -- even misdemeanors. Currently, there is a special federal forfeiture statute that applies to the transfer of military information to a foreign government and any federal crime in which a person is physically harmed, such as rape or assault. It states that if a convicted criminal makes money from selling their story of the crime, any profits from the sale may be forfeited. S. 254 significantly expands that statute to include any felony, including state felonies, and any state misdemeanor involving physical harm. Instead of just applying to profits from the sale of a criminal's story, the statute as revised by S. 254 would allow forfeiture of any enhanced value, in any property owned by the criminal, that resulted from the crime. But the measure ignores the constitutional fact that forfeitures for state law violations ought to be determined by state legislatures and carried out by state and local prosecutors, not by the federal government. Also buried deep within S. 254 is language that for the first time allows the police to intercept the content of electronic communications -- the contents of pager messages -- without a warrant. Those messages can reveal information about a person's travel schedule, private life and current location. The bill's "cloned pager" language is the latest expansion of wiretap authority to be buried in a large, complex bill where the public, which is generally skeptical about wiretapping, is not likely to notice. "Public safety" seems to demand that the public be protected from any opportunity to debate whether the federal government needs more power to peek in on the public without a search warrant. Another section of S. 254 includes provisions to encourage suspicionless drug testing for students -- even though Littleton murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, whose rampage was the pretext for rushing the legislation through Congress, were both "drug free" according to their autopsies. Although they ignored the wiretap and drug testing provisions of S. 254, the media did glance at the bill's body armor provisions, but the media didn't report the provision's details, which turn a reasonable concept into a very unreasonable law. S. 254 requires at least a two-sentencing-level increase for any crime in which the defendant uses body armor. Such an increase can add as much as 36 months to a defendant's sentence. There is no requirement that the defendant's "use" be in conjunction with a violent crime or for any type of offensive purpose. The enhancement would apply to a liquor store owner who cheats on his taxes while wearing body armor for protection from robbers. Reflecting a view of law enforcement that would have horrified the framers of the Constitution, the bill grants a special exemption from the body armor sentencing enhancement. The exemption applies only to law enforcement officers who while "acting under color of the authority" of law enforcement, "violate the civil rights of a person." In other words, police officers who wear body armor while robbing drug dealers, prostitutes and gambling operations are immune from the sentencing enhancement. So are police officers who rape, rob or murder while on the job. So if the police arrest a gun store owner for improper paperwork and the owner is wearing body armor at the time of his arrest, he may spend an additional three years in prison. But if the arresting officers, who are also wearing body armor, rape the arrestee with a toilet plunger, they are specifically exempt from additional punishment. If representatives don't even know what is in a bill they're voting for, they are not really representatives. If Congress is serious about "law and order," it ought to take the time to read the laws it is considering before calling a final vote. (c) 1999 The Cato Institute - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 99 12:41:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:11:12 -0600 Charles C. Hardy wrote: >I did call several members of the Law Enforcment Committee last night. >The angle I took was this: >"I'm concerned about what federal laws may come into effect if Utah >changes the validity of CCW permits at schools. The federal gun free >school act applies not only to schools and the grounds themselves, but >extends 1000' (nearly 1/5 mile or 2 city blocks) in all directions. >Currently, a Utah CCW permit is valid on school grounds so the federal >law doesn't apply to permit holders. However, I'm worried that if CCW >permits are invalidated at schools, the federal law could come into play >and CCW permit holders would commit a federal felony every time the drove >or walked withing 2 city blocks of a school, day care, pre-school etc. How about carrying your firearm to or from your home, or for that matter, just about anywhere considering the propinquity of schools to most every street, road and thoroughfare, if you don't have a CCW permit? Even if there is an exemption, must you always have a story ready about a purchase, repair, or hunting or target shooting trip? >very large, very potentially dangerous dogs (pit bulls, rottwhilers (sp), Rottweiler >I also change the focus from criminals to dogs, simply becuase it is >more accurate in my case, and because I think it probably hits home >a little better. Honestly, most of the legislators (or the rest of >us) have never confronted a criminal. Do you and the legislooters really live such sheltered lives??? Might be an effective slant anyhow, considering that statists protect criminality as much as possible without making it too obvious both because of professional courtesy, and to keep the public psychologically needing the State to "protect them". >Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a >criminal attack with a gun. The SLC Library bomber. Scott - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 09:32:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Forfeiture Update - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: lputah@qsicorp.com Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:15:11 -0600 Subject: FW: Forfeiture Update From: "Jim Dexter" - ---------- To all - GOOD NEWS! Please contact your representative and urge him to SUPPORT HR 1658, the Asset Forfeiture Reform bill, and make sure it makes it to the House floor for a full vote. The following alert came from The Liberty Project. On Tuesday, June 15, 1999, the bi-partisan civil asset forfeiture reform bill was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee by an overwhelming margin of 27-3. HR 1658 passed out of the Committee in its unaltered form. Background on HR 1658 is available by visiting http://www.criminaljustice.org or http://www.thomas.gov. The three representatives voting against HR 1658 were: Rep. Ed Bryant (R-TN); Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-ARK); and Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Supporting organizations of HR 1658 which include the Liberty Project, the NACDL, the ACLU, Cato Institute and Common Sense for Drug Policy hope to see the bill move quickly to the House floor, but expect a hard fight against DOJ-drafted amendments. The time is NOW to encourage all concerned citizens to contact Congress and voice their support for HR 1658. The Liberty Project makes it easy for you to contact your House representative and voice your support for this reform act. Simply visit our site at www.libertyproject.org or call toll free 1-877-474-3200. Thanks for helping us preserve liberty! - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 09:32:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: TO THE POINT: Asset Forfeiture: An Unbroken Line of Broken Constitutional Promises - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: lputah@qsicorp.com Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:30:53 -0600 Subject: FW: TO THE POINT: Asset Forfeiture: An Unbroken Line of Broken Constitutional Promises From: "Jim Dexter" TO THE POINT: A Sutherland Institute Public Policy Perspective June 15, 1999 Asset Forfeiture: An Unbroken Line of Broken Constitutional Promises By Maxwell A. Miller and David Harmer When pressed for legal justification for control of the Panama Canal, Teddy Roosevelt is said to have remarked: "What's the Constitution among friends?" Teddy had a point. History is replete with government do-gooders stretching the Constitution for self-proclaimed noble purposes. Yes, the Constitution can be a pain. Crime would surely decrease if we summarily shot accused felons rather than try them -- at public expense, no less -- but not only does the Constitution forbid it, we would not want it. History's lesson is that external restraints against anti-social behavior - -- criminal laws -- become more onerous when societal morality breaks down. Drug laws are a perfect example. More than 25 years ago, the Nixon Administration officially declared a "War on Drugs," no doubt with humanitarian objectives. Since then, the war has escalated notwithstanding dubious results. Federal and state governments combine to spend over $48 billion annually to combat drugs. Prisons are filled with non-violent offenders. Nonetheless, drug dependence soars, and drug-related crime represents an increasingly large percentage of all crime. Bluntly speaking, the war is a bust, whatever one thinks about its original intent. Society's answer to this conundrum has been to resurrect property forfeiture laws, a 19th century relic used to seize property of remote wrongdoers, like pirates and slave-traders. Necessity being the mother of invention, these laws emanated from the absurd notion that property, not a person, can be guilty of illegal activity. From that illogical premise it logically follows that constitutional protections of persons may be cavalierly jettisoned when mere property is at stake. Property is automatically subject to forfeiture if there is "probable cause" (which can be based on hearsay, innuendo, or self-serving testimony) to believe it was "used" or "intended for use" by anyone to violate controlled substance statutes. Thus triggered, government may seize "guilty" property, even that of innocent owners, almost at will. There need be no conviction (or even arrest) of the real criminal. Standing the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head, forfeiture laws oblige an innocent owner to prove that the government should not keep already-seized property. Faced with government's overwhelming resources, many owners simply give up. Forfeiture laws, moreover, spawn corrupt incentives for law enforcement officials to fund themselves through seizures. Hyperbole aside, some recent forfeiture examples include: * Under a Michigan forfeiture statute, a wife whose husband "used" the family car in order to engage a prostitute lost the car; * Under a Puerto Rican law, a leasing company, having no knowledge that its luxury yacht was "used" for illegal drugs, lost its boat; * Acting under California law, sheriff's deputies shot Donald Scott inside his own home when he resisted their "lawful" break in. The district attorney's report concluded the department, motivated by a chance to seize a million dollar ranch, had lied about probable cause. Given the United States Supreme Court's recent ventures at curing societal ills in the name of constitutional imperatives, some hoped in 1995 the court would recognize real constitutional rights when it saw them, and mandate reformation of forfeiture laws. Unfortunately, in an ironic reversal of judicial activism, the court abdicated its proper role in a series of three cases -- and for the flimsiest of circular reasons. Asset forfeiture laws, the court said, are "long standing" and have been upheld in "a long and unbroken line of cases." Longevity hence trumps rationality. Dissenting Justice Stevens more thoughtfully wrote there is no justification in the court's jurisprudence for "confiscation of an ocean liner just because one of its passengers sinned while on board." The Utah Supreme Court has also recently entered the fray over asset forfeiture. In 1994, the court ruled that the restraint against excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution limits Utah's forfeiture law. True, but that ruling did not acknowledge Utah's constitution, which recognizes "an inalienable right to ... possess and protect property." With that unique language in the Utah Constitution, why would the Utah Supreme Court mirror what five justices in Washington say the federal constitution means? The Utah Legislature has finally shown some interest in reforming asset forfeiture laws. Last session, it tabled HB 127, which would have implemented a modicum of reasonable reforms. These reforms included shifting the burden of proof to the state to justify forfeiture by clear and convincing evidence, and preventing seizure cases from being transferred to the federal government to circumvent Utah's laws. Would-be recipients of forfeited assets argued such reforms would cost local government over $6 million. Strange that even under present law, forfeited assets should be deposited with the Division of Finance, which claims never to have received a penny of the $6 million. A legislative audit is currently being conducted, but as Teddy might have shrugged, what's an audit among friends? # # # # # # Maxwell A. Miller is a shareholder in the law firm of Parsons Behle & Latimer, and is a trustee of the Sutherland Institute, a Utah public policy research institute. David Harmer is an attorney with Riddle & Associates and is an adjunct policy specialist with the Sutherland Institute. Their views do not necessarily represent the views of their employers. Permission to reprint this article in whole or in part is granted provided credit is given to the authors and to the Sutherland Institute. For more information about the Sutherland Institute and/or to order additional copies of this article, call the Institute office, (801) 281-2081, or write: The Sutherland Institute, 111 E. 5600 South, Suite 208, Murray, UT 84107. Fax: (801) 281-2414; e-mail: sutherland@utah-inter.net; web address: www.sutherlandinstitute.org. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Sutherland Institute, as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation, or as an endorsement of any candidate or initiative. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 99 09:32:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: State Leg Interim Committee on law enforcement & crim justice 6/16/99 mtg - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:46:35 -0600 From: "Steve Sady" To: LPUtah@qsicorp.com Subject: State Leg Interim Committee on law enforcement & crim justice 6/16/99 mtg I saw no other Libertarians in the packed committee room where numerous citizens spoke out, some eloquently, in favor of 2nd Amdmt rights and against more govt. infringement. A chilling presentation was made by two from the state Health Dept. and Div. of Mental health, the thrust of which was that about the only predictor of violent behavior by the insane is their prior history of such violence, that the mentally ill are no more violence-prone than 'normal' people, but - and here's the chilling aspect - they have proposals for the legislature to: a) institute FORCED MEDICATION on the state-certified mentally ill b) establish (initially) 2 MOBILE TEAMS to search out and apprehend for forced medication the state-certified mentally ill who don't comply with doctors orders (more SWAT-style teams to be added later) c) create a new MENTAL HEALTH COURT SYSTEM to enforce "Assertive Community Treatment". (These plans-in-the making brought to my mind the Soviet Communist gulag system where enemies of the state were declared insane and hauled off to Siberian prison camps). And they have a list of 200 Utah residents upon whom they are ready to pounce if the laws were in place to allow it. There was a further string of full-employment-for-bureaucrats previsions proposed by the state bureaucrats testifying. But THE HIGHLIGHT of this stuffy hearing was a stirring, eloquent, assertive, well-reasoned and principled defense of the 2nd Amendment by Scott Engen of Gun Owners of Utah. (If this e-mail gets to Mr. Engen or GOUTAH, I would really like to have a transcript of his testimony). These are dangerous times for liberty (and tax-rates) in Utah. What happens to 2nd Amendment rights here will be a bellwether for the nation which sees Utah (however wrongly) as a paragon of conservative and constitutional values. The 1999 special session and citizens' attention and reaction to it will show whether Utahns want and deserve Freedom. A 3rd Committee meeting will be scheduled. Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:28:03 -0400 To: lputah@qsicorp.com From: Jason Billings Subject: RE: State Leg Interim Committee on law enforcement & criminal justice 6/16/99 mtg Well I am a fellow Libertarian and I was in the committee room with you. It looks like the Health Department is willing to help with setting up a database of citizens that have been committed as long as they are given funds to promote their own agenda. There where also talks of mental health courts and special gun courts, nobody wants to fix the court system we have they just want to have another reason to increase the size of government. It seems to me that this is so slow moving that as long as we stay united we can kill anything that comes down the pipe. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 08:18:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate As requested. I responded to both LPU and utah-firearms because Charles originally posted it to both. Scott - ---------- To: lputah@qsicorp.com Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:19:08 -0600 Subject: Re: LPU: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate From: charles hardy Scott, Please pass along to anyplace else you posted your response to me. Thank you. On Wed, 16 Jun 99 12:41:00 -0700 scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) writes: >How about carrying your firearm to or from your home, or for that matter, >just about anywhere considering the propinquity of schools to most every >street, road and thoroughfare, if you don't have a CCW permit? Even if >there is an exemption, must you always have a story ready about a purchase, >repair, or hunting or target shooting trip? I would suggest consulting with a legal professional or at least someone far more knowledgable than I about specifics of federal law. However, having said that, my understanding is that so long as the gun is unloaded and cased, or disassembled, etc, it may be freely transported even through the 1000' perimeter of schools. Further, I believe the Federal law makes an exemption for a CCW permit that requires a criminal background check so the gun may be carried according to the provisions of the permit. I am unclear as to how the federal law handles CCW permits that are specifically not valid on school grounds. I don't know whether it is still permissable to CCW in the 1000' buffer area or not. Hence my concern to lawmakers. >Rottweiler Thank you. >Do you and the legislooters really live such sheltered lives??? I don't know that you'd call it sheltered. What is the current percentage of people who have ever been the victim of a violent or other crime against the person (rapes, mugging, assaults etc)? What is the current percentage of *anglo men* who have ever been the victim of one of these crimes? What is the percentage of *anglo men*, raised in Utah over the age of 30 or even 40 who have ever been the victim of one of these crimes? I, and most of our legislators are anglo men raised in Utah. Most of them are well over the age of 30. While I have been the victim of a few property crimes (but I sure can't convince myself, let alone anyone else, that CCW would have had any effect of whether or not an unattended car was burglarized), and witnessed a couple altercations between long standing acquantances, I've been blessed to never have been the victim of any kind of violent or other crime committed against my person. But, I am a healthy anglo male, somewhat taller than average, grew up in rural Utah in a county that averaged less than one murder a year, I generally avoid areas (and times) known for trouble, do my best to keep a keen eye for potential trouble when I am out and about, avoid the display of cash or valuables at such times, etc. IOW, I'm probably not the "easiest" target out there so criminals are likely to pass me up for someone who will give them less trouble. >Might be an effective slant anyhow, considering that statists >protect criminality as much as possible without making it too >obvious both because of professional courtesy, and to keep the >public psychologically needing the State to "protect them". >>Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a >>criminal attack with a gun. >The SLC Library bomber. While you and I consider that a fine example, I believe the citizen was an off-duty LEO, which in the minds of the statists doesn't count. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 08:18:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:19:08 -0600 Charles C. Hardy wrote: >On Wed, 16 Jun 99 12:41:00 -0700 scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) >writes: >>How about carrying your firearm to or from your home, or for that matter, >>just about anywhere considering the propinquity of schools to most every >>street, road and thoroughfare, if you don't have a CCW permit? Even if >>there is an exemption, must you always have a story ready about a purchase, >>repair, or hunting or target shooting trip? >I would suggest consulting with a legal professional or at least someone >far more knowledgable than I about specifics of federal law. However, >having said that, my understanding is that so long as the gun is unloaded >and cased, or disassembled, etc, it may be freely transported even >through the 1000' perimeter of schools. Further, I believe the Federal >law makes an exemption for a CCW permit that requires a criminal >background check so the gun may be carried according to the provisions of >the permit. I am unclear as to how the federal law handles CCW permits >that are specifically not valid on school grounds. I don't know whether >it is still permissable to CCW in the 1000' buffer area or not. Hence my >concern to lawmakers. The specific exemption to which I referred was to homeowners and renters living within 1000' of a school perimeter. I hope you are correct about unloaded and cased guns, though that doesn't help much if you need self defense. Have you looked at a map to see the coverage of area and travel routes these free fire zones for criminals enjoy? How does Vermont deal with this federal edict? >>Do you and the legislooters really live such sheltered lives??? >I don't know that you'd call it sheltered. What is the current >percentage of people who have ever been the victim of a violent or other >crime against the person (rapes, mugging, assaults etc)? What is the >current percentage of *anglo men* who have ever been the victim of one of >these crimes? What is the percentage of *anglo men*, raised in Utah over >the age of 30 or even 40 who have ever been the victim of one of these >crimes? I, and most of our legislators are anglo men raised in Utah. >Most of them are well over the age of 30. Beats me. ;-) I believe the FBI compiles such statistics. Perhaps my experience isn't typical for Utahns since I have lived outside of Utah, but a close friend was mugged IN Utah, and I seem to recall you lived in or near Boston for a while. OTOH, I can't recall getting bested by a dog since I was 5 years old, and few propose arming 5-year-olds with guns. >I've been blessed to never have been the victim of any kind of violent or >other crime committed against my person. But, I am a healthy anglo male, >somewhat taller than average, grew up in rural Utah in a county that >averaged less than one murder a year, I generally avoid areas (and times) >known for trouble, do my best to keep a keen eye for potential trouble >when I am out and about, avoid the display of cash or valuables at such >times, etc. IOW, I'm probably not the "easiest" target out there so >criminals are likely to pass me up for someone who will give them less >trouble. I'm glad your rural Utah experience in a low crime area, combined with street smarts, continued in Massachusetts. They say that God created men, and Col. Colt made them equal. This may apply even more to men (species) of the female persuasion. >>>Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a >>>criminal attack with a gun. >>The SLC Library bomber. >While you and I consider that a fine example, I believe the citizen was >an off-duty LEO, which in the minds of the statists doesn't count. Odd this would bother you, since the best-publicized case of defense against dogs involved an LEO. See Chris Kierst's civilian examples. Scott - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #141 ***********************************