From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #249 Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest Sender: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk utah-firearms-digest Thursday, October 23 2003 Volume 02 : Number 249 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:18:23 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: NRA: Your honor, we are here wanting to register handguns The following is from the Keep and Bear arms alerts. I urge those interested in more details to go to the website and view the entire transcripts. While this was a preliminary hearing of some kind to determine standing, and while lawyers may argue in fairly complex ways to get past initial hurdles and save a case for trial, it is very disturbing and potentially damaging to have the NRA attorney on record as supporting registration of handguns. If anyone can provide an explanation for this position that casts the NRA in a better light in this case, please let me know. Or, if this info is somehow in error, please let me know that as well. Thank you. Charles ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Oct. 13, 2003 KeepAndBearArms.com NRA Attorney: "YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS." by Angel Shamaya NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook appears not only unprepared to effectively argue a Second Amendment case, but ready to give up the farm -- to register handguns and call it "reasonable" -- when he gets his day in court. Read the annotated transcript of Mr. Halbrook's oral arguments from court just last week.... ________________________________________________________________ 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, 14 Oct 2003 16:39:08 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Disarming Domestic Violence Abusers This is an issue we've been aware for quite a while, but important to remember that the other side is also aware of, and more than willing to expoit it. ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- The Brady/Mommies have a new tactic that they tried out last year and will be their big push at the state level this year, so we can expect to see it here in Utah. Soon. They are trying to use "domestic violence prevention" as the excuse to pass laws to have judges/law enforcment remove guns already owned by people newly made subect to a restraining order, and also want to force gun show sales through a FFL to detect restraining order subjects and prevent them from buying guns . A load of crap to be sure, they just want to get everyone's guns, and this is a sympathetic sounding "reasonable" step. Here is their summary: Their complete battle plan in .pdf format is at www.millionmommarch.org/xshare/pdf/facts/dom_violence.pdf and it has the following very scary section describing how they want to use any purchase or licensing information for confiscation. (Take guns away from the restraining order people now, the rest of us later, although they do not say that.) QUOTE In states that maintain records of prior gun purchases (either through gun sale records or firearms licensing), laws should be enacted authorizing and requiring law enforcement to compare the records of prohibited abusers with Terry sez: records of prior gun acquisition. Law enforcement should take action to disarm prohibited abusers who are identified as having previously acquired a firearm. California enacted legislation that allows law enforcement to identify and act against people who purchased firearms legally in the past but are now prohibited from possessing guns - such as gun owners who become subject to a domestic violence restraining order. The California Department of Justice has begun establishing systems that will promptly identify abusers (and other prohibited persons) who are suspected of possessing firearms. Funding constraints have prevent full enforcement in California, but since July 2002, the California Department of Justice has seized firearms from more than 400 domestic violence abusers, eliminating the likelihood that those guns could be used to kill or injure women or children.16 Forty-four states have failed to enact state laws to empower either law enforcement or the courts to identify and disarm prohibited abusers who already have firearms.17 END QUOTE ________________________________________________________________ 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, 14 Oct 2003 16:54:19 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Nobody's talking about gun control While this article from fox news might be taken as a good sign by some, it is a reminder that just because politicians stop talking about taking our RKBA, doesn't mean they have changed their intent if they can get elected. And while hunting and sport shooting are fine and important aspects of RKBA, rest assured that anyone who does not support your right to an effective, armed self-defense both in the home and while in public is likely to eventually put a major crimp even in hunting and sport shooting. Some of the best rifles for big game are also excellent for "sniper" type uses. Some of the features included on the best shotguns for game birds, also make for fine riot guns. And any handgun good for any sport shooting except single shot, slow fire, is likely to share a lot of characteristics with weapons suitable for self-defense. It takes a lot more to support RKBA than just not attacking it in public during a campaign season. Charles ================== Charles Hardy Excerpts: The Democrats have decided that the stove is still hot and they don’t want to get burned again,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America (search). “Whatever the rhetoric had been it hasn’t been matched with what happened at the polling booth.” Howard and others expect the discourse to heat up in the months preceding the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban (search) in September 2004. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., has already introduced a reauthorization bill with tougher restrictions. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has introduced her own version in the Senate. “People understand that assault weapons do not belong on the street,” said McCarthy spokesman Scott Rowson. “No matter Democrat or Republican, there is deep and broad support against assault weapons in the public.” Gun rights activists say if gun control were to become an issue in the 2004 election, it will be over the assault weapons ban reauthorization. Republican sources say debate is already emerging among the GOP rank-and-file in the House whether to fight it, and talk has centered around whether gun advocates will be inclined to go all out for President Bush if he signs a new ban. “If it gets to the president’s desk, and he signs it, [that] would be a campaign issue like you wouldn’t believe,” said Pratt. “It would put gun owners in a real foul mood.” The Associated Press contributed to this report. ________________________________________________________________ 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, 14 Oct 2003 19:24:58 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Another perspective Fw: NRA: Your honor, we are here wanting to regis ter handguns Here is a different perspective on the NRA's lawyer's comments in court regarding gun registration. My thanks to Mitch Vilos for his insightful comments. ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Mitch Vilos' take on the situation. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "James D. Vilos" > Caution: Shamaya and Lucas are taking Halbrook's argument totally out of > context. > > Washington D.C. already has gun registration. All Halbrook was arguing > was that he wasn't trying to change that, he was simply trying to get > them to start issuing permits again to law-abiding citizens. From the > arguments I gather that Wash. D.C. was not allowing law-abiding citizens > to register their pistols so they could lawfully have them in their > homes. So registration wasn't the battle ground. Why piss off the > court by arguing against registration when it isn't the issue in the > case? Why try to argue that there can't be reasonable restrictions on > the 2nd Amendment when it would cause you to lose credibility with the > court? Every right in the Bill of Rights is subject to reasonable > restrictions - free speech, search and seizure etc. If you argue > otherwise, judges dismiss you as a nut case. > > For Angel Shamaya and Roy Lucas to take Halbrook's comments so grossly > out of context makes me seriously wonder about their credibility! > Halbrook is one of the most gifted, knowledgeable and successful > attorneys on Second Amendment issues there is. If you don't believe me, > read his book "That Every Man be Armed." Justice Thomas cites his book > with approval in the Lopez case where the Supreme Court struck down the > next-to-the-latest version of the Gun Free School Zone act as exceeding > Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. > > James D. "Mitch" Vilos > Attorney at Law > P.O. Box 1148 > Centerville, Utah 84014 > Local Tel.No.: (801)295-3340 > Mobile: (801)560-7117 > 1(800)530-0222 > Practice Concentrating in Accidents and Personal Injury, Insurance Law, > Medical Malpractice, Defective Products, Workplace Injuries (not > Worker's Compensation), and Firearms Law (representation of gun owners > in criminal actions, expungements, and civil rights cases) > ________________________________________________________________ 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, 14 Oct 2003 19:31:52 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: SLC Police Chief joins Utah's anti-gun group. Sorry for the volume of email on RKBA the last day or two. A lot of stuff going on it seems. This is probably old news to many. I wonder if one of Dinse's captains or officers would be free to join the board of one of the various pro-gun groups. OTOH, at least it is clear where this man stands on our RKBA, for, despite far too protestations to the contrary, Utahns Against Gun Violence is decidedly against YOUR RIGHT to an effective, armed, self defense while in publicly accessable, non-secure, places. It will be interesting to see if we now start having uniformed, SLC police officers testifying against our RKBA at legislative hearings. Perhaps we can convince our legislators to at least ask pointed questions of any such person as to whether he is there in an official capacity, at the behest of any superior, on the clock, and if not, why he has chosen to appear in uniform. Charles Dinse joins the board of group devoted to ending gun violence By Michael N. Westley The Salt Lake Tribune Salt Lake City Police Chief Rick Dinse has added another duty to his roster of peace-keeping efforts. Dinse accepted a board position with the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah (GVPC) this week, saying the position is a natural extension of his job as the chief of police. "In my years of law enforcement, I've seen guns and the violence surrounding them and the impact it has on the community and individuals, and I believe the organization has the goal of reducing that violence. As the chief of police I heartily support their efforts," Dinse said. Marla Kennedy, executive director of GVPC, says the organization was formed as an official nonprofit two years ago but operated for more than 10 years from around the kitchen table of Ron and Norma Mullins as Utahns Against Gun Violence. The couple's son was killed by a stray bullet in a college fight. "We're not anti-gun," Kennedy said. "We're anti-gun violence." GVPC is the only gun violence prevention group in Utah, Kennedy said. They look at gun violence as a major health issue for Utahns, citing 233 deaths involving firearms in 2001 -- placing it ahead of breast cancer and colon cancer. "Gun violence is about public health and public safety. Law enforcement backs that clearly with Chief Dinse joining our board," said Kennedy. Dinse, now in his fourth year as chief, is encouraged by GVPC's efforts. "By becoming a part of [the organization], I can focus attention on the problem and lend some support to reducing that violence," said Dinse. ================== 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, 15 Oct 2003 17:30:01 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Judge Hilder bows out UofU's illegal gun ban Whether this is some kind of juvenile protest on the part of Judge Hilder, or simply the easiest way for him to avoid having to reverse his own ruling in the event the State SC remands the case back down for further consideration, I'm thinking it is probably a good thing to have him off the case. Notice that the attorney for the scofflaw UofU seems to be implying that it is not proper to even publicly critique a judge's rulings. That would be dangerous to enforce. We, the public, have a hard enough time getting any meaningful info about how our judges are performing as it is. I'd say this ruling alone, is sufficient reason to give 3rd District Judge Robert Hilder a NO vote at his next retention election, which, I believe will be this next year at the 2004 general election. Those living in the counties of Salt Lake, Tooele, and Summit will be able to vote no on his retention. ================== Charles Hardy Judge bows out on guns in schools http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10152003/utah/102045.asp By Kirsten Stewart The Salt Lake Tribune Citing irreparable damage to the public's trust caused by challenges to his impartiality by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and a state senator, 3rd District Judge Robert Hilder has washed his hands of a court dispute over the legality of the University of Utah's campus gun ban. In a recusal order filed Friday, Hilder, who in August upheld the U.'s firearms ban, denied injecting "in any way or in any degree any personal bias or preference." Under state Rules of Judicial Administration, parties or counsel who believe a judge is biased are supposed to file a sworn statement with the court. No such complaint has been filed against Hilder. But seeing no other way to restore the public's confidence, Hilder "reluctantly" has stepped aside and asked that the case be reassigned. "In rare instances, a meritless perception of bias is as damaging to the public's confidence in the judicial process as the presence of actual bias. This is particularly true in matters that have a high public profile," Hilder wrote. "The public statements simply cannot be countered in any way that would reasonably restore the public's confidence in this particular tribunal." Shurtleff and Senate Majority Leader Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, deny any malice and insist they never meant to question Hilder's integrity. "I was surprised he would even recuse himself. He's already made his ruling and he's not even in the loop," said Shurtleff. Shurtleff plans to appeal Hilder's gun decision this week. Depending on the Utah Supreme Court's action, the case could be remanded back to state court. And the recusal, a rare move for a judge this late in a trial, adds another layer of political intrigue to the already hot-button issue of guns in schools. At issue for Hilder is Shurtleff's statement that Hilder and U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball, who earlier refused to rule in the university's lawsuit until a state court looked at issues of law, have "tipped their hats on how they feel about guns." Shurtleff made that statement in a news article about the risks involved in appealing Hilder's ruling that was published Sept. 25 in The Salt Lake Tribune. Paraphrasing Shurtleff, Waddoups was quoted in that same article as saying, "He's judging the judges and I have to think he's pretty accurate, because I don't know how Hilder ever came up with his decision." Waddoups said Tuesday his remarks had "nothing to do with [Hilder's] impartiality." "I could never figure out where he came from. I don't see how anybody could interpret the plain language of the law the way he did. But he did," Waddoups said. "It's either him wanting to rule from the bench or flat out not understanding what the intent of the Legislature was." Waddoups is pushing legislation this coming winter "to make clear our intent," that the Legislature is the only body with the authority to make gun policy in Utah. Shurtleff still disagrees with Hilder, but said "every day a judge rules, someone is going to disagree with it." When asked whether Hilder was criticizing him for vetting his complaints in the court of public opinion rather than a court of law, Shurtleff said, "I don't know why he did this. It's bizarre." University of Utah attorney Allan Sullivan called the recusal "regrettable." "It's regrettable whenever a judge recuses himself because of things people have said in the press," Sullivan said. "There is an appropriate way to bring up this type of thing to a judge's attention and that was ignored in this case." kstewart@sltrib.com ________________________________________________________________ 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, 16 Oct 2003 07:56:11 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Gun control or gun safety: What's the difference? Gun control or gun safety: What's the difference? - ---------- Liberty Belles by Jennifer Freeman "Old tricks. New phrases. Same agenda. In the beginning, gun-ban organizations were very forthright in their intentions to ban the private ownership of firearms by U.S. citizens. It did not take long for gun-banners to figure out that the overwhelming majority of Americans ... support the Second Amendment as an individual right and are not likely to support an all out ban ..." (10/15/03) http://www.free-market.net/rd/103992634.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:23:35 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: The SLTrib suggests turning a golf course into a shooting range? Only as one option, but this might be an ideal time to remind our SLCo Mayor and County Council that while golfers and others have an overabundance of taxpayer provided recreational opportunities available, shooters in SLCo are facing a worsening shortage of safe and legal, much less convenient, places to engage in their chosen sport. PS, Nothing against those in our ranks who enjoy golf. But some outdoor shooting ranges in SLCo would sure be nice. Mayor Workman may be reached at: (801) 468-2727 While the Council members may be reached by at: Main council number: Ph- (801) 468-2930 Fax- (801) 468-3029 A Randy Horiuchi (801) 468-2936 B Jim Bradley (801) 468-2939 C Steve Harmsen (801) 468-2934 1 Joe Hatch (801) 468-2933 email 2 Michael Jensen (801) 468-2932 3 David Wilde (801) 468-2931 4 Russell Skousen (801) 468-2937 5 Cortland G. Ashton (801) 468-2935 6 Marvin Hendrickson (801) 468-2938 ================== Charles Hardy Over par It is time for Salt Lake County to get out some of those stubby little pencils golfers use to keep score and figure out whether there might be a better use for any of the six county-owned golf courses, a use that won't cost county taxpayers yet another $2 million in subsidies next year. A cross-county ski area, perhaps? With runs for equestrian events in the summer? A soccer complex? A shooting range? Or just a plain old relaxing park? While county officials figure that greens fees pay the daily operating costs of the courses, the declining number of golfers stretched over a large number of public and private courses in Utah means the county golf system cannot cover its $3 million in annual debt service without more taxpayer support. The County Council has poured nearly $4 million into the courses since 2000, and will officially ponder budgeting another $2 million, from their tourism and recreation account, for next year. The real money pit in the county system is, of course, the South Mountain course in Draper, purchased from what the real estate agents call a particularly eager seller for $15.9 million in 1999. The course is picturesque, but remote and considered a challenging round, so it has never come close to attracting the 90,000 nine-hole rounds a year its backers predicted. It is not at all uncommon for local leaders to seek golf courses for their communities. They do enhance the quality of life and provide an attractive amenity to the business types who decide where to locate their offices and factories. In addition to the county, West Valley City and North Salt Lake are subsidizing golf courses from tax revenues. But the courses generally serve a small, and shrinking, portion of the population. The last generation of businessmen, who used to be the mainstay of golf courses, often find themselves much too busy to take in a round, while many coffee-driven entrepreneurs of the dot-com era find the game painfully slow. Another reason for the government to get into the links business is the idea that it will place the game within reach, physically and financially, of the average citizen. That's true, to an extent, but it doesn't overcome the fact that the Salt Lake area simply has a surplus of golf venues and that market forces can't be ignored forever, even by government. Other uses for South Mountain, or any of the county's other courses, would likely produce little or no revenue. But they wouldn't create the need for the same level of staffing and maintenance, either. There is a somewhat objective number that could be determined, if county staff were directed to do so, that would let the County Council and taxpayers know what the alternatives were, and help them decide whether continued golf subsidies are worth it. ________________________________________________________________ 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, 17 Oct 2003 18:12:59 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Gun news. SLC Police Chief Dinse / U gun ban My thanks to reporter Derek Jensen for seeking out local pro-RKBA groups to comment on the Dinse case as well as for his fair and accurate portrayal of my comments. If anyone is so inclined, she or he may want to drop Mr. Jensen a quick email to either thank him for that, and/or to ask him to further report on the so-called Utahns Against Gun Violence. For example, how many public school teachers with a concealed weapons permit have ever committed any violence (or even had any kind of accident or incidnet with their weapon) while carrying a self defense weapon to school? So why does UAGV want to leave teachers defenseless not only at work, but also in transit? Ditto for parishoners and churches. So why ban guns at churches rather than leaving it up to the individual discression of churches as is now the case? Why are they opposed to law-abiding, 25 year old female students at the U being able to defend themselves? Etc, etc, etc. Charles Dinse post draws fire Gun advocates object to his work with anti-violence group By Derek Jensen Deseret Morning News A national gun-rights group is calling for Salt Lake City Police Chief Rick Dinse's resignation after he joined the board of directors of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. Dinse was announced as a member of the center's 10-member board of directors last week. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, based in Bellevue, Wash., boasts 650,000 members nationwide and more than 6,000 members in Utah. The committee received an e-mail over the weekend from "somebody in (Dinse's) own" department expressing concern over Dinse's new position, chairman Alan Gottlieb said. Gottlieb declined to release the e-mail or identify the sender, but added that his organization had received some 30 e-mails or phone calls from Salt Lake residents reportedly concerned with Dinse's new position. "We've gotten a lot of calls from members and citizens in Salt Lake City who are very upset and angry about this because they feel they can't trust law enforcement anymore," Gottlieb said. The committee's sharply worded, one-page news release faxed to news organizations Thursday stated, "Dinse will be nothing more than a shill for the anti-gun lobby, working against the rights of the law-abiding citizens he was hired to serve." Representatives of local gun-rights groups were careful not to endorse the statement but did express concern over Dinse's position on the Gun Violence Prevention Center's board of directors. "I think it's inappropriate," Utah Gun Owners Alliance executive director Sarah Thompson. "I think for someone in his position it certainly is a conflict of interest." Gun Owners of Utah policy director Charles Hardy agreed. "We also have serious questions about parity," he said. "If one of his officers or captains or someone in the force were to want to join a pro-gun group or take a very visible role in a pro-self-defense organization, would that person feel comfortable doing it? Would they be allowed to do it? Would that person be allowed to do it on the same basis as the chief is going to participate in this anti-self-defense group?" Dinse's boss, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, said the chief did not consult him before joining the center's board of directors. "I am very supportive of Chief Dinse's work with this organization," said Anderson, a liberal Democrat who supports banning guns in churches and schools. "There may be political implications but I am happy to take any political heat that results from Chief Dinse's work to reduce gun violence." A police spokesman who showed Dinse a copy of the statement said the chief was "amused by it." "Obviously, the people of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are not aware of what the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah is all about," Salt Lake City police detective Dwayne Baird said. "He researched it before he told them he would assist them as a member of the board of directors." Gun Violence Prevention Center executive director Marla Kennedy called the committee's demand for Dinse's resignation "offensive." "We are not anti-gun; we are anti-gun violence," Kennedy said. "I have concealed-weapon-permit holders on my board. . . . We are not an extremist organization and we don't even respond to comments that paint us as such." The prevention center is a nonprofit organization that works to end violence and suffering resulting from the misuse of firearms, Kennedy said. As a member of the center's board of directors, Dinse will serve for three years and have input about how the center will handle legislative bills involving gun violence, educational programs and other gun violence information programs. Dinse is the first working law enforcement officer to be named to the Utah center's board of directors. "I'm very comfortable with what our organization does and I'm very comfortable with the fact that polling and our statistics show that the majority of Utahns support what we do because we are gun owners. We are advocates of responsible gun ownership," said Kennedy. E-mail: djensen@desnews.com U. gun ban back in court Shurtleff says it's his duty to take case higher By Angie Welling Deseret Morning News The battle over guns on the University of Utah campus has returned to the courtroom. The Utah Attorney General's Office on Thursday filed a notice of appeal in the case, which was dismissed in late August following a state court judge's ruling that state law does not prohibit the U. from enforcing its own ban on on-campus firearms. "I believe that the decision was wrong, and I think I have a duty to appeal it to a higher court," Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said. In ruling in favor of the university, 3rd District Judge Robert Hilder determined that the U.'s 25-year-old internal policy prohibiting firearms on campus does not run contrary to the state's concealed weapons law and firearms act. Those statutes, according to Shurtleff, grant the Utah Legislature sole authority to enact gun laws. The appeal to the Utah Supreme Court will focus on a narrow issue arising out of Hilder's ruling — the judge's finding that the U.'s policy does not invalidate concealed-weapons permits, it just does not allow the weapons themselves to be carried on campus. State law holds that concealed-weapons permits are valid everywhere in the state, other than those locations that lawmakers have designated as secure areas, such as courthouses and airports. Shurtleff said lawmakers clearly intended the law to apply to permits as well as weapons, and he will ask the high court to make that finding. "The Supreme Court will simply have to look at the statute and the intent of the legislature when it was passed," he said. The high court will likely not hear arguments in the matter until after next year's legislative session, when lawmakers are expected to address the issue through additional legislation. Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-West Jordan, has said he will carry a bill clarifying lawmakers' authority and intent in regulating when and where concealed weapons may be carried. If that is the case, Shurtleff said, he will dismiss the appeal. Last week, in an unusual move, Hilder recused himself from additional participation in the case. Although no matters are currently pending before him, the judge said his impartiality has been called into question since his Aug. 29 ruling. Hilder cited "widely publicized statements" by Shurtleff and Waddoups that the judge took to indicate he has predisposed notions about gun control. "Mr. Shurtleff did say he could not predict how a judge would rule, but that this court and one other have 'tipped their hats on how they feel about guns,' " Hilder wrote. "The foregoing are clear statements of bias that, if true, would disqualify the assigned judge from the case." Calling Hilder's action "curious," Shurtleff said he doesn't believe Hilder is biased. If so, he said, he would bring a motion asking the judge to step down if the case ever returned to Hilder's courtroom. Shurtleff said the statements came as his office was evaluating its options for an appeal and never meant to imply Hilder was unfair in his ruling. E-mail: awelling@desnews.com ================== 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, 17 Oct 2003 11:43:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joe Waldron" Subject: Re: Gun news. SLC Police Chief Dinse / U gun ban > > > My thanks to reporter Derek Jensen for seeking out local pro-RKBA groups > to comment on the Dinse case as well as for his fair and accurate > portrayal of my comments. A classic example of what you raised, Charles, is what ahppened in San Jose, CA, several years ago. SJ police chief Joe McNamara was the darling of the Brady crowd, allowing them to use his photo and name for many of their gun control ads. When one of his officers, Leroy Pyle, objected and started working the pro-gun side, Pyle was hounded out of the department. I'm sure other examples exist, as well. I personally know several police officers who are very pro-gun, but who are silent publicly lest they draw the ire of their anti-gun chiefs. Joe W ED, CCRKBA - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:41:22 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Anti-gun Bills Facing Heavy Opposition National gun news with a local connection. Our own Sen. Hatch is one of those presumably "pro-gun" senators sponsoring an anti-RKBA bill. ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Bills Facing Heavy Grassroots Opposition -- Your activism peels six Reps. off stealth gun control bill! Tuesday, October 21, 2003 You guys have done a great job in recent weeks. The following is a report on two of the issues that Gun Owners of America has alerted you to, and the resulting progress that we have made together: 1. Supporters of Gun Control Education Bill are Losing Ground. Not too long ago, GOA alerted you to a dangerous education bill (H.R. 1078) that was on a "fast track" to George Bush's desk. This bill would set up so-called Presidential Academies to train educators in history and civics, with no safeguards that the education would steer clear of the existing anti-gun propaganda that is ALREADY PREVALENT in the public schools. We are pleased to report that because of your activism, six cosponsors of H.R. 1078 have removed their names from the bill: Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) Rep. John Kline (R-MN) Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) You should not underestimate how significant these defections are. Congressmen RARELY remove their names from a bill. The fact that not just one -- but six -- would jump off the bill is evidence of the immense grassroots pressure. You should take a moment to pat yourselves on the back. These defectors should also be commended for doing the right thing. It is encouraging to see that there are representatives in Congress who are humble enough to admit when they've made a mistake. Let them know you appreciate their bold step. Now, there is good and bad news on this front. The good news is that your overwhelming opposition to the bill -- and the resulting hemorrhage that has ensued -- has slowed down the bill's progress. Supporters wanted the President to sign the bill over a month ago. The bill seemed to be sailing along, even garnering a unanimous approval in the Senate. But your opposition has put Representatives on notice that there are serious problems with the bill. The bad news is that the President is still demanding that Congress send him the bill. And that is why it is imperative that you contact the White House if you have not already done so. (Please see the Action paragraph below.) 2. Schumer-McCarthy Bills Not Getting the Expected Support. On another front, GOA recently alerted you to the Schumer-McCarthy legislation (H.R. 3227 and S. 1706) -- two bills that would sacrifice more of our privacy and deny even more good Americans their right to keep and bear arms. As we reported in our most recent alert, this legislation has the potential to dupe many pro-gunners into cosponsoring the bill. Already, there is one NRA Director (and one former Director) cosponsoring the bill. And a few other "moderately" pro-gun Congressmen have cosponsored the bill as well. But, there have been relatively few good guys to sign on to the bill so far, AND THIS IS A TESTAMENT TO YOUR HARD WORK AND ACTIVISM. Of the 56 Representatives and 7 Senators that have cosponsored the two bills, only seven have GOA ratings between an "A" and "C." They are: A- Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-CA) C- Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) C- Rep. Clay Shaw (R-FL) B- Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) C- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) B Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) C- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) It would be helpful for these legislators to hear from their constituents. 1. ACTION on the Anti-gun Education Bill (H.R. 1078) A. Make sure you've asked President Bush to oppose the bill. You can contact him by visiting the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send him a pre-written e-mail message. B. If your congressman is one of the six (listed above) who has removed his name from H.R. 1078, please be sure to thank him or her. 2. ACTION on the Schumer-McCarthy Bills (H.R. 3227 and S. 1706) You can reference our previous alert (see http://www.gunowners.org/a093003.htm) to read a more in-depth analysis of this legislation, and to find prewritten text to send to your congressmen. You can also use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send them a pre-written e-mail in opposition to this gun control bill. **************************** What happens when self-defense is against the law? In just 58 minutes, "Innocents Betrayed" opens eyes, shatters myths, changes minds -- and can save lives. This is a must-see, must-share film. Including footage supplied by GOA, it's the factual counterpoint to Michael Moore's infamous "Bowling for Columbine." This fast-moving, made-for-TV documentary from JPFO shows how victim disarmament policies led to: * Genocide in Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda and more -- up to 170,000,000 lives destroyed. * Persecution, mass murder, slavery, and terrorist attacks in the United States. For a limited time, you can get free shipping plus three Freedom booklets with each order -- and a portion of the proceeds will go towards supporting GOA. Please see http://www.gunowners.org/jpfoib.htm for details. **************************** ________________________________________________________________ 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, 23 Oct 2003 19:05:07 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: DesNews editorial supports gun education This is certainly a welcome surprise. Letters to the editor to congragulate him for this burst of insight can be sent to . ================== Charles Hardy Educate kids about guns Deseret Morning News editorial On Monday, two dozen people gathered at the Jordan International Peace Gardens to plant 1,000 daffodils in memory of those who have died from gunshot wounds. In a sense, the gesture was reminiscent of the Japanese custom of making 1,000 origami cranes to ensure good luck. But people tend to make their own luck. And a good way to make sure your child is one of the lucky ones who avoids gun injury is through shared information. Parents should not only talk to their children about sex and drugs, but about firearms - what they are, how they work and the proper way to deal with them. As with so much in life, education is the key. Instruction is a good way to prevent boating accidents and car accidents. It is also the best way to short-circuit gunshot accidents. We're not advocating mandatory hunter safety courses or that kids know how to dismantle an AK-47; but guns are a part of a child's life - more so than parents care to acknowledge. Guns crop up in movies, on television, in stores, on playgrounds, in the homes of friends and in children's own homes. If cobras were as ubiquitous as guns, every parent would make sure their child knew all about cobras. Cobras would be topic "A" at the dinner table. But many parents steer clear of gun discussions. And when kids come across a gun, they are often so intrigued - even mesmerized - that they can't leave it alone. Curiosity gets the best of them. Firearm education would lessen the exotic appeal. Naysayers might claim that teaching gun safety to kids will only enhance interest and desire. But if that were the case, parents would never dare teach kids about sex and drugs. Studies - and personal experience - have shown education is an antidote. It is because of education that most of the nation wears automobile seatbelts. Education would also help children know more about the use and care of guns, as well as the safety measures and precautions that need to be observed around them. Many gunshot deaths are accidents. Accidents are the result of human error. Innocence, ignorance and negligence can lead to accidents. Good information is good accident prevention. ________________________________________________________________ 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 #249 ***********************************