From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #203 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 Sunday, February 4 2001 Volume 02 : Number 203 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:10:42 -0700 From: charles hardy Subject: HB 179 passes house; and Rep. Thompson needs words of support As you've probaby heard by now, HB 179, paycheck protection passed out of the house today and is headed to the Senate. There were a couple of last minute amendments to that bill that passed and we don't know exactly what those are yet, but are hopeful they were just small technical changes and the bulk of the bill remains intact. If that is the case, we need to get ready to contact our Senators to encourage them to support this bill. This is a pro-liberty, pro-fiscal-conservative, pro-firearm, and pro-fairness bill. Also, Rep. Thompson is catching a LOT of flack from the media, from the UEA, and from fellow reps over his bill to require firearm safety training for grade school children and 2nd amd instruction, firearm safety, and optional hands on firearms instruction for high school seniors. Please contact this good freshman representative and thank him for running this much needed bill and encourage him to stand strong. There is simply no reason to have children getting injured with gun accidents when some basic lessons in stop, don't touch, leave the area, and tell and adult would prevent those accidents. And an optional (parental permission required) hands on course for high school seniors is a FAR better use of money than having kids run endless laps around the track or shooting baskets. Shooting is really a "lifetime" activity. This bill has a reasonable chance of passage this year if we support it. While you've got him on the phone (or in your email or letter) please also thank him for running his "Vermont Carry" bill this year that would allow law abiding adults to exercise their RKBA without having to get a permit or otherwise ask for government permission. This bill is a long shot this year, but, to the best of my knowledge, it is the first year that ANYONE (including our much more senior and self proclaimed "pro-gun conservative" legislators) has been willing to sponsor it and we need to express our thanks so that it will be sponsored next year, and the next for as long as it takes to restore our rights in this area. Finally, please contact your representative and let him/her know you expect him/her to support these two bills. Rep. Mike Thomson may be contacted as follows: Mailing Address: 1010 West 1420 North, Orem, Utah 84057 Phone: (home) 801-226-5032 (office) 801-223-9044 (capital--ask to have a message delivered) 801-538-1029 E-mail Address: mthompson@le.state.ut.us ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control ________________________________________________________________ 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/tagj. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:12:04 -0700 From: "andelain" Subject: RE: HB345: elimination of Utah concealed permits > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Darvell Hunt > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:29 PM > To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com > Subject: HB345: elimination of Utah concealed permits > > > Anybody hear about house bill 345? It hasn't been introduced by it's > sponsor Mike Thompson yet, but it sounds like a GREAT BILL. > > This bill would essentially eliminate concealed weapons permits in Utah. > But WAIT A MINUTE! I said this was good, didn't I? Actually, it would still "allow" people who wanted to spend their money, get photographed and fingerprinted, and apply for one for whatever reason, get a CCW "permit". This will just make it unnecessary. > > Representative Mike Thompson, who says he doesn't own guns but > understands the second amendment, wants to make carrying of concealed > weapon LEGAL for law abiding Utah residents. That means that a permit > would NOT BE REQUIRED. Did you hear that? Could Utah be the second > state in the Union, along with Vermont, that doesn't require a permit to > carry? Wow, I don't think we expected that! Gun owners and second amendment activists have been under attack for so long, that it began to seem as though we could only take defensive positions and pray. In fact, a couple of organizations have routinely launched "preemptive retreats", saying that "we gotta give 'em something, this is the best we can hope for." Well, that's demoralizing at best, suicide at worst. My coaches always said "If you have a great offense, you MIGHT win, but if you have a perfect defense, you CAN'T lose. It's my opinion that we don't have a "perfect" defense - see preemptive retreats above - and we have NO offense. In other words, we *might* not lose, but we certainly can't win. So, last year, we began beefing up our defense. We successfully stopped a number of bills that the "big" RKBA groups had given up on, or even supported. This year, the defense is pretty dang good - note the "sudden death" of the bill that would have destroyed the Utah Defense Force, in spite of the fact that the RKBA "groups of record" were AWOL. Even so, we need offense or we'll only continue to lose, albeit more slowly. Happily, we have fewer anti-gun bills this year than we have pro-gun bills. For the offense: We educated people in effective grassroots activism. We gave them the information they needed to become delegates and made their legislator's records known. A lot of people worked tirelessly to see to it that good people were elected, and the jokers were defeated. This resulted in a near record turnover in both houses, including Utah's premier gun-hater, Dave Jones. The gun owners of Utah made a statement with their votes. Now for the bills. We believe that we gun owners have been taking it for far too long. It's time we regain lost ground and reclaim our God-given rights. In other words, it's time to climb out of the foxhole and take the battle to the enemy. That's where Rep. Mike Thompson and HB 345 come in. While the actual language has not been finished, the intent is to create a true "Vermont carry" type of bill. Additionally, he is also running HB 264. This requires gun safety training classes, from elementary school through high school, including optional hands on, hunter's safety type training for high-school seniors. Representative Thompson needs strong support from all of us. The media and the UEA will not be nice. There are a number of other good bills this year. I have appended a short explanatory passage from a recent UTGOA alert that partially explains HB 345. The full alert can be found at: http://www.utgoa.org/cgi-bin/alerts?alerts01/012901.html You can also sign up for UTGOA's email alerts at: http://www.utgoa.org Yes, we've made some important strides, but we need to remember that these are only skirmishes in a much larger war. If we are to win that war, we must be willing to take the fight to the enemy. > > We should get behind this bill! Frankly, I'd be surprised if it passed, > but it can if it gets enough support! > > I also heard some interesting news about a law requiring gun saftey > classes in high school. Not only are we not having many anti-gun bills > this year, but we've got some great pro-gun ones! I guess we Utahns > voted well! ;) > > Darvell Hunt > Pleasant Grove, UT > > > - BILLS WHICH UTGOA EXPECTS TO SUPPORT Utah Gun Owners Alliance has requested, and the sponsors have agreed, to run the following pro-gun bills. However, these bills do not currently have language, so we don't know what they'll actually say when they emerge from the attorneys in legislative research. UTGOA is actively working with the sponsors and has submitted draft language. Assuming the bills conform to our expectations, we will be enthusiastically supporting them. HB 345: CARRYING A FIREARM - THOMPSON HB 345 is intended to allow for concealed carry without a permit, sometimes known as "Vermont" carry. UTGOA believes that self-defense is a right and that no one should have to ask government for permission or jump through hoops to exercise a right. HB 345 is currently in House Rules > - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:40:34 -0700 From: "Scott Bergeson" Subject: Fw: OPPOSE H.R.225 Anti-Gunrunning Act of 2001 OPPOSE H.R.225. IT ONLY RESTRICTS THE HONEST CITIZEN AND DOES NOT RESTRICT THE CRIMINAL. check it on: http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d107query.html enter HR225 AUTO-FAX YOUR FEDERAL REPS: http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD TOLL-FREE HOTLINES: 800.241.7109, 800.335.4949, 800.456.1414, 800.505.0145 800.522.6721, 800.648.3516, 800.663.9566, 800.722.7494 800.972.3524, 877.762.8762, 877.778.9001, 888.449.3511 AUTO-EMAIL: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/capitolwiz - ----- Original Message ----- 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session H.R.225 To prevent handgun violence and illegal commerce in handguns. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 3, 2001 Mr. WEXLER (for himself, Mr. NADLER, and Mr. MORAN of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary - ------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To prevent handgun violence and illegal commerce in handguns. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Anti-Gunrunning Act of 2001". SEC. 2. PREVENTING GUN TRAFFICKING BY RESTRICTING HANDGUN TRANSFERS TO ONE PER MONTH. (a) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: (z)(1) The Congress finds and declares that-- (A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem; (B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs; (C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce; (D) the illegal movement of firearms, and handguns in particular, across state lines is a widespread and pervasive national problem; (E) handguns (even when lawfully purchased) are unlawfully transported across state lines by gun traffickers and are illegally sold to prohibited persons; (F) in fact, even before a firearm is illegally sold by a trafficker, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which it is made have moved in interstate commerce; (G) law-abiding persons may fear to travel interstate or to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence; (H) the illegal movement of handguns across state lines substantially affects the national market for firearms, because handguns sold in one State in which there are few restrictions provide a convenient source for the acquisition of handguns by gun traffickers who transport the handguns to jurisdictions with stronger restrictions; (I) the unlawful sale of firearms by traffickers provides a method by which firearms can be bought and sold anonymously, without background checks and without record-keeping requirements to enable gun tracing; (J) handguns sold by traffickers are often obtained by criminals and other prohibited persons who frequently use guns that cannot be traced to commit crimes; (K) handgun violence is a pervasive, national problem that is exacerbated by the availability of handguns through gun traffickers; (L) firearms from traffickers have been involved in subsequent crimes including drug offenses, crimes of violence, property crimes, and illegal possession by felons and other prohibited persons; (M) because gun trafficking is often an interstate activity, individual States and localities are often severely hampered in combating illegal handgun purchases--even States and localities that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime and illegal trafficking of firearms--as a result of the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and (N) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to ensure, by enactment of this section, that criminals and other prohibited persons do not obtain firearms through gun traffickers. (2) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer-- (A) during any 30-day period, to sell, deliver or transfer 2 or more handguns to any single person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer), or (B) to sell, deliver or transfer a handgun to any single person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer), knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the transferee has already received one or more handguns within the previous 30 days. (3)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer) to receive more than one handgun within any 30-day period. (B) Under such rules and regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a single handgun solely for purposes of target shooting, provided that the recipient possesses no more than one such loaned or rented handgun at any one time. (4) Under such rules and regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe, paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not apply to-- (A) handguns transferred to or received by qualified private security companies licensed to do business within the State where the transfer occurs for use by the company in its security operations, provided that any handgun transferred under this subsection is transferred through a licensed dealer located in the State where the security company is licensed to do business; (B) the disposition made of a handgun delivered to a person licensed under section 923 for the sole purpose of repair or customizing when such handgun or a replacement handgun of the same kind and type is returned to the person from whom it was received; (C) the loan or rental of a single handgun from a person licensed under section 923, provided that the recipient possesses no more than one such loaned or rented handgun at any one time; (D) the redemption of pawned handguns from a person licensed under section 923 by the person from whom the handguns were received; (E) the receipt of curio or relic handguns by a licensed collector; (F) the receipt of a single handgun from a person licensed under section 923 to replace a lost or stolen handgun of the same kind or type, where the transferee has submitted to the licensee a copy of an official police report establishing the loss or theft of a handgun or handguns; (G) the transfer of handguns by bequest; (H) the transfer of handguns to the transferor's spouse, child, parent, stepparent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, or sister; or (I) the transfer of all or part of a personal firearms collection (as that term is defined in regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary) that includes handguns, provided that the handguns in the collection are transferred through a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer located in the State where the transferee resides. (b) PENALTIES- Section 924(a)(2) of such title is amended by striking 'or (o)' and inserting '(o), or (z)'. (c) INCREASED PENALTIES FOR LICENSEES WHO KNOWINGLY MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS IN REQUIRED RECORDS- (1) Section 924(a)(3) of such title is amended-- (A) by striking '(A)'; (B) by striking 'or' after 'chapter'; (C) by striking subsection (B); and (D) by striking 'one year' and inserting '5 years'. (2) Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: '(7) Any licensed dealer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed collector who knowingly violates section 922(m) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.'. (d) CONFORMING CHANGES TO THE BRADY LAW- Section 922(t) of such title is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking '(g) or (n)' and inserting '(g), (n), or (z)'; (2) in paragraph (2), by striking '(g) or (n)' and inserting '(g), (n), or (z)'; (3) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; (4) in paragraph (4), by striking '(g) or (n)' and inserting '(g), (n), or (z)'; and (5) by adding at the end the following: '(10) A licensee must, within three days of receiving a request from the prospective transferee, notify the national instant criminal background check system of any background check conducted pursuant to this section within the previous 30 days that did not result in the transfer of a handgun.' '(11) Information that is retained pursuant to Public Law 103-159 may be used to effectuate section 922(z) of this title.' (e) EFFECTIVE DATE- The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall determine, and publish in the Federal Register, the date on which this section shall become effective. (f) DEADLINES FOR DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS RELATED TO CERTAIN FIREARMS TRANSFERS- (1) HANDGUN TRANSFERS SUBJECT TO THE WAITING PERIOD- Section 922(s)(6)(B)(i) of such title is amended by striking '20 business days' and inserting '35 calendar days'. (2) FIREARMS TRANSFERS SUBJECT TO INSTANT CHECK- Section 922(t)(2)(C) of such title is amended by inserting 'within 35 calendar days after the date the system provides the licensee with the number,'. END - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:35:20 -0700 From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: Bill of Rights Day - ---------------- Charles Hardy - --------- Forwarded message ---------- Rep. Morgan Philpot is sponsoring two Bill of Rights Day bills. HB 133 creates Bill of Rights Day to be observed on Dec. 15, the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. HJR 10 is a Resolution urging all government entities and schools to read the Bill of Rights and observe Bill of Rights Day. It also encourages civic organizations to work with government to disseminate copies of the Bill of Rights to schools and to communicate its importance. These bills will be heard by the Government Operations Committee on Friday, Feb. 2 at 8 AM in Room 405. Rep. Philpot has asked that supporters of the Bill of Rights attend to show their support and/or testify in favor of the legislation. Please plan to attend to show your support for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, right to petition, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, jury trials, right to keep and bear arms, etc. etc. If you can't attend, please contact members of the House Government Operations committee and ask them to vote for HB 133 and HJR 10. Bigelow, rbigelow@le.state.ut.us, 801-968-4188 Bowman, dbowman@le.state.ut.us, 435-586-8174 Bradshaw, abradsha@le.state.ut.us, 801-581-9646 Bush, dbush@le.state.ut.us, 801-825-3210 Buttars, cbuttars@le.state.ut.us, 435-258-5015 Clark, dclark@le.state.ut.us. 435-628-5108 Dayton, mdayton@le.state.ut.us, 801-221-0623 Duckworth, cduckwor@le.state.ut.us, 801-250-0728 Hansen nhansen@le.state.ut.us, 801-393-1514, 801-547-2651 (cell) Hendrickson, nhendric@le.state.ut.us, 801-969-8920 Jones, pjones@le.state.ut.us, 801-278-7667 Lockhart, blockhar@le.state.ut.us, 801-377-7428 All can be reached at the Capitol at 538-1029. ________________________________________________________________ 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/tagj. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:33:35 -0700 From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: [UTGOA] Bill of Rights Day,HB 112 Success, More backdoor gun control Courtesy of UTGOA... - ---------------- Charles Hardy - --------- Forwarded message ---------- BILL OF RIGHTS DAY HB 112 BACK DOOR GUN CONTROL REMEMBER! The Government Operations Committee will hear the two Bill of Rights Day bills at 8 AM Friday in Room 405. Please plan to attend and show your support for the Bill of Rights! GOOD NEWS! HB 112, Prevention of Retaliatory Lawsuits, was passed UNANIMOUSLY by the House Judiciary Committee today. This bill helps protect activists from frivolous lawsuits designed to silence them. HB 112 now goes to the entire House. Please call YOUR Representative and tell him/her you expect a YES vote on HB 112. And thanks to those of you who called committee members. Your hard work is paying off. BACK DOOR GUN CONTROL Thanks to dedicated gun rights activists like you, the anti-gun forces know they face a difficult battle to disarm Utahns. You may have noted that we have fewer overt anti-gun bills this year, as compared with previous years. The anti-gun forces know that a bill titled "Revoking Gun Rights on a Whim" would never pass the legislature. That's why anti-gunners are now trying to sneak gun control legislation past us. They're doing this by using the appropriations process to bypass public discussion. The appropriations committees have the task of allocating money to all of our many state agencies and programs. The standing committees debate and vote on bills that, if passed, become law. But appropriations committees can also be used to bypass the legislative process and fund "rules" and "programs" that have the same effect as laws. For the past several years, the anti-gun forces have tried to enact back-door gun control by way of the mental health system. They know that committing someone for alleged mental illness is the quickest and easiest way to revoke most of that person's rights - including his right to own a firearm. Once a person is committed, he loses his right to own a gun forever - even if he was wrongfully committed or if he has completely recovered. There is currently no way to get these records expunged or to get rights restored. (Even violent criminals can have their records expunged and can petition for restoration of rights.) There are many reasons that psychiatric commitment is such a great gun control tactic. A person accused of being mentally ill has very little in the way of due process. He doesn't get a jury trial. The usual standards of evidence are thrown out the window, so that hearsay and conjecture are admissible evidence, and he's forced to testify against himself. The standards for commitment are low. No one has to be proven mentally ill "beyond a reasonable doubt". Instead all that's necessary is somebody's belief that he is an "immediate danger to himself, others or property". (And the Division of Mental Health is trying to loosen even that standard!) In addition, once the person is committed, he's forced to pay for his own incarceration and drugging. (Even murderers don't have to pay for their imprisonment!) If he doesn't have money, the federal government chips in. So, the more people committed, the more money the Division of Mental Health gets. That's right. The Division of Mental Health gets more money for each person whose rights they revoke. And the Division is notoriously anti-gun. The major limitation on how many people can be committed is money and space. Most committed people are treated in psychiatric hospitals. There are only so many beds and so much money. So it's not possible to commit tens or hundreds of thousands of people each year. It's not possible to lock up every "right-wing extremist" or "paranoid gun nut", drug them into submission and revoke their right to self defense forever. The "solution" to this "problem" is a program called PACT or Program for Assertive Community Treatment. PACT allows people to be committed while living in their own homes and working at their own jobs. A state mental health worker or law enforcement officer comes to the person's home and makes sure he is taking his medications and complying with all the other terms of commitment. This can involve not only forced drugging, but warrantless searches. Once the person is committed, he loses his right to own a gun, is no longer eligible to serve in the military, and is disqualified from many other jobs that require background checks. And while currently one needs to be an "immediate danger" to get committed, both Gov. Leavitt and the Division of Mental Health have said that they would like to expand commitment to anything the division considers "mental illness". This includes such "mental illnesses" as poor housekeeping, poor hygiene, failure to pay child support on time, inability to hold a job, homelessness, and loitering. PACT is not only a threat to gun rights, it is a threat to ALL civil rights. If a person truly is a danger to himself or others, he should not be living at home. If he's not a danger to himself or others, he should be left alone unless he agrees to psychiatric treatment. To clarify: UTGOA has no objection to PACT if it is VOLUNTARY. Providing care to non-violent mentally ill people in their homes is certainly preferable to locking them in hospitals - if they agree to the treatment. However, no one should be forced to take mind-altering drugs against his will. And no one should have his rights revoked permanently without being convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers. Currently the Division of Mental Health is asking for over $800,000 for 4 PACT teams. The plan is ultimately to implement PACT statewide Please contact the members of the Health and Human Services Appropriations committee and ask them to remove PACT from the Division of Mental Health budget. Rep Seitz Chair, jseitz@le.state.ut.us, 435-789-0650 Sen David Steele Chair, dsteele@le.state.ut.us, 801-825-3033 Sen D. Edgar Allen, eallen@le.state.ut.usm 801-392-1050 Rep Trish Beck, tbeck@le.state.ut.us, 801-572-2325 Sen Curtis Bramble, cbramble@le.state.ut.us, 801-226-3663 Rep David Hogue, dhogue@le.state.ut.us, 801-254-1668 Rep David Litvak, dlitvak@le.state.ut.us, 801-596-0187 Rep Becky Lockhart, blockhar@le.state.ut.us, 801-377-7428 Sen Steve Poulton, spoulton@le.state.ut.us, 801-272-4338 Rep Carl Saunders, csaunder@le.state.ut.us, 801-476-1110 Rep Matt Throckmorton, mthrockm@le.state.ut.us, 801-489-8342 Please remember to be POLITE! Most of these legislators are not aware of the problems with PACT. They've been told it's a "compassionate" program to "help the mentally ill". Your job is not to call them names, but to explain the problems with PACT, and the very real threat to our civil liberties. ***** Clip and Send******* Honorable Members of the Health and Human Services Appropriations Committee, I am writing to ask you to remove funding for PACT (Program for Assertive Community Treatment) from the Division of Mental Health Budget, and to refuse to approve the budget unless PACT is removed. PACT is a very serious threat to civil liberties. People who have not committed a crime, and are living in their own homes should not be forced to take mind-altering drugs against their will. And people who are a threat to themselves or others should not be living in the community. I am also concerned that PACT might be used to revoke the rights of peaceful citizens who have "politically incorrect" ideas, belong to minority religions, own guns, etc. Of particular concern is that once someone is committed, he loses his right to own a gun forever - even if the commitment was unjustified or if he has fully recovered. Likewise, someone who is committed may lose custody of his own children, and may be prohibited from holding certain jobs or serving in the military. I do not want my tax dollars used to revoke the rights of my fellow citizens or to force people to take mind-altering drugs. Please OPPOSE PACT, and make sure it is removed from the Division of Mental Health Budget. Thank you. Your name Your address Copyright 2001, 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@egroups.com or use the form on our web site, http://www.utgoa.org. For more information, see http://www.egroups.com/group/UTGOA. 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. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: UTGOA-unsubscribe@egroups.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/tagj. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:56:17 -0700 From: charles hardy Subject: CCW article in today's SLTrib I have mixed feelings on this article. On the one hand, a single written test may curb problems and concerns over the very few bad instructors who are not teaching what they should. OTOH, it could very well serve as the first step towards the State limiting the availability of permits. Perhaps requiring a standard, State written tests to be administered by current instructors would be ok. Thoughts? The section about raising prices on permits is of concern as well. People should not be taxed at all in order to exercise God given, Constitutionally enumerated and protected rights. My attitude is that, as a gun owner, permits and background checks don't do me a bit of good. They are to calm the fears of the gun phobes and thus benefit only them. Thus, they--and not I--should be paying for them. The final sentence gives some comfort this time around, but we should maybe be watching closely just to make sure nothing slips through. From today's SLTrib, Audit Says Gun-Safety Program a Failure Lawmakers urged to replace loose concealed-gun training with a mandatory state test Saturday, February 3, 2001 BY DAN HARRIE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Legislative auditors recommend the state consider junking the gun-safety program used to qualify citizens for concealed-weapons permits. An audit released Friday in the Capitol says Utah's Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) Program is dramatically underfunded and lacks the resources to oversee safety training courses. "At present there is no evidence that CCW permit holders are actually taught or understand the state's laws on allowable uses of deadly force or safe weapons-handling techniques," said the audit by Legislative Auditor General Wayne Welsh. Courses intended to ensure people are competent to handle guns and knowledgeable about laws regulating firearms use range over a "wide spectrum," said the report, "from a bare minimum offering intended only to meet the letter of the law to hands-on training designed to improve weapon handling and proficiency." The audit recommended lawmakers consider getting rid of the current system that requires training by one of hundreds of private instructors and replacing it with a simple written state test. "A state-regulated testing program may offer greater control and evidence that applicants at least have an understanding of Utah's laws, use of lethal force and weapons handling and safety than the loose system for firearms-familiarity instruction now in place," said the report. Auditors also found that taxpayers subsidize the current concealed-carry weapon program to the tune of $144,000 annually. Fees charged for weapons permits run $59, including $24 needed for FBI background checks and the rest to the state. Last year, the state received $307,400 in fees revenue. But the cost of the program was $451,800. Moreover, the fees collected on concealed-weapons permits are not earmarked for the licensing program. Lawmakers budget just $88,000 for the activity, requiring the Bureau of Criminal Identification to shift about $363,834 from other services, including Brady Act gun-purchase background checks. Auditors recommended raising the fees to better reflect the cost of the program. They also urged lawmakers to boost the annual appropriation -- which has remained flat for several years even though liberalization of the concealed-carry laws in 1994 has pushed the number of permit holders from about 1,000 to more than 39,000. The audit findings parallel revelations in a 1999 Salt Lake Tribune investigation. A review of gun safety-training by the newspaper concluded that there were "serious flaws" in the system and that the quality of courses offered by state-certified instructors was "wildly uneven, ranging from seven-hour sessions that include firing-range time to sham classes that appear mainly designed to provide supplemental income to lax instructors." "Utah may be playing Russian roulette with how it ensures that people licensed to carry concealed weapons are competent to handle guns and knowledgeable about gun laws." Of seven classes sampled by Tribune reporters, five were deemed good to excellent and two were poor. In the worst case, instructor Celeste Morgan charged $75 for a one-hour session in which no gun was ever introduced to satisfy requirements of safe loading and handling. She signed off on the certification even though the form was otherwise blank, and could have been used by someone other than the student. House Majority Leader Kevin Garn, R-Layton, attempted to pass legislation last year requiring that a concealed-weapon applicant demonstrate shooting proficiency. He dropped it in the face of overwhelming opposition. "The problem is there are a lot of instructors out there that make money. They have the ability to send panic through the gun community, and they don't want the laws to change," said Garn. "We've got people coming out of those classes who have no idea how to use a gun," he said, adding the auditors' idea of a state test might be a good solution. But, Garn added, "it's too late in the [legislative] session to do anything now." The current Legislature ends Feb. 28. - ---------------- 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/tagj. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 00:23:50 -0700 From: charles hardy Subject: Sen. Stepheson town meeting Sen. Howard Stephenson is having a town meeing this coming Wednesday, Feb. 7 at 7:00 pm in the Sandy City Hall. While Sen. Stepheson has traditionally been on the right side of the gun issue, it would be nice if pro-gun folks were there in force to remind him we really do expect him to be very pro-active in preserving and regaining our rights. - ---------------- 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/tagj. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:25:28 -0700 From: "larry larsen" Subject: RE: CCW article in today's SLTrib I am an instructor in Southern Utah (that doesn’t mean Provo for you in Northern Utah):>) I don't know about all the other instructors here, but I know myself, and one other, who spend our fair share amount of time putting forth the doctrine the state "says" they would like to have put forth. Not that I agree with it that much, as I am of the type that knows carrying a weapon is a God giving right not a state right, even thought we are currently stuck in the state mentality, which comes with the support of a good many so called "freedom loving people". I also know, because of years of teaching pistol craft, that you can't teach someone to shoot for fifty bucks in a two hour range session. I don't see how a state test, on the form of a questionnaire or multiple guess type test, would be better than the current system. Take for example the drivers test, which anyone with half a brain, or someone just dropped out of a space ship from Mars could pass with a 10 minute look in the little book they have there. How could such a test show a persons ability to load or shoot a gun? Da? Do I miss something here? No, I don't think I do, I see the real intent, and that is getting a foot in the door for another state bureaucracy, which would be on the order of the drivers license bureau, (I am trying to keep this civil and not say what I am thinking about that department). No we don't want to see this testing of applicants for CC handed over to the state. If the state is paying so much now for what is being achieved, in their minds, think how much it would cost if you had to pay the state for the same thing. It would cost the applicant thousands of dollars for the permit, all this because each little bureaucracy that starts up has to suck, feed and grow, and the sad part, it wouldn't solve a single problem, except in the eyes of the left, it would halt the number of applicants, and permit holders. I guess that would be a plus for some. All anyone has to do is look at the source of this message, a government worker, and the leftist press to tell what the real intent is. Why not ask the people who have taken these little classes, or who would like to take one, but don't quite have the fifty bucks or so that it now costs to take it. Ask them if they are getting their monies worth, paying for something that shouldn't even cost them a dime? Thanks Charles for the alert. Larry - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #203 ***********************************