From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #229 Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest Sender: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk utah-firearms-digest Tuesday, May 7 2002 Volume 02 : Number 229 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 18:07:47 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Chalk one up for the good guys From today's desnews. Looks like getting the court gun-locker bill passed was a bigger accomplishment than some of us initially thought. If I may opine for a moment, am I the only one getting really tired of EVERYONE in this state claiming to "respect the second amendment as much as the next person," or "working harder to protect gun rights than anyone," and then felling compelled to ALWAYS follow that statement with a "BUT"? How about a few more people willing to say, "I support the right to keep and bear arms. PERIOD."? FWIW, Charles Hardy, Policy Director for GOUtah! and Dr. Sarah Thompson, Executive Director of UTGOA worked closely with Rep. Swallow on his bill and pushed for and obtained the change from only providing storage for firearms carried pursuant to a CCW permit to providing storage for ALL legally carried firearms. At this time, that only includes concealed firearms carried with a CCW permit and legally "unloaded" firarms carried openly as well as firearms carried unloaded and fully cased. However, when we achieve true right-to-carry in Utah, this is one section of law that will not discrminate between those who carry with a permit, and those who carry by right. We originally wanted to change from "firearms" to all "weapons" which would include pocket knives, knitting needles, and anything else not allowed into secure areas these days. However, that would have resulted in such a large fiscal note the bill would have died. So we took what we could get this year, gaining a fair bit, but giving up nothing. Thanks to all those who made calls and sent faxes to support this bill. Thanks also to Rep. John Swallow for running this bill and getting it passed. Charles http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,385006999,00.html? Gun-locker law targeted Judge says courthouse rule poses a safety hazard By Linda Thomson Deseret News staff writer A 3rd District judge is calling it "a bad idea" for the state to require district courthouses to provide free gun lockers for anyone toting a firearm to court. Judge Ronald Nehring, the district's presiding judge, said the requirement approved by the Legislature this year could present a safety hazard. "I respect the Second Amendment as much as the next person," Nehring said. "But the fact of the matter is that it creates what I think — and what law enforcement thinks — is a risky situation. It jeopardizes the safety of the public and employees of the court, and their safety is important." The law requires that all district courthouses in Utah offer citizens some place to safely stash their guns, whether the weapons are concealed or carried openly. The requirement does not apply to federal courts. The bill allocates $183,000 for the gun lockers, which technically are supposed to be ready by May 6. However, funding won't be available until July 1 so there likely will be a transition period. "Its intent was that in order to meaningfully exercise their Second Amendment rights, court patrons need to carry their weapons to court," said Richard Schwermer, assistant state court administrator for the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts. But Nehring said that although the Constitution allows people to keep and bear arms, there are some places where the presence of guns poses a greater hazard than other places. "Consider how many angry people leave this building. If what you do before leaving this building angry is get your weapon and you're still in the building, it certainly isn't going to promote general safety and tranquility," Nehring said. "I'm a 'small d' democrat, and if the public wants this and their representatives want to enact this and think it's a good idea, God bless them," Nehring said. "I happen to think, along with my law enforcement colleagues, that it's a bad idea." The bill was sponsored by Rep. John Swallow, R-Sandy. He said the law solves a problem the state has had for several years. Legally permitted concealed weapons carriers holders leave their guns in vehicles when visiting secure facilities like airports or courthouses. "It's easy to break a window or get into the trunk of a car," said Swallow, who is running for the GOP nomination to the 2nd Congressional District. The new law does not apply to many law enforcement officials and prosecutors who can carry weapons into a secure area and keep them while in court. Schwermer said court executives and sheriffs in each county are preparing a plan for the best way to handle things at the courthouse in their area. Those plans probably will be finished in a few weeks, and then bids will be prepared for the type of gun locker suitable for each building. Some, for example, don't have a big enough place for gun lockers without infringing on the "secure area," so some type of structure might have to be installed outside the building, Schwermer said. "We have to find out what each courthouse needs and how to apply the legislation to each courthouse," Schwermer said. "Go to Parowan. It doesn't have perimeter security. In Parowan, the Iron County auditor is there, the treasurer is there. Those are public facilities, and people can bring weapons into the public portions of the building. "The only time they can't bring them into court is when court is in session," Schwermer said. "Where do you stop them? In the front of the building? On the second floor where the court is? That goes back to our definition of a 'secure area.' " The bill originally applied only to concealed weapon permit holders but was revised to cover anyone who is lawfully carrying a firearm. Plans are to create gun lockers that can hold handguns, but they won't be big enough for rifles or shotguns. "The vast majority of traffic we anticipate is handguns. If there's a shotgun, the sheriff will have to figure out a way (to store it)," Schwermer said. "I don't remember when anybody walked up with a rifle. I don't think that's going to be the norm." ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 16:41:55 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNews Here is an editorial in Today's DesNews that is against the new gun safes at court buildings. In this case, I might point out the following items for consideration of any who may choose to write a letter to the editor of the DesNews. 1-If this poses such problems, why didn't the judges, courts, or the DesNews comment on the bill while it was being debated in the last session? It received a full hearing in committee and was debated in both houses before being passed. Perhaps the DesNews should devote more resources to covering what our legislature is doing. It seems the laws passed by that body have a greater effect on our lives than the scores and intimitate details of professional, college, and HS sporting events that get plenty of coverage in the paper. It's not like this bill was a last minute, middle-of-the night measure. Where was the DesNews when the issue was being debated? 2-While the DesNews focuses on defendants in various cases, what about the rights of jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others who may be required to attend to business at the courts to defend themselves? Besides which, if a defendant is too dangerous to have access to a weapon, he shouldn't be released to the streets OR at the very least, if he has put his weapon into a court controlled lock box, the court could limit his ability to retrieve the weapon. If the gun was left in the trunk of a car, NOTHING prevents a released defendant from retrieving his gun and returning to the court house. 3-The DesNews asks how many guns have been stolen from cars parked in the parking lot so as to diminish concerns about that happening. Having done this, may we now count on the DesNews to NOT editorialize in favor of more gun control or penalties for gun owners when a gun IS stolen from a parked car and used in a crime? Also, what about laws making it illegal to have a loaded gun in a car unless you have a CCW permit? There is some question about whether leaving a loaded gun unattended in a car is even legal (not to mention safe or wise). Would the DesNews prefer to have people loading and unloading their self defene weapons in a parking lot, or in a controlled environement under the supervision of court personnel? 4-Even if a trunk, glove box, or other area of a car IS a secure, prudent, and legal place to leave a loaded gun (and I don't think it is), what does this do for those who may choose (or have) to use mass transit to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about those who walk, or ride a bike? Is the DesNews now reversing its previous editorial stance encouraging the use of mass and alternate transit and suggesting that only those who drive a private automobile are entitled to self defense? After all, if the DesNews had their way, only those who drive a private car would have anyplace at all to leave a personal CCW weapon while attending to court business. The DesNews accepts email submission of letters to the editors at: (letters@desnews.com). Remember, you must include your full name, home address and a phone number to have your letter considered for publication. Only your name and city/State will be printed Charles http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,395007331,00.html? Gun lockers in courthouses? Deseret News editorial While we're on the subject of guns, it should be noted that courtrooms are places where emotions run high. In some cases, a prison term may hang in the balance. In others, fortunes may be lost. They are not places to which people should be encouraged to bring firearms. Earlier this year, Utah lawmakers passed a bill requiring state courts to provide gun lockers, free of charge, outside all courtrooms. The intent, court officials said, was to allow people to exercise their Second Amendment rights. People who legally carry weapons, whether concealed or not, have had to leave them in the trunk or glove compartment when they pull up to a courthouse. It's too easy to break into a car. Presiding 3rd District Judge Ronald Nehring had the courage last week to speak out against this nonsense, calling it something that "jeopardizes the safety of the public and employees of the court." He's right. We doubt anyone checked to see how often guns are stolen from cars while people are inside state court buildings. We are, however, fairly certain that the existence of gun lockers will encourage people to bring handguns to court with them. That means some people who are angered by the outcome of a case will be stopping to retrieve their weapons on the way out. It also poses more opportunities for people with ill intent to wrestle a firearm away from a law-abiding gun owner. Do not forget how, on April 2, 1985, Ronnie Lee Gardner tried to escape from his murder trial at the Metropolitan Hall of Justice when he used a gun his girlfriend had slipped him to kill an attorney and wound a bailiff. Many prisoners are desperate. By inviting more guns near courtrooms, the state is increasing the chances that similar tragedies might occur. The Second Amendment does indeed guarantee the right to bear arms. But like all constitutional rights, this can be reasonably constrained using common sense. The courts do not provide soap boxes for people to exercise their rights to free speech. They do not provide chapels so that people may preserve their right to worship freely. It is entirely reasonable to declare courthouses off-limits to firearms and to leave it at that. Unfortunately, the law is in place and the lockers must be built. We don't blame Nehring and his colleagues for feeling uneasy about it. We only hope the lockers become oddities that are seldom used. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 17:30:39 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew On Mon, 6 May 2002 16:41:55 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >1-If this poses such problems, why didn't the judges, courts, or the >DesNews comment on the bill while it was being debated in the last >session? Cuz they're even more out of touch than the DesNews? Aren't these the same people who claim "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? >3-The DesNews asks how many guns have been stolen from cars parked in the >parking lot so as to diminish concerns about that happening. Having done >this, may we now count on the DesNews to NOT editorialize in favor of >more gun control or penalties for gun owners when a gun IS stolen from a >parked car and used in a crime? Also, what about laws making it illegal >to have a loaded gun in a car unless you have a CCW permit? There is >some question about whether leaving a loaded gun unattended in a car is >even legal (not to mention safe or wise). Unless the car has a solid safe (making the car unnecessarily heavy), leaving a gun in an unattended cars strikes me as rather imprudent, perhaps even recklessly negligent. >to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about >those who walk, or ride a bike? Thank you for considering bikers and peds. I hope the DesNews editorial staff can be persuaded to do likewise. >if the DesNews had their way, only those who drive a private >car would have anyplace at all to leave a personal CCW >weapon while attending to court business. There goes fuel economy if we must install safes in our cars. (I guarantee you I'm not planning on installing one on my bicycle.) >The DesNews accepts email submission of letters to the editors at: >(letters@desnews.com). Remember, you must include your full name, >home address and a phone number to have your letter considered for >publication. Only your name and city/State will be printed Too bad that with the NAC monopoly (despite it's being in litigation), talking to the advertisers does little good. Where else can they advertise; the City Weekly (rabidly hoplophobic)? Fwiw, I don't find most letters to the editor very persuasive. Seems to mostly be a venting forum for nut cases. Perhaps someone on these fora could construct a persuasive guest editorial? They run those on Sunday, and occasionally on other days. While nut cases submit those as well, they are more frequently persuasive. Scott - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 17:56:10 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:30:39 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > Unless the car has a solid safe (making the car unnecessarily > heavy), leaving a gun in an unattended cars strikes me as > rather imprudent, perhaps even recklessly negligent. Actually, I've seen at least one product on the market that looks to make a fairly secure storage environment for handguns or other small valuables that may need to be left in a car. It is a small lock box made out of heavy guage steel. It is fitted with either a key lock (generally an "Ace" round key like those used on vending machines) or else a 4 digit "simplex" type combo lock meant to be easy to open by touch without the need to see the lock. It is intended to be bolted to the floor/frame of the car under a seat or within the trunk. At that point, it cannot be removed from the car except via very destructive means, unless one has the key or combination as the bolts are accessed from inside the box. Total weight is only a few pounds. Far to bulkly and heavy for a bicycle, but probably completely feasable (though maybe overkill) on larger motercycles with exisiting storage boxes on them. Also, trunks on older cars (without the drop down seats or in car trunk releases) are, or could be made, fairly secure. Of course, that is assumming the increase in security from the obscurity of no one knowing for sure whether anything valuable is in the trunk. Advertise that guns are present by being forced to disarm in a public parking lot and someone is likely going to be willing to expend a fair bit more energy to get into the trunk than if he was just fishing for possible scores. And, I suspect that the various locking devices used in police cars to hold the riot shot guns and such probably offer at least a modest level of security. Finally, while I don't advise leaving a gun in a car if it can be avoided I would never suggest it is recklessly negligent. Guns can be used to kill or injure. But so to can a car and given that cars kill more people than guns, if leaving a gun inside a locked car is negligent, then leaving the car unattended in the first place is even more so. It COULD be stolen and used in some crime like robbery or kidnapping. The driver could be drunk or get into a highspeed chase with police and crash it, killing people. These days we should also consider that a stolen car could be used to deliver a car bomb. And stealing the car is not much more difficult than stealing the contents, especially if those contents are in a secure trunk, glove box, or storage safe. Let's not demonize guns or suggest they need to be treated differently than any other potentially dangerous item. > > >to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about > >those who walk, or ride a bike? > > Thank you for considering bikers and peds. I hope the DesNews > editorial staff can be persuaded to do likewise. I encourage you to drop them a letter pointing out the error of their ways, from you perspective as a frequent biker. You could, of course, leave details about your CCW status in the "theoretical" or implied catagory. > Perhaps someone on these fora could construct > a persuasive guest editorial? You seem to write well and you have a unique perspective as a frequent biker. I encorage you to pen something. Charles ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 17:56:10 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew On Mon, 06 May 2002 17:30:39 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > Unless the car has a solid safe (making the car unnecessarily > heavy), leaving a gun in an unattended cars strikes me as > rather imprudent, perhaps even recklessly negligent. Actually, I've seen at least one product on the market that looks to make a fairly secure storage environment for handguns or other small valuables that may need to be left in a car. It is a small lock box made out of heavy guage steel. It is fitted with either a key lock (generally an "Ace" round key like those used on vending machines) or else a 4 digit "simplex" type combo lock meant to be easy to open by touch without the need to see the lock. It is intended to be bolted to the floor/frame of the car under a seat or within the trunk. At that point, it cannot be removed from the car except via very destructive means, unless one has the key or combination as the bolts are accessed from inside the box. Total weight is only a few pounds. Far to bulkly and heavy for a bicycle, but probably completely feasable (though maybe overkill) on larger motercycles with exisiting storage boxes on them. Also, trunks on older cars (without the drop down seats or in car trunk releases) are, or could be made, fairly secure. Of course, that is assumming the increase in security from the obscurity of no one knowing for sure whether anything valuable is in the trunk. Advertise that guns are present by being forced to disarm in a public parking lot and someone is likely going to be willing to expend a fair bit more energy to get into the trunk than if he was just fishing for possible scores. And, I suspect that the various locking devices used in police cars to hold the riot shot guns and such probably offer at least a modest level of security. Finally, while I don't advise leaving a gun in a car if it can be avoided I would never suggest it is recklessly negligent. Guns can be used to kill or injure. But so to can a car and given that cars kill more people than guns, if leaving a gun inside a locked car is negligent, then leaving the car unattended in the first place is even more so. It COULD be stolen and used in some crime like robbery or kidnapping. The driver could be drunk or get into a highspeed chase with police and crash it, killing people. These days we should also consider that a stolen car could be used to deliver a car bomb. And stealing the car is not much more difficult than stealing the contents, especially if those contents are in a secure trunk, glove box, or storage safe. Let's not demonize guns or suggest they need to be treated differently than any other potentially dangerous item. > > >to get to court rather than driving a private car? What about > >those who walk, or ride a bike? > > Thank you for considering bikers and peds. I hope the DesNews > editorial staff can be persuaded to do likewise. I encourage you to drop them a letter pointing out the error of their ways, from you perspective as a frequent biker. You could, of course, leave details about your CCW status in the "theoretical" or implied catagory. > Perhaps someone on these fora could construct > a persuasive guest editorial? You seem to write well and you have a unique perspective as a frequent biker. I encorage you to pen something. Charles ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 08:09:08 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew On Mon, 6 May 2002 17:56:10 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >I've seen at least one product on the market that looks to make >a fairly secure storage environment for handguns or other small valuables >that may need to be left in a car. It is a small lock box made out of >heavy guage steel. It is fitted with either a key lock (generally an >"Ace" round key like those used on vending machines) or else a 4 digit >"simplex" type combo lock meant to be easy to open by touch without the >need to see the lock. It is intended to be bolted to the floor/frame of >the car under a seat or within the trunk. At that point, it cannot be >removed from the car except via very destructive means, unless one has >the key or combination as the bolts are accessed from inside the box. >Total weight is only a few pounds. Fascinating. Effective, yet not much heavier than sheet metal? Could you provide more, such as brand name, suppliers, gun magazine reviews or a URL? >I suspect that the various locking devices used in police cars to >hold the riot shot guns and such probably offer at least a modest level >of security. Modest, yes. I've been aware of at least one theft from such a device. >Finally, while I don't advise leaving a gun in a car if it can be avoided >I would never suggest it is recklessly negligent. Guns can be used to >kill or injure. But so to can a car and given that cars kill more people >than guns, if leaving a gun inside a locked car is negligent, then >leaving the car unattended in the first place is even more so. Considering the relative sizes, I'd compare leaving a gun in an unattended car more comparable to leaving the keys in it. >I encourage you to drop them a letter pointing out the error of their >ways, from you perspective as a frequent biker. Heh. Speaking from the nontheoretical, I nearly got arrested at the Temple of Set (Scott Matheson courthouse) once when I had a roofing gutter nail in my backpack. They let me leave it with security and retrieve it later. >You seem to write well and you have a unique perspective as a frequent >biker. I encorage you to pen something. Sarah Thompson has already done so. I trust you saw her response? Scott Bergeson South Salt Lake (Is this really necessary, Jim? Don't the member profiles provide this information?) - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 11:55:04 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew On Tue, 07 May 2002 08:09:08 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > > Fascinating. Effective, yet not much heavier than sheet metal? Sorry, I suspect some confusion created by my lack of clarity. The car gun safes I've seen are probably 3/16 inch plate steel. However, they are only big enough to hold one or two handguns. So total weight is not excessive for use in a car. They are simply somewhat modified versions of the small safes meant to be mounted to a bed frame or inside a closet and opened quickly by touch. Obviously, a determined thief, with enough time, could breach them, or even get them removed from a car (cutting the bolts that mount it to the frame or floorboard from the underside of the car) and carry it away for final opening later. I wouldn't leave $50k worth of diamonds in one, advertise they were there, and then leave the car parked in airport long term parking. But for storing a self defense gun (or a modest amount of other valuables) where the presence of such items is not generally known and for a couple hours in a court house parking lot it probably provides plenty of security. > Could you provide more, such as brand name, suppliers, gun > magazine reviews or a URL? Not off the top of my head. Stop in at Super Dell's gun store on the west side. I know they have the models made to be mounted in a closet or under a bed. I suspect they could quickly point you to one meant for installalation in a car. > Considering the relative sizes, I'd compare leaving a gun in > an unattended car more comparable to leaving the keys in it. Then I hope you never get elected to the legislature. We've got more than enough anti-gunners trying to demonize guns and provide special penalties to those who are unfortunate enough to have a firearms stolen. We don't need a gun owner making such nonsense sound legit. I don't think handguns should be left on a dashboard or deliberately left lying around a park or school. Of course, I also don't think leaving a hunting rifle in a rear window gun rack of a locked truck should net the owner a jail sentence if some punk breaks into the truck, steals the gun, and later uses it in some crime. You can bet that no one has ever been charged with a crime because their pocket or hunting knife fell out of a pocket or scabbard and was later found by some school kid. But if you happen to have a self-defense gun come lose you are at risk for some serious charges. Now, I don't condone sloppiness or recklessness. But I do support an equal and equitable standard. How many parents lock up their car keys when they get home? How many would expect to face criminal charges if their 8 year old son managed to get the keys, start the car, and head down the street causes various property damage to someone else's home? And yet a growing number of these people think that anyone who owns guns but doesn't use a gun safe and/or trigger locks 100% of the time ought to be sent to prison if anyone ever gets ahold of one of the guns. As a child I once made the mistake of playing with a spare tire from the truck in my driveway. The tire got away from me, rolled the down the hill, and ended up destroying a neighbor's front door. It could have killed someone. Fortunately, no one was hurt. And my parents paid to repair the damages. But with no ill intent on my part or their part, criminal charges would have been ridiculous. There are LOTS of dangerous items in the world and we can't expect that all of them will be locked up all the time and that unfortunate things will never happen. > > Sarah Thompson has already done so. I trust you saw her response? Yes. And I still encourage you to write a letter to the editor. In the amount of time you spend on one of these posts you could easily have a letter written. 1 letter to the editor is kook, 100 letters is something else and less easy to ignore or discount. Charles Hardy SLCo Utah ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 12:55:09 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew On Tue, 7 May 2002 11:55:04 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >>Considering the relative sizes, I'd compare leaving a gun in >>an unattended car more comparable to leaving the keys in it. >Then I hope you never get elected to the legislature. We've got more >than enough anti-gunners trying to demonize guns and provide special >penalties to those who are unfortunate enough to have a firearms stolen. Special penalties? Unlikely, even in the near-impossible situation I were elected to the legislature. More like "attractive nuisance". (Look it up.) You don't want to arm your enemies or the incompetent. >You can bet that no one has ever been >charged with a crime because their pocket or hunting knife fell out of a >pocket or scabbard and was later found by some school kid. But if you >happen to have a self-defense gun come lose you are at risk for some >serious charges. So don't engrave your knife with your name or similar identifying info, even though that might facilitate its return if lost? >Now, I don't condone sloppiness or recklessness. But I do support an >equal and equitable standard. How many parents lock up their car keys >when they get home? How many would expect to face criminal charges if >their 8 year old son managed to get the keys, start the car, and head >down the street causes various property damage to someone else's home? I won't object if you leave your keys in a reasonably secure, out-of-sight safe in your car. Cavers do something similar to avoid losing them somewhere in many miles of dark passages. However, I would expect the parents to pay the damages. Scott Bergeson South Salt Lake - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 13:39:09 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew On Tue, 07 May 2002 12:55:09 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > Special penalties? Unlikely, even in the near-impossible > situation I were elected to the legislature. More like > "attractive nuisance". (Look it up.) You don't want to > arm your enemies or the incompetent. True. But no less true, IMHO, if the "weapon" in question happens to be a knife, gasoline and glass bottles, or a car or airplane, rather than a firearm. I simply want firearms treated like any other object that is occassionally used for ill or criminal intent or simply involved in unfortunate accidents. > So don't engrave your knife with your name or similar > identifying info, even though that might facilitate its > return if lost? I think you either miss or deliberately obfusicate the point. The point is, there is no good reason to treat firearms differently than knives or other potential weapons. There are differences between reckless endangerment, negligence, and simple accidents. Not every mistake is criminal. > I won't object if you leave your keys in a reasonably secure, > out-of-sight safe in your car. So do you have a different standard for guns, or will you refrain from objecting if someone leaves his firearm in a reasonably secure, out-of-sight safe in the car? And what about someone who doesn't use a safe, but simply keeps the weapons out of sight in a locked trunk, behind the seat of a locked truck, or in the glove box or under the seat of a locked car? In short, how much effort must one expend to secure property against theft in order to be held blameless if that property is, in fact, stolen and used to injure someone? Car windows can be smashed and car ignitions can be fairly easily and quickly bypassed. So is locking a car and taking the keys sufficient to avoid criminal and civil liability if the car is stolen and used to injure? Or must a seperate steering wheel/brake pedel lock or car alarm with ignition cut off be installed? What efforts must be taken to secure the tire iron or gasoline against theft and possible subsequent criminal misuse or accident in order to be held blameless in the event one or the other is actually stolen? Finally, would you require a higher level of diligence with, and/or impose greater punishment for incidents involving, a firearm than with gasoline, a tire iron, or even the car itself, and if so, on what basis? > Cavers do something similar to > avoid losing them somewhere in many miles of dark passages. > However, I would expect the parents to pay the damages. Civil liability for the damages inflicted by minor children makes sense. Criminal sanctions every time a child gets ahold of something he maybe should not have, seems out of line to me. Charles Hardy SLCo Utah ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 15:37:55 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew Tue, 7 May 2002 13:39:09 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >>You don't want to arm your enemies or the incompetent. >True. But no less true, IMHO, if the "weapon" in question happens to be >a knife, gasoline and glass bottles, or a car or airplane, rather than a >firearm. I simply want firearms treated like any other object that is >occassionally used for ill or criminal intent or simply involved in >unfortunate accidents. Now you're starting to catch on. Be careful what you wish for, as you just might get it. Several jurisdictions have also subjected knives to severe restrictions. Perhaps gasoline and glass bottles may follow. The Australian Revolutionary Movement sent an article in one of its newsletters telling how to fight with a broken beer bottle. >>So don't engrave your knife with your name or similar >>identifying info, even though that might facilitate its >>return if lost? >I think you either miss or deliberately obfusicate the point. Do you really want to be prosecuted if you lose your knife? Firearms are already traceable, as they are required to have serial numbers, which were recorded on the federal sales forms. >will you refrain from objecting if someone leaves his firearm in a reasonably secure, out-of-sight safe in the car? I might still object if left in an obscure place for a long time, such as at a trailhead, or in a known high break-in area. >And what about someone who doesn't use a safe, but simply keeps >the weapons out of sight in a locked trunk, behind the seat of >a locked truck, or in the glove box or under the seat of a >locked car? This reduces defenses in a civil negligence case. There are ways to open truck doors without a key, and most glove boxes afford little protection other than visual. >Car windows can be smashed and car ignitions >can be fairly easily and quickly bypassed. So is locking a car and >taking the keys sufficient to avoid criminal and civil liability if the >car is stolen and used to injure? Or must a seperate steering >wheel/brake pedel lock or car alarm with ignition cut off be installed? Perhaps so in some places. One could expect a car to get broken into eventually in some parts of Wilmington, Delaware. Care to buy an ignition cut off? >What efforts must be taken to secure the tire iron or gasoline against >theft and possible subsequent criminal misuse or accident in order to be >held blameless in the event one or the other is actually stolen? In a high security area such as a prison, quite a lot. >Finally, would you require a higher level of diligence with, and/or >impose greater punishment for incidents involving, a firearm than with >gasoline, a tire iron, or even the car itself, and if so, on what basis? Yes. The firearm is more easily used, and requires less specialized training to misuse. As I wrote previously, it is roughly comparable to the car *keys*. I suppose leaving it unloaded would be comparable to leaving the keys in a car, but removing the fuel, battery, or spark plugs. Scott Bergeson South Salt Lake - --- Smith & Wesson (pre-sellout): the original point-and-click interface - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 16:17:40 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew My final post on this thread. On Tue, 07 May 2002 15:37:55 -0600 Scott Bergeson writes: > Do you really want to be prosecuted if you lose your knife? Quite the contrary. My point was that I don't want to be prosecuted for losing my knife AND neither do I want to be prosecuted for losing my firearm. > Firearms are already traceable, as they are required to have > serial numbers, which were recorded on the federal sales forms. That they are traceable does NOT automatically mean that we should further punish someone who has his property stolen. Someone who accidently loses his property should also not be subject to prosecution unless it can be shown he was grossly negligent. Deliberately leaving a weapon (of any kind) in a playground seems negligent to me. Having a securing strap come undone and a knife or gun falling out on the playground, un-noticed by the carrier, is not automatically negligent in my book. The deputy who is the father of the 4 year old boy who shot at his neighbors is now charged with both reckless endangerment AND child abuse. The abuse charge stems from the fact that the boy was injured by the recoil of the gun!! Now, I'm not happy about any child misusing a gun. The weapon probably should not have had a shell chambered and the child most certainly needed to have received greater instruction in gun safety and morals over his short lifetime. But unless there was some history, I don't like the idea that a one time, unexpected act on the part of 4 year old subjects his father to being charged as a criminal. And I'd say the cut hand from the recoil is a far cry from child abuse. Closer to just deserts. The gun was put up on a high shelf and it's not like the guy handed it to his kid or left it on the kitchen table or in the toy box. He wasn't even away from home for any extended period. He was in his backyard working at the time. My question is, if the kid had stolen one of his mother's kitchen knives and threatened his neighbors, would the mom have been charged with a crime for not keeping her cutlerly locked up? Of course not unless the kid had some history of violence involving knives. So why should the father get charged for the same thing involving a gun. I'm guessing the gun was more difficult to get to and more difficult for a 4 year old to use, than one of the kitchen knives would have been. [Answering whether car owners have a duty to do more than just lock the car and take the keys.] > Perhaps so in some places. I disagree. I do not place such burdens on decent law abiding persons. The criminal who defeats the locks, breaks the glass, etc, etc, etc, is responsible. PERIOD. I do not believe in double victimizing the owner who has already had his property stolen. [Answering what measures should be required to secure a tire iron or gasoline in a car.] > In a high security area such as a prison, quite a lot. Not my question at all, and you know it. If some thug steals my tire iron from a business parking lot while I've spent 10 hours away from my car, I should have NO liability for what he does with it. > Yes. The firearm is more easily used, and requires less > specialized training to misuse. I disagree. A child can hurt himself much easier with a knife than with a gun, especially if the gun does not have a round in the chamber. And if specialized training is the criteria, I'm guessing we have FAR more people in this country who have received formal training in the use of automobiles (drivers ed) than in the use of firearms. I've made my points. The last word is yours. Charles Hardy SLCo ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #229 ***********************************