From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #222 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 Thursday, January 17 2002 Volume 02 : Number 222 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:19:53 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Weapons bills proposed so far From the legislative web site, here are the weapons bills officially requested so far: Gun Education Safety Courses in Public Schools Thompson, M. JLW Gun Show Background Check Daniels, S. JLW Repeal of Weapons Law Daniels, S. JLW Restriction on Purchase of Certain Shotgun Ammunition Bowman, D. JLW "JLW" is the drafting attorney. No language is available on the web site yet, however, a Sunday article in the Trib authored by anti-self-defense fanatic Steve Gunn indicates that Daniels is sponsoring a bill to require private sellers at gun shows to do a background check before selling their weapon. Given that, it lookes like three of the above bills are solidly anti-rights while Rep. Thompson's education safety bill is a pro-gun bill. Here are some other bills of potential interest or concern. Those with bill numbers been recommended by one of the interim committees. Those without are just bill requests. Not all of these are directly related to guns, but are of significant enough importance to the system that I included them here. There are also many other bills that could end up affecting self-defense, hunting, or other gun rights but are not obvious from the title. SB0008 Repeal of National Guard Advisory Board Peterson, M. JLF HB0033 Certification and Testing of Voting Equipment Buttars, C. JLF Provisional Ballot Hickman, J. JLF Restriction of Funding on State Entity Whose Policy, Rule, or Action is Contrary to Law Waddoups JLF HB0195 Protection of Sports Officials from Violent Abuse Hogue SCA Anti-terrorism Amendments Ray SCA Children's Product Safety Act Shurtliff, L. CJD ________________________________________________________________ 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/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:42:33 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Fw: GOUtah! Alert #104 The latest from GOUtah. If at all possible, please try to attend this public hearing. If you are a State employee on your lunch hour, you will be given first preference on speaking. If you are more comfortable with written comments than with public speaking, if you cannot attend the hearing, or if you'd simply like to present written comments in addition to your verbal statements you may do so either at the hearing itself, via email to Mr. Conroy Whipple at , via fax at 801.538.3081 (Salt Lake area) or via snail mail at: Department of Human Resource Management 2120 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Please be courteous in all communications on this topic, whether written or verbal. Mr. Whipple and the Department of Human Resource Management ("Human Resources" is apparently a social service department so make sure and get the full, correct title on any letters) are required by law to hold this public hearing. The facts and law are solidly behind us on this issue. But we do need to make our voices heard so that there is not pressure or justification to try to skirt the law in any way shape or form. I encourage all those attending the hearing to wear your "urban camouflage" aka, business attire, business casual, or even a polo shirt with nice jeans. Please do not wear military cammos,or T-shirts or hats with slogans or quotes on them. Signs and banners are also not appropriate in these types of hearings. Let's present ourselves as respectable, mainstream members of the community. Charles - --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "GOUtah!" Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:32:21 -0700 Subject: GOUtah! Alert #104 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 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 #104 - 18 December 2001 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - -- Thomas Jefferson IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING ON THURSDAY Tuesday morning's edition of The Salt Lake Tribune informs us that the Department of Human Resource Management of the State of Utah (which we, being somewhat old-fashioned, will henceforth refer to as the "state personnel office") will hold a public hearing at noon on Thursday December 20 in room 403 of the State Capitol. The topic of the hearing will be the proposed removal of the illegal ban on the carrying of self-defense weapons by state employees. State law says that the only governmental entity in Utah (besides the Federal Government) which can regulate the possession and carrying of firearms is the state legislature. The state personnel office, which is a government agency that is not part of the state legislature, has a rule which prohibits all state employees (except for state law enforcement agents) from carrying firearms while on the job. As reported in previous alerts, the Attorney General's Office looked into the matter recently and informed the personnel office and the governor that the ban is illegal. The personnel office proposed to remove the ban on January 1, 2002. However, the office stated that a public hearing on the matter would be arranged prior to the proposed removal of the ban, at the request of any interested parties. Thursday's hearing is being held at the request of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. According to the personnel office, all comments made by members of the public during the hearing will be taken into consideration. This hearing is not like a legislative committee hearing. Legislative hearings sometimes give a few private citizens a chance to make brief statements, but the main purpose of legislative hearings is for legislators to debate and vote on legislation. Thursday's hearing will be a completely different type of ballgame, and you should definitely plan on showing up if you can. This is not a legislative hearing. It is an executive-branch hearing, the sole purpose of which is to hear comments from members of the public. The media will likely be there in large numbers. Please be prepared to make a brief statement. There will probably be a signup sheet outside the door of the room, or else one that will be passed around during the hearing. If so, please put your name on it. You might also have a chance to be interviewed by a news reporter after the hearing. If you make a statement at the hearing, please do not ramble on and on. Be brief and to the point. It is important to give MANY pro-self-defense people a chance to speak. This is a meeting in which numbers really count. If a whole bunch of pro-self-defense people get up one at a time to speak, and each of them makes a 30-second statement, this will be much more effective than if only a few pro-self-defense people stand up, each of whom rambles on for 10 minutes. The people running the hearing simply need to know how many of those in attendance are in favor of allowing state employees to defend themselves against violent crime. They don't need to hear long rambling arguments about the Second Amendment and so forth. Even if you just get up and say "My name is so-and-so and I am in favor of allowing state employees to be able to exercise their right to self-defense," this will be enough. The bureaucrats will know which side of the issue you're on, and that's what's important. It is especially important to attend this meeting if you are an employee of the state government. If this is the case, you should mention the fact that you work for the state government when you make your statement. There are plenty of good points you can make during your statement at the hearing, or if you happen to be interviewed by the media afterwards. In either case, choose a single point and make it, instead of trying to give a lecture on the meaning of the Second Amendment. A single BRIEF sound bite is the way to go. Here are a few examples to help give you some ideas: "Self-defense is a good thing. The biggest heroes of Sept. 11 were the handful of passengers of Flight 93 who fought back against the terrorists. Yet some bureaucrat out there is telling me that if I'm a state employee, I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself against thugs and hoodlums. Could somebody please explain to me how this is supposed to make sense?" "I've taken responsibility for my own safety. People who are employed by the state should be able to do this too." "If a woman who works for the state wants to be completely helpless and unable to defend herself when she walks to her car after work, that's a decision that she should make by herself. The state shouldn't make it for her." "State law says that the police have no legal obligation to protect anyone, including state employees. Yet the state personnel office prohibits state employees from being able to protect themselves. Is this fair?" "The ban on self-defense weapons for state employees is illegal. If I were to do something illegal, I would go to jail or pay a fine. Why, then, should state bureaucrats be able to flagrantly violate the law year after year without suffering any consequences?" _______________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #104 - 18 December 2001. Copyright 2001 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. ________________________________________________________________ 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/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:37:51 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Pro-gun (or at least pro- rule of law) editorial from the Deseret News Ok, 'fess up. Which one of you sneaked into the press room and got this editorial printed? :) From today's Deseret News opinion page. Charles - -------------- http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,355013406,00.html? Gun rules need re-evaluation Deseret News editorial What would the holidays and upcoming legislative session be without a lively debate about gun control? That emotional issue was revisited earlier this month when several state agencies appeared before a legislative oversight committee. Their appearance followed an informal opinion written by Attorney General Mark Shurtleff that found state agency rules restricting gun possession violated state law. The issue was properly defined by House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, who said it wasn't the committee's responsibility to decide if the rules are "right or wrong," but rather whether the state agencies had the approval to write the rules in the first place. A month ago Shurtleff raised the issue when he issued his informal opinion wherein he said that about two dozen rules adopted by various state agencies controlling gun use are illegal. That's because only the Legislature has the power to regulate guns in Utah, Shurtleff said. Later, Shurtleff issued a formal opinion that the rule prohibiting state employees with concealed weapons permits from bringing their guns to work is illegal. Gov. Mike Leavitt and his personnel officials agree. Legislators were told that the rule will be rescinded Jan. 1. In reality, the Legislature needs to review a number of rules that may be questionable legally, particularly regarding concealed weapons. For example, there is confusion regarding day-care centers. Shurtleff wrote a letter to the executive director of the State Health Department, Rod Betit, saying it appears that hundreds of state licensed day-care centers in Utah are defined in state code as "schools," which can result in various ramifications regarding gun use. While there isn't an exemption now for concealed-carry permitholders, it would appear, as Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, noted during the oversight committee's deliberations, that since a school is not a "secure" area like a prison, courtroom, mental hospital or airport, the day-care centers cannot therefore ban concealed weapons from their premises. Health Department officials indicated the rule will likely be rewritten to specifically allow legally permitted concealed weapons owners to carry handguns into licensed day-care centers. The rules of that department and others, as well as a thorough study of the exemptions allowed under the various gun control provisions, need to be scrutinized. ________________________________________________________________ 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/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:44:09 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Reminder--Rules hearing today This is a last minute reminder about the Department of Human Resource Management's public hearing today regarding the repeal of their illegal and pro-victimization, anti-gun employment policies. The hearing is at 12:00 noon, in room 403 of the State Capital. If you are a pro-self-defense State employee, it is very important for you to attend this hearing if at all possible. We fear this may turn into a dog and pony show with lots of anti-gun employees making it look like the "gun lobby" is forcing something on them that no State employees want. If you are (or personally know) a State employee who would like to testify in favor of your self-defense rights, but believe doing so could cause you problems with your superior(s), please let me know. I certainly understand the need (particularly in these economic times) to protect your livelyhood and means of providing for your family and will respect any wishes to remain anonymous. OTOH, if intimidation or abuses of your rights to speak out on political issues are taking place, it needs to come to light in some manner, if at all possible. If you are unable to attend the hearing, please submit written comments. The following written comments have been submitted in the name of GOUtah. Comments can also be emailed to . Please do be courteous in all communications. Charles ================ Charles Hardy Policy Director, Gun Owners of Utah (GOUtah!) xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx December 18, 2001 Public Comments on Employee Firearm Restriction c/o Conroy Whipple Department of Human Resource Management 2120 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Fax: 801.538.3081 Dear Mr. Whipple, As Policy Director for Gun Owners of Utah, I am pleased to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change at the Utah Department of Human Resource Management concerning employee possession of weapons pursuant to a government issued concealed weapons permit. Gun Owners of Utah strongly supports the complete elimination of all policies, rules, and other restrictions on individuals’ rights to possess the tools of effective self-defense including restrictions on possession of concealed weapons pursuant to a government issued permit. First and foremost, Utah law is clear that no agency, department, or political subdivision may promulgate nor enforce any rules concerning weapons unless the legislature has granted specific authority to do so. The Utah Legislature has not given any such grant of authority to the Utah Department of Human Resource Management. Both a legislative counsel opinion and now an opinion from our State Attorney General’s office clearly indicates that current rules restricting the possession of weapons are contrary to State law, illegal, and unenforceable. For government agencies to disregard, break, or attempt to skirt the clear letter and/or spirit of the law, in any way, shape, or form, can only degrade general respect for all laws. Second, we believe that self-defense is the first law of nature and a natural, inalienable right of all persons. Police and other security forces, dedicated as they are, simply cannot provide protection to every State employee, every minute of every working day nor during their travels to/from work. By very definition, self-defense cannot be delegated. The State of Utah has some very hardworking employees, many of whom work irregular hours, serve in remote and/or crime prevalent locations, or in various jobs where they may be at special risk to criminals or even terrorists. And any person--regardless of employment--is subject to threats or violence from disgruntled former spouses, stalking, or plain old-fashioned random acts of violence and crimes of opportunity both in the workplace and during travel to/from work. State employees have as much right to protect themselves as any other citizen of Utah. Next, current policy creates opportunities for weapons to be accessible to criminals. Forcing employees to leave weapons in automobiles not only denies those persons access to an effective self-defense, it also leaves weapons vulnerable to theft. Also, the State of Utah actively encourages the use of mass transit and anyone using mass or alternate transit will be left disarmed and defenseless from the moment they leave home as they have no place to store a weapon. Further, despite emotional and irrational fears and predictions of carnage from those who oppose private ownership, possession, and use of firearms, Utah’s concealed weapon permit holders have proven to be among the most law-abiding members of our society. With six years of history and nearly 40,000 persons with current permits to carry a firearm, verified acts (as opposed to unverified, unreported, urban myths) of criminal violence or even negligence on the part of permit holders can literally be counted on the fingers of your own hands. Statistically speaking a concealed weapon permit holder is far less likely to commit an act of criminal violence than is a person without such a permit. And, as surprising as it may sound, nationwide data strongly indicate that a concealed weapons permit holder is even less likely than a sworn police officer to be involved in a questionable shooting. Finally, while we completely reject any notion that fears, prejudices, phobias, or bigotry on the part of some employees are justification for denying basic human rights to other employees, even these are not a real issue in this case. The entire idea behind carrying a concealed weapon is that it is concealed. No employee, no matter how bigoted or phobic is going to have to work next to someone knowing that person is carrying a weapon. As a matter of security, prudence, and common courtesy the vast majority of those with permits to carry concealed weapons do so in a highly discreet manner. Again, six years of history and 40,000 permit holders have shown that lawfully carried concealed weapons do not create any problems or disturbances whatsoever in the workplace. There are immeasurable differences between an employee legally carrying a concealed weapon in the workplace for legitimate self-defense and a criminal using a weapon illegally and immorally. GOUtah urges you to keep those differences firmly in mind as you listen to those who would deny their co-workers or subordinates the right to self-defense. We look forward to a complete repeal of all employment rules, including restrictions on legally permitted concealed weapons, that violate, in either letter or spirit, the statutes of the State of Utah. Please forward to us, at the above address, a copy of all rules on the subject of weapons as soon as any new rules become effective. Sincerely Charles Hardy Policy Director, Gun Owners of Utah ________________________________________________________________ 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/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:29:18 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: In house counsel issue makes Rolly & Wells The following is from today's SLTrib. Asside from being another case of State agencies disobeying State laws, in-house counsel has been a sore spot for our gun rights. Our AG has issued a clear opinion on various gun bans. But State agencies with in-house counsel (most notably the UofU) simply ask their in house counsel for another opinion and then hide behind that opinion rather than complying with the opinion of the duely elected AG. Please let your legislators know you want this issued resolved and the way to do that is to enforce existing laws. The AG's office is the largest law firm in the State of Utah. The head of that office is, rightfully, elected by and accountable to, you, the voters. For individual State agencies to hire their own lawyers not only wastes money, but it subverts our representative government. Charles ===================== http://www.sltrib.com/12212001/utah/160485.htm ROLLY & WELLS: State Lawyers Overlooked a Crucial Rule Friday, December 21, 2001 BY PAUL ROLLY and JOANN JACOBSEN-WELLS Twenty-four attorneys acting as in-house lawyers for state agencies are doing so illegally. A legal opinion signed by Legislative General Counsel Gay Taylor and Associate General Counsel John Fellows this week concludes that 24 of 36 state agency attorneys were hired illegally because state law requires those agencies to be represented by the Utah attorney general. The other 12 either work for agencies that have specific statutory permission to hire their own counsel or their functions do not strictly fit the definition of legal adviser. The in-house legal counsels are paid out of the individual agency's budgets and the practice has occurred for years, but first-term Attorney General Mark Shurtleff raised the issue after he took office in January and a legal opinion was sought. Shurtleff says in order to keep government running smoothly, he will make the employees in question "special assistant attorneys general" for a few months until the problem can be remedied legislatively. That means either changing the law to allow for independent in-house lawyers or make them attorney general employees. ________________________________________________________________ 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/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:36:20 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: FW: RLC News & Views - December 21, 2001 A couple of items of interest on guns... Charles - --------- Forwarded message ---------- ******************************** Gun-Grabber Back Up to Old Tricks "Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants the Department of Justice to keep personal data on law-abiding gun buyers from the National Instant Check System (NICS), and to offer the information for unlimited use by state and local agencies. National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called the move 'gun owner registration, plain and simple.' "Making good on a promise he made during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing December 6, Schumer introduced the 'Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act' (S. 1788) after Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to allow the FBI access to NICS records of lawful gun purchases. Schumer introduced the bill one day after Ashcroft explained that he was merely obeying the law Congress had passed." - - CNSNews.com, 12/17/01 *********************************** Gun Hysteria Still Running Rampant "Steve Decker, a social-studies teacher at Kansas' Wellsville High School, has been suspended without pay for 60 days. His crime? He had a disassembled hunting rifle, in a case, under the seat of his locked pickup truck, which was parked in the school parking lot. 'A search dog hired by the school nosed down' the gun, the Lawrence Journal-World reports, and Decker was suspended under a Kansas law prohibiting firearms on school property. - - OpinionJournal.com, 12/19/01 ________________________________________________________________ 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/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:53:57 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: SLTrib correction 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_5df3.2466.6b4e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For any who saw the SLTrib article the mis-identified me as the spokesman for USSC and missed the subsequent correction, here it is from Friday's SLTrib. (I also continue to assist Janalee with her wagc email list.) Charles http://www.sltrib.com/2002/jan/01042002/utah/164371.htm Corrections & Clarifications Friday, January 4, 2002 Charles Hardy is spokesman and policy director for the Gun Owners of Utah. A Salt Lake Tribune story Dec. 26 incorrectly identified his affiliation. - ----__JNP_000_5df3.2466.6b4e Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For any who saw the SLTrib article the mis-identified me as the = spokesman=20 for USSC and missed the subsequent correction, here it is from Friday's=20 SLTrib.
 
(I also continue to assist Janalee with her wagc email list.)
 
Charles
 
http://www= .sltrib.com/2002/jan/01042002/utah/164371.htm
 
Corrections &=20 Clarifications
 Friday<= /B>,=20 January 4, 2002
 


    Charles Hardy is=20 spokesman and policy director for the Gun Owners of Utah. A Salt Lake= =20 Tribune story Dec. 26 incorrectly identified his affiliation.=20

- ----__JNP_000_5df3.2466.6b4e-- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:37:02 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: SLTrib editorial against gun control ?!?!? From today's sltrib. Never surrender, never compromise. We've got the antis on the run and this is the time to work even harder to regain our lost rights. charles Opportunism in Action Salt Lake Tribune January 1, 2002 http://www.sltrib.com/01082002/opinion/opinion.htm A few members of Congress have been using last year's terrorist attacks to justify another push for tough gun laws. Fear makes fertile ground for any law that promises greater security, but this effort is a stretch. Everyone knows that the only weapons used in the Sept. 11 hijackings were box cutters. A more legitimate link between firearms, 9/11 and citizens' safety can be found today in London, where armed robberies are up more than 100 percent. Cops have been pulled from the streets to guard sites that might be vulnerable to terrorists, and gun-wielding thugs have filled the void. Britain's rash of robberies -- more than 19,000 between September and November -- is an acceleration of a violent four-year trend. Firearms assaults were up 53 percent last year, and every category of violent crime, from simple mugging to rape, has been rising in steady leaps. Brazen British burglars now strike when residents are home about half the time. Those in favor of more gun restrictions might be interested in Jamaica, where firearms have turned Britain's former colony into one of the most violent places on Earth. About one of every 2,000 Jamaicans was a victim of homicide last year, an increase of 28 percent. Last week, about 30 armed thugs opened fire on a Kingston neighborhood and killed seven people, including two young sisters. The troubles in Britain and Jamaica might make a strong argument for tougher gun laws except for one inconvenient detail: The existing laws can't get much tougher. Britain outlawed handguns four years ago, the start of its current explosion in violent crime, while Jamaica's firearms restrictions fall just short of a total ban. The law-abiding citizens of both nations are disarmed and armed criminals are out of control. Is there a connection? That question is worth debating, but it seems far more plausible than the link some lawmakers are attempting to forge between America's gun rights and the terrorism of Sept. 11. ________________________________________________________________ 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/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:41:33 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Hansen retiring From today's DesNews: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,360007005,00.html? Hansen bowing out after 22 years on Hill By Lee Davidson Deseret News Washington correspondent WASHINGTON — Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, made the surprise announcement Tuesday that he will not seek re-election this year, ending his congressional career after 22 years. Jim Hansen It comes as Hansen, 69, achieved a pinnacle of power during his now-final term, serving as chairman of the full House Resources Committee. He is the only House member from Utah to ever chair a full committee. "After a lot of thought, I feel it is time to move on, and I will not stand for election in 2002," Hansen said in a written statement. He announced his decision by faxing a press release to the news media, after calling other leaders in the morning. Hansen's decision, of course, will lead to a wide-open battle to succeed him in the 1st House District, which he has represented since 1980 when he defeated Rep. Gunn McKay, D-Utah. In a telephone interview, Hansen said a desire to spend more time with his family was his main reason to retire, but he also has had some minor health problems recently and was unhappy with the Legislature's redrawing of his district's boundaries. "I will have served 22 years at the end of this term. I will be 70 in August. I would like to do some things with my family and grandkids. My wife has been supportive and long-suffering, and I'd like to give her more attention. I feel there should be life after Congress," he said. [...] - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:30:51 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Blather from the DesNews If anyone is in the mood to write a letter to the editor, this editorial from the DesNews needs a response or 10. Their closing sentence is particularly appalling: The DesNews hopes the courts can determine "whether schools, colleges and other agencies are strictly bound by Utah's concealed weapons law." Gee, are any of us allowed to be anything other than "strictly bound" by all of the thousands of laws on the books? And why should Utah taxpayers have to foot both sides of a lawsuit? Just to give the egomaniacs at the U one more chance to disobey a law that was passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and has now been given identical interpretations by both the State AG and the Legislatures' own counsel? It is time to impose some serious penalties in the finacial arena on the U and her sister institutions who incist on flaunting the law. Letters to the Deseret News editor can be emailed to letters@desnews.com. Letters must include a full name, address and telephone number. However, only name and city/State will be published. Charles http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,365008295,00.html? Litigate concealed weapons law Deseret News editorial University of Utah President J. Bernard Machen makes a good point. If respective Utah officials and policymakers are ever to get to the bottom of the concealed weapons ban question, the matter needs to be litigated. What's more, Utah's attorney general agrees. While this issue appears headed for a "friendly lawsuit," it is regrettable that cooler heads couldn't have hammered out the issue at a conference table. While this page understands that Utah's law and state constitution are not identical to those in surrounding states, we can't help noticing that nearby Western states do not extend the concealed weapons permit privilege to schools or college campuses. For Machen, the gun issue is tied to academic freedom. He contends that the presence of firearms on a college campus would undermine a free exchange of ideas. We would further argue that college campuses are unique because they are gathering places of people with vastly divergent backgrounds and points of view. If Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is amenable to this challenge of Utah's concealed weapons law, which has very few exceptions, perhaps other affected public segments should join the litigation, among them public schools and agencies under the Department of Human Services. Public school districts and boards overseeing everything from mental health to foster care have created their own policies in this area, but it is not clear whether they could be enforced. The problem with legislating gun law is that common sense and scholarly investigation often take a backseat to political whim. Utah lawmakers relied heavily on the research of University of Chicago visiting scholar John Lott, which was published in the 1998 book "More Guns, Less Crime." What lawmakers didn't hear were the contrasting points of view of academics who have since dissected Lott's research, specifically, Daniel Webster of John Hopkins University and Jens Ludwig of Georgetown University. Webster and Ludwig, authors of "Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws," wrote "Errors aside, the fundamental problem with Lott's research can by summarized by the old social science adage 'correlation is not causation.' " We raise Lott's body of work not to impugn it. Even critics consider many of Lott's methodologies as relatively sophisticated and, in some respects, an improvement on previous evaluations of gun laws. Rather, it's an example that public policymaking too often is relegated to quieting the squeaky wheel rather than hearing all voices in a debate. While this page understands that the concealed weapon issue that would be decided in court is primarily a legal one, we are hopeful that in a setting removed from politics, the court can make a thoughtful and informed determination whether schools, colleges and other agencies are strictly bound by Utah's concealed weapons law. ________________________________________________________________ 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/. - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #222 ***********************************