"When only cops have guns, it's called a 'police state.'"
-- Robert Heinlein
We really wish that the Utah Legislature would convene only once every two years instead of annually, given that most legislation is either unnecessary or counterproductive. But we’re stuck with the system of having 6 weeks of legislative chaos early each year.
To summarize from our previous alert, our main concern this year is the number of bills designed to elevate various minor offenses to felony status. A felony conviction makes a person permanently ineligible to possess firearms under federal law, even if his felony was non-violent and even if nobody was actually harmed by his crime.
We read recently of an incident that occurred in southern Utah in March of 2007, in which a Hurricane resident named Danny Dutton used a gun to shoot a violent intruder who had broken into his apartment. The local authorities concluded that Mr. Dutton’s act was a perfectly legal case of self-defense. Unfortunately, the federal authorities
noticed that Mr. Dutton had a felony conviction on his record because he had once been caught growing marijuana. So Mr. Dutton is now being prosecuted in federal court on charges of being "a felon in possession of a firearm", which could land him in federal prison for several years. While GOUtah! does not condone the illegal cultivation of marijuana, we do not believe that such an act should result in the automatic and permanent revocation of one’s constitutional right to possess a firearm.
This year there will be several penalty-enhancement bills, including one that will make it a felony to mistreat animals. While we certainly oppose the mistreatment of animals, the "animal torture" bill could felonize a number of relatively minor and unintentional
acts. We haven’t seen the text yet, but we suspect that this will be the case. Some of the "animal-torture" bills from previous years (none of which have passed) would have felonized such acts as inadvertently leaving a puddle of antifreeze on the ground which
results in the poisoning of an animal. Again, we don’t condone such irresponsible acts. But we don’t think they should result in a permanent nullification of a person’s gun rights.
We need to remind our legislators that any bill that elevates a misdemeanor to a felony is a gun-control bill, because it would automatically strip an individual of his gun rights.
At the end of this alert is a pre-written letter. We suggest that you copy it and send it to your State Representative and your State Senator, or compose your own letter if you wish.
To find complete contact info for your state senator and state representative, including home mailing addresses, [click here]. A letter written on paper and sent via U.S. mail is the best way to go for this sort of thing, especially at this time of year when the legislature is not yet in session. But an e-mail is better than nothing.
Letters to your State Senator and State Representative can be sent at this time either to their home mailing addresses or to the State Capitol. Since the Legislature is not yet in session, a letter to a legislator’s home mailing address may reach him sooner.
Here is the Capitol Hill contact info for the Senate and House:
[your senator’s name goes here]
Utah State Senate
320 State Capitol
P.O. Box 145115
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Phone: (801)538-1035
Fax for Republican senators: (801)326-1475
Fax for Democratic senators: (801)326-1476
[your representative’s name goes here]
Utah State House of Representatives
350 N. State Street, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Phone: (801)538-1029
Fax for Republican representatives: (801)326-1544
Fax for Democratic representatives: (801)326-1539
We encourage you to send letters now, while legislators are gearing up for the session, which starts in mid-January.
The Salt Lake Tribune reported in an article titled "Resident snatches gun, kills invader" on 15 December, of a West Valley City, Utah resident who managed to thwart a home invasion robbery. Apparently, the three robbers forced their way into the home, shot the family dog and taped the homeowner's wife to a chair. One robber, now the dead one, was forcing the homeowner through the home searching for items to steal when the homeowner grabbed one of the robber's guns and shot Jesse James Montoya, a suspected gang member and convicted violent crime felon.
And the Houston Chronicle reported in an article titled "Suspected burglar fatally shot at Harris County home" on 14 December of a homeowner who shot and killed a man he discovered climbing into a window of his house at about 2:15 a.m. The homeowner was investigating a loud noise that had awakened him when he saw the burglar, Dunbar, coming through a broken window. The homeowner shot several times and struck the burglar several times, killing him at the scene. The case is expected to be referred to a Harris County grand jury without charges and if the shooting occurred as Barone described it, Texas law allowing people to defend their homes from intruders likely will preclude the filing of charges.
As you are aware, the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Washington D.C.'s gun ban this year. This will mark the first time that the court has agreed to hear a Second Amendment case in over a half of a century. On 18 December 2007 The Salt Lake Tribune printed two op-ed articles under the banner "Should the Supreme Court uphold the District of Columbia's gun-control law?"
The first article, "Yes: Constitution says right-to-bear-arms applies only to militia" by Kristen Rand the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, argues that not only is the D.C. gun ban Constitutional, but also that it is necessary for the safety of the residents of the District. She claims that the Second Amendment only "protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms only within the context of the constitutionally mandated militia". She further states "[i]nstead of facing repeal, D.C.'s laws should be a model for the nation."
The second article, "No: Gun controls allow criminals to run roughshod over society" by Bradford Wiles a graduate student at Virginia Tech, supports the position "that the Second Amendment only guarantees a collective right is wholly incorrect, especially when one examines the rest of the Bill of Rights." The Amendment supports the right of the people, not the militia, to "keep and bear arms." He further points out that "in D.C. the crime rate is such that people are not safe." With this ban the law-abiding citizens of the District are left defenseless against criminals. "Private individuals have an inherent right to carry a gun in defense of themselves, their families and their country."
More as it develops.
On 23 December 2007 the WorldNet Daily posted an article titled "Gun owners 'get stabbed in back', 'Veterans Disarmament Act on way to president'" based on an alert from our friends at Gun Owners of America (GOA). "While other gun groups have endorsed H.R. 2640, a comprehensive plan to expand the powers of the Brady Bill gun restriction plan, Gun Owners of America has opposed it vigorously, and described its provisions for banning individuals, especially veterans, from owning guns as unreasonable." "The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a 'prohibited person' on the basis of a 'medical finding of disability,' so long as a veteran had an 'opportunity' for some sort of 'hearing' before some 'lawful authority' (other than a court)," the organization said in a new criticism of the plan. "Presumably, this 'lawful authority' could even be the psychiatrist himself," according to GOA officials. GOA called the bill "disarmament by diagnosis."
Finally, "GOA wants to repeal the gun-free zones that disarm law-abiding Americans and repeal the other gun restrictions that are on the books. That is the answer to Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, the House and Senate chose the path of imposing more gun control."
"Once upon a time, at Utah State University, my roommate's friend took a handgun into a speech class. He openly carried it across the campus, into Old Main and into the classroom.
The instructor did not dismiss the class nor did any students leave. I was in that class. No one wet his pants because they saw a gun. Live ammo was present.
He gave a speech demonstrating a way to remove the bullets, reload the cases and the purpose for doing so. After class, the professor and students gathered about him to discuss the techniques he had presented.
Later he again carried openly across the campus to his residence. En route he stopped for some ice cream. Mostly the gun went unnoticed. Those who observed it didn't faint, go berserk or call the police.
Why is it now so difficult for some to understand that it is not the gun (an inanimate object), but the individual misusing the gun, that is the problem? Open carry? It's OK when done within the law. It's the person, not the gun."
-- D.J. Bartnicki, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 16 December 2007.
"Your Dec. 18 column by Kristin Rand that praised the results of Australia and Great Britain restricting their citizens from gun ownership failed to mention a closer example, Mexico, which has a long history of citizen gun restrictions and also has a long history of corruption and poverty (the two are related).
Each time I travel the southern roads leading to Mexico, I am saddened to see the signs warning citizens not to carry firearms into Mexico. The wealth of this nation is created by the freedoms of its citizens, one of which is to defend themselves."
-- Norman Bryce, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 26 December 2007.
Date:
From:
To:
Dear :
As a gun owner and voter living in your district, I encourage you to oppose any legislation during the upcoming 2008 General Session that could have the effect of elevating a misdemeanor to felony status. Federal law permanently strips a citizen of his right to possess a firearm if he has any sort of felony record, even if his felony was non-violent, and even if nobody was harmed by his actions.
When Congress passed this law in 1968, it was aimed at murderers, rapists, robbers, and other truly dangerous criminals who constituted the bulk of convicted felons at the time. Nowadays, all sorts of minor acts can result in a felony conviction, which in turn automatically results in a permanent loss of one’s gun rights. Martha Stewart was convicted of a felony several years ago for having allegedly told a fib to a federal investigator regarding a questionable stock trade. She’s now permanently barred from even touching a firearm. While I don’t condone Ms. Stewart’s actions, I don’t see why she should be permanently prohibited from having a self-defense weapon.
By the same token, the Utah Legislature annually considers several bills that would confer felony status on relatively minor offenses. Until the federal gun laws get changed, I will view any such legislation as a form of back-door gun control, and I encourage you to oppose it. Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #279 for 2 January 2008. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your firearms rights.
Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless You Act On It Today. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal!
Return to GOUtah! Archive Index
Return to GOUtah! Home Page