"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-- Albert Gallatin
House Speaker Greg Curtis and House Rules Committee Chairman Steve Urquhart have turned against us this session by effectively killing both of the great pro-gun bills that passed the Senate. Now they’ve set their sights on turning HB 473 (Rep. Curt Oda’s excellent open-carry bill) into an anti-gun bill by adding a hideous amendment to it, called Floor Amendment 1.
This amendment is sponsored by Rep. Urquhart, and it was drafted hastily and in secret. It was written so fast that it even has a typo on it!
The Urquhart amendment actually creates new gun-carry restrictions throughout the state. In particular, it would make it a crime for a permit-holder to openly carry a firearm in many places where it is currently legal to do so. This amendment is plain old-fashioned gun control, pure and simple, and it was likely written at the behest of the anti-gun administrators of the University of Utah. Currently, according to our reading of the Utah Code, it's legal for a permit holder to openly carry his self-defense weapon at that U. of U. We've heard stories of campus police harassing people who do this (which is why HB 473 was introduced, to prevent such harassment), but to our knowledge they've never actually arrested anyone because they know there's nothing they can arrest them for, because they're not breaking any laws. If Floor Amendment 1 passes, the campus police will actually be able to fine or arrest permit holders for carrying openly.
HB 473, which GOUtah! supports, does not change the law. It merely clarifies that a permit-holder can openly carry anywhere that he can legally carry concealed. This is already the law, but HB 473 merely makes it extra-crystal clear so that it will not be subject to misinterpretation by boneheaded public servants.
However, the Urquhart Amendment (Floor Amendment 1), which will be introduced on the House floor on Monday morning, would actually put a whole bunch of complicated restrictions on the carrying of firearms. We’re still deciphering the language, but thus far we’ve found a lot of bad things in this amendment. To fully understand this amendment, you have to read and cross-reference the sections of the existing code that define such things as "concealed" and "school". We’ve done this, but we don’t have time to explain it all here.
Under the Urquhart amendment, a permit holder can’t openly carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of any day-care facility, pre-school, K-12 school, college, or university in the state. To do so would become a crime (which it currently isn’t). Furthermore, under the Urquhart amendment, if you have a firearm with you and you’re within 1,000 feet of a day-care facility, pre-school, K-12 school, college or university, the firearm must be concealed ON YOUR PERSON. Meaning that you can’t have it concealed in your purse or backpack. If you have a firearm locked in a case, for example, that firearm can’t be carried within 1,000 feet of any day-care facility, pre-school, K-12 school, college, or university in the state.
Under the Urquhart amendment, if you were carrying a concealed firearm on your person with a permit, it would become a crime for you to take off your jacket in numerous places throughout the state, where it is currently not a crime for you to do so.
Under the Urquhart amendment, an adult college student with a concealed firearm permit living on-campus would become a criminal if he carried his unloaded target rifle from his car to his dorm room in a locked suitcase.
All of these things, and other things, that are currently legal for permit holders to do would become criminal acts under the Urquhart amendment. Thus, if the Urquhart amendment gets attached to HB 473, we’ll actually lose ground. We’ll be giving up some of our existing rights without gaining anything at all in return. That’s a very bad bargain.
Please see the action item below and call your Utah State Representative this weekend.
Please call your Utah State Representative at home this weekend. If you don’t call him this weekend, then please send him a message the first thing Monday morning, as this bill will be heard on Monday.
Ask them to vote against the Urquhart amendment to HB 473, also known as "Floor Amendment #1", and to vote against HB 473 if the Urquhart amendment or any other hostile amendment gets attached. It is imperative that we prevent the Urquhart amendment or anything like it from becoming law, even if it means that we have to kill HB 473. Emphasize that you support HB 473 only in its current form, without amendments. Floor Amendment #1 (the Urquhart Amendment) must be defeated at all costs, even if it means killing the entire bill.
Special note: If you are a convention delegate or other office holder in the political party to which your rep belongs, please tell him this. Or if you are thinking of becoming a delegate this spring, please tell him this.
In addition, House Speaker Greg Curtis and Rep. Urquhart need to have their phones ringing off the hook this weekend, with hundreds of people calling them to ask them to pass HB 473 WITHOUT AMENDMENTS and to kill the Urquhart amendment (Floor Amendment #1).
To get your own representative’s home phone number and e-mail [click here]. Many reps probably only access their House e-mail when they’re at the Capitol, so phone calls are best over the weekend.
If you use the phone, just leave a simple message such as: "I’m a gun owner and an active voter and I’m calling in regard to HB 473. Please do whatever you have to do to prevent Floor Amendment 1 from becoming law, even this means killing HB 473 completely. HB 473 should only pass without amendments."
House Speaker Greg Curtis:
Home phone: (801)943-3091
e-mail: gcurtis@utah.gov
Rep. Steven Urquhart:
850 W 1130 North Cir
Saint George, UT 84770-2650
Home phone in St. George:(435)673-4424
Office phone in St. George: (435)656-4424
e-mail: surquhart@utah.gov
Utah State House of Representatives
350 N. State Street, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
House switchboard (for leaving voice messages): (801)538-1029
Fax for Republican representatives: (801)326-1544
Fax for Democratic representatives: (801)326-1539
In an Associated Press article titled "Rangers, retirees oppose measure to ease gun ban", printed in the Great Falls Tribune 26 February, 2008, author Matthew Daly reported that park rangers, retirees and conservation groups are protesting a plan by the Interior Department to reconsider regulations restricting loaded guns in national parks. Both of Montana's Democratic senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, have come out in support of the measure, as have the NRA, GOUtah! and a number of other gun-rights organizations.
A new web site has been posted for the lofty goal of fostering a reasonable discussion of gun issues in the United States. gundebate.com was started by Eric Thompson president and owner of over 100 sporting goods and firearms related websites.
The Boston Herald reported in a 27 February, 2008 article titled "Turnpike toll takers’ guns collected, Boss nixes old policy, but union vows fight", that the Massachusetts turnpike toll collectors have been stripped of their sidearms that they have been carrying for decades. Many of the state's hoplophobic politicians expressed shock and horror that the practice had been allowed for the toll collectors to protect themselves while transporting cash from toll booths to a central holding facility. All the employees had proper identification cards and licenses to carry guns. Union officials said they are going to fight to allow the toll collectors to keep their weapons
"Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges."
-- Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist, in an article printed in the Great Falls Tribune, 26 February 2008.
"I will happily support House Bill 473, which would allow concealed-carry permit holders to openly carry firearms in public places, but only if that privilege extends
to the visitors' gallery at the Legislature.
Surely a little consistency isn't too much to ask."
-- William Foster, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 27 February 2008.
"There is simply no reason that a properly trained and licensed person should not be able to exercise their constitutional right to protect themselves and the people they
love.
It’s time for our political leaders to stop pretending that murderous madmen, like Cho and Kazmierczak, will obey a feel-good edict like the gun-free school zone laws."
-- Eric Thompson, founder, on the website gundebate.com, 28 February 2008.
"Whenever I read about a shooting spree, I inquire about the weapons policy at that location. In nearly every instance, I've found that people are prohibited from
carrying firearms there. This includes Trolley Square, which has a no-weapons policy.
A rare exception was the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, where the pastor had asked several parishioners with concealed-firearm permits to discreetly carry their
weapons during services. When a heavily armed madman entered the New Life chapel and
opened fire last December, he was quickly gunned down by a church member. Contrast
this with the outcomes at Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech. In each case
the murderer was able to kill and maim to his heart's content.
Fortunately, Utah state colleges and universities are required by law to allow adults with concealed-firearm permits to carry their self-defense weapons on campus.
We should thank our legislators for passing this law, the Utah Attorney General's
Office for enforcing it (despite fierce opposition from the University of Utah) and
the Utah Supreme Court for upholding it."
-- N. William Clayton, Director of Communications, Gun Owners of Utah, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 28 February 2008.
The above letter by Mr. Clayton elicited the following email response to him from "Stan" (aka Stephen Alderman):
Mr. Clayton:
Your recent letter to the Tribune incorrectly asserts that the crazed shooter at Colorado Springs' New Life Church was killed by a gun-toting church member. Please see link below. This is information (that the crazy died by his own hand) to which I, an otherwise disinterested joe, have been privy for months. How is it that you haven't? Are you willing to disregard facts (or lie) to further your cause? Makes me suspect the cause.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080228/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings
You may well have a plethora of examples which support the point you are trying to make. Why not use those? If you don't have numerous examples, maybe the point is flawed. In any event, please understand that I am criticizing an argument technique which relies on manufactured data, not, at this point, the argument itself. I sure hope you're bright enough to grasp the distinction. Based on your letter, I ain't too hopeful.
Regards,
Stan
In response to this accusation of intellectual dishonesty Mr. Clayton replyed with the following email to the apparently confused Stan.
Stan:
Actually we're both right.
In my letter to the editor ( http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ ci_8383671 ), I stated that the murderer was "gunned down" by an armed church member. This is an accurate statement. After having been shot and wounded multiple times by the church member, the murderer committed suicide (though the suicide aspect was not known until the subsequent autopsy and consequently was not mentioned in the initial news reports). Had he not been gunned down by the armed church member, it is likely that he would have killed many more people, given the large quantity of guns and ammunition in his possession at the time and the large number of people present inside the church (he had already killed three people at another church facility and then two people outside the New Life Church before entering the building).
I deliberately chose not to include the suicide aspect in my letter because (a) it was irrelevant to my main point, which was that a private citizen used a legally-concealed firearm to end the shooting spree, and (b) the Tribune has a 200-word limit for letters to the editor, and I had already reached that limit and therefore chose not to include information that was not relevant to the main point.
Had the murderer not chosen to commit suicide after being wounded, the armed church member would likely either have held him at bay until police arrived or would have finished him off had he continued to act aggressively.
It is virtually indisputable that if nobody in the church (aside from the murderer) had been armed, many more people would have died. Multiple local authorities credited the armed church member with having saved many lives.
The armed church member, incidentally, was not a paid security guard (as some reports suggested) but rather a worshipper with a concealed-firearm permit who had volunteered to act as a de-facto security person.
The article you cite, which was published on February 27, mentions the suicide but makes no mention of the actions taken by the armed church member. I speculate that this is because quite a few news people are anti-gun and seem reluctant to report stories about armed citizens using guns to thwart crimes. Do a google search on the shooting sprees at Pearl High School in Mississippi or the Appalachian Law School in West Virginia, both of which were stopped by citizens armed with handguns, who confronted the shooter in each case and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. Note that most of the national news reports about those two incidents merely mention that the shooter was "confronted" or "subdued" by these individuals, with no mention made of their use of firearms. It may have been a bit harder for news people to neglect this aspect of the New Life Church incident, since many witnesses were present at the time who saw Ms. Assam draw her weapon and shoot Mr Murray, and the coroner found multiple bullet wounds in Mr. Murray attributable to Ms. Assam's gun, and various local authorities credited Ms. Murray with having saved numerous lives. Nonetheless, the Feb. 27th article you cite managed to neglect all this, and even some of the early news reports I've come across merely mention that Mr. Murray was "taken down" by Ms. Assam, without mentioning her use of a firearm.
Here are some news stories that were filed shortly after the New Life Church incident:
------------
From the Associated Press (filed on December 11, one day after the incident):
"Matthew Murray, 24, was struck multiple times by a security officer at New Life Church Sunday but died after firing a single shot at himself, the El Paso County Coroner's Office concluded after an autopsy. Volunteer security guard Jeanne Assam shot Murray after he entered the church."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TFEJO00&show_article=1
---------
From UPI (filed December 10, the day of the incident):
"A parishioner of the New Life church acting as the security guard shot and killed an armed gunman in the second of two incidents Sunday that left five people dead."
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/12/10/security_upgrade_saves_churchgoers/8697/
----------
From ABC7 News in Denver (filed December 10 and updated on December 12):
"I saw him coming through the doors" and took cover, Assam said. "I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down."
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html
---------
From CNN (filed December 10):
"Security guard who stopped shooter credits God"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html
Anyway, thanks for your efforts to correct perceived inaccuracies. But please do a little more research next time before accusing me of making stuff up.
Best regards,
N. W. Clayton
Director of Communications
GOUtah!
Date:
From:
To:
Dear Representative :
As an active voter and gun owner living in your district, I ask you to do everything in your power to prevent Rep. Steve Urquhart’s amendment to HB 473 (Floor Amendment 1) from becoming law. While I strongly support HB 473 in its current form, I would ask you to oppose the entire bill and try to kill it if Floor Amendment 1 (or anything like it) gets attached. Floor Amendment 1 would turn HB 473 into a gun-control bill by adding new restrictions that don’t exist in the current law.
The current law regarding firearms in private cars is highly confusing in its definitions (particularly the definition of "concealed"), and can really only be understood by lawyers. Many decent gun owners have probably unknowingly violated this law at one time or another.
Floor Amendment 1 was hastily drafted (note that it even contains typos) and, if you cross-reference it with the relevant portions of the Utah Code, you’ll find that it would add various unacceptable restrictions to the existing gun-carry laws and create numerous unintended consequences, such as making it a crime for a female concealed-weapon permit holder to have a firearm concealed in her purse if she comes within 1,000 feet of any day-care center, pre-school, K-12 school, college, or university in the state. And Floor Amendment 1 would make it a crime for a permit-holder to openly carry a self-defense weapon in thousands of places throughout the state where it is currently legal to do so, many of which are vaguely defined (such as thousand-foot zones around day-care centers operated in private homes, which are defined as "schools" under the relevant section of the existing code).
Please vote AGAINST Floor Amendment 1 (or any similar amendments that might be offered) and do whatever you need to do to prevent it from becoming law, even if this means killing HB 473.
Please get back to me and let me know how you voted. Thanks for taking time to consider my views on this matter.
Sincerely,
That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #290 for 29 February 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