From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #257 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 Wednesday, March 3 2004 Volume 02 : Number 257 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 00:03:37 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: GOUtah! Alert. Action needed on SB 48 I've just learned that anti-gun, anti-self-defense HR managers are pressing conference committee members and members of the House of Reps to keep paragraph 7 in this bill. Apparantly a fair number of businesses want to be able to pull an AOL and fire employees just for having a gun in the parking lot. Please call now. Emails are better than nothing, but a phone call will allow you to leave messages for 3 or 4 legislators at a time and carry more weight. Faxes are also very good. There are now FOUR committee members who need to hear from you: Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5), Send Greg Bell (R-22), Rep. Curt Webb (R-5), Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75). Also, your own Representative as well as Speaker Stephens need to hear from you on this ASAP. Charles GOUtah! Alert #197 - 1 Mar. 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "When stand up for your own rights, you start a chain of good events which helps you - and lots of other people too, in ways that no one could foresee." - -- Dave Kopel ACTION NEEDED ON SB 48 TODAY Last Friday, Sen. Mike Waddoups, the sponsor of SB 48 (the bill designed to eliminate the University of Utah's ban on self-defense weapons), asked the Senate not to concur on the version of the bill that was passed by the House, so that a House/Senate conference committee could be formed under his leadership to improve the bill. The Senate approved his request. This means that the bill is now being re-designed by a committee of six legislators. GOUtah! has suggested to Sen. Waddoups that Paragraph 7 be completely removed from the bill (see Alert #48). This paragraph, which seems like an innocuous clause designed to protect the rights of individuals who own private property, is poorly worded and includes language that would unnecessarily subjugate the Utah Legislature to the whims of future federal bureaucrats who might want to restrict gun ownership under the guise of property rights (such as in federally-subsidized housing, etc.). GOUtah! has also suggested that, if Paragraph 7 is going to be replaced with anything, it be replaced with language that would affirm the right to carry a firearm for self-defense on all property that is open to the public. This conference committee will be meeting, probably today (Monday), to come up with a new version of the bill, which will then be sent to the full Senate and the full House for a final vote. Committee members are Sen. Mike Waddoups (R-6), Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5), Send Greg Bell (R-22), Rep. Curt Webb (R-5), Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75), and Rep. Ty McCartney (D-31). We've been informed by a source inside the committee that two of these committee members, Sen. Bell and Rep. Webb, are "on the fence" and will need encouragement from their constituents to come up with a bill that is fully consistent with your right to keep and bear arms and your right to self-defense. We also believe that Sen. Mayne, could use some friendly encouragement from his constituents. Although he has often been supportive of gun owners' rights in the past, he might be under a lot of pressure from his party's leadership to sabotage SB 48. If any of the following three committee members is from your district, please contact him immediately with a simple message, such as: "My name is so-and-so, from such-and-such a town. I live in your district. Please help Sen. Waddoups to create a final version of SB 48 that does not in any way compromise my right to carry a firearm for self-defense on all property that is open to the public", or any similar message that you can come up with yourself. At this late date, we believe that the best way to contact your Senator orRepresentative is to leave a phone message during the day at the appropriate number at the State Capitol, or to fax him at the Capitol (you may use the pre-written letter below if you wish). You can also call them at home in the early evening. However, because the committee will probably be meeting today, we suggest that you act as soon as you can. Legislators are increasingly unlikely to read e-mail as the end of the session approaches. Rep. Curt Webb (R-5) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801-538-1908 Home phone: 435-753-0215 e-mail: Curtwebb@u... Sen. Greg Bell (R-22) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: (801)538-1878 e-mail: gbell@u... Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: 801-538-1449 Home phone: (801) 968-7756 e-mail: emayne@u... ANTI-GUN-SHOW AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL BILL In Alert #195, we mentioned that an effort is being made in the U.S. Senate to amend S. 659 (the bill designed to curb frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry). In particular, we mentioned that anti-gun Senators were attempting to attach legislation that would make the 1994 "assault weapon" ban permanent. Also, we mentioned that an effort would be made to attach the McCain-Reed anti-gun-show bill. We've learned that the lawsuit-protection bill (S. 659) has been replaced with S. 1805, which is essentially the same bill. However, the efforts to attach anti-gun stuff to this bill continue apace. According to an alert we' ve received from the Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC - http://www.utahshootingsports.org), an attempt will be made on the floor of the Senate to attach the anti-gun-show bill today or tomorrow. If you haven' t already done so, please contact Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett to let them know that you will not tolerate any anti-gun amendments to S. 1805, including the McCain-Reed gun-show amendment or the Feinstein "assault weapon" amendment. Senator Orrin Hatch Phone: 801-524-4380 Fax: 801-524-4379 e-mail: senator_hatch@h... Senator Robert Bennett Phone: 801-524-5933 Fax: 801-524-5730 e-mail: senator_bennett@b... _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #197 - 1 Mar. 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW: - ------------------------ Cut Here ------------------------- Date: From: To: Dear ___________________: As a constituent of yours and a gun owner, I encourage you to help create a final version of SB 48 which cannot be interpreted in any way that would compromise or interfere with my right to possess and carry a self-defense weapon on all property that is open to the public. Please get back to me and let me know how you voted. Sincerely, - ------------------- Cut Here --------------------- ================== 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: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 04:45:05 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: USSC Urgent Action Alert The latest from USSC. Charles ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- URGENT ACTION ALERT 3/1/04 FOR ALL USSC MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS ACTION REQUIRED- Contact Representatives Lavar Christenen and Curt Webb IMMEDIATELY. (Do not make phone calls after about 9:30 at night, and always be polite.) Also contact your own Representative with same message. Contact information and pre-written fax or email message follows discussion of the issue Bill number SB 48- Uniform Firearms Laws (Waddoups) This is the bill that makes it clear that the Legislature, not the University of Utah writes the gun laws for the state. The bill has passed both houses with agreement on the language concerning the University issue. However, business special interest groups have been bombarding the conference committee members and House members with demands that they KEEP the language that would allow restrictions on CCW Permit holders legally carried self defense weapons. This goes beyond employer/employee policies, and opens a Pandora's box of restrictions. Such language may allow private property owners to post their entire property, not just buildings, regardless of it being open for public access or business. We are firmly opposed to ANY restrictions on legally carried self defense weapons. However, anyone who wants to impose restrictions certainly implies that they will guarantee the safety of every person on their property, and that they assume full liability for any incidents that take place, including deliberate criminal assaults by third parties. By denying the right of self defense, a failure to provide adequate safety should result in punitive as well as actual damages. In addition to serious liability issues the property owner would assume, there are major unanswered questions about how a permit holder could be prosecuted when there is no reasonable method of notification that a property is "posted" nor any uniform standard for ALL guns. If they say "no guns" can drug dealers demand that police remove their guns before entering their property, and escape prosecution if they do not? How about private security (Brinks) guarding deliveries of money to banks, or collecting receipts from businesses? How is a permit holder to know what property they cannot carry on? Will they have big lines painted on the parking lot, or a confusing legal listing of metes and bounds? Does that mean all their property or just the actual buildings? Can a permit holder leave a gun in their vehicle (their private property) on someone else's parking lot? Private property rights are a major issue that cannot be addressed by a line or two in a bill, but would require even more detail than was required to spell out the existing right to restrict guns from churches (who can restrict entry for many reasons unrelated to guns) and private residences where "a man's home is his castle." Note that both those ONLY restrict permit holders from the actual "house of worship or "residence", and NOT the grounds, yard, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks,. etc. If there are going to be any private property restrictions (and we believer there should NOT be) they must be addressed in detail, so that permit holders can reasonably know of any restrictions, and that those imposing restrictions are aware of the liability that they assume by making them. ACTION REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY Contact the two House Conference Committee members who are holding up removal of the private property language: Call, fax and email! Rep. LaVar Christensen (R-48) Cell Phone: (801) 560-3948; Home phone (801) 571-8603; Fax:(801)538-1908 e-mail: Lavarchristensen@utah.gov Rep. Curt Webb- (R-5) Home- 435-753-0215, Fax: (801)538-1908 e-mail: Curtwebb@utah.gov ALSO CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND AS MANY OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS AS YOU CAN: Phone is best, Fax is excellent, and email is good. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE- There are only about 48 hours left in the session and we MUST GET SB 48 PASSED. How to identify and contact your Representative: A map tool to identify your Utah Representative http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/DistrictInfo/newMaps/State.htm Phone and Email address for all Utah Representatives http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/DistrictInfo/newMaps/State.htm SAMPLE MESSAGE FOR FAX OR EMAIL (Send to Christensen and Webb first, then delete their names and insert name of your Representative) Dear Representative Christensen and Representative Webb- Please remove the private property language (Paragraph 7- lines 57a through 57d) from SB 48 Uniform Firearms Laws and forward it recommending passage by the full House. There is absolutely NO evidence to justify excluding carefully screened, law abiding permit holders from any place in the state other than the specific restricted areas designated by statute (airport, courthouses, jails, etc). Emotional fear of guns is not sufficient grounds to restrict lawful self defense options in any area that is open to public access. Permit holders are no more likely to have any sort of accidental discharge than police officers, so if police officers can be armed, there is no rational reason to disarm permit holders. If private property restrictions are the will of the Legislature, numerous complex details MUST be addressed, such as: notification, definition of areas, and any penalties. Even the allowed restrictions for churches and residences ONLY cover the actual house of worship and the residence, not to surrounding grounds, sidewalks or parking lots. Further the property owners need to understand that by restricting legal self defense options, they implicitly assume greater liability for ensuring the public's safety, even from criminal acts by third parties. This is too complex an issue to be properly addressed in the time left in this session. Any sloppy drafting on this subject will undoubtedly result in expensive litigation for property owners. Those are difficult issues that can be studied in the future. Please delete the private property language from SB 48 and pass that important bill NOW! [Your name, address] Thanks for your time. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be removed from this mailing list click on the link below http://www.ugca.org/cgi-bin/plistussc/mwmail.cgi?utbagpiper@juno.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: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 04:57:46 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #198 (Emergency) The latest from GOUtah! Please take a moment and act on this one. Charles ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Today's Maxim of Liberty: "Free people, remember this maxim: We may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost." - -- Jean Jacques Rousseau MORE ACTION NEEDED ON SB 48 TONIGHT Action Item: SB 48 is in trouble, mainly because House members who are on the conference committee for this bill are reluctant to remove Paragraph 7 from the bill (a paragraph with anti-self-defense ramifications; see below for further analysis). Please contact at least four of the legislators listed below, tonight before 10:00 p.m. or tomorrow morning at the latest, EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIVE IN THEIR DISTRICTS. Use phone, fax, or e-mail, and ask them to completely remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. Committee members have been receiving lots of e-mails today from various anti-self-defense people, asking them to leave Paragraph 7 in the bill. You may leave a brief message such as "Please remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. I do not want legislation to pass that will in any way compromise my right to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for self-defense on all property that is open to the general public". Or, you may use the pre-written letter at the end of this alert. On such short notice as this, e-mail is acceptable, but a fax or phone call would be preferable. If you send e-mail, please include your main point in the subject header (such as "Please remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48"). Based on what we've heard, we've place asterisks next to the names of the four legislators who are the highest priority to contact at this time. *House Speaker Marty Stephens (R-6) Capitol phone: 801-538-1930 Fax: 801-538-1908 Home Phone: 801-731-5346 e-mail: Martystephens@u... *Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801- 538-1908 Home phone: 435-673-4424 e-mail: Surquhart@u... *Rep. Curt Webb (R-5) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801-538-1908 Home phone: 435-753-0215 e-mail: Curtwebb@u... Sen. Greg Bell (R-22) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: (801)538-1878 e-mail: gbell@u... Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: 801-538-1449 Home phone: (801) 968-7756 e-mail: emayne@u... *Your own representative. House switchboard: 801-538-1029 Fax for Republican representatives: 801-538-1908 Fax for Democratic representatives: (801)538-9505 Home phone and e-mail: Visit http://www.goutahorg.org and click on "Legislative Contacts". Analysis: Paragraph 7 states: "Individual private-property rights under state and federal law shall not be restricted by this section." Paragraph 7 is supposedly designed to protect the right of private property owners to restrict firearms on their property, and appears innocuous enough, especially to those of us who believe in both the right to own and control property and the right to keep and bear arms. However, there are several real problems with this paragraph. Although Paragraph 7 doesn't really change anything in the existing law, it will likely be used as a springboard in the future for the state to impose statutory restrictions on the carrying of self-defense weapons in public-access areas, such as shopping malls, theaters, etc. Furthermore, in the meantime, business owners who wish to restrict self-defense weapons on their own property are likely to interpret this clause in a manner which is not consistent with Utah's existing trespass law, and this paragraph is likely to encourage them to adopt self- defense weapons on their property. The existing trespass law (Section 76-6-206(4) of the Utah Code) basically states that you are NOT trespassing if you are on private property that is open to the general public, as long as you are not acting in a way that substantially interferes with the owner's operation of that property. GOUtah! interprets this to mean that if you are carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense at a shopping mall or in a movie theater or any other private property that's open to the general public, you are not interfering with the operation of that property as long as you are not brandishing or otherwise misusing the weapon. Thus, you are not trespassing. However, nothing has yet been placed in the code to clarify this point with regard to self-defense weapons, and the courts have not yet considered a case of this sort, which means that Paragraph 7 is likely to be interpreted in a way that conflicts with our interpretation of this law. This would get us off on the wrong foot if we try to clarify the issue in future legislative sessions. Another problem with Paragraph 7 is that it refers to "private property rights.under federal law." We have no idea what this means, and are concerned that a future anti-gun Congress or administration could implement gun restrictions under the guise of "property rights", as perhaps in the case of federally-subsidized housing. SB 48 is supposed to be all about state legislative sovereignty, and there is no need for the Legislature to surrender any such sovereignty. Thus, although there is some difference of opinion within the gun- rights community on the matter of the right to keep and bear arms vs. property rights, GOUtah! believes that most of us can at least agree on several points: 1 - The lawful carrying of a concealed weapon for self-defense on any property that is open to the general public should not be prohibited. This is already implicitly reflected in the state's trespassing law, but has not yet been clarified explicitly in the code or in the courts. Paragraph 7 is therefore likely to be interpreted in a manner contrary to this by some owners of theaters, stores, etc., and is also likely to "get us off on the wrong foot" when addressing the issue of self-defense weapons on private property in future legislative sessions. 2 - Paragraph 7 could be used as a springboard next year to enact various statutory restrictions of guns on private property, in addition to the statutory restrictions that already exist for homes and churches. 3 - Paragraph 7 needlessly surrenders state legislative authority to the federal government. Thus, GOUtah! recommends that you do all you can tonight and tomorrow morning to get Paragraph 7 removed from SB 48. _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #198 - 1 Mar. 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW: - ------------------------ Cut Here ------------------------- Date: From: To: Dear ___________________: I encourage you to remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. While I respect the rights of property owners, I do not want the bill to pass if it can be interpreted in any way that would compromise or interfere with my right to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for purposes of self-defense on all property that is open to the general public. Current trespassing law (Section 76-6-206(4) of the Utah Code) is consistent with this right, but I'm concerned that Paragraph 7 would be interpreted in a way that is not consistent with it. Thanks for taking time to consider my opinion on this matter. Sincerely, - ------------------- Cut Here --------------------- ________________________________________________________________ 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, 2 Mar 2004 16:39:48 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: GOUtah! Alert #198 (Emergency) Sorry, that is what I get for cutting and pasting from yahoo. For all senators emails end with "@utahsenate.org". For all Reps, emails end with "@utah.gov". But at this point, I HIGHLY suggest leaving a phone message or sending a fax instead. Charles ================== Charles Hardy - -- Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc wrote: The email addresses are not complete -- can you resend or update with a full email address for the folks? Thanks Chad On Mar 1, 2004, at 9:57 PM, Charles Hardy wrote: > > The latest from GOUtah! > > Please take a moment and act on this one. > > Charles > > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > Today's Maxim of Liberty: > "Free people, remember this maxim: We may acquire liberty, but it is > never > recovered if it is once lost." > -- Jean Jacques Rousseau > > > MORE ACTION NEEDED ON SB 48 TONIGHT > > Action Item: > > SB 48 is in trouble, mainly because House members who are on the > conference > committee for this bill are reluctant to remove Paragraph 7 from the > bill (a > paragraph with anti-self-defense ramifications; see below for further > analysis). > > Please contact at least four of the legislators listed below, tonight > before > 10:00 p.m. or tomorrow morning at the latest, EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIVE > IN > THEIR DISTRICTS. Use phone, fax, or e-mail, and ask them to completely > remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. > > Committee members have been receiving lots of e-mails today from > various > anti-self-defense people, asking them to leave Paragraph 7 in the > bill. > > You may leave a brief message such as "Please remove Paragraph 7 from > SB 48. > I do not want legislation to pass that will in any way compromise my > right > to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for self-defense on all > property that > is open to the general public". Or, you may use the pre-written > letter at > the end of this alert. > > On such short notice as this, e-mail is acceptable, but a fax or > phone call > would be preferable. If you send e-mail, please include your main > point in > the subject header (such as "Please remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48"). > > Based on what we've heard, we've place asterisks next to the names of > the > four legislators who are the highest priority to contact at this time. > > *House Speaker Marty Stephens (R-6) Capitol phone: 801-538-1930 Fax: > 801-538-1908 Home Phone: 801-731-5346 e-mail: Martystephens@u... > > *Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801- > 538-1908 > Home phone: 435-673-4424 e-mail: Surquhart@u... > > *Rep. Curt Webb (R-5) Capitol phone: 801-538-1029 Fax: 801-538-1908 > Home > phone: 435-753-0215 e-mail: Curtwebb@u... > > Sen. Greg Bell (R-22) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: (801)538-1878 > e-mail: gbell@u... > > Sen. Ed Mayne (D-5) Capitol phone: (801)538-1035 Fax: 801-538-1449 > Home > phone: (801) 968-7756 e-mail: emayne@u... > > *Your own representative. House switchboard: 801-538-1029 > Fax for Republican representatives: 801-538-1908 > Fax for Democratic representatives: (801)538-9505 > Home phone and e-mail: Visit http://www.goutahorg.org and click on > "Legislative Contacts". > > > Analysis: > > Paragraph 7 states: > > "Individual private-property rights under state and federal law shall > not be > restricted by this section." > > Paragraph 7 is supposedly designed to protect the right of private > property > owners to restrict firearms on their property, and appears innocuous > enough, > especially to those of us who believe in both the right to own and > control > property and the right to keep and bear arms. However, there are > several > real problems with this paragraph. > > Although Paragraph 7 doesn't really change anything in the existing > law, it > will likely be used as a springboard in the future for the state to > impose > statutory restrictions on the carrying of self-defense weapons in > public-access areas, such as shopping malls, theaters, etc. > > Furthermore, in the meantime, business owners who wish to restrict > self-defense weapons on their own property are likely to interpret > this > clause in a manner which is not consistent with Utah's existing > trespass > law, and this paragraph is likely to encourage them to adopt self- > defense > weapons on their property. > > The existing trespass law (Section 76-6-206(4) of the Utah Code) > basically > states that you are NOT trespassing if you are on private property > that is > open to the general public, as long as you are not acting in a way > that > substantially interferes with the owner's operation of that property. > GOUtah! interprets this to mean that if you are carrying a concealed > firearm > for self-defense at a shopping mall or in a movie theater or any other > private property that's open to the general public, you are not > interfering > with the operation of that property as long as you are not > brandishing or > otherwise misusing the weapon. Thus, you are not trespassing. However, > nothing has yet been placed in the code to clarify this point with > regard to > self-defense weapons, and the courts have not yet considered a case > of this > sort, which means that Paragraph 7 is likely to be interpreted in a > way that > conflicts with our interpretation of this law. This would get us off > on the > wrong foot if we try to clarify the issue in future legislative > sessions. > > Another problem with Paragraph 7 is that it refers to "private > property > rights.under federal law." We have no idea what this means, and are > concerned that a future anti-gun Congress or administration could > implement > gun restrictions under the guise of "property rights", as perhaps in > the > case of federally-subsidized housing. SB 48 is supposed to be all > about > state legislative sovereignty, and there is no need for the > Legislature to > surrender any such sovereignty. > > Thus, although there is some difference of opinion within the gun- > rights > community on the matter of the right to keep and bear arms vs. > property > rights, GOUtah! believes that most of us can at least agree on several > points: > > 1 - The lawful carrying of a concealed weapon for self-defense on any > property that is open to the general public should not be prohibited. > This > is already implicitly reflected in the state's trespassing law, but > has not > yet been clarified explicitly in the code or in the courts. Paragraph > 7 is > therefore likely to be interpreted in a manner contrary to this by > some > owners of theaters, stores, etc., and is also likely to "get us off > on the > wrong foot" when addressing the issue of self-defense weapons on > private > property in future legislative sessions. > > 2 - Paragraph 7 could be used as a springboard next year to enact > various > statutory restrictions of guns on private property, in addition to the > statutory restrictions that already exist for homes and churches. > > 3 - Paragraph 7 needlessly surrenders state legislative authority to > the > federal government. > > Thus, GOUtah! recommends that you do all you can tonight and tomorrow > morning to get Paragraph 7 removed from SB 48. > _________________________________________ > That concludes GOUtah! Alert #198 - 1 Mar. 2004. > Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. > > > PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW: > > ------------------------ Cut Here ------------------------- > > > > Date: > From: > > > > To: > > > > Dear ___________________: > I encourage you to remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. While I respect the > rights > of property owners, I do not want the bill to pass if it can be > interpreted > in any way that would compromise or interfere with my right to > lawfully > carry a concealed firearm for purposes of self-defense on all > property that > is open to the general public. > Current trespassing law (Section 76-6-206(4) of the Utah Code) is > consistent > with this right, but I'm concerned that Paragraph 7 would be > interpreted in > a way that is not consistent with it. > Thanks for taking time to consider my opinion on this matter. > Sincerely, > > > > > > ------------------- Cut Here --------------------- > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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! > > - > ________________________________________________________________ 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, 2 Mar 2004 21:12:53 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fwd: FW: Deseret News Editorial re SB48 The following is from local pro-self-defense attorney and Utah gun law expert Mitch Vilos. Also, if you have not yet contacted your State Rep to ask him to support removal of paragraph 7 from SB 48, please make the call now. Also leave a message for Speaker Stephens, and Reps. Webb, Christensen, and Urqahart asking them to support removal of paragraph 7. Messages for all Reps can be left at 801-538-1029. With that paragraph removed, SB 48 deals ONLY with government entities (like the UofU). It does NOT affect private property rights at all. Regardless of your position on self-defense rights vs private or semi-private property rights, SB 48 is NOT the proper bill to try to address that issue and a two line amendment is NOT the way to properly clarify the issue. PLEASE encourage your Rep to support removal of paragraph 7. ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- - ---------- From: Mitch Vilos That does it! This is justification for EVERY gun owner to cancel their subscription to Deseret News (after telling them why!) You can read it on the internet anyway without having to pay these brainless traitors a red cent! How would they like "freedom of the press" restricted on college campuses? They STILL don't get it -- it's doubtful anything they could write in their paper would be worth paying for. Pancho V. Walker should veto SB48 Deseret Morning News editorial Some will accuse us of getting ahead of ourselves because the Utah Legislature doesn't adjourn until Wednesday. But we would ask that Gov. Olene Walker jot down a reminder to herself to veto SB48 when it comes across her desk. SB48, sponsored by Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, would overturn the University of Utah's campus gun ban, a policy that has served the university well for many years. While some legislators feel it is their sole responsibility to create uniform gun policy in Utah, this issue would best be handled by the State Board of Regents, which governs state colleges and universities. There are many reasons why guns don't belong in places of learning. The primary one is that there are few places in a community that fill roles similar to college campuses. These bring together people of diverse backgrounds, experiences and ideas. That dynamic requires an atmosphere free from intimidation. If the Board of Regents, which has authority over state colleges and universities, developed a uniform policy for concealed weapons on college campuses, wouldn't that allay concerns that institutions would have a hodgepodge of different policies that varied from campus to campus? This would be a considerable nod to local control. But some lawmakers want to eat their cake and have it, too. Some of the most ferocious rhetoric on Capitol Hill comes when the federal government forces its will on the states in the form of federal programs laden with a lot of strings and, often, not a lot of funding. From a state's rights perspective, there is validity to questioning sweeping federal mandates. But as a result of that experience, shouldn't it follow that state lawmakers would be less prone to step on the policymaking authority of subdivisions of state and local governments? Isn't the concept of local control valid below the state level, as well? No question, a concealed weapons ban won't prevent people bent on harm from committing gun crimes on college campuses. But the Regents, as a policy-making body, should have the authority to declare policies that best facilitate proper conduct and order in a higher-education setting. - --- End forwarded message --- ________________________________________________________________ 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, 3 Mar 2004 19:46:15 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: What does the DesNews really think of you and your opinions Friends, A correspondent from Arizona sent me the following email exchange. At the bottom, is his letter to the editor of the Deseret News rebutting a recent anti-self-defense editorial. In fact, save for his use of the term "yellow journalism," the letter is downright polite. (And one can argue that "yellow journalism" is an apt and accurate description of how the DesNews and most other media outlets handle news and stories about guns. See or for a brief description of yellow journalism, including: "[the] practice [of] a newspaper to report the editor's interpretation of the news rather than objective journalism.") Just above that is the email response he received from the Deseret News (or at least whomever has access to send email from that account) to his well thought out letter to the editor. This is unusual. Even with all the letters to the editor of mine that have been printed, I've never received any kind of email response--other than maybe to inform me that my letter was being considered for publication. But this unusual occurance offers yet another glimps into the mindset of those working the editorial room at the newspaper that once upon a time proclaimed in its banner "We believe the US Constitution was inspired." Presumably that included ALL of the bill of rights, not just the part by which their hobby is protected. Notice the unprofessional tone of the email, the snide remarks. Note also the use of the spanish version of (I think) "the editors" as the sign off. Some kind of swipe at or condesention to the latino population in Arizona? I have no idea. Maybe the editor in chief or managerial board or even the Mexican Consulate could offer some insights. ;-) But it is clear that the editors of the Deseret News hold lawful gun owners--and our opinions--in the worst kind of contempt. With the permission of Mr. Reynolds, I forward this along, redacting only his address, city, zip, and email address. Charles ================== Charles Hardy - --- Letters wrote: > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:07:41 -0700 > To: "M. Scott Reynolds" [email address redacted for this forward] > From: Letters > Subject: Re: Regarding your "Editorial Opinion" March 2 > > You said "Please help me out here." > Okay. > Stop saying "shame on you." Every letter writer uses that. Fine > something original. > And if you don't read our "yellow journalism" anymore, how did you > know what we said. > Los Editores. > > > > >Please help me out here. You say, "While some legislators feel it > >is their sole responsibility to create uniform gun policy in > >Utah...", as if there was something wrong with that. Well I'm > >looking at Article I, Section 6, of the Utah Constitution which says: > > > >"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." > > > >I'm having a hard time finding, "State Board of Regents", in that > >section. Please tell me where in the Utah Constitution it says it > >is wrong for the Legislature to create uniform gun policy. > > > >Shame on you for being a 1st amendment zealot and using that as an > >excuse to lead your readership astray by not really reporting the > >truth. > > > >Scott Reynolds > >[Street Address, city, zip, and phone number redacted for this forward] > >Arizona > > > >p.s. I'm a former Utahn who is very grateful I don't have to read > >your yellow journalism anymore, but since I still have many family > >and friends in Utah, and also a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit, I > >still pay attention to the Utah Constitution and Utah law. Maybe > >you ought to try it, you could learn something. > ________________________________________________________________ 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, 3 Mar 2004 19:47:17 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: [goutah] GOUtah! Alert #200 The latest from GOUtah! There are phone calls to be made in defense of your right to defend yourself and loved ones. ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. GOUtah! Web Site: http://www.goutahorg.org To subscribe to or unsubscribe from GOUtah!'s free e-mail Alerts, send a blank e-mail message to one of the following addresses: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Send comments to: goutah@goutahorg.org ___________________________________- GOUtah! Alert #200 - 3 Mar. 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "The typical lawmaker of today is a man devoid of principle - a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism." - - H. L. Mencken "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN DIES IN U.S. SENATE According to Gun Owners of America (http://www.gunowners.org), the Senate voted to kill S. 1805, the bill designed to protect U.S. gun manufacturers against frivolous lawsuits. As we've mentioned in recent alerts, various anti-gun senators were attempting to attach various anti-gun amendments to this bill. One of these was designed to make the 1994 federal "assault weapon" ban permanent. Another one was designed to shut down gun shows. Another one was designed to facilitate the banning of certain types of hunting ammunition by commissioning a study to determine whether such ammo should be placed in the phony "cop-killer bullet" category established by the federal government back in 1986. Although GOUtah! is opposed to the various frivolous lawsuits that have been brought against gun manufacturers, and S. 1805 was designed to curb such lawsuits, we stated clearly in Alert #195 that we would prefer to see the entire bill die than to see it pass with any of this anti-gun stuff attached to it. Thanks to your phone calls, e-mails, and faxes to Sen. Hatch, Sen. Bennett, and President Bush, that is exactly what happened. Unfortunately, there will be other opportunities for the "assault weapon" renewal and other anti-gun legislation to get resurrected in the Senate this year. However, we've scored a great victory with the defeat of the final version of S. 1805. According to GOA, the vote was 90-8 against the final bill. STILL A FEW HOURS FOR ACTION ON SB 48 The House/Senate conference committee working on SB 48 probably won't meet until this afternoon (Wednesday), so you still have a few hours to contact committee members if you haven't already, and ask them to remove Paragraph 7 from the bill and make it into the clean bill that Sen. Waddoups wants it to be. You may use the pre-written letter at the bottom of this alert if you wish. The representatives listed below are, in our opinion, the most important ones to contact at this time. House switchboard: 801-538-1029 House fax: 801-538-1908 House Speaker Marty Stephens (R-6) Martystephens@utah.gov Rep. Stephen Urquhart (R-75) Surquhart@utah.gov Rep. Curt Webb (R-5) Curtwebb@utah.gov Your own representative (mention that you are from his district). _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #200 - 3 Mar. 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW: - ------------------------ Cut Here ------------------------- Date: From: To: Dear ___________________: I encourage you to remove Paragraph 7 from SB 48. While I respect the rights of property owners, I do not want the bill to pass if it can be interpreted in a way that would compromise or interfere with my ability to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for purposes of self-defense on all property that is open to the general public. Current trespassing law (Section 76-6-206(4) of the Utah Code) is consistent with this right, but I'm concerned that Paragraph 7 would be interpreted in a way that is not consistent with it. Thanks for taking time to consider my opinion on this matter. Sincerely, - ------------------- Cut Here --------------------- To Subscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: goutah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ________________________________________________________________ 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 #257 ***********************************