From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #238 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, April 28 2003 Volume 02 : Number 238 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:01:15 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Anti-gun Editorial in today's SLTribune On 3 Apr 2003 15:47:12 GMT Charles Hardy provided from the SLTrib: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04032003/opinion/44351.asp Invitation to Mayhem ... the Bureau of Criminal Identification reported last year that not all Utah concealed-carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens. Four people in the past eight years had their permits revoked for committing murder, at least two using the guns they were carrying legally. - ----- Is this correct? The Vermont carry law prohibits carrying a firearm for an illegal purpose. Seems to me murder would certainly qualify. If Utah's carry law differs on this, it is in serious need of reform. ___SLTrib___ Apologists pointed out that the overall crime rate among permit holders was lower than in the general population, but that is small consolation when these people are the only private citizens with carte blanche to carry guns in schools. - ----- They make the case for Vermont carry. Why does the State of Utah establish a privileged class with an exclusive privilege of self-defense? And why should the state be running youth indoctrination camps anyhow? Shalom, Scott - --- "The Second Amendment *IS* my gun permit!" - Sandi Webb - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:33:02 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Latest updates on on-line gun polls For any who are keeping score, below are the final, or current results of three local on-line (and thus inherently unscientific) gun polls. The first results are the final results from the Standard Examiner's poll last week. Next are the final results from the UofU's student paper's poll from last week. Finally, are the current results from the UofU's alumni on-line newsletter's poll. Interestingly, it seems the U's alums are far more rational on this topic than here students. Either the education at the U is doing some good, or else the power of entering the real world and paying taxes for programs--rather than being in school and being the recipient of taxpayer funded programs--is even more powerful in shaping views than we might have thought. ;) Charles Standard.net Recently, Gov. Mike Leavitt signed Senate Bill 108, which will allow concealed weapon holders to bring guns onto public school campuses. Do you agree with his decision? Yes: 82.0 percent No: 17.2 percent Unsure: 0.8 percent 605 total votes UtahChronicle.com Should the U continue its fight to keep guns off campus? Yes. The U must do all it can. (56%; 128 votes) No. It's a pointless battle. The U should give up. (38%; 87 votes) No. Even though it's good to keep guns off campus, the U can't succeed. (7%; 15 votes) U's alumni newsletter (still active after being reset after the first couple of days due to alledged "spamming and distorting" of the results): http://sh2.alumni.utah.edu/poll/poll.php Which best reflects your feelings about permit holders bringing concealed weapons on campus: Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. 63.1% Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because they would act as a deterrent to criminal behavior. 20.4% Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because the dangers outweigh the benefits and they would not deter criminal behavior. 15.2% Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because they would deter free speech and academic freedom. 1.2% Total votes: 578 ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:37:37 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw:SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL ALERT! - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- RECKLESS LAWSUIT PREEMPTION SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY VOTE! H. R. 1036, the NRA-backed reckless lawsuit preemption legislation, has been scheduled for a vote this Wednesday, April 9 by the full U. S. House of Representatives. This critical reform seeks to put an end to the efforts of anti-gun extremists to drive law-abiding gun manufacturers into bankruptcy with their tactic of filing endless predatory lawsuits that have no merit. H. R 1036 currently has 251 cosponsors, more than a majority of U. S. Representatives, so the chance of it passing is strong. However, we can expect anti-gun lawmakers to do everything possible to derail this legislation, including offering amendments that would attempt to weaken or gut this measure. Please be sure to call your U. S. Representative TODAY and urge him to support H. R. 1036 in its current form, and to oppose any amendments that would weaken or gut this critical legislative reform. If you need contact information for your U. S. Representative, please use our "Write Your Representatives" tool. Honorable Jim Matheson (2nd Dist.- Salt Lake area) 410 Cannon House Office Building Washington D. C. 20515 (202) 225-3011; (801) 524-4394 Fax: (202) 225-5638; (801) 524-5994 e-mail- (none) Honorable Chris Cannon (3rd Dist.- Southern Utah) 118 Cannon House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20515 (202)225-7751, or (801)379-2500 Fax (202) 225-5629 e-mail: cannon.ut03@mail.house.gov Honorable Rob Bishop (1st Dist.- Northern Utah) 124 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 ( 202) 225-0453 or (801) 625-0107 Fax (202) 225-5857 Remember to contact your U. S. Representative TODAY! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be removed from this mailing list click on the link below http://www.ugca.org/cgi-bin/plistussc/mwmail.cgi?utbagpiper@juno.com ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 11:24:36 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Surprise - Bush backs renewing AW Ban? (LONG) Probably a "surprise" only to Knight Ridder Newspapers. Scott In surprise move, Bush backs renewing ban on assault weapons By Shannon McCaffrey Knight Ridder Newspapers Posted on Fri, Apr. 11, 2003 WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault-weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder. Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority for the NRA. President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension. The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life after several years of near hibernation. Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda. This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits. The assault-weapons ban is considered a crown jewel by the gun-control movement, and even though its expiration is more than a year away it is already being watched closely. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who like Bush is a staunch gun-rights supporter, muddied the waters in a recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee when he refused to say whether the administration supports an extension. Ashcroft cited a 1999 Justice Department report that said the ban's impact on deadly gun violence is unclear. Ashcroft has been pushing a pro-gun rights agenda at the Justice Department, seeking to have federal background checks on gun sales destroyed after 24 hours and embracing an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment's guarantee of gun ownership rights. The White House comment surprised those on both sides of the gun issue. "That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who leads the conservative pro-Bush group Americans for Tax Reform. Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said it "creates a huge problem for Bush with the NRA." "The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for them," he said. Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety applauded Bush's stance but urged the president to use his political clout to push for Congress to act. If Congress does nothing, the ban could just expire. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was somewhat irrelevant. "Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress," LaPierre said. If it is, the NRA has reason to be optimistic. This week's action on the immunity legislation for dealers and gun makers reflects the interest of Republicans to resurrect the pro-gun rights agenda. Congress had been poised to act on the bill last fall, but the deadly sniper attacks in the Washington area prompted a delay. The measure has enough co-sponsors in the Senate to pass that chamber unless Democrats dig in their heels and filibuster. Supporters of the immunity bill say it shields gun makers from bankruptcy because of frivolous lawsuits that became popular during the Clinton administration. Lawsuits filed by cities against gun manufacturers - modeled on similar litigation against the tobacco industry - have so far been unsuccessful but have kept gun makers tied up in court. Gun-control advocates say the immunity bill will keep innocent victims of gun violence from getting their day in court. The gun industry would become the first to receive blanket immunity protections if the bill succeeds. The action on Capitol Hill coincides with another attempt in court to sue manufacturers, this one by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Filed in New York, the NAACP contends that weapons disproportionately harm minorities. While a number of cities have sued the gun industry with little success in order to collect damages for gun violence, the NAACP lawsuit seeks to impose new restrictions on handgun marketing and distribution. Testifying at the case was Robert Ricker, the former head of the American Shooting Sports Council, the main gun industry trade association. Ricker is the gun industry's first whistleblower. He says weapons manufacturers have known for some time that dealers were selling firearms to juveniles and criminals but remained silent for fear of being held liable. The active gun debate stands in contrast to several years of inaction. Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2002 midterm election after some determined that it had been an albatross for Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore in 2000. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., elected to Congress on a gun-control platform after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a deranged gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, acknowledged that some Democrats are nervous about the gun issue nowadays. "But it's coming back. I think you're going to see it popping up a lot this session with the Republicans in control," she said. She said soccer moms in the suburbs so crucial to election success draw the line at assault-style weapons such as AK-47s and Uzis, which can quickly fire multiple shots. The 1994 bill made it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess certain semiautomatic weapons that discharge one shot for each pull of the trigger and automatically load a round of ammunition without being cocked. The prohibition is due to expire in September 2004. But the NRA's LaPierre noted that the political climate on guns has changed dramatically in the last few years. The GOP has a lock on the White House and Congress, and he said that even a number of Democrats are campaigning on a pro-gun platform. One who has not is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who will introduce a bill to reauthorize the assault weapons ban in the coming weeks. A new report due out later this year as a follow up to the 1999 report cited by Ashcroft could provide her with some fresh evidence. One of its authors, Jeffrey Roth, said preliminary findings showed that high-capacity magazines for ammunition, banned as part of the 1994 bill, were being linked increasingly to violent crimes. "These could end up emerging as even more important than the banned weapons," said Roth, who works at the University of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology. - --- Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Diego Ibarguen contributed to this report. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:25:40 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Surprise - Bush backs renewing AW Ban? (LONG) I hate to dash anyone's hope that the misnamed "assault weapons" ban would be allowed to sunset under our "pro-gun" president and AG. But is anyone really surprised? Any guesses where Utah's "solidy pro-gun" Sentors and two GOP congressmen stand on this? I'm sure we'll be fine as Sen. Hatch will use his position as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee to keep the bill to reauthorize the gun ban bottled up. That is why we elected him, isn't it? Charles - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- In surprise move, Bush backs renewing ban on assault weapons By Shannon McCaffrey Knight Ridder Newspapers Posted on Fri, Apr. 11, 2003 WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault-weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder. Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority for the NRA. President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension. The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life after several years of near hibernation. Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda. This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits. The assault-weapons ban is considered a crown jewel by the gun-control movement, and even though its expiration is more than a year away it is already being watched closely. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who like Bush is a staunch gun-rights supporter, muddied the waters in a recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee when he refused to say whether the administration supports an extension. Ashcroft cited a 1999 Justice Department report that said the ban's impact on deadly gun violence is unclear. Ashcroft has been pushing a pro-gun rights agenda at the Justice Department, seeking to have federal background checks on gun sales destroyed after 24 hours and embracing an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment's guarantee of gun ownership rights. The White House comment surprised those on both sides of the gun issue. "That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who leads the conservative pro-Bush group Americans for Tax Reform. Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said it "creates a huge problem for Bush with the NRA." "The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for them," he said. Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety applauded Bush's stance but urged the president to use his political clout to push for Congress to act. If Congress does nothing, the ban could just expire. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was somewhat irrelevant. "Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress," LaPierre said. If it is, the NRA has reason to be optimistic. This week's action on the immunity legislation for dealers and gun makers reflects the interest of Republicans to resurrect the pro-gun rights agenda. Congress had been poised to act on the bill last fall, but the deadly sniper attacks in the Washington area prompted a delay. The measure has enough co-sponsors in the Senate to pass that chamber unless Democrats dig in their heels and filibuster. Supporters of the immunity bill say it shields gun makers from bankruptcy because of frivolous lawsuits that became popular during the Clinton administration. Lawsuits filed by cities against gun manufacturers - modeled on similar litigation against the tobacco industry - have so far been unsuccessful but have kept gun makers tied up in court. Gun-control advocates say the immunity bill will keep innocent victims of gun violence from getting their day in court. The gun industry would become the first to receive blanket immunity protections if the bill succeeds. The action on Capitol Hill coincides with another attempt in court to sue manufacturers, this one by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Filed in New York, the NAACP contends that weapons disproportionately harm minorities. While a number of cities have sued the gun industry with little success in order to collect damages for gun violence, the NAACP lawsuit seeks to impose new restrictions on handgun marketing and distribution. Testifying at the case was Robert Ricker, the former head of the American Shooting Sports Council, the main gun industry trade association. Ricker is the gun industry's first whistleblower. He says weapons manufacturers have known for some time that dealers were selling firearms to juveniles and criminals but remained silent for fear of being held liable. The active gun debate stands in contrast to several years of inaction. Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2002 midterm election after some determined that it had been an albatross for Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore in 2000. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., elected to Congress on a gun-control platform after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a deranged gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, acknowledged that some Democrats are nervous about the gun issue nowadays. "But it's coming back. I think you're going to see it popping up a lot this session with the Republicans in control," she said. She said soccer moms in the suburbs so crucial to election success draw the line at assault-style weapons such as AK-47s and Uzis, which can quickly fire multiple shots. The 1994 bill made it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess certain semiautomatic weapons that discharge one shot for each pull of the trigger and automatically load a round of ammunition without being cocked. The prohibition is due to expire in September 2004. But the NRA's LaPierre noted that the political climate on guns has changed dramatically in the last few years. The GOP has a lock on the White House and Congress, and he said that even a number of Democrats are campaigning on a pro-gun platform. One who has not is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who will introduce a bill to reauthorize the assault weapons ban in the coming weeks. A new report due out later this year as a follow up to the 1999 report cited by Ashcroft could provide her with some fresh evidence. One of its authors, Jeffrey Roth, said preliminary findings showed that high-capacity magazines for ammunition, banned as part of the 1994 bill, were being linked increasingly to violent crimes. "These could end up emerging as even more important than the banned weapons," said Roth, who works at the University of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology. - --- Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Diego Ibarguen contributed to this report. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:46:50 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Letter to editor of SLTribune Friends, Today I sent the following LTE to the Tribune. It is longer than ideal and addresses more than one specific topic related to CCW in schools. Maybe it will give some ideas to others. Charles Editor Salt Lake Tribune Dear Editor, I’m writing in response to your editorial, “Invitation to Mayhem” (Thursday, April 3), wherein you rail against recognition of State issued Permits to Carry a Concealed Weapon in schools because in the past eight years five persons with such permits have committed homicide. With 52,000 permit holders and nearly 450 homicides in that time, a permit holder committing such a crime looks very rare indeed. And how many of those crimes ever occurred in schools? You editorialize that only “law enforcement officers” should be allowed to carry weapons into schools. But even this distinguished group—some 2,500 police officers plus judges, prosecutors, and various federal officials—has some bad apples. Your archives indicate such officials have assaulted a motel clerk, “partied” with underage girls, committed aggravated rape, abused illegal drugs, and yes, even committed murder. Such cases are, thankfully, rare. Rational individuals know it makes no sense to disarm all government officials based on the rare case of one of those officials committing a crime. I submit that the same logic applies to private citizens who hold a permit to carry self-defense weapons. Teachers are dedicated professionals. They are also real people. They are as entitled to an effective self-defense as is anyone else. I must also wonder where all of your concern over legally concealed weapons in schools (or anyplace else) was for all the years when most permit holders were white businessmen. Only since women, racial minorities, gays, and the poor and working classes have been afforded the right to defend themselves on equal footing with the well-to-do, has The Tribune’s concern over the character of permit holders or the safety of legally carried weapons in schools been voiced. I hope this has more to do with your recent change in ownership than with some more ugly reason. Charles Hardy Policy Director Gun Owners of Utah (GOUtah!) ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:37:56 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Rally to Defend Biil of Rights Saturday URL: http://www.civildisobedience.us/, but more information below than on Website. Shalom, Scott RALLY TO RESTORE THE BILL OF RIGHTS BUILDS MOMENTUM Salt Lake City - A rally to help increase public awareness of infringements on their basic civil rights resulting from the USA PATRIOT Act will be held on April 19, 2003 on the south steps of the State Capitol starting at 11:00AM, as mentioned on the front page of Sunday's Salt Lake Tribune. The non-partisan event will include speakers from all sides of the political spectrum and has gained support from groups such as the ACLU, The Libertarian Party of Utah, The Constitutional Party of Utah, and many more. Everyone is encouraged to show support for their Bill of Rights and attend the rally on the steps of the capitol. Scheduled speakers include: Mr. Joel Skousen, well-known editor of the "World Affairs Brief" and author of four books. Dr. Edwin Firmage, University of Utah law professor, and noted local activist on civil rights issues. Sheriff Richard Mack, leading proponent of Second Amendment rights and speaker on Constitutional issues. Mrs. Ruth Robinson, Utah political activist who was arrested for distributing pamphlets at the Salt Lake County GOP convention. Tom Draschil, part-owner of KTKK-AM 630 ("K-Talk") and PM drivetime host will be the master of ceremonies for the event. The event is not sponsored by the station. About the USA PATRIOT ACT The USA PATRIOT ACT is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". Students of the United States Constitution will realize that the USA PATRIOT ACT intrudes on several of the civil rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights including the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Ninth Amendments. Biographies of the Speakers Joel Skousen is a political scientist specializing in the philosophy of law and Constitutional theory and editor of the "World Affairs Brief", a weekly email newsletter and monthly print publication. Skousen has authored four books, including "Essential Principles for the Conservation of Liberty" (1984). More information can be found at http://www.joelskousen.com/ Dr. Edwin Firmage is a professor emeritus of law at the University of Utah and well-known Constitutional scholar, rights activist, and speaker for liberal political causes. Richard Mack, most noted for winning the landmark case in which the Supreme Court overturned the Brady Bill, began his law enforcement career as a parking cadet on the Provo City police force and later became a Detective in that force. He moved back to his home town in Arizona and was elected Sheriff of Graham County. He was named Law Enforcement Officer of the Year by the National Rifle Association in 1995 and has written several books including "The Proper Role of Law Enforcement" and "Government, God, and Freedom". More information can be found at http://www.umedia.com/Mack/ Ruth Robinson is a conservative whose arrest (along with rally emcee Tom Draschil) at the 1996 Salt Lake County Republican Party convention for passing out flyers the party leadership didn't like set off a firestorm of controversy. This rally, organized by local activists Dale Williams and Aaron Turpen is a follow-up to a similar rally held in the capital rotunda on January 18. Dale Williams is a talk show host on K-TALK radio on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 7:00pm to 9:00pm on the "Todd & Dale Show." - --- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 20:48:44 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Fw:Poll on gun ban - ---------------- Charles Hardy - --------- Forwarded message ---------- If Congress votes to re-authorize the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal so-called "Assault Weapons" ban, gives the bill to President Bush and he signs it into law, would you still vote for him in his bid for re-election to the Presidency in 2004? http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ (on lower left side) ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:10:29 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Wendy McElroy takes a Potshot at Gun Control Recruiting more folks into shooting who are not middle aged white males will do much to not only reduce crime against those who are most vunerable (women, the elderly, the handicapped, the poor living in bad neighborhoods, gays and others who may be subject to so-called "hate crimes," etc) but also really divides the tradtional liberal base that generally opposses the right to an effective self defense. Charles - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84160,00.html War May Redefine Gun Control Tuesday, April 15, 2003 By Wendy McElroy Despite the high emotions that surround war — or perhaps because of them — people are focusing again on "normal" life. But what is normal has shifted in ways both obvious and subtle. Consider how war has affected just one issue: the debate over gun control. For years, gun ownership advocates have agonized over how to make women comfortable around guns. As of 2000, 41.7 percent of men and 28.5 percent of women reported having a gun in their household, and 39.2 percent of men but only 10 percent of women personally owned a gun. Reaching out to women and minorities has been a high priority of organizations like the National Rifle Association, not merely to swell their ranks but also to convert segments of society that have traditionally opposed the right to own a gun. Now, the outreach has become easier. As of 2002, over 210,000 women were on active duty within the military, over 150,000 were in the reserves. A steep increase in the number of women in the military means that an unprecedented number of Gen-Next women have overcome their mothers' aversion to guns. Non-military women also picked up guns. NRA spokeswoman Nance Pretto reported that, in the wake of Sept. 11, women's enrollment in instructional shooting classes increased fourfold from years before. And gun dealers reported a sharp increase in women purchasing weapons. The sense of insecurity caused by Sept. 11 was heightened as police officers in the reserves left for active duty, depleting police departments. Some politicians began to actively encourage women to protect themselves by owning guns. When a serial killer was loose in Baton Rouge in the summer of 2002, Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster advised women "you have a right to get a [concealed] gun permit. ... if you know how [to use a gun] and you have a situation with some fruitcake running around, like they've got right now, it sure can save you a lot of grief." Foster received the predictable backlash of outrage from gun control advocates who suddenly sounded sexist. Holley Galland Haymaker from the anti-gun group Louisiana Ceasefire argued: "Maybe if you're a big, white guy who hunts all the time, it might do some good. For a woman who is surprise attacked, having a gun is only giving them [the attacker] another way to kill you." I will ignore the racist implications of this remark and simply ask, "Why would a white guy who hunts be more competent with a gun than a woman who is trained to use it?" To judge from how strained their arguments have become, gun control advocates realize they are losing the debate. It would be difficult to escape this realization. Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1036 — the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — which grants gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits resulting from their products. The vote (04/09) was 285 to 140. The measure has now moved to the Senate where it is expected to pass. As Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., argued, "Manufacturers of legal products should not live under the threat of litigation simply because their product is misused ... [W]e don't sue Ginsu when someone is stabbed to death with their knife." Again, the anti-gun arguments were shrill. A paper published by the Brady Center, entitled "Smoking Guns: Exposing the Gun Industry's Complicity in the Illegal Gun Market," openly accused the firearms industry of "actively and knowingly allowing guns to be sold into the illegal market." In short, gun manufacturers were publicly charged with criminal complicity. Other gun control advocates are pushing to have guns declared as "weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." For example, House Bill 1210 in Washington State defined a WMD as a "device, object, or substance that a person intends to use to cause multiple human deaths." No specific weapons were mentioned but the Seattle Times opened its March 15 coverage of the bill with the sentence, "An anti-terrorism bill has spurred debate among lawmakers: Is a gun a weapon of mass destruction?" Possession would have been a class A felony had the bill passed with above-referenced language. Many in the pro-gun rights camp view the WMD argument as an indication of attacks to come. The underlying facts of the gun debate remain much the same as before Sept. 11 and the war. The award-winning criminologist Prof. Gary Kleck states that firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times a year. 48 percent of those incidents involve women defending themselves; most of the time a shot is not fired. The conclusion: women benefit from gun ownership. What is changing, however, are the faces and attitudes of the debate. A growing number of women feel comfortable with guns and want them for self-defense. In response, anti-gun advocates are using arguments that seem increasingly implausible such as classifying guns as WMDs. Gun ownership is just one of the issues over which we will stumble on the way back to normal life. And, as people drink coffee and read newspapers in the morning, they will discover that the war has influenced every aspect of public debate, including the words we use to describe and redefine our beliefs. Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:11:51 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Latest results of the UofU Alumni Newsletter on CCW The UofU's on-line Alumni newsletter (NOT to be confused with the on-line version of the student newspaper, the Chronicle) still has their poll on CCW on campus active. It looks like they only do a new edition of the newletter once a month, so maybe every poll will be active for a full month. In any case, the results still give a solid majority to allowing CCW on campus, even as the total number of those participating in the poll approaches 1000. IFF you have NOT yet voted in the poll, surf to and register your opinion. Please note, they already shut down and reset this poll once due to what they claimed/perceived as "spamming and distorting." So, please, no funny stuff or efforts to distort this one. It is going nicely in favor of self defense as it is. If you have voted, but did not take time to submit a comment you might take a moment to do so if you are an alum. It is interesting to me that the biggest item Bernie and gang are claiming as reason to ban CCW is running dead last in this poll, at less than 4%--that somehow a CONCEALED self-defense weapon will hamper free speech. FWIW, The UofU has admitted, in court papers, that their gun ban only applies to students and employees, including staff, faculty, etc. It does NOT apply to visitors to campus. The last news I've heard, the federal judge bounced the case back to State courts, retaining the right to hear parts of the case later if need be. I haven't heard any news at the State level for a while, and the CCW ban--plus the illegal ban on students keeping personal guns, rifles, shotguns, or shortguns, in their dorm rooms--remains in effect. Current results: Which best reflects your feelings about permit holders bringing concealed weapons on campus: Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. 50.2% Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because the dangers outweigh the benefits and they would not deter criminal behavior. 33.4% Concealed weapons should be allowed on college campuses because they would act as a deterrent to criminal behavior. 12.6% Concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses because they would deter free speech and academic freedom. 3.8% Total votes: 969 ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:53:42 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Ballot Initiative II is alive The anti-self-defense ninnies are at it again. I have not carefully analyzed the language in the initiative, but at first glance it would do the following: 1-Prohibit carrying of guns (including those carried by a CCW permit holder, BUT, of course, NOT those carried by various government employees) into churches. I see no provision for a church to authorize the carrying of weapons. (So if this passes, someone may want to form an official church and the sue to overturn the church ban based on freedom of religion. After all, if the government can ban guns from churches, it can ban alcohol, incense, etc.) 2-Prohibit, unless prior permission from school administrators is obtained, carrying of guns into "schools" or onto "school" grounds where "school" includes public and private pre-schools, elementary, and secondary schools as well as "institutions higher education." I'm not sure if this includes or is intended to include trade and tech schools, but it certainly includes colleges and universities. 3-Allow employers, landlords, and others to include anti-self-defense terms in employment and housing contracts. IE, Your landlord could decide that you can't even keep a gun in your apartment. 4-Prohibit the carrying of self-defense weapons into ALL private residences unless prior permission is obtained. 5-Only allows weapons in private cars in school parking lots IFF the car is not under the control of a student or accesable to a student without adult supervision. 6-By specifically eliminating CCW rights (or privileges) at schools, subjects permit holders to MUCH more serious criminal penalties if they have a gun on school grounds. Charles 5- ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- The forces of Darkness and Evil are loose in the countryside again. Sound the alarum! Gather ye pitchforks and torches and prepare to do battle with the demons once more. - ------------------------------------------------------------- This garbage to gut concealed carry is now deceptively called "Safe Havens for Learning" but also infringes on lawful self defense in churches, private residences, and a very broad spectrum of "schools" ranging from day care through Universities. It appears to be an outright ban in schools (broadly defined) and churches, although allowing for a few exceptions, and changes the private property provisions from "unless prohibited" to "unless prior permission is obrtained." The 7 pages of detailed text are available ONLY in .pdf format at http://www.elections.utah.gov/Safe%20Havens%20for%20Learning-text.pdf Read it and puke. It would be good to do AN IMMEDIATE analysis of the bad points of this and get out a news release ASAP. People remember the first thing they hear about an issue and form an initial impression that is hard to change. IF WE GET OUR SPIN OUT FIRST IT WILL BE A MAJOR PLUS. It must be a media release to reach the public, not an internal thing to the folks who are already on our side. The Lt. Governor's site lists the following person as "Contact: Carol Lear (801) 538-7835" That number is the office number for Carol B. Lear, who is listed on the State Office of Education site as the Executive Officer (or Executive Secretary depending on which document can be believed) of the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission. (Among other things she is the central point of contact for submission of all "NOTIFICATION OF ALLEGED EDUCATOR MISCONDUCT" forms http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/uppac/reptform.htm which probably have some interesting information on school safety! She is also listed as as "Coordinator" in the Government and Legislative Relations Office apparently the boss, as there are only an Executive Secretary and an Education Specialist listedbesides her) These positions fall under Dr. Stephen O. Laing, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. a. Is her participation as contact person for a ballot initiative using her state office phone and time illegal or at least imappropriate? b. Could this be grounds for challenging the validity of the whole initiative AFTER the 1 May deadline for filing? c. How much other state time is being spent by her, the State Office of Education and teachers (UEA members) on this project to subvert the clear intent of the Legislature? d. Every record pertaining to this in any meeting, memo, phone call, or email within the State Office of Education should be subject to a GRAMA request as public information, and I recommend we submit one ASAP to get them on defensive about abuse of their office to promote their private agenda. e. Should we ask Atty Gen Shurtleff about the legality of their actions, or key legislators about the appropriateness. f. Note that any allegations of misconduct would be reported to Carol Lear, the very person who I believe may be guilty of misconduct! John Spangler - ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/8zNplB/TM - ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/ ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #238 ***********************************