From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #242 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 Tuesday, July 1 2003 Volume 02 : Number 242 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:03:00 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: Jade Pusey CCW Day Forwarded from Clak Aposhian of USDIN (Utah Self-defense Instructors' Network): W. Clark Aposhian here, I am copying this to several firearm rights supporters to ask for the kind of help that only you can provide. Forward this along as you deem appropriate. By now you have heard of our friend, Jade Pusey's condition. The good news is he is about 1/2 way towards his goal of $200,000 http://www.jadepusey.com With time I am certain he will obtain the needed funds for his bone marrow transplant. We just don't have much time though. He needs the funds this summer. I have proposed a June 28th Concealed Carry Class in his honor and for his benefit. This date works with the Salt Lake City Library as well as the July 12th. This will also provide a good CCW exposure to the rather sterile environment of the Salt lake City Library. Remember "Exposure increases tolerance" I realize the 28th is somewhat short notice but the majority of the work that needs to be done is not preparation rather it is on the day of the class. Let's "shoot" for the 28th. This is where you come in. the needs are: Instructors The more the merrier (some to teach and some to have applicants demonstrate firearm handling skills with) Finger printers Someone with some (even a little) experience is best Photographers Best with a digital or even better a Polaroid portrait camera Notary Public Treasurer Someone to separately handle the funds. 100% of all money must go to the Jade Pusey fund. Check in people They will take the money and hand out materials and paperwork Paperwork people People who will verify all the paperwork is filled out correctly prior to Instructor signing application Staff Some to verify that loaded weapons (stay concealed) someone to monitor for problems, act as runners, Media person Our spokesperson should be frothing at the mouth, jumping up and down to give the reporters what they expect. This person must also handle the radio, print and television contacts to make certain they are informed. We will also need flyers and course materials to be copied. We need someone to distribute these to the local sporting goods and gun stores. We should also encourage local ranges to donate range time for attendees of this class. The class will not require live fire unless we can find a way to work it in. If the local ranges agree we could give them a coupon they could use on a specific date and time for live fire instruction if needed. Jade is truly a wonderful person, he has worked hard to maintain and increase the acceptance and constitutional and civil rights of gun owners and concealed carry holders. Let us now assist him to get better and back to work. For a detailed description of the problem and other efforts go to http://www.jadepusey.com Sincerely, W. Clark Aposhian 801-943-5322 ================== 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: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:57:08 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Victory for First & Second Amendments in N.J.! Victory for First & Second Amendments in N.J.! A Victory for the First And Second Amendments by Scott Bach FrontPageMagazine.com | June 5, 2003 http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8224 In what has been described as a significant victory for both the First Amendment and firearms owners, a lawsuit against the Montclair, New Jersey Board of Education brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) was resolved on May 20, 2003, in a court-ordered settlement in which the school board acknowledged violating its own policies and agreed to distribute the gun group's literature to its students. The settlement also required the school board to provide the gun group with ongoing access to the school system or else bar access to all groups via a change in official policy. The lawsuit was commenced in October 2000, after the school board distributed leaflets advocating anti-gun legislation throughout the school system, but refused to distribute leaflets advocating the alternative point of view. ANJPRC, an official state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, alleged that the school board's actions violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by using publicly funded facilities to advocate one side of a legislative issue while refusing equal access to the other side. The lawsuit sought a determination of wrongdoing by the Court and injunctions requiring equal access. "This case is really about an attempt to manipulate young minds by presenting only one side of an issue and actively suppressing the other side," said ANJRPC representatives in a May 20 press release. "This settlement sends a message to every publicly funded school in America - if you try to stifle debate on the Second Amendment, you're going to be held fully accountable." NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox applauded the decision, observing "There is no room for political demagoguery in our schools and this new policy will help insure our children hear both sides of any issue. The clear message to school districts is, you can't play politics with our kids." The settlement required the school board to distribute three flyers promoting the ANJRPC's 2003 firearms education and training events, including outreach events for youth and women. In the agreement's first paragraph, the school board acknowledged that the anti-gun leaflet distribution in 2000 "was a violation of Defendant Board's policies relative to the distribution of literature to and by students." The settlement also provided ANJRPC with ongoing access to the school system to promote events, conduct art and essay contests, grant scholarships, and seek establishment of a student club. Alternatively, the school board can amend its policies to bar such activities, but only if such policies apply equally to all organizations. A copy of the settlement agreement is available on ANJRPC's website at http://www.ANJRPC.org - -- Scott L. Bach, http://www.BachBio.com a practicing attorney, is a member of the NRA Board of Directors and is Executive Vice President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Comment on this article: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/GoPostal/createcomment.asp?ID=8224 - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:25:50 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: number two start of a trend? http://www.rugerforum.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002847.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:45:05 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: FW: number two One can only hope. IMHO, Alaska is now in an even better position, CCW-wise, than is Vermont. Alaskans need not get a permit to CCW if they don't want to. BUT, unlike Vermont, a permit is available for those want reciprocity in other States or want to avoid the brady background check fee. I note that Alaska does not allow its permit holders to CCW on school grounds (I guess you have no right to self defense if you chosen profession happens to be school teacher, adminstrator, coach, staff, etc). However, even under current federal law, that remains an option to the States so long as a permit is involved. IOW, lacking a permit, those in Vermont can not CCW in schools. If Utah were to do what Alaska has done, our permit holders would remain free to carry in schools while those without permits would, under federal law at least, not be able to carry in schools. Charles ================== Charles Hardy - --- Scott Bergeson wrote: start of a trend? http://www.rugerforum.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002847.html - - ________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:46:08 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: FW: number two PS, Perhaps we should adopt the term "Alaskan carry" to describe a State that does not require a permit to CCW, but has a permit available for those who want/need one for various reasons. Charles ================== Charles Hardy - --- Scott Bergeson wrote: start of a trend? http://www.rugerforum.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002847.html - - ________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:00:36 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Cali based Federal Court recognzies difference between "carrying" and "using" a gun?!?! Interesting ruling from a California court on the distinction between carrying a gun and using a gun. Below. I have long believed that the use of the phrase "keep and bear" in the first portion and "use" in the second portion had to apply to very distinct things. The Utah constitution says this about RKBA: "Article I, Section 6. The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms." Now a California-based Federal court has reached a similar conclusion. From today's Trib's "News of the Weird" column: "Armed with an argument: The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned the 'armed robbery' conviction of Deshon Rene Odom in May, saying that even though Odom had a gun in his waistband, he hadn't meant for anyone at the bank he was robbing to see it, and therefore that he was not legally 'armed.' The court said that the federal law speaks only of _using_ a gun, not _carrying_ one; on the other hand, the court acknowledged that if Odom had waved around a toy gun that looked real, that would be enough for 'armed'." robbery." (_emphasis_ added.) Of course, making this precedent stick in Utah will cost a whole lot more than a CCW permit. One might also consider the idea that if you don't intend for someone to see your firearm, you aren't "armed." Here's my favorite mental test on the topic. Simply answer the following three questions: 1-Do you have any credit, charge, or debit cards? 2-Where are those cards right now? 3-When was the last time you used one of those cards? Now, very typical answers would go something like this: 1-Yes, I have a couple of cards. 2-In my wallet which is in my back pocket. (Or maybe, "In my purse, briefcase, etc.) 3-Last night when I bought gas. (Or maybe, "This morning to scrape the frost from my windshield.) Those three questions, and their usual answers sum up the the three key actions in Utah's Constituional protectin of RKBA. Question one is all about "keeping" (or in modern verncular, "owning") something. Question two is the essence of "bearing (or "carring") something. And question three, and ONLY question three, is really about "using" something. IN short, while it is difficult to use something like a gun or credit card without carrying it, it is a very simply and very common matter to own and to carry a gun or a credit card without actually USING it. The legislature has power to regulate the USE of firearms (which, just like the credit card being used to clean a windshield, can be used in many different ways), but is prohibited from infringing on the the keeping (owning) OR bearing (carrying) of firearms. Unfortunately, the most recent Utah SC test of any possible distinction on these points was by a convicted (non-violent I believe) felon who argued that laws against his owning a gun and keeping it in his own residence violated the Utah Constitution as he was not carrying or using the gun. He lost on what I think was a unanamous decision. Don't suppose anyone knows any legislators who respect our Constitution enough to sponsor a Vermont (or Alaska) style carry law that will eliminate penalities for peacably carring (open or concealed) a gun without a permit? Charles ================== 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: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:48:36 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: News & Views - June 18, 2003 A miscarriage of justice on a gun case. From Chuck Muth: ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Criminal Prosecution Sad - VERY sad - news to report on another issue of governmental abuse we featured a couple months ago. Remember Ron Dixon, the Brooklyn, New York, father who woke up in the middle of the night to discover an intruder in his two-year-old son's bedroom? When the burglar lunged at Dixon, the father shot the low-life twice, unfortunately only wounding him. The dirt bag - who had a 14-page rap sheet and 19 previous arrests - was hauled off by police. So was Ron Dixon. See, although Dixon had legally purchased the handgun he used to protect his son and was in the process of registering it, the "paperwork" hadn't been completed. So Dixon was arrested and charged with possession of an illegal weapon. Now, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes had the discretion to take the circumstances into consideration and dismiss the ridiculous charge. And in fact, many of you called and emailed the DA at the time and urged him to do just that. Instead, Hynes decided he wanted to make an example out of Mr. Dixon. So with all the obsession of Captain Ahab pursuing Moby Dick, Hynes went after Dixon with a vengeance. Threatening "a far worse sentence" if he didn't accept the plea bargain offered, Dixon is actually going to jail. For shooting a scuzzball who broke into his 2-year-old son's bedroom. The good news is, it's "just" for three days. For shooting a scuzzball who broke into his 2-year-old's bedroom. Charles Hynes should be tarred-and-feathered for this outrageous prosecution. And although it's like closing the barn door after the horse is already out, should you wish to express your opinion on the Ron Dixon "plea bargain," you can call the Brooklyn DA's Office of Public Information at: (718) 250-2300. Or you can send an email to the OPI Director, Jerry Schmetterer, at Schmetj@brooklynda.org. It won't do Mr. Dixon any good now, but it just might help prevent such reckless and foolish prosecutions in the future. ________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:07:25 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: Jade Pussey CCW benefit postponed. The following is from Clark Aposhian of USDIN. ================== Charles Hardy ===Begin forwarded message==== I have Fantastic News and somewhat Disappointing news. First the disappointing news is that for the time being the JADE Pusey CCW Benefit class will indefinitely be postponed. It will be rescheduled if needed. I have received several e-mails from you folks and others inquiring as to the recent announcement that the relief fund has met its goal and in fact surpassed it. (That is indeed the great news) Some have E-Mailed that it may be incorrect to have a benefit when the goal has been met. I am willing to stay with the schedule but also understand your concerns. I propose that the CCW Benefit class be rescheduled when and if it is needed to provide any additional funds not covered by insurance for Jade's treatment. I appreciate all of your willingness to provide instructions and related assistance in this endeavor. perhaps we can keep this group together and have an annual CCW Benefit for worthy causes. Sincerely, W. Clark Aposhian Too Close for Missiles, Switching to Guns ________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:09:04 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Stupid professor FOLLOW-UP FWIW... ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Yesterday I forwarded a "guest commentary" in the Ogden Standard-Examiner by Robert C. Wadman, a professor at Weber State, denouncing the firearms industry. (See below.) While I found Wadman's comments stupid and fallacious, a friend decided to find out who Wadman really is. I think you'll find the results consistent with his anti-gun stance. Two questions: 1. Should this pervert be paid with tax money to teach our children? 2. Should this gross ill-informed individual be teaching any where? Please contact your state representative and the Weber State management. Little did I know how accurate my "Look who's teaching our kids" comment would prove. - ----------------------- Look who's teaching our kids. - ---------- Subject: Stupid professor Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 The two commentaries below are from Sunday's "Ogden Standard Examiner". The first is by a professor of criminal justice who is obviously teaches his bias and bullcrap. We need to get this out to every firearms supporter and get them all to write in to counter this idiot. He is the epitome of the anti-gun rhetoric. He should not be teaching criminal justice. The second commentary is by two medical students. Again, they are so ignorant to the facts that it is absolutely ridiculous. Each of you needs to write to the Editor and let them know these guys are completely uninformed and ignorant. ****Below is the complete text of both commentaries**** #1: Guest Commentary: Gun industry concerned more by profits than safety Wed, June 25, 2003 By ROBERT C. WADMAN Special to the Standard-Examiner More than 28,663 Americans are killed every year as a result of guns. These deaths include murders, suicides, and accidental shootings. Gun violence in America is a national disgrace, and laws to protect citizens from these acts of violence need to be supported. The high rates of murder, robbery and aggravated assault in the United States are a byproduct of our collective failure to openly address gun issues in America. Twenty-two times to one, the gun in the American home is used against a family member rather than used to protect the family from criminals. From teenage suicides to domestic violence, the readily available gun is used against the family. Should we collectively ignore these problems and support more protection for gun manufacturers? The June 19 guest commentary in the Standard-Examiner by Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman, "American gun laws should favor citizens" constitutional rights," asks for support of laws that protect gunmakers and others involved in the gun industry. They suggest that judges "who coddle killers while demonizing gunmakers for crimes over which they have no control" are the problem. This is nonsense! The gun industry has demonized America"s criminal justice system in its attempts to protect gun industry profits. Labeling judges as "liberal" and suggesting that judges "coddle" criminals is the rhetoric of the uninformed. Prisons are currently overcrowded. Prisons are costly and often ineffective. Is the gun industry willing to pay for the increased costs their recommendations require? Are they supportive of tax increases to meet their recommendations? All the rhetoric from the get-tough-on-criminals-crowd is nothing more than a smokescreen. They know that prisons are overcrowded. They know judges have limited jail space in which to place convicted criminals. All they want is to deflect our attention so guns can be sold and they can make money. The gun industry should be held to the same standard of responsibility as everyone else. It is not above the U.S. Constitution. I strongly support gun ownership and I understand the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but I feel gun manufacturers, gun-show organizers and gun-shop owners should be held liable if they are responsible for guns being placed in the hands of criminals, children, felons and terrorists. From kids with guns involved in school shootings to guns used in acts of terrorism, the gun industry should be held to the same standards of responsibility that other industries are held. The 14th Amendment and the Fourth Amendment are being pushed aside as the gun industry hides behind the Second Amendment. Don"t let the gun industry get away with this brain- damaged swill. Yes, its advocates will attempt to call anyone who stands up against them a "liberal." And yes, they will point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution as their guiding light. But when all is said and done, what they really want is more money. More money, often at the expense of more gun violence. The legislative protection they want violates the very Constitution they state is the foundation of their position. Changing the Constitution to protect the Second Amendment of the Constitution seems absurd, but that is their position. I"m not a liberal. I"m not a current member of a gun-control group. I"m a gun owner and a private citizen. I think violent criminals belong in prison. I also feel extremists come in many forms. Don"t let gun extremists, in blind support of guns sales, change Utah"s ability to effectively deal with gun violence. Any reasonable attempts designed to address this growing problem have been consistently viewed as a threat by the gun lobby. Hiding behind a distorted interpretation of the Second Amendment, the gun lobby rhetoric flies in the face of reason. At this very moment, the gun industry is attempt- ing to protect gun manufacturers from any liability. These steps violate the principles of the very U.S. Constitution they claim is being violated. By passing laws that would make it illegal to sue a gun manufacturer or gun storeowner, the gun lobby is placing irresponsible gun manufacturers and gun storeowners above the law. If a company makes a faulty product, people hurt by the product have a right to be heard in court and are entitled to just compensation. Why should gun manufac- turers be above the laws to which every other product manufacturer is held? Attempting to wrap themselves in the American flag, the gun lobby is asking us to let the gun industry be above the law. As a responsible gun owner, and a former police officer, I want to support every effort to make our society secure and safe. The proliferation of guns is not the answer. The gun lobby consistently points the finger at Washington and states, "Don"t let these liberal Washington bureaucrats take your guns." Mr. Gottlieb is from Seattle. What in the hell is he doing trying to tell Utahns what to do? Remember the old saying, "follow the money." All the rhetoric aside, all the gun industry leaders want to protect profits. They couldn"t care less about our safety. Dr. Robert C. Wadman is an associate professor of criminal justice at Weber State University. ************************************************************ ________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:08:54 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Jet Skis and Guns? -- And no, you can't shoot them when they buzz too close while you're fishing or skiing. From today's DesNews. Notice the divide and conquer technique used by the eco-freaks. Many boaters and fishermen don't really care for how some (many?) users of jet skis operate their toys. However, does anyone really think that once jet skis are banned, high speed (or noisy jet) motor boats won't be the next target? At that point, a whole segment of former motorized users (jet skiers) will have already been eliminated from the debate and it will be the fishermen and water skiers left to defend motorized use with too many fishermen just as happy to see some of those fast or loud boats off the lake anyway. This is the same tactic that has worked so well against gun owners. As short barreled shot guns or fully automatic machine guns or scary-looking guns or inexpensive self defense pistols or 50 calibre rifles or any number of other guns are targeted to be taxed out of reach or simply banned altogether, too many gun owners figure it isn't their fight. After all, what does a duck or deer hunter need with such guns? Besides, some of the people who choose to own and use such guns behave in ways that die-hard hunters may find objectionable. What does a small bore competitive shooter need with such guns? What do antique or curio collectors need with such guns or care if the cost of ownership goes up dramitically? But, of course, not every gun owner likes to hunt duck or deer. Not every gun owner has any interest in competitive shooting or collecting. Not every gun owner wants to carry a self defense weapon. And so on and so forth. EVERY time a gun is banned or taxed beyond normal reach or some currently legal use of firearms (such as carrying in some public place), we run the very real risk of losing some number of former gun owners from future fights. Some gun owners ONLY own a gun and care about guns because they are able to defend themselves while jogging in a public park or working in a hospital or public school. Some gun owners are ONLY involved with guns because they enjoy informal plinking with a military style rifle. If the hunters or competitive shooters or collectors sit out the gun battles this year because they do not directly, immediately affect their chosen firearms or uses thereof, they are likely to wake up tomorrow to find that they are under attack and most of their allies have already been eliminated from the fight. A school teacher who only owns a gun for self defense and losers her ability to legally carry that gun to work, is probably not going to spend any time or energy when large areas of public land are proposed as no hunting zones. However, a teacher who only cares about self defense who still has her ability to do that legally intact, may be motivated to help counter any and all fights against gun owners. More importantly, some battles are not likely to take place until others are won (or lost, depending on which side you're on). You can't attack the inner hold until the outer wall is breached. Jet skis, ATVs, machine guns, military style rifles, legal CCW in public places like schools or libraries or the workplace are all some of the "outer walls" of freedom. As they are allowed to crumble, rest assurred that attacks on the inner walls will start, or intensify. I will point out that even the current ruling from the park service does not bode well for many fishermen or other motorboaters. Jet Skis are not the only watercraft that make use of carbaurated two-stroke engines. MANY small engines used by fishermen or other boaters are also carbaruated two-strokes. If jet skis using these engines are banned, there is no logical reason to not also ban these engines when used on small fishing boats, ski boats, etc. As to being fast and manuverable, I learned a long time ago that some of the fasted boats on the lake belong to bass fishermen. ================== Charles Hardy Gas up the jet-skis Decision is final: They are welcome By Ray Grass Deseret Morning News The final decision is in: Personal watercraft will be welcome on Lake Powell — now and for years to come. [Image] Jet skis and other personal watercraft will be allowed on Lake Powell, thanks to a decision released by the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Monday. Tom Smart, Deseret Morning News Early Monday, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area released its final "record of decision." Of three possible alternatives, the National Park Service will place into law "Alternative B," which allows personal watercraft use lakewide but with closures in some portions of the Colorado, Escalante, Dirty Devil and San Juan rivers. It also requires that all personal watercraft meet certain emission requirements by 2012. (Basically, all carbureted two-stroke watercraft will be banned from the lake after 2012.) It is possible, however, that a lawsuit could be filed sometime this fall that would challenged the Park Service's decision. Sean Smith, with Bluewater Network, the San Francisco-based environmental organization that is seeking to end use of personal watercraft within national parks, said the decision is ripe for legal review. A similar decision regarding watercraft use on Lake Mead was released in April. Smith said then that staff and attorneys were looking at a legal challenge. "We are still moving forward," Smith said. "We'll be discussing this with our lawyers and decide if we want to sue independently or combine the suits. The issues here are very similar. . . . I would expect it wouldn't be before fall before we make a decision." After release of its final environmental impact statement in May, the Park Service issued three alternatives regarding personal watercraft use on the lake: • Alternative A followed guidelines that were in place prior to September 2002. • Alternative B, the Park Service-preferred option, allowed personal watercraft but imposed the partial river closures and more stringent emission requirements. <ilayer></ilayer><layer> </layer> • Alternative C banned personal watercraft from the lake. "After thorough analysis and public involvement, it was felt Alternative B was best because it met (Park Service) management objectives," said Charlotte Obergh, management assistant for the Park Service at Lake Powell. She pointed out that the decision had not been expected before mid-July or early August, "but this has been a priority and we've worked hard to get it out as soon as possible so it can be finalized before the September deadline." Back in May, the Park Service was given until the end of September to place into law its decision or personal watercraft would, for the second time, be banned from the lake. The record of decision will now go through governmental review before being written into law. But, as Obergh pointed out, "The decision has been made and this is now just a formality to make sure everything is correct." If a suit is filled, added Smith, it would likely challenge the results of the environmental impact statement, which he said, "Contained a number of holes," as well as the final decision at both Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Bluewater filed a petition in May 1998 asking for a ban on personal watercraft until an impact statement could be completed. In March 2000, the Park Service issued its first report to allow the jet-powered craft on the lake. Bluewater sued and a judge ruled the Park Service had until 2002 to complete an impact statement. In November of 2002, personal watercraft were banned from Lake Powell. In May of this year the ban was lifted and the Park Service was given until September to come up with a decision. Under Alternative B, special regulations prohibit use of personal watercraft on the Dirty Devil upstream from the U-95 bridge; on the Escalante River upstream of the confluence of Coyote Creek; on the San Juan River upstream from Clay Hills pullout; and on the Colorado River upstream from Sheep Canyon. There are wake restrictions on the Escalante River from the confluence of Cow Canyon to the confluence of Coyote Creek. And it includes strategies to better protect recreation-area resources, improve visitor safety and reduce visitor conflicts. The report that reviewed personal watercraft impact on Lake Powell stated that under Alternative B, the watercraft would have negligible to minor, direct adverse effects on water quality. It also pointed out that sound levels during peak times were "acceptable within the expressed purpose of the park to provide the motorized watercraft form of recreation." And, with respect to wildlife and wildlife habitat, it stated that use of personal watercraft would result in negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts. The environmental impact statement also pointed out that going with Alternative C would cause major, adverse long-term effects on the economy of Page, Ariz., a town founded during the building of the Glen Canyon Dam and which now bases its economy on tourists visiting Lake Powell. Steve Ward, public relations director for ARAMARK, concessionaire for the five lakeside marinas, said Monday's decision comes as a big relief, "knowing that after all this time the matter has been resolved." During the review process, more than 30,000 comments were received by the Park Service regarding the use of personal watercraft on Lake Powell. ________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:10:53 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: FW: Stupid professor FOLLOW-UP Some links with info on the author that were missing. ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Charlie asks > Is there more information about this guy - web page or something? This is not > adequate information for action. The bottom part of the message was supposed to have the links. I have re-posted them here. - ---------------------------------------------- Some tidbits from a quick GOOGLE search on Robert C. Wadman: Wadman has a checkered past and allegedly was forced to resign as Police Chief of Wilmington, NC. Check out http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/coverups/decamp.html He is alleged to have had sex with a 14 year old while Police Chief in Omaha, taken bribes, and "was run out of Omaha." http://www.iahf.com/other/20001202a.html "Former Omaha Police Chief, Robert Wadman was involved in the failed Franklin Savings and Loan scandal" http://www.marlinpals.com/ia/v13n16.htm A glowing story in the Weber State newspaper about his helping the Police in China, Nigeria, Haiti and Poland. http://www.wsusignpost.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/04/16/3e9cc37525dd1 In a BYU campus paper story: "According to Wadman, 52 percent of those in the penitentiaries are black males, while that group only makes up 4 percent of the U.S. population. The main problem with the current system is that America is fixated on the deterrence principle, meaning a strong punishment will deter future criminals from committing crimes, Wadman said. " [No mention of the fact that each of the inmates was found guilty beyond a reasonabale doubt of committing a specific crime. Perhaps professional criminals have not adopted racial quotas yet.] http://www.printz.usm.edu/news/1-15-2002prison.html An expanded version of this can also be found at http://www3.onu.edu/org/northernreview/Jan_14_2002/Pg5_Jan14.pdf Wadman is Program Director for the WSU Master Degree in Criminal Justice, established in 2001 "designed for criminal justice and social service professionals who wish to continue their education, and who plan to use the degree to bring about positive change in the justice system." according to the WSU 2002-2003 catalog. http://documents.weber.edu/catalog/0203/pages/cjms.htm http://www.printz.usm.edu/news/1-15-2002prison.html He is a chronic opponent of legal armed self defense, but I would bet an NRA membership that HE has a CCW permit. Wadman is probably the author of a 1993 book "Community Policing and Crime Prevention in America and England" which probably does not reflect the horrendous increase in violent crime since the near total English gun ban. Some employment history from the Omaha PD "1982 Utah Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety Robert C. Wadman was appointed Chief of Police for Omaha, becoming the first Chief appointed from the outside the ranks of the Omaha Police Division. 1986 Chief Robert C. Wadman was replaced by then Mayor Mike Boyle. Assistant Chief Jack Swanson was appointed as interim Chief of Police. Chief Wadman was re-instated in 1987 and remained as Chief of Police until he resigned in 1989. http://www.opd.ci.omaha.ne.us/media/history2.htm Education: Robert C. Wadman: B.S., Brigham Young University, 1970; M.P.A., Brigham Young University, 1975; D.A., Idaho State University, 1998. Organizing for the Prevention of Crime. Idaho State University. http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:W5-MXTMEc_wJ:www.apsanet.org/PS/dec98/d issertations/pa.cfm++%22Robert+C.+Wadman%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 WSU biography & photo Robert C. Wadman, Assistant Professor Ph.D. in Arts, Idaho State University [What the heck is PhD in Arts?] Weber State University since 1997 Teaches: Introduction to Criminal Justice, Community Policing, Research Methods in Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Management, Drugs and Crime, Victimology A former Nebraska subordinate commented "Wadman had people skills that didn't relate to police work; he lacked skills with cops." http://www.unoalumni.org/magazine/current_alum/street_cop/ He peddles himself as an expert witness DR. ROBERT WADMAN EXPERT WITNESS AND PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT Dr. Wadman is currently a Professor of Criminal Justice at Weber State University. His career has included positions as Police Chief of Omaha, NE, Orem, UT, Aurora, IL, and Wilmington, NC,Public Safety for the State of Utah, DEA/Agent in Charge and San Diego Police Sergeant.Dr. Wadman has been certified as an Expert Witness in Federal Court 2002. Will send attorney references on request. Prosecution or Defense work. Please E-mail for further information. This Expert Witness WebRing site owned by Robert Wadman. Email: rwadman1@weber.edu - ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Save up to $400 on all notebooks. Get the notebook you want with all the features at a price you love. Price after rebates and savings http://us.click.yahoo.com/gx2HjB/wwSGAA/ySSFAA/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 #242 ***********************************