From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #234 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, February 5 2003 Volume 02 : Number 234 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:50:39 -0700 (MST) From: Subject: FW: Mark Steyn - Gun control (London Telegraph) (fwd) Warning ! Very conservative: ANTI-Gun-Control piece follows: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D FYI - Birmingham is Britain's second largest city (5 million people) This is what happens when governments try to ban guns By Mark Steyn (Filed: 05/01/2003) You would think if "gun control" was going to work anywhere it would be on a small island. Particularly a small island at whose ports of entry the zealots of HM Customs like nothing better than performing intimate cavity searches on the off-chance you've got an extra bottle of duty-free Beaujolais tucked away up there. Surely, if you also had a Walther PPK parked out of sight, these exhaustive inspectors would be the first to notice. But apparently not. Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham's New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we'll just pass more laws for them not to obey. According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the highest crime rate of the world's 20 leading nations. One can query the methodology of the survey while still recognising the peculiar genius by which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire - draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric property crime. What happened at that party in Aston? I don't mean "what happened?" in the sense of the piercing analysis of Chief Superintendent Dave Shaw, who concluded: "There has clearly been some sort of dispute which has resulted in people coming to the premises with guns, discharging their weapons and causing this incident." You can't put anything over on these coppers, can you? But my question is directed at the broader meaning of the event. Chief Supt Shaw went on: "We have never had to deal with anything like this. In terms of the nature of the incident, it's almost unprecedented in Birmingham." He didn't quite say Birmingham is one of those bucolic tightly-knit communities where everyone in the village knows everyone else and no one locks their doors, but you get the drift: this is some sort of bizarre aberration. I think not. When those young men decided to open fire in Birchfield Road, they were making an entirely rational decision. One reason why Chief Supt Shaw has "never had to deal with anything like this" is because Aston was long ago ceded to the gangs. And, if you can deal drugs with impunity and burgle with impunity and assault with impunity and use guns with impunity, who's to say you can't murder with impunity? The West Midlands Police have offered a reward of =A31,000 for information leading to the arrest of those involved. Think about that: would you name a known gang member for a thousand quid? Once the funerals have been held and the media's moved on, the constabulary will go back to forgetting about Aston. But you'll still have to live there. When Dunblane occurred, all of us - even, if they're honest with themselves, the shrieking hysterics baying for pointless legislation - understood it was a freak event: a nut went nuts. It happens, and, when it does, the event has no broader implications. But what happened in Birchfield Road is of wider relevance: it's a glimpse of the day after tomorrow - not just in Aston, but in Edgbaston and Solihull and Leamington Spa. After Dunblane, the police and politicians lapsed into their default position: it's your fault. We couldn't do anything about him, so we'll do something about you. You had your mobile nicked? You must be mad taking it out. Why not just keep it inside nice and safe on the telephone table? Had your car radio pinched? You shouldn't have left it in the car. House burgled? You should have had laser alarms and window bars installed. You did have laser alarms and window bars but they waited till you were home, kicked the door in and beat you up? You should have an armour-plated door and digital retinal-scan technology. It's your fault, always. The monumentally useless British police, with greater manpower per capita on higher rates of pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven't had an original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding. The gangs on Birmingham's streets instinctively understand this. They know, even if the Government doesn't, that the Blairite "total" ban, which sounds so butch and macho when you do your soundbite on the telly, is a cop-out: it makes the general population the target, not the criminals. And once that happens it's always easier to hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed shotgun than the Yardies with the Uzis. When you disarm the citizenry, when you prosecute them for being so foolish as to believe they have a right to self-defence, when you issue warnings that they should "walk on by" if they happen to see a burglary or rape in progress, the main beneficiaries will obviously be the criminals. Aston is the logical reductio of British policing: rival bad guys with state-of-the-art hardware, a cowed populace, and a remote constabulary tucked up in bed with the answering machine on. I see I haven't yet mentioned the touchy social factor which even squeamish British Lefties have been forced to confront: Aston is yet more "black-on-black" violence. The reason I haven't mentioned it is because there hardly seems any point. What's new? Canada also had a Dunblane-like massacre, followed by Dunblane-like legislation, and, like Birmingham, boring, bland Toronto has lately been riven by gun violence from - wait for it - Jamaican gangs. But in neither Britain nor Canada is it politically feasible to suggest that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special immigration scrutiny. As it happens, that Canadian massacre, of Montreal female students 12 years ago, was committed by the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, but, although we all claim to be interested in the "root causes" of crime, they tend to involve awkward cultural judgments. It's easier, like Mr Blair, just to go "total": blame everyone, ban everything. This basic approach of addressing any cultural factors apart from the ones that correlate was pioneered by American progressives. The corpulent provocateur Michael Moore, in his film Bowling for Columbine, currently delighting British audiences, spends an entire feature-length documentary investigating the "culture" of American gun violence without mentioning that blacks, who make up 13 per cent of the population, account for over half the murders (and murder victims, too). Once you factor them out, Americans kill at about the same rate as nancy-boy Canadians. But, as I said, it's hardly worth mentioning in relation to Britain. In my part of New Hampshire, we're all armed to the hilt and any gangster who fancied holding up a gas station would be quickly ventilated by guys whose pick-ups are better equipped than most EU armies. The right of individual self-defence deters crime, constrains it, prevents it from spreading out of the drug-infested failed jurisdictions. In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin Britain, that constraint doesn't exist: that's why the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem. Meanwhile, America's traditionally high and England and Wales's traditionally low murder rates are remorselessly converging. In 1981, the US rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones, include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer. New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century. I'll bet that in the next two years London's murder rate overtakes it. - ------ - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:49:17 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Pink Pistols Legislative Update Janalee Tobias provides: - ---------- Hi guys, Here's a legislative update from Pink Pistols Utah. They gave permission for me to forward this to you as long as I give them credit. I'm sure you're already aware of these bills, but just wanted you to see the Pink Pistols update. Take care, Janalee - ------------------------ Legislative bills which have been filed for the start of the session include: BILL: HB0063 Concealed Weapon Permit (Daniels, S.) RANK: Bad -- This act modifies the Concealed Weapons Act by increasing fees and allowing for a waiver of a concealed weapons permit fee for an applicant who files an affidavit of impecuniousity. The act requires the division to review its fee structure annually with the intent that the cost of issuing concealed weapons permits shall be revenue neutral. The act has a July 1, 2003 effective date. ___ BILL: HB0178 Firearms Amendments (McCartney, T.) RANK: Bad -- This act modifies provisions related to weapons by expanding the restrictions on the purchase of firearms by Category I restricted persons. ___ BILL: HB0190 Gun Show Background Check (Daniels, S.) RANK: Bad -- This act modifies provisions related to criminal background checks for firearm purchases. The act requires a background check for a firearm purchase at a gun show and provides a criminal penalty. ___ BILL: SB0038 Child Access to Firearm Prevention Amendments (Julander, P.) RANK: Bad -- This act modifies the Utah Criminal Code. The act creates a crime for negligent storage of a firearm with exceptions. The act requires a licensed firearm dealer to provide written warning of possible prosecution and civil suit for negligent storage of a firearm and provides a criminal penalty to dealers who violate this requirement. The act creates a civil cause of action for negligent storage of a firearm. The act defines terms. The act provides discretion for a prosecutor and an arresting officer. The act establishes a damage cap and provides a statute of limitation. ___ BILL: SB0103 Concealed Weapon Permit Holder Amendments (Bramble, C.) RANK: Good -- This act modifies provisions related to concealed weapons by removing the 60-day restriction on the validity of concealed firearm permits issued by another state or county. ___ BILL: Expansion of Uses of Publicly Funded Shooting Ranges (Wright, B.) RANK: Good ___ BILL: Use of Shooting Ranges (Ure, D.) RANK: Good Stay with us for the most in-depth coverage and opinion about the upcoming session. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:11:14 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Salt Lake Tribune Article On 21 Jan 2003 10:20:33 (GMT) David Nelson wrote: Salt Lake Tribune Article: Utah Gays Ready for Trouble http://www.sltrib.com/2003/jan/01212003/utah/22192.asp - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:24:56 -0700 (MST) From: karlp@ourldsfamily.com Subject: Gun Saves Family "A Far North Dallas man who shot and killed two would-be burglars Thursday morning probably will not face charges, according to Dallas police and legal experts. "About 9 a.m. Thursday, the 29-year-old man was at home with his wife and three young children when a man knocked on the side door and asked for someone the resident did not know, police said. "One or both suspects then forced their way into the apartment, shooting the resident once in the arm, police said. The resident retreated to his bedroom, retrieved a gun, and a shootout ensued in the living room on Knoll Trail Drive near the Dallas North Tollway, police said." - - Dallas Morning News, 1/24/03 - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:27:27 GMT From: utbagpiper@juno.com Subject: Fw:USSC Alert The latest from USSC. Please note that I believe I have found a problem with SB 108, not mentioned by USSC. Along with the good that it does in clarifying the primacy of CCW permits over any anti-self-defense school policy, SB 108, also adds Schedule II drugs to the Schedule I drugs that a person is already prohibited from being in illegal possession of while also possessing a gun. Being in "unlawful possession" of a Schedule II drug, makes a person a "Catagory I restricted Person" for whom, possession of a firearm becomes a felony offense. Now before you think I've gone soft in the head for drug addicts, read on. Along with a lot of commonly abused/recreational drugs, schedule II drugs include some fairly common perscription pain killers like codeine. If I am not mistaken, in Utah, it is illegal to have perscription drug outside its original perscription bottle. So, under this particular change in SB 108, an arthritis patient who places a couple of his perscrption pain pills into a pocket pill carrier (rather than taking his entire bottle with him to potentially lose or get stolen) and goes out for a day of hunting, is now a "Category I" restricted person and is guilty of a felony for having his hunting gun with him. SB 108 provides an "affirmative defense" to this charge if one had a perscription for the drug or if one had in his possession for legal dispensing to an animal or other member of his household. HOWEVER, an "affirmative defense" does not prevent being arrested and charged. It is simply a defense that can be presented to the court during trial. Also, under current statute is section 76-10-503, it is a felony to own, possess, control, OR TRANSFER a firearm if you are under felony indictment. Not conviction, indictment. So, you happen to be on some pain meds for some reason (illness, neck injury, arthritis, etc). You break State law by placing a couple of your percsription pain pills into a pocket pill dispensor both for convenience and to prevent the risk of loss or theft of you entire bottle, and head out for a day or weekend of hunting. A peace officer asks you for your hunting license. You retrieve it from your pocket and end up digging up your pocket pill dispensor at the same time. The officer sees your pills, recognizes them as a schedule II drug and is now within his proper powers to arrest you for having a gun while being in illegal possession of a schedule II drug (your pain pill outside their original bottle). You have a legitimate perscription for the meds in question, but you cannot make an "affirmative defense" until your case is at trial. The DA happens to be a hardnose for whatever reason and gets a felony indictment (for the possession of drugs and guns at the same time) to proceed to trial. At the moment the indictment is handed down, you are now guilty of a second felony: being a "Category II" person (one under felony indictment) who owns guns. At this point, it is not only illegal for you to own guns, but it is illegal for you to transfer (IE, sell, gift, lend) your guns. So the DA sends the police over to seize your entire gun collection including your grandfather's hunting rifle and that civil war collector's piece you're so proud of. You go to trial on the original charge, present your "affirmative defense" and are acquited. However, that doesn't change the fact that you WERE under felony indictment while you owned firearms. The DA/police are under NO obligation to return your collection to you nor even to compensate you for it. Further, if the DA really has it in for you, he can now charge you with a felony for even owning guns while under indictment. Under current law, you are supposed to see a felony indictment coming, and completely disarm yourself BEFORE the grand jury decides to indict. So, contrary to the info in the alert below, you may want to consider asking for a small amendment to SB 108 to either remove the schedule II drugs or to include a stronger protection against techincal violations than just an "affirmative defense" clause. My $0.02 worth. Charles - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: Utah Shooting Sports Council To: utbagpiper@juno.com Subject: IMPORTANT COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY---CALL IMMEDIATELY!!! Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:52:07 -0700 USSC URGENT ACTION ALERT- FOR ALL UTAH SHOOTING SPORTS COUNCIL MEMBERS & SUPPORTERS IMPORTANT COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY---CALL IMMEDIATELY!!! We apologize for the short notice. You need to Phone, FAX, or Email---- See info below TUESDAY MEETING PLEASE CONTACT SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS IMMEDIATELY Tell them you support Senator Mike Waddoups' SB 108 and want to see it passed without amendment. Be brief and polite, the committee members are very busy. Please plan on attending the meeting if you can at 3:00 PM in Room 414 of the Capitol. This bill will be the 4th item on the agenda, so there is always a chance they may not get to it. Dress appropriately (coat and tie is best, or business casual at least). Senator Mike Waddoups (a staunch supporter of legal self defense) has Senate Bill 108 before the Senate Judiciary Committee TUESDAY. Most people thought this was not going to be a controversial bill since it merely clarifies a minor technical conflict between two sections of the state laws. However, the anti-self defense crowd has been charging it will change the law and for the first time allow guns in schools, spreading their disinformation in the media. The truth is that people with permits to carry legal self defense weapons have been allowed in schools since 1995, and have been doing so. (Remember, it is a "concealed weapon" permit so no one notices.) With over 51,100 permits issued in the last six years, there is ample proof this is not endangering students or staff. Efforts by the anti-gun crowd to spread rumors about alleged incidents were foiled when USSC used GRAMA requests to get statements from every school district on the issue. Their official responses proved the allegations to be FALSE! There were NONE. Permit holders are no more likely to commit serious crimes than are educators. Scare stories about permits being revoked (in almost insignificant numbers) need to be balanced by the fact that some educators also commit felony offenses. A few bad apples should not tarnish the reputation of these two groups made up of mainly good, honest, hard working people. - ---------------------------------------------------- ACTION REQUIRED SAMPLE EMAIL- Send one to each of the Committee members listed below, or call or FAX them: SUBJECT- Support SB 108 without changes Dear Senator- I urge you to support Senator Waddoups' SB 108 (Dangerous Weapon Amendments) as introduced. This is a minor clarification of a technical conflict between two sections of the Utah Statutes. This is not a change in policy concerning guns in schools. ONLY people with permits to carry legal self defense weapons are allowed to have them in schools now (or anywhere else for that matter). It will still be illegal for those without permits to carry a concealed weapon in schools (or anywhere else). Do not make schools more dangerous by mandating that only unarmed victims will be found there. Thank you. - ---------------------------------------------------- Senate Judiciary Committee members (Name, (Party- District), email, phone. Gregory S. Bell, Chairman (R - 22) gbell@utahsenate.org 801-971-2001 Patrice Arent (D - 4) parent@utahsenate.org 801-272-1956 Chris Buttars (R - 5) dbuttars@utahsenate.org 801-561-0535 Mike Dmitrich (D - 27) mdmitrich@utahsenate.org 435-637-0426 James Evans (R - 1) jevans@utahsenate.org 801-322-3452 David Gladwell (R - 19) dgladwell@utahsenate.org 801-782-4130 Lyle Hillyard (R - 25) lhillyard@utahsenate.org 435-753-0043 Al Mansell (R - 10) amansell@utahsenate.org 801-567-4000 Utah State Senate 319 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Senate Phone Number (for all Senators): (801) 538-1035 Senate Fax (for Republican Senators): (801)538-1414 Senate Fax (for Democratic Senators): (801)538-1449 THANK YOU! Watch for information on two additional important gun bills coming up for committee hearings Thursday. You will need to call, email, or FAX again. This little bit of work is a small price to defend your rights. CHANGE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS FOR ALERTS Go to the USSC website (UtahShootingSports.com) and use the ADD--DROP--CHANGE ADDRESS section. Just "unsubscribe" your old address and "subscribe" the new one, all in about 30 seconds. If this was forwarded by someone, we invite you to sign up for free alerts or USSC membership on the USSC website USSC WEBSITE- http://UtahShootingSports.com includes frequent updates of gun related news stories from Utah and around the nation. There will be daily updates on gun related bills during the Legislative Session. 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 ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:19:37 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Fw:USSC Alert On 28 Jan 2003 15:27:27 GMT Charles wrote: ___Charles___ I believe I have found a problem with SB 108, not mentioned by USSC. Along with the good that it does in clarifying the primacy of CCW permits over any anti-self-defense school policy, SB 108, also adds Schedule II drugs to the Schedule I drugs that a person is already prohibited from being in illegal possession of while also possessing a gun. Being in "unlawful possession" of a Schedule II drug, makes a person a "Catagory I restricted Person" for whom, possession of a firearm becomes a felony offense. Now before you think I've gone soft in the head for drug addicts, read on. Along with a lot of commonly abused/recreational drugs, schedule II drugs include some fairly common perscription pain killers like codeine. If I am not mistaken, in Utah, it is illegal to have perscription drug outside its original perscription bottle. So, under this particular change in SB 108, an arthritis patient who places a couple of his perscrption pain pills into a pocket pill carrier (rather than taking his entire bottle with him to potentially lose or get stolen) and goes out for a day of hunting, is now a "Category I" restricted person and is guilty of a felony for having his hunting gun with him. SB 108 provides an "affirmative defense" to this charge if one had a perscription for the drug or if one had in his possession for legal dispensing to an animal or other member of his household. - ----- While commonly neglected, one is supposed to have a pharmacy label on secondary containers such as medisets. If the concern is merely not to carry one's entire supply on an outing, keep an old pharmacy bottle (for that schedule II prescription written to you) and put 1 or 2 pills in it. ___Charles___ Also, under current statute is section 76-10-503, it is a felony to own, possess, control, OR TRANSFER a firearm if you are under felony indictment. Not conviction, indictment. - ----- Overreaching in general, not just wrt prescriptions. I have a defunct monitor. Hazardous waste disposal regulations currently don't apply to households, so the government hazardous waste people have told me to just toss it in the trash rather than paying Lucency a $10 recycling fee. (I'm tempted to return it to RC Willey.) Should that exemption change, one's "firearms" could be confiscated for disposal of common household items. My point is many actual and potential felony violations exist of which most people are totally unaware. This prohibition on transfer is just another license to steal (and prosecute ex post facto). Let the reps know this imposition is unacceptable. Or switch to Vioxx or Celebrex. You shouldn't be handling guns while taking narcotics (or anxiolytics like benzodiazepines, or even antihistamines) or drinking alcohol anyhow, even though these may be schedule IV or V or even OTC. The whole point is to convict people of crimes, so they can legally be enslaved under the "13th" amendment. Any excuse will do. ___Charles___ At this point, it is not only illegal for you to own guns, but it is illegal for you to transfer (IE, sell, gift, lend) your guns. - ----- Subtly suggest a friend or relative "burglarize" them? (I.e., "Here's a spare key. It wouldn't be good were the police to find guns and ammunition in [place], nor unexplained fingerprints. I wouldn't notice should that key be misplaced when I come back into this room.") Shalom, Scott - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:15:00 GMT From: utbagpiper@juno.com Subject: Re:Re: Fw:USSC Alert - ---------- Scott Bergeson writes: >>While commonly neglected, one is supposed to have a pharmacy label on secondary containers such as medisets. If the concern is merely not to carry one's entire supply on an outing, keep an old pharmacy bottle (for that schedule II prescription written to you) and put 1 or 2 pills in it.<< >>I have a defunct monitor. Hazardous waste disposal regulations currently don't apply to households, so the government hazardous waste people have told me to just toss it in the trash rather than paying Lucency a $10 recycling fee. (I'm tempted to return it to RC Willey.) Should that exemption change, one's "firearms" could be confiscated for disposal of common household items. My point is many actual and potential felony violations exist of which most people are totally unaware. This prohibition on transfer is just another license to steal (and prosecute ex post facto). Let the reps know this imposition is unacceptable.<< And this is the crux of the problem. They talk about "violent felons" and everybody demands that we not let them get guns. But the actual language always applies to a whole host of technical "crimes" that most people don't even realize are crimes. Environmental regs are a huge area of concern in this regard as are the overly complex tax laws. Simply put, it is just far too easy to end up as a convicted felon (which now includes ANY offense in ANY jurisdiction that carried a possible sentence of 1 year or greater, regardless of what it was called at the time) with absolutely no knowledge or intent to ever harm anyone. >>Or switch to Vioxx or Celebrex. You shouldn't be handling guns while taking narcotics (or anxiolytics like benzodiazepines, or even antihistamines) or drinking alcohol anyhow, even though these may be schedule IV or V or even OTC.<< I'm not a doctor nor a pharmacist, so I won't claim to know what effect any drug is going to have on any given person. And individuals should certainly give consideration to their mental state before handling a gun. But bear in mind, these legal restrictions do not just apply to hunters in the field or someone CCWing on a public street. They apply just as much in your own home. I don't believe a person should automatically lose the ability to mount a meaningful self defense simply because he happens to be taking one drug or another under a doctor's orders. I have been told that various pain killers have far less of an impairing effect when used by someone who is in pain as compared to when they are abused by someone who is not in pain. >>Subtly suggest a friend or relative "burglarize" them? (I.e., "Here's a spare key. It wouldn't be good were the police to find guns and ammunition in [place], nor unexplained fingerprints. I wouldn't notice should that key be misplaced when I come back into this room.")<< I'd suspsect that if one doesn't get one's guns seized upon being arrested following the isuance of the indictment that one could find all kinds of ways to get rid of them that would be hard to prove as a crime. But one shouldn't have to over just an indictment. And if one is served with an arrest warrant or one's home is searched immediately upon issuance of an indictment, I'd guess the guns are likely to be seized before one ever has a chance to dispose of them. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, there should be some reasonable period (say 30 days) for a person newly convicted of a felony to dispose of his otherwise legally owned firearms (maybe require that his "agent"--either attorney, friend, family member etc physically handle the guns instead of the newly convicted felon) before he is guilty of a gun crime and subject to loss of personal property. I hope everyone has taken a moment to call the members of the Senate Judiciay committee to voice concerns with this one provision of the bill. The rest of bill--dealing with schools--very much needs to be passed. Charles ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:48:24 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Fw:USSC Alert On 28 Jan 2003 18:15:00 GMT utbagpiper@juno.com wrote: I hope everyone has taken a moment to call the members of the Senate Judiciay committee to voice concerns with this one provision of the bill. The rest of bill--dealing with schools--very much needs to be passed. - ----- Agreed. However, I'd rather have to vote at the county clerk's office than allow more such impositions of technical crimes and seizures. Shalom, Scott - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:58:56 GMT From: utbagpiper@juno.com Subject: SB 103 passes Senate, Moves to the house Sen. Bramble's SB 103 which eliminates the 60 day limit on out-of-State CCW permits passed the Senate's third reading today on a vote of 25 to 0 with 4 absent. Those absent were Dmitrich, Hickman, Hillyard, Mansell. It now moves to the house of Representatives. Please encourage your Representative to support SB 103 without amendment. My thanks to Sen. Bramble and all those who voted in favor of this bill. Charles ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:11:49 GMT From: utbagpiper@juno.com Subject: Latest on SB 38 and HB 178 --Contact Senate Judiciary Committee member s Here are some updates on a couple of bills, clarification on history, etc. These are my personal opinions and best recollections. Sen. Julander's latest assault on the right to a meaningful defense, SB 38 that would impose significant criminal and civil penalties if a child manages to get ahold of one of your guns and injures himself or someone else, has been released from the Senate rules committee and assigned to the Senate Judiciary committee. This is the now proverbial "lock up your protection" bill that essentially requires you to store your weapons under lock and key under most circumstances. Sen. Julander is trying to blunt some of the most emotional critisism of her bill by including a few meaningless bones such as a provision "encouraging" police to be sensitive about the timing of any arrests, "encouraging" prosecutors to be sensitive in decisions about prosecuting someone who has had a child injured or killed due to an accidnt, and including a 1/2 million dollar cap on civil awards--still more than enough to bankrupt your average gun owner. The fiscal analysis of this bill completely fails to consider the financial impact to individuals required to either buy a gun safe (expensive) or use "external locking devices" (proven to be inneffective and even dangerious). I'm also at a loss as to why firearms should be treated fundamentally differently than any other useful and potentially dangerous item around the home such as chemical cleaners, medications, empty 5 gallon buckets, or kitchen cutlery. Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary (listed below) and encourage them to oppose this bill. Rep. Ty McCartney's HB 178 has also been sent to the Senate Judiciary committee. This bill adds various attempts or agreements to obtain a gun to the list of things that a Catagory I restricted person (convicted violent felons, those on parole or probation from ANY secure facility--regardless of the underlying orginal offense--and those on probation for any felonies) can be prosecuted for along with actually possessing a gun. Initially, GOUtah! offered no opposition to this bill and it sailed through committee. Upon further reading, we become concerned that the new langauge was so broad as to create a hazard for entrappment of those who unknowingly or unwittingly agreed to take possession of a firearm without even realizing that is what they were doing. We spoke with Rep. McCartney and asked him to add a minor modification to his bill so that a crime is committed only if a person "knowingly or intentionally" agreed or arranged to possess a gun. While Rep. McCartney was proffessional and civil, he dismissed our concerns and request for minor change as unfounded and unneeded. We also discovered a serious problem in current statute within the same section of code as that amended by HB 178. Under current law, if a person is indicted for any felony (not convicted, but only indicted), he may not possess NOR TRANSFER (IE give away, sell, lend, etc) any firearm or he is guilty of a felony. This is a real catch-22. You cannot own guns, but you cannot legally dispose of them either. In other words, if you are indicted for a felony your entire gun collection can be seized immediately and even if the orginal indictment is eventually thrown out or you are acquited, you are still guilty of a felony for having owned a firearm at the moment you were indicted. So GOUtah! also asked Rep. McCartney to make a very minor amendment to his bill to correct this gross injustice in current law. Again, he refused, not wanting to "muddy the waters" on his current bill. He did offer to support a seperate bill to correct this problem. Of course, offering to support a seperate bill or to "work together in the future on this issue" is a favorite ploy of politicians to get constitutents and activists to go away happy without having actually recieved anything they needed. After getting the word out about our concerns on this bill and gun owners started calling their representatives, the bill that had thus far flown through the House, failed handily on its third reading. At that point, Rep. Curtis (who voted against the bill) moved to reconsider and that motion passed, which placed the bill back on the 3rd reading calander. Rep. Curtis amended the bill by adding the words "intentionally or knowingly" to both the new offense of a Catagory I person attempting to obtain a firearm as well as to the existing offense of a Catagory I person actually possessing a firearm. The bill then passed the 3rd reading in the house and is now in the Senate Judiciary committee. As it currently stands, this bill is more or less benign, and may even be a bit of an improvement in that a Catagory I person must "intentionally or knowingly" possess a firearm before a crime is committed. Parking a friend's car, not knowing there is a gun under the seat would no longer constitute a crime for a Catagory I restricted person. Ironically, a Catagory II person (presumably less dangerous than a Catagory I person) does not currently have this same protection extended to him. Unfortunately, the current gross injustice of potentially losing an entire gun collection (likely to never get it back) AND be guilty of a felony (not likely to be prosecuted as that would highlight the insanity of the current law and maybe lead to a judge ordering your guns returned) simply because you owned guns at that moment a felony indictment (could be for a tax problem, an environmental offense, or maybe even an Olympic case) is handed down and regardless of the eventuall outcome of the case, remains in the law. Due to various rules and procedures in the legislature, using an existing bill (such as HB 178) that is already modifying this section of code is our best bet to correct this problem this session. Please contact gun friendly members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to amend this bill so as to remove a felony indictment as one of the things that makes a person a "catagory II" restricted person. Along with the injustice and catch-22 in current law, it simply isn't needed. A truly dangerous person who is indicted can and should be held in custody without bail. And a judge may impose restrictions on a person who is released on bail. So there is no need for a blanket prohibition on everyone who is indicted for one of the ever growing list of technical and non-violent felonies. Also ask the Senators to add "intentionally or knowingly" to the prohibiton against Catagory II persons. Again, the list of Senate Judiciary members follows. It is unfortunate the Rep. McCartney was unwilling to work with us originally on this bill. While we had hoped this was just a matter of differences in tactics, rather than a sign that Rep. McCartney is hostile to gun rights, at least a couple of procedural votes in support of very bad, anti-gun bills leads us to worry that despite his claims otherwise, Rep. McCartney may well be fundamentally opposed to some significant aspects of the RIGHT to own and carry firearms. We are also troubled that we are hearing reports from various legislators that Rep. McCartney represented to them that he had the support of various gun groups, including GOUtah! on his bill. For the record, GOUtah! NEVER supported this bill. As stated early, we originally took a position of "NO POSITION" which essentially means we leave it to our individual members to arrive at whatever conclusion they may, without much input from us. Even then, we had asked Rep. McCartney to fix the "indictment" problem in current language. So that is a long way from any kind of support. And by the time the third vote came in house, we had made it clear that we were opposing the bill outright. We hope and expect this was an honest mistake on Rep. McCartney's part rather than a deliberate fabrication. However, please be aware that such mistakes do get made (and once ina while in the heat of a legislative session, the truth might even get stretched by those who are anxious to pass a less than ideal gun bill) and if you hear reports of any pro-gun groups suppposedly supporting a bill you believe is bad, please contact your group at once so that any misperceptions can be corrected. Thanks. Charles Senate Judiciary Members (full contact info at www.goutahorg.org): Sen. Gregory S. Bell, Chair Sen. Patrice M. Arent Sen. D. Chris Buttars Sen. Mike Dmitrich Sen. James M. Evans Sen. David L. Gladwell Sen. Lyle W. Hillyard Sen. L. Alma Mansell ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #234 ***********************************