From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #259 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, May 5 2004 Volume 02 : Number 259 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:08:19 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: Aussies: Guns banned, now going for swords One more reason to be involved in tomorrow night's (Tuesday's) caucases. Don't think you're safe to stand idly by just because nobody has proposed banning your favorite gun or other weapons yet. Rest assured, if "assualt weapons," or "saturday night specials" or "50 caliber" weapons are banned, gun grabbers will certainly come after semi-auto duck guns or highly accurate (aka "sniper rifles") big game weapons. If the UofU and Department of Human Services succeed in maintaining gun bans, other agencies and departments will follow suite. More and more public lands will be closed off and range development/protection laws will be attacked. Taxes on "sporting" weapons, ammo, and accessories will go up, even as funds spent on game animals will decrease and hunting areas will be closed. And you can COOUNT on nearly every employer in the State asserting its right to fire you just for having your rifle or shotgun inside the trunk of your own car if you happen to park that car in their lot. Antique guns or gun collections will be attacked. In England it is now all but impossible for their Olympic shooters to even practice inside their own country. Self defense and concealed carry ARE the bulwarks that stand on the front lines against the gun grabbers. You can fight the battle with us or you can wait until we've been eliminated and then fight a losing battle without us. As the Colonists said over 200 years ago, "We can hang together or we shall surely hang seperately." GET INVOLVED!!! Charles ================== Charles Hardy I have a great interest in history. As a result, I'm familiar with the maxim of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The nutty fuitcakes running the Aussie government are a case in point. As a former resident of Australia, gun owner, and practitioner of the historic Western martial arts (longsword &c.), I've been following the insane attempts to rid the Aussies of crime by taking aways weapons. As we know, when the common person is disarmed, the criminals note that their victims are easy prey, and violent crime skyrockets. Just as it has happened historically, when royalty fears the citizenry, it confiscates modern weaponry. Whenever it does this, brigands and peasants resort to the next most effective weapon. In our Western tradition, that's the ever-effective, elegant, and lethal sword. Thus it should be no surprise to see the following from earlier this month. Swords are already regulated as "controlled" weapons in Australia. One needs a permit and must register the weapon with the government. As with guns, first they are regulated, registered, then confiscated. Note that the rhetoric against swords is identical to the anti-gun rhetoric. If one substitutes the word "gun" for "sword," one has a pre-gun-ban article. Other miscellaneous links: http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/000711.shtml http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html http://perpetualbeta.com/woifm/archive/002347.html - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594279264.html Attacks spark sword ban March 8, 2004 - 1:39PM Swords will be banned in Victoria under new laws to be introduced from July. Police Minister Andre Haermeyer today said owners of swords, which are currently listed as controlled weapons, would have to hand them into police or sell them to a dealer under the new laws. Anyone caught in illegal possession of a sword could face up to six months in prison or a $12,000 fine. "The Bracks government is implementing these new regulations to help Victoria Police overcome this culture of young people arming themselves with swords," Mr Haermeyer said. "Vendors will only be legally permitted to sell a sword to an individual who can produce evidence that they fall within an exempt category or have a specific approval from the (police) chief commissioner." Mr Haermeyer said the government would establish exempt categories to ensure legitimate sword owners were not disadvantaged. "There are some cultural, religious, military and collector groups that have legitimate reasons to own swords," he said. "Such groups will be able to apply for an order exempting their members from the need to obtain individual approvals." The move to list the swords as prohibited weapons comes following a string of incidents involving them, a state government spokesman said. "There has been a number of incidents involving swords... and we want to make sure these weapons are not freely available," a state government spokesman said. A 13-year-old boy was last week arrested and charged with possession of a controlled weapon and other offences after he allegedly ran at officers with a samurai sword in central Victoria. A 21-year-old man had his hand severed by what was believed to be a samurai sword during a brawl in Melbourne last month. Huy Huynh, 19, was allegedly hacked to death near a Melbourne nightclub in July last year by a group that used samurai swords or machetes. - - AAP This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594279264.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, 24 Mar 2004 17:14:28 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Walker signs SB 48 S1 According to today's SLTrib, SB 48 S1, overturning the UofU gun ban (and making perfectly clear that agencies like the Department of Human Services cannot adopt their own, anti-gun policies) was signed into law by Gov. Walker. We'll have to see whether GOP Gubernatorial Candidate and Board of Regents member Nolan Karras and his buddies in the ivory towers of taxpayer funded higher education continue with lawsuits or finally accept the will of the elected legislature. Walkers actions (veto or signing) on several other bills are also likely to be of interest to any who are politically active--and all gun owners should be: from educational bills, child welfare, and taxes. But, of course, since opinions on these topics likely vary among gun owners it would not be appropriate to discuss any of them specifically here. I'd expect the legislative web page to be updated in the next couple of days, but for starters, the story in today's SLTrib has a partial list. 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: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:16:31 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Press release from the Liberty Round Table Quoting Sunni Maravillosa on 30 Mar 2004 20:12:19 -0500: PRESS RELEASE FROM THE LIBERTY ROUND TABLE 3/30/04; For Immediate Distribution Liberty Activist Retroactively Fired by Verizon Communications On March 29, 2004, Jeffrey "the Hunter" Jordan, a resident of New Hampshire, received notice dated 3/26/04 that Verizon Communications had fired him, retroactive to January 7, 2004. In the letter, the stated reason for the firing was "failure to comply with the policies outlined within Verizon's Code of Business Conduct". No details on how Mr. Jordan failed to comply with the company's policies were provided. Jordan is planning to fight this action. Friends of his at the Liberty Round Table, a group that advocates individual liberty and personal responsibility, have begun calling for a boycott of Verizon over the company's questionable actions regarding his case. There is reason to believe the firing is related to Mr. Jordan's arrest on 12/29/03 in Ohio for carrying a concealed weapon. At that time he was on his way home from a holiday visit to his family in Kansas. After being detained a few days in the Ashland County jail, and despite having arranged for extra time off from Verizon, Jordan returned home to a phone message from his employer stating that he was suspended from his position. Why has Mr. Jordan been suspended and then retroactively fired, without any hearing on either action, as is required by the terms of his employment contract? These questions have gone unanswered, as requests to Verizon seeking information on its activities have not brought any response. Sunni Maravillosa, a friend of Jordan's and a fellow Liberty Round Table activist, said, "It is curious that Verizon is apparently firing Hunter for actions taken hundreds of miles from his Verizon work sites, in his own vehicle, and while on personal time. Also, that they've taken this action in violation of his contract, and without any due process or presumption of innocence, should be very troubling to all Americans." Carl Bussjaeger, a friend of Jordan's in New Hampshire, commented, "I look forward to Verizon explaining in court why they met with Hunter's union after January 7th to discuss his ongoing suspension. If he was already fired, wouldn't that have been a dandy time to mention the fact?" Jordan has issued the following statement: "I have for years now been subject to the day-to-day thoughtless tyrannies inherent in any big corporation. I have consciously chosen to tolerate these very real oppressions as part of the cost of earning a living, but now the corporate bureaucrats have gone too far. "Verizon has consciously chosen to ignore one of the fundamental assumptions of American jurisprudence - that a man is innocent until proven guilty. They've also chosen to blatantly violate the contract that tens of thousands of union employees fought long and hard over the years to hammer out. "I am confident that justice will prevail in the end, and am fully prepared to fight these petty tyrants hiding behind the corporate veil just as strongly as I have every other sort I've run across in my journey through life." People interested in joining the fight against this injustice are encouraged to write to Verizon, for which address information and letter templates can be found here: http://www.gbronline.com/cwb/samizdat/huntersamples.html For the latest news on Mr. Jordan's case, see the official "Free Hunter" web pages: http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter/ For further comments, please contact Sunni Maravillosa, co-founder of the Liberty Round Table (http://www.libertyroundtable.org/), at Sunni@free-market.net. - --- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:34:43 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: "GOP" mayor workman attacks RKBA: S.L. County ordinance impacts home F FL's I'd suggest calls to Mayor Workman's office and the County Council members. Contact info below. Unlike some businesses, a home based FFL is not likely to generate a lot of extra traffic. Nor is it likely to affect the outward appearance of a home. Gunsmithing is an ideal job for many physically handicapped individuals. An FFL also allows the serious hobbyist to buy and sell guns across State lines or an unlimited number of transactions at gun shows without fear of being charged with dealing guns without a license. Such FFL holders may NEVER see a customer at home--indeed, may not even want it widely known they have such a license or any guns at home--but the FFL license requires a physical address where records can be inspected. While I take no personal position in this email about some of the other home based businesses being targeted, there are simply no legitimate reason to prohibit gun related businesses from home businesses. This is an anti-RKBA ordinance, plain and simple. If you happen to be a SLCo county delegate, make sure and let the mayor know that. Also let the council members know if you happen to be a deleagate to their political party. Contact info: Mayor Workman contact: Hours: 8 am - 5 pm Phone: 801 468-2500 Fax: 801 468-3535 Main number, county council: FAX 801-468-3029 Phone 801-468-2930 A Randy Horiuchi (801) 468-2936 Steve Harmsen (801) 468-2934 C Jim Bradley (801) 468-2939 1 Joe Hatch (801) 468-2933 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 ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- S.L. County ordinance would simplify licensing process for home businesses [NL] By Lisa Carricaburu The Salt Lake Tribune Home-business operators in unincorporated Salt Lake County no longer would have to complete conditional-use reviews to qualify for business licenses under proposed ordinance changes outlined by the county. The changes, which Mayor Nancy Workman will present to the County Council on Tuesday, aim to simplify the licensing application process, thereby encouraging more home businesses to apply for licenses as required by law, said Jeff Daugherty, director of the county's Planning and Development Services Division. Rather than complete a lengthy and sometimes costly conditional-use review, business owners under the proposed changes would simply be able -- either in person or online -- to complete an application that asks them to verify their businesses meet certain criteria, he said. The proposed revision clearly defines which types of businesses are not allowed in neighborhoods, such as vehicle repair businesses, junk yards, sexually oriented businesses, towing operations and foundries. A checklist asks applicants whether their businesses would violate regulations prohibiting significant customer traffic, major home renovations, or outdoor storage of inventory, for example. If complying with the rules poses no problems, licensing can occur quickly. "This . . . is the kind of positive change we'd like to make throughout our ordinances," Workman said in a statement. While the changes seek to make the application process easier and more efficient, rules still would "protect the business owner's family members from feeling they no longer live in a home and protect neighbors from feeling they no longer live in a neighborhood," said Tom Schafer, a senior planner for the county who drafted changes to the ordinance. The county's proposal "makes a lot of sense and is long overdue," said Peter Corroon, president of the Vest Pocket Coalition, a Salt Lake City-based group that advocates for small business. Salt Lake County could go even further to remove bureaucracy that impedes small businesses, which make up a majority of Utah enterprises, said Corroon, who will challenge Workman in November's election. For example, a restriction that still is part of the ordinance says home-based businesses may not have any employees who do not reside in the home if the home is on a street that is not at least 80 feet wide. Presumably, the restriction seeks to prevent parking problems caused by nonresidents driving into an area, "but what if the employee takes the bus?" Corroon asked. lisac@sltrib.com Not at home Salt Lake County's proposed ordinance says the following won't be allowed as home businesses: * Motor vehicle, trailer or boat repair * Manufacture or sale of firearms, explosives or ancillary products * Junk yards * Mortuaries or crematoriums * Sexually oriented businesses * Short-term rentals * Lawn mower or small engine repair * Auto body and/or fender work * Towing operations * Vehicle sales or rentals * Welding, iron works, foundries * Major appliance repair * Home day care * Home preschool * Any use involving the raising, breeding, training, housing, keeping or care of animals -- Source: Salt Lake County ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:26:33 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: [goutah] GOUtah! Alert #204 More on Mayor Workman's gun business ban from GOUtah! Please act now to make a phone call or three. Charles ================== 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 #204 - 12 April 2004 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "The freemen of America will remember, that it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary, despotic, or military one; but it is very difficult, almost impossible to reverse the matter - very difficult to regain freedom once lost." - -The Freeman's Journal, Philadelphia, March 5, 1788 S.L. COUNTY MAYOR PLANS TO BAN ALL HOME-BASED GUN BUSINESSES. PLEASE CALL HER ASAP. According to an article in today's Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake County Mayor Nancy Workman will present the County Council with new regulations for home-based businesses tomorrow (Tuesday). The main purpose of these new regulations, which will apply to all unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County, is to streamline the process of applying for a business license for a home-based business and make it significantly easier for most home-based business owners to obtain a license. GOUtah! does not have a problem with this. The revised regulations would continue to prohibit a home-based business, regardless of the type of business, if it would draw too much traffic to a residential neighborhood, or if it would cause parking problems in the neighborhood, or if it would result in the storage of large amounts of inventory in a person's yard. GOUtah! does not have a problem with this, either. However, fifteen specific categories of home-based businesses would be completely banned under the proposed regulations, even if they comply with all of the above requirements. Examples of such banned businesses include: Junk yards Mortuaries or crematoriums Towing operations Welding, iron works, foundries Manufacture or sale of firearms, explosives or ancillary products Do you notice anything here that GOUtah! might have a problem with? While we might share the Mayor's concern about the prospect of someone setting up a business in his condominium to manufacture large quantities of mining explosives, or establishing a commercial junkyard in his front yard in the middle of a subdivision, we see absolutely no reason for a complete ban on home-based gun-related businesses. Although the Clinton Administration tried to drive small gun dealers out of business in the 1990s by making the requirements for a Federal Firearms License (FFL - a required license for anyone who sells or trades firearms as a business) ridiculously difficult and expensive to comply with, there are still quite a few FFL holders in Utah who list their private residence as their business address. Many of these dealers conduct most of their actual business at gun shows around the western United States. Others are collectors who use their FFL to purchase firearms from private residents of other states - something which cannot be legally done without an FFL. Others have a regular "day job" but obtain supplemental income by selling a few guns out of their homes every now and then. All of this must be done in compliance with federal gun-dealer laws, including background checks for all buyers, recording of all transactions, compliance with inventory storage requirements, etc. If a home-based federally-licensed dealer were to attract a large enough stream of customers to his home to cause traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood, then he could be denied a county business license based on the general restrictions listed under the proposed rules. However, it makes no sense for the county to implement a complete ban on home-based gun businesses. In addition to FFLs, what about someone who reloads ammunition at home and sells it at gun shows? What about someone who engraves firearms or gun stocks in his own home? Such activities could be defined as the "manufacture or sale of ancillary products" under the new regulations, and would be banned. Mayor Workman is running for reelection this year, as are many members of the County Council. If you live in Salt Lake County, the main thing we'd like you to do right now is to contact Mayor Workman's office and register a complaint. If you happen to be a Salt Lake County delegate for the Republican party (of which Workman is a member), please be sure to mention this fact when you contact her office. Then, please contact your own county councilman and give the same message to him. Look on your voter registration card to determine your County Council district number, or go to the map at http://www.slco.org/co/html/distmap.html If you have extra time and energy, please send the same message to Council Chairman Steve Harmsen, who is up for reelection this year. If you still have time left after all this, you can contact the other to councilmen-at-large, Randy Horiuchi and Jim Bradley. You may make phone calls to the appropriate County officials between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, starting with the Mayor. Alternatively, you may use the pre-written letter at the end of this alert to send to the mayor, then send a copy to your councilman. Fill in the blanks, sign it, and send it via fax or e-mail. Contact info is provided below. Salt Lake County Mayor Nancy Workman Phone: 801-468-2500 Fax: 801-468-3535 e-mail: MayorNancy@co.slc.ut.us Salt Lake County Council Main switchboard: 801-468-2930 Fax: 801-468-3029 Council Chairman Steve Harmsen Phone: 801-468-2934 e-mail: sharmsen@co.slc.ut.us Councilman-at-Large Randy Horiuchi Phone: 801-468-2936 e-mail: rhoriuchi@co.slc.ut.us Councilman-at-Large Jim Bradley Phone: 801-468-2939 e-mail: jbradley@co.slc.ut.us Councilman Joe Hatch (District 1) Phone: (801) 468-2933 e-mail: jhatch@co.slc.ut.us Councilman Michael Jensen (District 2) Phone: (801) 468-2932 e-mail: mhjensen@co.slc.ut.us Councilman David Wilde (District 3) Phone: (801) 468-2931 e-mail; dwilde@co.slc.ut.us Councilman Russell Skousen (District 4) Phone: (801) 468-2937 e-mail: rskousen@co.slc.ut.us Councilman Cortland G. Ashton (District 5) Phone: (801) 468-2935 e-mail: cashton@co.slc.ut.us Councilman Marvin Hendrickson (District 6) Phone: (801) 468-2938 e-mail: mhendrickson@co.slc.ut.us _________________________________________ That concludes GOUtah! Alert #204 - 12 April 2004. Copyright 2003 by GOUtah!. All rights reserved. PRE-WRITTEN LETTER BELOW - ------------------ Cut Here ------------------------ Date: From: To: Salt Lake County Mayor Nancy Workman Fax: 801-468-3535 e-mail: MayorNancy@co.slc.ut.us Dear Mayor Workman: Since your new proposed rules on the licensing of home-based businesses include a blanket ban on "the manufacture or sale of firearms, explosives or ancillary products" (according to The Salt Lake Tribune, April 12, 2004), I will vigorously oppose your reelection this year unless this ban is immediately modified to remove the reference to firearms. Many federally-licensed gun dealers list their home address as their place of business, even though they conduct most of their business at gun shows around the western United States. Others have a regular job but sell a firearm from time to time out of their home to obtain supplemental income. Still others are collectors who use their federal gun-dealer licenses to purchase collectible firearms directly from private individuals in other states - an activity which is a federal felony without such a license. In the unlikely event that a home-based gun dealer were to attract a large enough stream of customers to cause traffic or parking problems in his neighborhood, his county business license could be revoked under other parts of the proposed regulations. Thus, there is simply no need for an across-the-board ban on home-based gun-related businesses. In addition to gun dealers, what about individuals who reload target ammunition in their homes and sell it at gun shows? (Note: ammunition and smokeless gunpowder are not explosives, nor are they regarded as such under federal law.) What about a handicapped craftsman who engraves firearms or gun stocks in his home? Would these activities be considered "the manufacture or sale of...ancillary products" related to firearms, and thus be banned under your proposed regulations? Given that the possession and carrying of firearms is explicitly protected by the U.S. and Utah Constitutions, it is unconscionable that you would prohibit individuals from engaging in legitimate business activities related directly to this protected right. I'll be telling all of my gun-owning friends, neighbors, and relatives in Salt Lake County that you are an anti-gun politician, and I will encourage them not to vote for you in 2004 as long as the reference to firearms remains in the proposed regulations. Thanks for taking the time to consider my views 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:22:26 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: NRA to start own media company to bypass campaign speech laws. From Fox news. Full article at NRA to Launch News Company Friday, April 16, 2004 WASHINGTON — The nation's gun lobby is creating an "NRA news" company that will produce a daily talk show for the Internet, buy a radio station and seek a television deal to spread its gun-rights message nationwide. Looking for the same legal recognition as mainstream news organizations, the National Rifle Association (search) says it has already hired its first reporter, a conservative talk radio host from Oklahoma. NRANews.com plans to start online broadcasts Friday. The NRA is taking the step to operate free of political spending limits, hoping to use unlimited donations known as soft money (search) to focus on gun issues and candidates' positions despite the law's restrictions on soft money-financed political ads within days of the election. "If that's the only way to bring back the First Amendment (search), we're going to bring it back," Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, told The Associated Press. Under the nation's campaign finance law, he said, "if you own the news operation, you can say whatever you want. If you don't, you're gagged." [...] ================== 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, 20 Apr 2004 17:02:12 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: U still defiant on illegal gun ban From today's SLTrib. What is it going to take to make these guys obey the law? Almost makes you wonder if the Board of Trustees should not be elected and directly accountable to the people. You might also want to drop the author of the article a note asking why Marla Kennedy is quoted but nobody from the citizen, pro-self-defense side is quoted. Charles U. to keep ban on guns in challenge to new law By Shinika A. Sykes The Salt Lake Tribune University of Utah trustees, in defiance of the Utah Legislature, voted unanimously Monday to maintain its 27-year-old policy prohibiting students, faculty and staff from bringing guns onto the Salt Lake City campus. The U. Board of Trustees directed the administration to pursue a "quick and definitive resolution" of the constitutional claims relating to the school's gun ban -- a process that probably will end up before state and federal courts. "Because we feel strongly about this issue, we must continue the court challenge to find out what they are willing to say about the law and our ability to do this," said trustee and former U.S. Sen. Jake Garn. The U.'s challenge comes in response to Senate Bill 48, passed by the Legislature earlier this year. It was signed into law last month by Gov. Olene Walker, who agrees with lawmakers that only the Legislature -- not U. trustees -- can set gun policy. "Before signing the bill, Walker met with its sponsor, who agreed to relook at concerns she has about concealed weapons in college and university dorms and places where we have youths in state custody, such as foster care and juvenile facilities," said the governor's chief of staff, Lynn Ward. SB48 also was designed to overturn a state court ruling in support of the U.'s policy. The case now goes before the state Supreme Court, according to Assistant Attorney General Brent Burnett,. "[U. administrators] continue to claim the [state] Constitution allows them to disregard the statute," Burnett said. "The issue is whether they have a constitutional right to have a firearm policy that's contrary to Utah law." Garn said the trustees "are not trying to be adversarial. [Their] direction to the administration to exhaust its legal remedies grows out of a concern for the safety and well-being of the university facility, staff and students, and not from a misplaced sense of autonomy from state control." Trustees Chairman James McFarlane said letters, along with the trustees' statement, have been sent to state lawmakers. He declined to make the letters public on Monday, saying trustees wanted to wait until Senate and House members have received them. Senate President Al Mansell said he is not surprised by the trustees' action. "Until better security is provided at all public facilities, the only thing the U. is doing is making [the campus] a gun-free zone for law-abiding citizens and an enforcement zone for people who carry guns illegally." Mansell said. "The law is very clear and, ultimately, I think the state will win." Marla Kennedy, director of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, said the University is doing the right thing. "Polls have shown that Utahns do not want concealed weapons in classrooms," she said. "They do not want them on schools' campuses, whether it's a public elementary [school] or a university. I applaud the university for doing what the Utah Legislature refuses to do." Last August, 3rd District Judge Robert Hilder sided with the university. The judge held that the Legislature's previous firearms legislation was not meant to interfere with the U.'s internal policies. Then, Senate Majority Leader Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, introduced SB48, which clarified the state's control over the issue. As a senator, Garn for many years supported National Rifle Association positions on a variety of right-to-bear-arms issues. On Monday, he said he supports the U.'s position because he believes "schools and churches ought to be able to make those kinds of determinations for themselves, rather than it be mandated by the Legislature." sykes@sltrib.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: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:49:47 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Disarm the Police - Gary North Reminder Disarm the Police by Gary North http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north198.html - --- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:27:31 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Latest anti-gun, anti-rule-of-law tripe from the SLTrib So according to this, if the U decided that refusing to admit (too many) women, or blacks, or mormons or jews was essential to "academic freedom" that would trump State laws against discrimination? FWIW, here is Art X, Sec 4 of the Utah State constitution. So now the U is arguing it had a right, immunity, franchise, or endowment, predating Statehood, to prevent its employees and students (but not visitors, they've already conceeded that point) from exercising their God given, Constitutionally protected rights to self-defense? Any who are GOP State delegates should bear in mind that as a member of the board of Regents, GOP Gubernatorial candidate Nolan Karras is partially, directly responsible for this misguided and illegal, anti-gun policy at the U. Jon Huntsman Jr. has made several public comments in support of the policy. (And please remember that his picking Herbert as his Lt. Gov is MEANINGLESS. Who was Bangerter's Lt. Gov? Or Matheson Sr's? Lt. Govs run the elections office (and attend events the gov can't or doesn't want to. PERIOD. The Lt. Gov does NOT get to set policy and does not even necessarily get the governor's ear.) Ditto for Olen Walker. Charles Loaded for court Earlier this year, the Legislature amended the gun laws to make absolutely certain that everyone, including judges, understands legislative intent about firearms on public college campuses. Lawmakers consider themselves to be the supreme authority, indeed, the only authority, on guns, and they want people with concealed-carry permits to be able to pack heat at the University of Utah. Period. Nevertheless, the U. of U. Board of Trustees isn't backing down. Since the trustees can no longer argue with a straight face that there is any doubt about what the Legislature intends or what the state gun laws mean, they will defend the school's gun ban on constitutional grounds. Good for them. Inviting guns into college dorm rooms, football stadiums, hospitals, libraries and classrooms is such a bad idea that U. officials would be ignoring their duty if they did not oppose it. The university's 27-year experience with its gun policy suggests that introducing loaded firearms to campus will increase safety risks, despite the claims of concealed-carry permit holders who believe the opposite is true. They say their guns will provide self-defense against criminals who violate the gun ban. The university has a responsibility to put in place basic safety policies, and its gun ban, which prohibits faculty, staff and students from bringing firearms to campus without the permission of the police chief, is such a policy. In a federal lawsuit, the university has argued in the past that the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect the university's academic freedom and prevent state law from invalidating the U.'s firearms policy. It also has argued in state court that Article X, Section 4 of the Utah Constitution gives the university the right of self-governance and institutional autonomy, especially as they relate to academic freedom. Central to this right, which pre-dates statehood, is the ability to foster a safe environment for academic debate, free of restrictions imposed by any other state authority. These claims run smack dab into conflict with Senate Bill 48, passed in this year's session, which provides that, unless the Legislature specifically authorizes it by statute, a state entity (such as the university) may not enact a policy that restricts the use or possession of firearms. The U. trustees have instructed the administration to resolve these claims in state and federal court. It is unfortunate that the Legislature's wrongheaded romance with firearms has caused this, perhaps to keep gun activists in the Republican column during an election year, but the university should defend its proven, reasonable policy. ================== 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, 5 May 2004 17:25:17 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: DN columnists encourages UoU to obey the law Lee Benson is no great friend to RKBA or self-defense. Which may make his current column even more credible. He's seen past the issue of guns and is directly addressing the issue of rule-of-law and encouraging the U to drop its suit and clearly illegal gun ban. He should be thanked for this sensible article. Charles U. acting like a law unto itself By Lee Benson Deseret Morning News The University of Utah has a new sheriff, er president, about to be sworn in, and maybe Michael K. Young will have the courage and good sense to end the stare-down with the state of Utah and allow law-abidin' folks on campus with legally acquired concealed weapons permits to pack their firearms. Not because it's right, wrong, popular, unpopular, politically correct or will win more basketball games. Because it's the law. The only part of l-a-w the U. has a hard time understanding is the part about obeying it. While the question about whether the school has the right to ban firearms may have been murky — if barely — in the three decades the U. has resolutely banned guns on its campus, it became as loud and clear as a nine-gun salute last month when the Legislature passed — and the governor signed — a bill that grants all power regarding public gun control to the Legislature. And still the school, as directed by its board of trustees, refuses to follow the rules and allow legally concealed weapons — on the grounds that the state Supreme Court will soon hear a constitutional challenge to the Legislature's law. In the event the Supreme Court agrees with the Legislature, the trustees have indicated they will then file an appeal in federal court. This won't be over until it's over and over and over. What President-elect Young might want to take a look at isn't the debate about gun rights but about what kind of message the university's behavior is sending to the 30,000 or so students who flock daily to its campus. Isn't being above the law as dangerous as being below it? What if students followed the board of trustees' example and refused to abide by laws they think are messing with their constitutional rights? Maybe they would stop paying parking tickets, on the grounds that their two-hour lab class lasts twice as long as the one-hour meter where they parked their car. Or on the grounds that parking regulations are discriminatory, shamelessly favoring conscientious people who get up on time, eat a sensible breakfast and make it to school a half-hour before class. Maybe they would only pay for half their books, on the grounds that the prices the bookstore charges for "required" texts would make the New York Mafioso blush. Maybe they would smoke pot wherever and whenever they want to because it's medicinal or because, hey, Canada does it. Maybe they would protest the new tuition hikes by not paying them because the Legislature failed to appropriate enough money for higher education — they'll only agree to pay the increases after the Supreme Court, the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have heard their constitutional appeals and denied them. At which point they'll all be graduated anyway. Before they know it, the U. will have every student demanding an "A" in every class based on a perceived "equal protection" constitutional right. All because of the example the students have seen: You must recognize all the laws, but you only have to comply with those you agree with. That's the situation President Young, who comes to campus after serving as dean of the law school at George Washington University, inherits as he gets set to take over as the school's top gun. To pack or not to pack isn't the issue. To obey or not to obey, that is the question on the firearm-free hill. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please send e-mail to benson@desnews.com and faxes to 801-237-2527. ================== 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! - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #259 ***********************************