From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #235 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 Monday, February 24 2003 Volume 02 : Number 235 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:47:29 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: HB 159 needs some help. Legislators are waffling on upholding the Paycheck Protection Act in the new form of HB 159! THIS BILL IS ALREADY ON THE BOARD! Legislators need to hear from you in mass! I hope you all know that Paycheck Protection (HB 179) is back in the form of HB 159 (Rep. Bennion). With every piece of controversial legislation we have to worry about the opposition suing and the court legislating from the bench. In order to reassert legislative intent the Legislature is about to vote on HB 159. THEY MAY VOTE ON THIS TOMORROW AND NOTHING SHORT OF A MASS GRASSROOTS EFFORT MAY STRENGTHEN THE SPINES OF THOSE WHO ARE FACING GREAT PRESSURE FROM THE UEA AND THE UPEA! On top of the very good principles involved, paycheck protection has some very pragmatic effects. The UEA is one of the single largest supporters of victim disarmement (aka "gun control") in the State. And both the UEA and UPEA are huge supporters of increased taxes, increased government power, etc. Please Act or we will lose the fight that cost us so much work and action last year. Thank You - ---------------- Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:57:49 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: 50banbarrett.htm One manufacturer has the guts to fight back. - ---------------------------------------------- This letter written by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing came my way from Dwight VanHorn, and ex-LEO (Sheriff Deputy) and colleague on NRA's Board. In his note that acompanied the link to this letter, Dwight rightly observes that this is the sort of thing manufacturers need to do to any law enforcement agency who does not support the individual's RKBA. Hopefully, this attitude will trickle down to distributors and retailers as well. I've always thought highly of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing. It seems my faith continues to be justified. Good on ya, Mr. Barrett! Well said! David Coy Adrian, MI Member - NRA Board of Directors - ----------------------------------------------- Barrett Firearms Letter of Opposition to L.A.'s proposed .50 cal Ban December 11, 2002 Via Facsimile (213) 847-0676 and U.S. Mail Chief William J. Bratton Los Angeles Police Department 150 North Los Angeles Street Re: LAPD 82A Rifle, Serial No. 1186 Point of Contact: Jim Moody 213 485 4061 Dear Chief Bratton, I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years I have built .50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation's armed forces. You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other "too powerful" rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States. The VPC's most recent efforts directs this misinformation campaign at your state, attempting to get any California body to pass any law against .50 caliber firearms. In March 2002 the VPC caused the California State Assembly, Public Safety Committee to consider and reject the issue by a 5 to 0 with 1 abstaining vote. Regrettably, the same material has been presented to your city council. I personally attended the council meeting in Los Angeles regarding attempts to bar ownership of the .50 caliber rifle in your city. I was allowed to briefly address the council. The tone of the discussion was mostly emotionally based, so the facts that I attempted to provide were ineffective to the extent they were heard at all. The council voted to have the city attorney draft an ordinance to ban the .50, and further, to instruct the city's representatives in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. to push for bans at their respective levels. At that council meeting, I was very surprised to see an LAPD officer seated front and center with a Barrett 82A1 .50 cal rifle. It was the centerpiece of the discussion. As you know, there have been no crimes committed with these rifles, and most importantly, current California law does not allow the sale of the M82AI in the state because of its detachable magazine and features that make it an "assault weapon." This rifle was being deceptively used by your department. The officer portrayed it as a sample of a currently available .50 cal rifle, available for sale to the civilians of Los Angeles. One councilman even questioned how this rifle was available under current laws, but as I stated, facts were ineffective that day. Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition. Then he used the rifle for photo ops with the Councilmen each of whom, in handling the firearm, may have been committing a felony. I was amazed. Since 1968, with the closing of the U.S. Springfield Amory, all of the small arms produced for the various government agencies are from the private sector. Every handgun, rifle or shotgun that law enforcement needs comes from this firearms industry. Unless the City of Los Angeles has plans of setting up its own firearms manufacturing, it may need to guard the manufacturing sources it has now. When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation. Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of LA taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership. Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms. I implore you to investigate the facts of the .50, to consider the liberties of the law-abiding people and our mutual coexistence, and to change your department's position on this issue. Sincerely, BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC. Ronnie Barrett President mailto:mail@barrettrifles.com Web Site: http://www.barrettrifles.com/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:22:57 GMT From: utbagpiper@juno.com Subject: A couple of pro-gun lectures at USU Any who live near USU may want to attend these if possible. From the latest USU "Statesman" newspaper's LTE section. Charles LETTER: Let gun opinions come out Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News recently printed articles attacking Sen. Mike Waddoups' bill that would clarify current law allowing concealed weapon permit holders to carry on public schools. I don't mind that these articles were biased in their views, my problem is that both newspapers censored out several articles and opinions that were sent in expressing support for Sen. Waddoups. As a result, Utahns are only getting half the story, told in an emotional way without all the facts. These papers prefer the legislators to "write a law clarifying that holders of concealed-carry permits are forbidden to bring guns into schools." They ignore the fact that CC permit holders committing any kind of gun crime is almost unheard of, and that firearms are used to protect life and property more often than criminals use them to break the law. What these newspapers prefer is for mothers who pick their children up from school to make a choice of breaking the law by being prepared to protect her family and self, or conform with the law and be a submissive victim. The Students of the Second Amendment will be hosting Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff to discuss concealed carry bans by universities on Feb. 20 at 3 p.m. in the Taggart Student Center Auditorium. The following week, the club will host Mitch Vilos who will be teaching a class on concealed carry permits. Don't rely on our managed news propaganda, but seek out the other side also. Craig Huntzinger ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:51:59 GMT From: utbagpiper@juno.com Subject: FW: Gun Owners Might Benefit from Supremes' ruling in copyright case The law can sometimes be a very funny creature. This might be of interest. - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200302\POL200302 07b.html Gun Owners Might Benefit from Supreme Court's Copyright Ruling By Robert B. Bluey CNSNews.com Staff Writer February 07, 2003 (CNSNews.com) - When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a copyright law last month, the decision had little to do with gun owners. But the ruling sent a signal to Second Amendment supporters, who say they now have another means with which to defend the individual right to bear arms. The court's 7-2 ruling on Jan. 15 in Eldred v. Ashcroft dealt with the copyright and patent clause of the Constitution and whether Congress had the right to arbitrarily extend copyrights, like it did in 1998 with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. While nothing in the language of the Eldred ruling had to do with the Second Amendment, Columbia Law School professor Michael C. Dorf noted that only two constitutional provisions use prefatory or introductory language to explain their purpose: the copyright clause and the Second Amendment. When the copyright case was argued, Dorf said, those who challenged the 1998 law relied heavily on its prefatory clause - "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." The Second Amendment's prefatory language refers to a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." Gun-control groups have argued that the language implies a collective right to bear arms, rather than an individual right. Dorf, in a column published on FindLaw this week, said the copyright case suggests that the Supreme Court does not take the prefatory language as seriously as the main clause of the provision. Using that logic, the Second Amendment would guarantee, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "It indicates that seven members of the court recognize that just because a prefatory clause exists, doesn't necessarily mean it drives the overall thrust of whatever issue is being addressed," said Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. George Mason University law professor Nelson Lund, an ardent Second Amendment supporter, mostly agreed with Dorf's comparison of the two clauses. Lund, however, said there are differences in grammar between the two. Even without the Eldred decision, Lund said the Second Amendment's main clause giving an individual the right to bear arms would have held up in court. "Whichever way the court had gone in Eldred, it would still be the case that the Second Amendment right of the people is not qualified by the militia rights," he said. "The way they came out in Eldred would make it really far-fetched for them to say the operative clause is somehow qualified by the introductory phrase." The Supreme Court has not ruled on the guarantees of the Second Amendment since 1939 in United States v. Miller. Even though no case is currently before the justices, there has been a mix of lower court decisions on the issue, including Silveira v. Lockyer in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States v. Emerson in the Fifth Circuit. Independence Institute research director David Kopel, who has written extensively on gun rights, said courts have almost always recognized the individual right to bear arms since the Bill of Rights was adopted. "If properly read, the militia clause doesn't restrict the Second Amendment," Kopel said. "It tells you its purpose, but it recognizes a right that belongs to the people, not the militia and not the state government. You can fully enforce the opening clause of the Second Amendment and still have a very vigorous individual right." If the Eldred case does anything for gun owners, Lund said it gives them another argument to make in court or it might sway a justice who is on the fence. Dorf, who said he is open to both the collective or individual right interpretation, said his comparison of the copyright clause and Second Amendment might never have an impact on gun rights. He saw a parallel between the two, though, and thought there was an interesting connection. "Before Eldred, individualists and collectivists alike had assumed that any satisfying account of the Second Amendment must explain the relation between the preface and the remainder of the Amendment," he wrote in the column. "After Eldred, however, it is possible that this is no longer true. If so, the individualists may well prevail." - -- **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml] LPUTAH LPUTAH -- unsubscribe: LPUtah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com LPUTAH -- support: elwell@xmission.com LPUTAH -- forum page: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/LPUtah LPUTAH -- LPUtah page: www.lputah.org LPUTAH Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:53:38 GMT From: utbagpiper@juno.com Subject: Info on Judge Nehring All, Yesterday, the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee interviewed both nominees for the Utah Supreme Court, including judge Nehring. Both candidates talked a good talk and claimed to oppose judicial activism. However, both also cited "ethical guidelines" in refusing to discuss anything meaningful about the right to own and carry self defense. These past two articles remind us that Judge Nehring will say one thing and then do another. In the DesNews article, he makes clear he is opposed to gun lockers, but seems to say he'll follow the will of the people as expressed via the legislature, "...God bless them." However, as reported in the second, he voted as a member of the State Judicial council to support Judge McIff in his CLEARLY illegal ban on both guns and lockers. PLEASE remember that all of this happened BEFORE the judges found the "loophole" in the law they claim allows them to ban guns via fiat (rather than via declaring a legally secure area), while still not providing lockers. At the time of these articles, the judges--with Nehring as one of their leaders--were simply declaring themselves above the will of the legislature. So far, the legislature has done nothing on this issue to support our rights to bear arms as we travel to and from court. They should reject Nehring's nomnation as he clearly is willing to ignore the rule of law. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,385006999,00.html? http://www.sltrib.com/2002/may/05212002/utah/738687.htm If possible, when communicating with your senators, stress "activist judge pushing his own views instead of interperting the law," rather than "gun lockers". If anyone knows of some additional incidents to cite beyond the gun lockers that backs up this point, please let me know. "Utah deserves better!" than a activist judge who isn't even honest enough to admit he is an activist. Anyone can talk the talk for an hour. We've seen the walk he walks. Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:51:00 -0700 (MST) From: Subject: Canada What? What's that again? "Amanda Sousa, a self-styled 'pacifist' from Canada, was shocked and appalled when her seven-year-old daughter brought home her spelling assignment. One of the words on the list was gun. No, we're not making this up; it's in the Ottawa Citizen: "'I realize people hunt in this area, but I still don't think that warrants the teaching of this word to my daughter or any other child,' said Mrs. Sousa. . . . Mrs. Sousa wrote a letter to her daughter's teacher describing her views on the word gun, her unease with any child learning to spell the word, a few alternatives, and the wish to speak to the teacher about its inclusion on the list. "'The word gun is synonymous with death. I'm racking my brain trying to figure out why a seven-year-old would need to learn this word,' said Mrs. Sousa. . . . 'I don't think this is an issue of political correctness. It's an issue of protecting your child from violence. Guns are violent. End of story,' said Mrs. Sousa.' "The Upper Canada School Board actually gave in to Sousa's demand and banned the word. Occasionally we hear from Canadian readers upset that we make fun of their country. But how can we help it when Canadians so often play to type?" - - From James Taranto's "Best of the Web," 2/11/03 - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:06:36 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Fw: [goutah] GOUtah! Alert #155 If you care about gun rights in Utah, please take the time to contact the Senate confirmation committee members listed below to oppose the confirmation of Judge Nehring to the Utah Supreme Court. If appointed, not only will this proven activist judge have a lifetime to directly make gun policy in this State, but it sends a terrible message to other judges. It says, loud and clear, "Go ahead and ignore the clear letter of the law and the indisputable intent of the legislature. In fact, just make it up as you go along. There will be NO consequences and if you catch the governor's eye and he nominates you to the SC, we'll go ahead and rubber-stamp your nomination as usual." EVERY year there are bad gun bills and good gun bills and gun bills that are neither good nor bad. And a loss this year on any given bill can be retried next year. But a State Supreme Court Justice sits for ever. Short of him being stupid enough to get caught with illegal drugs, there will be no chance to refight this battle next year or even next month. Act today. - ---------------- Charles Hardy - --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "GOUtah!" To: "GOUtah! e-mail list" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:47:19 -0700 Subject: [goutah] GOUtah! Alert #155 Message-ID: <004901c2d3c2$a1968e70$1849bb3f@valen> GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. GOUtah! Web Site: http://www.goutahorg.org To subscribe to or unsubscribe from GOUtah!'s free e-mail Alerts, send a blank e-mail message to one of the following addresses: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 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 #155 - 13 February 2003 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the harms it would cause if improperly administered." - -- Lyndon B. Johnson In this Alert: Anti-gun judge nominated to Utah Supreme Court. Anti-gun bill defeated! GUN-LOCKER CULPRIT NOMINATED TO UTAH SUPREME COURT The Utah State Senate is considering whether to confirm Gov. Leavitt's two nominees to the Utah Supreme Court. One of these nominees is Judge Ronald Nehring, currently the presiding judge of Utah's Third Judicial District. As we mentioned in Alert #143 a couple of months ago, Judge Nehring was a ringleader of the effort last spring to get Utah's courts to disobey state law. State law says that a court that wishes to ban firearms in the courtroom must install weapons-storage lockers outside the courtroom. State law also says that the only state entity that can regulate the possession and carrying of firearms is the State Legislature. State courts therefore have no authority to enact their own gun rules. Nehring refused to install lockers outside the security perimeter of his courthouse. According to state law, this means that concealed-weapons permits remain valid inside the courtroom. However, Nehring proceeded to enact his own ban on firearms in the court via judicial fiat. Concealed-weapon permit-holders are therefore not allowed to bring their legally-carried self-defense weapons into his courtroom. Not only did Nehring implement this illegal policy in his own court, but he issued a statement urging other Utah District Court judges to do the same. Nehring did all this before the Utah Judicial Council voted to expand this illegal policy to all state courts. Before Judge Nehring can be confirmed or rejected by the full Senate, he must first receive a vote of recommendation from the Senate Confirmation Committee, which meets again next Tuesday (Feb. 18). Please contact members of the committee before then (except Patrice Arent, unless you live in her district) and ask them to oppose the nomination of Judge Nehring. Contact information for the committee is given below, and a pre-written letter is provided at the end of this alert. Please be very brief and polite when contacting senators. Faxes, phone calls, and letters are best. If you use regular mail, please post it ASAP so that your letter will get there by Monday morning. If you send e-mail, put something like "Please oppose Judge Nehring" in the subject line of your message. Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee: Chris Buttars, Chairman (R - 10) 801-561-0535 dcbuttars@utahsenate.org Gregory S. Bell (R - 22) 801-971-2001 gbell@utahsenate.org Patrice Arent (D - 4) 801-272-1956 parent@utahsenate.org Mike Dmitrich (D - 27) 435-637-0426 mdmitrich@utahsenate.org David Gladwell (R - 19) 801-782-4130 dgladwell@utahsenate.org Mike Waddoups (R - 6) 801-967-0225 mwaddoups@utahsenate.org Utah State Senate 319 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Senate Phone Number (for all Senators): (801) 538-1035 Senate Fax (for Republican Senators): (801)538-1414 Senate Fax (for Democratic Senators): (801)538-1449 ANTI-GUN SB 38 DEFEATED This past Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee tabled Sen. Paula Julander's gun storage bill by a vote of 5-1, with two absent. This essentially kills the bill for the rest of this legislative session. The only committee member who voted in favor of the bill was Sen. Patrice Arent (D - 4). Sens. Dmitrich and Mansell were absent at the time of the vote. The bill would have made it a crime to store a loaded gun in your home, with certain exceptions. One exception granted by the bill is if you store your loaded gun with a trigger lock on it, in which case it would be legal. Putting a trigger lock on a loaded gun is extremely dangerous. If this is really a gun safety bill, why does it encourage people to do something as dangerous as this? Thanks to those of you who contacted committee members! ______________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #155 - 13 February 2003. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW - ----------------- Cut Here ----------------------- Date: From: To: Dear Senator ____________________: Because you are a member of the Senate committee charged with evaluating the fitness of Judge Ronald Nehring to serve on the Utah Supreme Court, I urge you to consider my opinion that Judge Nehring flouted the rule of law and thumbed his nose at the State Legislature last year. The Utah Code invests the State Legislature with exclusive authority to regulate the possession and carrying of firearms. The Legislature has passed laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms by private citizens in courtrooms, but only if certain requirements are met by the court. One of these requirements is that lockers be provided outside the security perimeter of the courthouse to facilitate the safe storage of legally-carried self-defense weapons. Please refer to U.C.A. 76-10-501, U.C.A. 76-10-500, U.C.A. 78-7-6, and U.C.A. 76-8-311.1. Last May, Judge Nehring (who at the time was the presiding judge of Utah's Third Judicial District) refused to allow gun-storage lockers to be installed outside his courtroom, then implemented - by judicial fiat -- a ban on self-defense weapons in his court. He openly encouraged other district court judges in Utah to do the same. This was documented extensively by the local media (see, for example, The Deseret News, May 21 and May 10, 2002, page A1). Judge Nehring's actions occurred before the Utah Judicial Council voted to make this illegal policy official in all state courts. Thus, Judge Nehring was a willing instigator, and cannot use the excuse that he was "only following orders". The American judicial system is supposed to be founded on the rule of law. Any judge who willfully ignores or violates state law ought not to serve as a Justice on the Utah Supreme Court. Thanks for taking the time to consider my opinion on this matter. Sincerely, - ----------------------- Cut Here ------------------------ To Subscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:54:45 -0700 From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: I'll be at the gunshow Saturday only Your friendly list sponsor will be at the Sandy Gun Show on Saturday only (2/15/03). I don't do shows on Sunday. Stop by the eguns.com tables and say HI thanks Chad - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:43:25 GMT From: utbagpiper@juno.com Subject: SB 103 passes house Sen. Curt Bramble's SB 103 which removes the unenforcable, unneeded 60 day limit on out-of-State CCW permits has passed the house on a 48-19 vote with 8 absent or not voting. It will now go to the governor. Barring his veto (always possible with any good bill) this bill will become law a couple months from now. My thanks to Sen. Bramble for sponsoring this bill. My thanks to all those who called or otherwise voiced their support. Charles YEAS - 48 Aagard Christensen Hardy Murray Adams Clark, D. Harper Newbold Alexander Clark, S. Hogue Noel Allen, S. Cox, D. Holdaway Parker Anderson Curtis Hughes Philpot Barrus Dee Johnson, B. Seitz Bird Dillree King Snow, G. Bowman Donnelson Kiser Styler Bryson Duckworth Last Thompson Bush Dunnigan Love Urquhart Buttars Ferrin Mascaro Wallace Buxton Ferry Morley Winn NAYS - 19 Biskupski Goodfellow Jones Morgan Bourdeaux Gowans Lawrence Pace Buffmire Hansen Litvack Shurtliff Daniels Hendrickson McCartney Ure Dougall Hutchings, E. McGee ABSENT OR NOT VOTING - 8 Becker Bigelow Lockhart Peterson Bennion Dayton Moss Stephens, M. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:48:44 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Oppose SB 251 in committee on Friday 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_68f6.3953.69cb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SB 251, which will expand the prohibitions on shooting near a home or other structure to include VERY broad and vague language about shooting in the direction of a structure is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Judiciary committee THIS Friday, February 21, at 8:00 am in Room 414 of the State capital. Please be sure to contact committee members to oppose this bill. This is important. At first read the bill appears innocuous enough and "common sense." However, the language is so broad and vague as to allow easy abuse along with completely criminalizing the rare and unfortunate freak accident. Committee members are below. Phone messages can be left by calling the Senate at 538-1035. Email addresses are available at www.goutahorg.org. Sen. Gregory S. Bell, Chair Sen. Patrice M. Arent Sen. D. Chris Buttars Sen. Mike Dmitrich Sen. James M. Evans Sen. David L. Gladwell Sen. Lyle W. Hillyard Sen. L. Alma Mansell - ---------------- Charles Hardy - ----__JNP_000_68f6.3953.69cb Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
SB 251, which will expand the prohibitions on shooting near a home or = other=20 structure to include VERY broad and vague language about shooting in the=20 direction of a structure is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Judiciary=20 committee THIS Friday, February 21, at 8:00 am in Room 414 of the State=20 capital.  Please be sure to contact committee members to oppose this=20 bill. 
 
This is important.  At first read the bill appears innocuous = enough=20 and "common sense."  However, the language is so broad and vague as to= =20 allow easy abuse along with completely criminalizing the rare and = unfortunate=20 freak accident.
 
Committee members are below.  Phone messages can be left by = calling=20 the Senate at 538-1035.  Email addresses are available at www.goutahorg.org.
 
Sen. Gregory S. Bell, Chair

Sen. Patrice M. Arent

Sen. D. Chris Buttars

Sen. Mike Dmitrich

Sen. James M. Evans

Sen. David L. Gladwell

Sen. Lyle W. Hillyard

Sen. L. Alma Mansell
----------------
Charles=20 Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>

- ----__JNP_000_68f6.3953.69cb-- ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:47:11 GMT From: utbagpiper@juno.com Subject: SLTrib seeks more reader input The following story is in today's SLTrib. It may be a waste of time. Or it may be a chance for freedom-loving, RKBA supporting individuals to provide a little diversity to the otherwise gun hating, big government loving group-think that seems to pervade newsrooms these days. For those interested in joining, the email address is . Charles http://www.sltrib.com/readerpanel/ The Tribune Wants to Hear From You As towns and cities in Utah get larger, representing an entire community can be a daunting task for a newspaper. We at the Web edition of The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah Online, are stepping up our efforts to improve communication with you, our growing online community. Join The Panel: You can join the Tribune Reader Panel by emailing us here. Our hope is to compile a list of thoughtful readers willing to share their ideas, opinions and thoughts with us and with the community. The Salt Lake Tribune is one of 27 newspapers chosen from around the country to join in an effort to forge new methods of communication between the newspaper and its readers. This project, sponsored by the Associated Press Managing Editors organization, is another step toward accomplishing that goal. Ken Sands, Online Editor for the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington, and the coordinator of the APME Reader Interactive program has created a contact list of readers. The readers who volunteer are asked to provide feedback regularly on issues via email. The Spokane newspaper has seen impressive results in the quality of feedback they receive. We plan to emulate this successful program. How does it work? To use a real-life example, The Spokesman-Review contacted readers on their list after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Of the 500 people they contacted, about 70 provided good leads or possible interviews future stories. Another newspaper participating in the program had solicited responses before the State of the Union address and posted reader feedback on online only thirty minutes after the president finished. We have no desire to make this burdensome on you, the reader. We plan on contacting participants no more than once every two weeks. We also do not provide email addresses on our list to anyone else. If you are interested in joining The Tribune's reader panel or if you have more questions, please send email to readerpanel@sltrib.com. We look forward to hearing from you. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:51:24 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: SB 251, Banning shooting in ANY direction passes out of Senate Committ ee Sen. Bev Evans' SB 251 which is worded so broadly and vaugely as to make possible the prohibition on discharging a firearm for hunting or recreation almost anywhere in the State passed out of the Senate Judiciary committee this morning. It will now go to the floor of the Senate. Please contact your State Senator and ask him to oppose SB 251. Charles Hardy ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:42:05 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: OFF-topic perhaps: SB 125, Riding in a pickup bed to be heard Tuesday morning in House Transportation Committee SB 125 that would micro-manage one more aspect of our lives by banning everyone under the age of 18 from riding in the bed of a pickup (except for parades and agricultural uses) has been released from the House rules committee and is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, Tuesday, mornning at 8:00 am in the House Transportation committee. Please contact committee members and ask them to oppose this bill. If possible, please attend the hearing and speak against this bill. This bill is simply not needed. It is a bad idea. Even if one were to concede it is needed, which I don't, it is also a grossly stupid implementation. It makes no distinction between a busy interstate freeway and a quiet country lane. If you're on a public road, no one under 18 can ride in the back of the truck. I also find it intriguing that a 16 year old can get a license to ride a motorcycle and is then perfectly free to ride from here to St. George and back. However, that same 16 year old is, under the presumptions of this bill, too immature to decide whether or when it might be appropriate to ride in the bed of a pickup? Similarly, a father can choose to take his 7 or 8 year old for a ride on his motorcycle, but under this bill is too stupid and irresponsible to decide when it might be ok to hold his child on his lap as they ride a couple miles in a pickup bed. As a long time motorcycle rider, I am convinced that riding a motorcycle--as either a passenger or operator, there is no real difference--is far more dangerous than riding in the bed of a pickup. This bill will almost certainly be supported by talking about "children." But the bill was sponsored because the Boy Scouts (a group I support in most things) are having trouble enforcing their internal policy against anyone riding in the bed of a pickup while on a scout activity. Thus, this bill is NOT aimed at correcting some widespread problem of people making their 4 or 5 year olds ride in the bed of pickup. Rather, it is targeted at 12-17 year old adolecents and young adults and removes all discretion for parents to decide under what conditions such activities might be appropriate. Please oppose this bill. Charles Hardy Members of the House Transportation Committee are below and messages for several representatives can be left at once by calling the House switchboard at 538-1029, faxes can be sent to 538-1908: Rep. Joseph G. Murray, Chair Rep. Bradley A. Winn, Vice Chair Rep. Jeff Alexander Rep. Calvin G. Bird Rep. Don E. Bush Rep. David Clark Rep. John B. Dougall Rep. James A. Dunnigan Rep. Brad King Rep. Todd E. Kiser Rep. Rebecca D. Lockhart Rep. Ty McCartney Rep. Karen W. Morgan ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #235 ***********************************