From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #236 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 Monday, March 31 2003 Volume 02 : Number 236 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:29:58 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee aproves activist, anti-gun Judg e Nehring The SLTribune is reporting that the Senate Confirmation Committee has approved Judge Nehring's nomination to the Utah State Supreme Court. It did not report on vote totals and I have no idea, at this point, which members of the committee, if any, voted against his nomination. He now goes to the full Senate for a vote. I believe this is one of the most crucial gun issues facing us this year. Bills, whether good or bad, can and will be brought up again next year. Good laws will be attacked every session. And bad laws can be repealed or amended at some future date. BUT, a supreme court justice sits for life. He will issue rulings for MANY years to come that will affect our RKBA and other rights. I agree with the author (Neil Smith, I think) who wrote that a person's view on the individual right to own and carry guns for self defense is a pretty good indicator of their whole political outlook. A person who does not trust his fellow citizens to carry guns probably doesn't trust them to make a lot of other decisions for themselves. Further, to date, the Utah Legislature has done NOTHING to reign in the courts or force them to obey the gun laws passed. Approving the nomination of one of the ring leaders of the successful effor to thwart legislative intent on CCW sends a terrible message to both the courts and the Governor and other government officials. It says the legislature has no intention of seeing that gun or other laws are actually abided. Please contact your Senator and urge him to vote against Judge Nehring. Charles Hardy ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:56:44 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: SB 108 passes the house with minor amendments Hello all, FYI, the legislative web site is reporting that Sen. Waddoups' SB 108 has passed its third reading in the House with two minor amendments in the church language portion of the bill. One change requires BCI to post on their website any churches that have banned guns. The other change shortens the duration of a church gun ban from 5 years to one year. Thus, a church that wishes to ban guns will need to provide some kind of public notice (newspaper public notice section, announcment from the pulpit, etc) and notify BCI of their continued ban on guns at least once every 12 months or the gun ban will expire. SB 108 will now have to be returned to the Senate for a "concurance" vote. If I'm not mistaken, the Senate can vote to accept the bill as amended, in which case it passes. Or, it can reject the House amendments in which case a conference committee of House and Senate members will meet to work out new langauge, and both houses will get to vote on that new language. Charles ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 04:14:22 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: OFF TOPIC PERSONAL -- My son going in for surgery Dear Friends, If you'll forgive me for a personal announcement and request at this busy time of year, our 4 month old son, Wesley, is scheduled to have surgery to correct a congential displacement of the hips this next week. Essentially, he was born with hip joints that are too shallow to properly hold the head of the femur in place. This is not a terribly rare occurance, though it is far more common in first or breech girls than in boys. He is also one of the minority cases that is not correctable using a harness. This is not new or exotic surgery, but it is hard to think of anything as routine when it is your baby boy going under general anesthisia and the knife. Jennifer and I would welcome you including him and his physicians in your prayers and/or fasting over the next few days. Thank you. Charles Hardy ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:22:36 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: Who Is Resolution Alliance? Friends, I know there is more than one way to look at the whole credit union / bank debate. And I certainly don't care to start that debate here over this post. Nor am I suggesting that there is necessarily only one right or "freedom supporting" view when it comes to banks and credit unions. However, it is interesting to note what groups and associations some of the most visible anti-self-defense (aka anti-gun, anti-RKBA) people in this State lend their support and names to, outside of the gun issue. It is also interesting if one recalls how some of these organizations conduct their public campaigns, how much honesty, vs. half-truths they use. This looks to be one more verification that Neil Smith was correct in asserting that a person's view on guns is, very often, a very good barometer into his (or her) entire political phylosophy. (Smith's short essay on this can be found here .) Note that if a hyper link crosses a line, it will need to be manually cut and pasted into your web browser. Charles - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Over the past few weeks the incessant advertisements by The Resolution Alliance (http://www.resolutionalliance.org), a self-purported mediator of the 'feud' between banks and credit unions, has caught my attention. These advertisements have seemed quite one-sided to me, so I decided to try and learn a little more about this organization. Perhaps many of you already know this information, but what I found after a brief search was quite enlightening to me. It certainly caused me to wonder about this organization and its self-representation as a neutral third party. It may be considered hypocritical by some that a bank-funded, non-profit entity would be criticizing the not-for-profit credit unions. What's really going on here? Interesting Article (from Members First Credit Union, Brigham City) Resolution Alliance acknowledges that all its funding comes from banks. Resolution Alliance was formed in September 2002 as a non-profit organization. Maura Carabello is president and administrator. Maura Carabello, former Utah Banker's Association consultant, was recommended to Resolution Alliance by the Utah Bankers Association for the president and administrator position. Additionally, the Utah Bankers Association supports Resolution Alliance. The Utah League of Credit Unions does not. Who is Maura Carabello? Is affiliated with Unity Utah, the Utah Gay/Lesbian Political Action Committee. Executive Director of Gun Violence Prevention Center, a gun-control advocacy group. ================== Charles Hardy - - ------------------------------ Date: 03 Mar 2003 22:46:00 -0700 From: Karl Pearson Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC PERSONAL -- My son going in for surgery Certainly you are forgiven, and prayers are coming your way. Have faith and all will be well. Karl On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 21:14, Charles Hardy wrote: > Dear Friends, > > If you'll forgive me for a personal announcement and request at this busy time of year, our 4 month old son, Wesley, is scheduled to have surgery to correct a congential displacement of the hips this next week. Essentially, he was born with hip joints that are too shallow to properly hold the head of the femur in place. This is not a terribly rare occurance, though it is far more common in first or breech girls than in boys. He is also one of the minority cases that is not correctable using a harness. > > This is not new or exotic surgery, but it is hard to think of anything as routine when it is your baby boy going under general anesthisia and the knife. > > Jennifer and I would welcome you including him and his physicians in your prayers and/or fasting over the next few days. > > Thank you. > > Charles Hardy > > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com > > - - -- Karl L. Pearson karlp@ourldsfamily.com Senior Consulting Systems Analyst Senior Consulting Database Analyst http://consulting.ourldsfamily.com - -- My Thoughts on Terrorism In America: http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml - -- A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you. -- Ramsey Clark - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:10:49 -0500 From: JHVG@aol.com Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC PERSONAL -- My son going in for surgery How is your son doing? JHVG - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:50:45 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re:Re: OFF TOPIC PERSONAL -- My son going in for surgery He's doing great at this point. His surgery was scheduled for today. However the hospital has too many sick children (flu, rsv, pnenomia, etc) using the beds right now so his surgery had to be cancelled. It is rescheduled for about a week and a half from now. At this point I'm grateful all we have to deal with is a surgically correctable physical defect rather than a nasty and potentially life threatening bug. Thank you for your prayers and concern. I'll post another update after surgery. Charles - ---------- JHVG@aol.com writes: How is your son doing? JHVG - - ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:26:48 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Billy/Barabar Nash at it again The former Mr. Nash, now Ms. Barbara Nash, still Prof. Nash at the UofU, being paid with tax dollars, presumably to teach Geology, just has nothing better to do than to throw out half truths and distortions concerning concealed carry permit holders. I believe some letters to the editor in reponse would be in order. Of course, to the usually uniformed, this looks like a letter from a woman. So rebuttal letters from real women who really understand the need for self defense, would be particularly powerful. His/Her/It's(?) letter to the editor is printed in today's SLTrib. But I won't be at all surprised to see it printed in the Deseret News sometime in the next few days. Letters to the editor of the SLTrib can be sent as follows: Email: letters@sltrib.com or Fax:(801)257-8950 When submitting letters to the Public Forum, please include your full name, signature, address and daytime telephone numbers. Information other than your name and the city in which you live are kept confidential. Keep them short. Concise letters developing a single theme are more likely to be published. For hard copy submissions, please type and double space throughout. Letters are condensed and edited. Because of the volume of mail received, not all submissions are published. Charles http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Mar/03132003/public_f/public_f.asp Good Guys? Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, says that until we can keep "the bad guys" out of Utah schools, our children will be safer thanks to law-abiding persons with concealed guns who can provide additional protection. Certainly the senator doesn't have in mind the more than 850 concealed weapon permit holders that the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification reports as having been convicted of crimes including murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, forcible sexual abuse, rape of a child, sexual exploitation of a minor and domestic abuse. If it were up to me, I'd rely on trained professional law enforcement personnel to ensure safe schools instead of "mostly law-abiding," self-appointed guardians of public safety. BARBARA NASH Salt Lake City ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:44:13 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Jordan School Districts to discuss today whether to urge a Veto of SB 108 All, Today I decided to check with my member of the Jordan School board to see if JSD had taken or planned to take any action relative to SB 108 as some organizations have been reported as doing. I'm glad I did. The school board members will be holding a discussion session TODAY at 3:00 pm to discuss this very issue. It seems board member Ralph Haws is pushing for a letter urging the governor to veto SB 108. I urge those of you in or around Jordan School District to take a moment to contact the school board members and urge them to NOT vote for nor sign any such letter. There are aspects of SB 108 that I don't really like. But in looking at the bill in total, I believe the gains made, especially as they regard CCW in/around schools, and legal, non-CCW possession of weapons (such as in a car, home, or business) located in the 1000 foot "school zone" around school property, that this bill should not be vetoed. Here are some arguments I presented: SB 108 does NOT apply to criminals nor does it allow anyone under 21 (minimum age to get a permit) to carry a weapon on or around schools. SB 108 protects teachers rights to protect themselves. Teachers should not be treated like second class citizens. They have as much right to protect themselves as anyone else. If I can trust a teacher with my child for 8 hours a day or even for several days and nights for extra curricular trips, I can trust that teacher to make wise and proper decisions about the possession of a self-defense weapon. I sure would hate to have a dedicated teacher feel the need to cut back on extra curricular involvment because she didn't feel safe being at the school eary in the morning or late at night. USSC filed GRAMA requests (Utah's Freedom of information law) with every district in the State a couple years ago to find out how many reported, documented incidents there had been involving weapons carried by those with permits. There were ZERO. Either these feared events are not happening, or else school personal are being criminally negligent in not reporting them to police so that permits can be revoked and bad guys put in jail. I live within 1000 feet of a school. I drive past schools every day. Without SB 108, I could be in violation of the gun free school law everytime I go hunting or shooting. SB 108 clarifies that I am not in violation for having a gun in a private car. SB 108 also contains language pertaining to the right of churches, which, unlike public schools, are private property, to limit or prohibit guns in their dedicated sanctuaries. The LDS church as well as other churches supported that language and want it to become law. Supporting a veto of SB 108 is to support a veto of language support by several major and smaller churches in Utah. Finally, school boards and teachers are frequently complaining that the legislature interferes in what should be school board matters. It will sure look hypocritical if the school board decides to interject itself into an issue that by both constiutional provision as well as statute is clearly a Statewide, and legislative issue. Please take a moment to contact the school board members ASAP. Please be polite. Some of these members are already oppose to any efforts to veto SB 108. Others are on the fence and are far more likely to be swayed by polite, thoughtful reasons than by rudeness or threats. The biggest reason given by school board members to oppose SB 108 is the fear that some hot head with a gun will shoot up a school. Please don't reinforce such misguided stereotypes about gun owners. I've tried to give my best feel of where individual board members stand. But this is just my best guess and is not gospel truth. Again, the meeting is at 3:00. If you don't reach someone at home, leave a message at the district office at: Phone: (801) 567-8100 Fax: (801) 567-8078 Charles Hardy Speaking only for myself Fence sitters: Randy Brinkerholf 254-4790 Ann Forbush 942-5833 Lynette Phillips 597-6080 Unknown, but likely to be supportive of RKBA: Jane Callister 571-5890 Peggy Kennett 566-1394 Likely hostile to RKBA: Ralph Haws 254-8431 -- pushing issue Ellen Wallace 571-1637 ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:31:24 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Governor signs SB 103 and SB 108 tonight All, I've just heard from Clark Aposhian (Utah Self Defense Instructors' Network--USDIN), that Governor Leavitt, tonight before leaving the office, signed both SB 103, removing the 60 day limit on out of State CCW permits, and SB 108, protecting CCW and other RKBA at schools and allowing churches to ban guns without posting signs. Both bills will now become the law of the State of Utah in a few weeks when all other passed and signed bills become law. I fully expect that the LDS, Roman Catholic, and other churches in the State will avail themselves of this law to ban all private CCW (government employees have always been exempted from any such gun ban) in their houses of worship. I do not know how other denominations handle things, but I anticipate that the LDS church will issue the ban from church HQ and it will affect ALL LDS houses of worship in the State. IOW, don't plan on your shooting buddy Bishop or Stake President to not implement this ban. It WON'T be a local decision. The time for lobbying of legislators or the governor is over on this issue for now. If you frequent a particular house of worship, either as a member of its congregation or as a frequent visitor, and you believe banning guns in churches is a bad idea, I encourage you to communicate your concerns to your local church leaders. A letter may be your best way to do that while avoiding the emotion that often occumpanies such topics. Where LDS buildings are concerned, I would also suggest sending a copy of that letter to the public affairs department at church HQ. The addess of church HQ is easily found in the phone book. Frankly, if you don't care enough about this to look up one address, me providing it won't help. If you live outside the SLC area and honestly have some difficulty finding the address, let me know in a PRIVATE email, and I will provide it. My itent is NOT to start a letter writing or lobbying campaign. You'll note I'm NOT providing any pre-written letters. It is simply to suggest that I believe there are very legitimate concerns and points of view on this topic that have NOT yet been considered by church attorneys and others who are making decisions in this regard and it might be productive to share your unique point of view with someone who can make a difference, rather than just preaching or bitching to the choir. And yes, that means you'll have to find an address, turn on a printer, and cough up 37 cents for a stamp. You can, of course, also print the letter, and hand it to your Bishop or Stake President, unsealed, I should think, and ask him to read it, consider it, and then "pass it up the chain." That would probably save you the stamp. ;) If my predictions is correct, and the LDS church bans private self defense weapons, and if in the future I see or hear someone on one of these lists bitching and moaning about that policy, my first question is going to be, "Between the law passing and the ban taking effect, did you write a letter expressing your concerns and then get it to your Bishop, Stake President, and/or public affairs at church HQ? I hope nobody who complains has to answer that question with a NO. IOW, if you don't take some minimum effort now to present your concerns, don't complain later when it looks like your concerns were not considered. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DISCLAIMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 As an active member of the LDS faith, I make the above comments ONLY because in my best understanding, the issue of private CCW in churches is not (yet?) a matter of revelation, doctrinal pronouncements, or even official policy from those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. It is, as far as I can tell and according to the counsel I have recieved personnally on this matter, a matter of public policy, public affairs, and/or politics and therefore still an issue where there is no sin or error in appropriately expressing concerns or views to leadership. Should that situation change, I would personally urge all LDS to abide by whatever counsel or policy is set. Even if it does not, but a ban is effected under the laws of the State, I personally would encourage everyone to abide the law of the land and expressed wishes of the private property owner that is the LDS church. Charles - ---------------- Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:01:21 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: Jordan School Districts to discuss today whether to urge a Veto of SB 108 Just wanted to let you all know that I called my school board member today and she told me that JSD board had held their discussion and had decided to not send any letter to the governor. I didn't ask, but have to wonder if phone calls made any difference. :) We will now need to watch and make sure that employment contracts, school policies, etc, do not run counter the law. Also, I had one more thought on this that I'd like to share with you all, just in case it might be useful in your own discussions with neighbors or elected officials. Utah has had a concealed weapons permit law on the books for a long time. However, prior to 1994, you had to prove you needed a permit, rather than the State having to prove you should not have a permit (such as by finding a criminal history). The practical results of the old law was that only a few individuals had permits to carry. Utah's permit data base is not public, so it is impossible to say for sure, but in looking at other States that still have discriminatory permit systems as well as the reasons a permit might be issued under the old system (being the owner of a business--even a home based business--and making bank deposits was one of the more common reasons I understand) one can surmise that uner our old, discriminatory permit system, the vast majority of permits were likely held by middle class or well to do individuals, most of whom were white, male, and at least modestly politically connected, at least at the local level. At that time, there were no complaints or concerns over permit holders. There were no laws or rules preventing them from carrying their guns into schools or churches or private homes. There were no laws specifically allowing home owners or churches to ban CCW weapons. It was a non-issue. ONLY when the discrimination was eliminated and "those people" started getting permits did this become an issue of public concern. Some of those concerns are stated quite openly. Recent editorials against SB 108 have flat out said that female teachers are more likely to have a weapon stolen than a male teacher. The claim was couched in terms of standard feminine dress being unsuitable to CCW, thus a higher likelyhood that a woman would keep a gun off her body--such as in a purse--than would a man. And since so many teachers are women, allowing teachers to CCW was a bad idea. Overt sexism!! More blunty, in about 1996 or 1997 a SLC police officer by the name of Bell, had a letter to the editor printed in which he flat out said he was worried about the kind of people applying for permits. They were not middle class folks, but often looked like "hoodlums," if I remember his word correctly. He promised violence against ANYONE he saw carring a gun, while taking time to figure out if they had a permit only after they were "on the ground and in cuffs." The racism and discrimination against those at the lower end of the income scale was all too clear considering his position of trust and power in the community. Yours truely had a rebuttal letter printed a short time later in which I referred to officer Bell as a rogue cop. What I'm getting at, is that unless a person or organization was on record as opposing CCW when the vast majority of permits were issued to well-to-do, white, politically connected males, current concerns really seem to have a strong air of racism, sexism, or economic or other forms of discrimination. After all, if 1000 rich white guys can be trusted to carry guns into schools or churches or on a public street, what is wrong with 50,000 poor and middle class men and women of every race, religion, and even sexual orientation also being able to do so? All have passed a background check. The rate of problems is extremely low. And in nearly 10 years of our new, non-discriminatory permit system, there simply have not been any of the widespread problems that were predicted. Retorts about the old system keeping permits out of the hands of criminals are bunk. The current system, especially with the DAILY background checks performed on CCW permitees by BCI offers far more scrutiny, and in a far more objective way, than the old permit system ever did. Just a thought. Opposition to our current permit system might just be fairly abscribed to latent or overt racism, sexism, or other discrimination. Hit your favorite liberal with that line of reasoning and watch his mental gears act as if you'd dropped sand into a crank case. ;) Charles On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:44:13 GMT Charles Hardy writes: > All, > > Today I decided to check with my member of the Jordan School board > to see if JSD had taken or planned to take any action relative to SB > 108 as some organizations have been reported as doing. I'm glad I > did. > > The school board members will be holding a discussion session TODAY > at 3:00 pm to discuss this very issue. It seems board member Ralph > Haws is pushing for a letter urging the governor to veto SB 108. > > I urge those of you in or around Jordan School District to take a > moment to contact the school board members and urge them to NOT vote > for nor sign any such letter. > > There are aspects of SB 108 that I don't really like. But in > looking at the bill in total, I believe the gains made, especially > as they regard CCW in/around schools, and legal, non-CCW possession > of weapons (such as in a car, home, or business) located in the 1000 > foot "school zone" around school property, that this bill should not > be vetoed. > > Here are some arguments I presented: > > SB 108 does NOT apply to criminals nor does it allow anyone under 21 > (minimum age to get a permit) to carry a weapon on or around > schools. > > SB 108 protects teachers rights to protect themselves. Teachers > should not be treated like second class citizens. They have as much > right to protect themselves as anyone else. > > If I can trust a teacher with my child for 8 hours a day or even for > several days and nights for extra curricular trips, I can trust that > teacher to make wise and proper decisions about the possession of a > self-defense weapon. I sure would hate to have a dedicated teacher > feel the need to cut back on extra curricular involvment because she > didn't feel safe being at the school eary in the morning or late at > night. > > USSC filed GRAMA requests (Utah's Freedom of information law) with > every district in the State a couple years ago to find out how many > reported, documented incidents there had been involving weapons > carried by those with permits. There were ZERO. Either these > feared events are not happening, or else school personal are being > criminally negligent in not reporting them to police so that permits > can be revoked and bad guys put in jail. > > I live within 1000 feet of a school. I drive past schools every > day. Without SB 108, I could be in violation of the gun free school > law everytime I go hunting or shooting. SB 108 clarifies that I am > not in violation for having a gun in a private car. > > SB 108 also contains language pertaining to the right of churches, > which, unlike public schools, are private property, to limit or > prohibit guns in their dedicated sanctuaries. The LDS church as > well as other churches supported that language and want it to become > law. Supporting a veto of SB 108 is to support a veto of language > support by several major and smaller churches in Utah. > > Finally, school boards and teachers are frequently complaining that > the legislature interferes in what should be school board matters. > It will sure look hypocritical if the school board decides to > interject itself into an issue that by both constiutional provision > as well as statute is clearly a Statewide, and legislative issue. > > Please take a moment to contact the school board members ASAP. > Please be polite. Some of these members are already oppose to any > efforts to veto SB 108. Others are on the fence and are far more > likely to be swayed by polite, thoughtful reasons than by rudeness > or threats. The biggest reason given by school board members to > oppose SB 108 is the fear that some hot head with a gun will shoot > up a school. Please don't reinforce such misguided stereotypes > about gun owners. > > I've tried to give my best feel of where individual board members > stand. But this is just my best guess and is not gospel truth. > > Again, the meeting is at 3:00. > > If you don't reach someone at home, leave a message at the district > office at: > > Phone: (801) 567-8100 > Fax: (801) 567-8078 > > > Charles Hardy > Speaking only for myself > > Fence sitters: > > Randy Brinkerholf 254-4790 > Ann Forbush 942-5833 > Lynette Phillips 597-6080 > > Unknown, but likely to be supportive of RKBA: > > Jane Callister 571-5890 > Peggy Kennett 566-1394 > > Likely hostile to RKBA: > > Ralph Haws 254-8431 -- pushing issue > Ellen Wallace 571-1637 > > > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com > > - ---------------- Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:20:28 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Assault Weapons Ban Alert This was Karen Shepherd's final downfall. Scott - -------- Original Message -------- Once in Ten Year Chance to Remove Assault Weapons Ban is NOW! For those of you who remember the Clinton years, you will most likely remember the great battle we went through, trying to stop the Assault Weapons Ban from becoming law. Many of us remember that defeat, for it was a difficult pill to swallow, in losing such ground against military rifles, and magazine cartridge capacity. Well, we now have a rare chance to see this law repealed. The fight has now started. The authors of the useless, rights-denying legisla- tion, notorious anti-gunners, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), recently asked Attorney General Ashcroft if the Bush Administration would support the ban past the "sunset" of this law, which is September 2004. General Ashcroft was somewhat elusive in his answer, but yet eluded that the "...effect of the law was uncertain...." Certainly a better answer than saying it was a good law that they wish to keep intact! Many Democrats saw their career end in 1994 by voting for the Assault Weapons Ban. We can only hope that this lesson will remain firmly in the minds of our Washington Congress critters. This is where you come in. You need to remind your Congresscritter and Senators let the Assault Weapons Ban law sunset. Tell them that if they vote to retain or renew this odious law, you will work to throw him/her out of office. Votes are the only language (besides money) they understand. Call and write them now! - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:17:13 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Some more equal than others From the departments of "some are more equal than others" and "why you should be very careful what records you allow your government to keep" is this from today's SLTrib. I wonder if the powers that be would consider it not all that serious if I or some other private citizen illegally accessed someone's criminal history. Also, no word on whether BCI (the keeper of CCW permit records) has proper safeguards in place to protect the privacy of their records. Charles http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Mar/03262003/utah/41842.asp Gunnison Chief on Job Despite Charges By Kevin Cantera The Salt Lake Tribune Gunnison Police Chief Joe L. Christensen will stay on the job despite criminal charges accusing him of illegally obtaining criminal records, the mayor of the Sanpete County town says. Christensen is charged with three class B misdemeanor counts of misusing his access to criminal records, as well as a charge of official misconduct, also a class B misdemeanor. The charges were filed last year in Taylorsville Justice Court, and Christensen -- a 27-year veteran of the force -- pleaded innocent in December. He faces similar charges in Salt Lake County Justice Court for allegedly accessing records from the Utah Division of Child and Family Services, said Assistant Utah Attorney General Polly Samuels. "Until the court renders a decision, we will withhold judgment," Mayor Mark Henline said. Henline said he became aware of the allegations against his police chief in December, nearly two months after the charges were filed by Samuels. The Gunnison City Council discussed placing Christensen on paid leave, a common move when government officials face criminal charges, but decided that the misdemeanor allegations did not warrant such action, Henline said. "It didn't strike me as that serious," he said. Samuels declined to discuss specifics , saying only: "The basic claim is [Christensen] got BCI [Bureau of Criminal Identification] information about a person who was not the subject of a criminal investigation." Christensen did not return a phone call requesting comment. BCI Director Nanette Rolfe said she was unaware of the allegations. Documents filed in the case say only that Christensen, "with an intent to benefit himself or to harm another," accessed criminal histories -- commonly called "rap sheets" -- on three separate occasions between Nov. 14, 2000, and Jan. 7, 2001. The charges were filed in Taylorsville because BCI is headquartered there. Christensen's next court appearance is set for April 21. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:49:07 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: UofU gun ban suit tossed down to State court From last Friday's SLTrib. Note that the current, illegal gun ban, only applies to employees and students of the U--those over whom the U hold administrative sway. They can't do a thing to visitors. In fact, if you or anyone you know (whether student, employee, or visitor) is ever hassled over having a gun on campus, or forced to sign away your rights--via a University Housing contract--to have a legal gun, please let me know or else contact the State Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff directly. The U (and most other public colleges in the State) are clearly violating the law. And if that violation affects you directly, the AG may be able to pursue stronger remedies against the U. Of course, I do NOT advise anyone to deliberately provoke such a sitution nor to place your employement nor education at risk--at least not BEFORE you talk to an attorney specializing in this field and fully understand the possible ramifications. We might also consider contacting the AG's office and asking Mark to stop waiting for this "friendly" suit to wend its way through the courts. The law should be enforced, as written and intended, NOW. The gun ban should end. Let the U sue to bring it back. The AG can be contated at: 236 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810 FAX: (801) 538-1121 Complaints: (801) 366-0260 General Office Numbers: (801) 366-0300, (801) 538-9600 Toll Free within the State of Utah: (800) AG 4 INFO (244-4636) E-Mail: uag@utah.gov Charles http://www.sltrib.com/2003/mar/03282003/utah/utah.asp U.'s Suit on Guns Tossed By Shinika A. Sykes The Salt Lake Tribune Calling it a victory for "states' rights," lawyers in the Utah Attorney General's Office applauded Thursday's ruling by a federal judge that a lawsuit to keep concealed weapons off the University of Utah campus should be heard first in a state court. "The merit of the claims was not touched upon by the judge," said Assistant Attorney General Brent Burnett, who argued the state's position before U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball. "Our argument before the court [was] that Utah courts are the only ones with jurisdiction to decide what Utah law is and how a state officer such as Attorney General [Mark] Shurtleff should or should not conduct himself in following state laws." The university filed the "friendly" lawsuit on March 12, 2002, to settle a dispute between U. President Bernie Machen and the Legislature over whether the school has the right to ban legal concealed handguns from campus as it does other guns. The university claimed the ban was necessary to preserve academic freedom, while the Attorney General's Office pointed to a state law allowing lawfully concealed handguns in most public places, including college campuses. The university has 60 days to refile the lawsuit in state court. According to Shurtleff, the lawsuit was "a race to the courthouse" to decide policies that should be set in the Legislature. "When you look at this from a federalism and/or states' rights issue, it's a victory for states' rights," said Shurtleff. But University of Utah spokesman Fred Esplin said, "None of our legal claims were ruled invalid," adding university attorneys still were going over Kimball's ruling and it will be discussed among the U.'s board of trustees. "We certainly want to have the issue resolved in the courts. There is a good chance that is what we will do," he said. The issue is two-pronged: First, whether the University of Utah has the authority to make policy related to guns on its campus. Second, the university claimed the presence of concealed weapons in the classroom would interfere with teaching and impair academic freedom, which is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Even though Shurtleff consented to deciding the issue in a lawsuit, he filed a motion last June to have the case dismissed, claiming the proper venue is state courts, not federal. He also argued that the university had not been harmed and therefore didn't have standing to sue. Kimball ruled the university had standing to file the lawsuit, but agreed the dispute should be argued first in state court to decide issues of Utah law. "Our understanding of the judge's decision is that the U. has some legitimate issues on the federal side and he is willing to consider them, but he is saying we need to get our state issues decided first," said Esplin. While legal issues are pending, the university's policy that has been in effect for 30 years will continue, said Esplin. "Students, faculty and staff are not allowed to bring weapons on campus," he said. sykes@sltrib.com ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #236 ***********************************