"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zachariah Johnson
Well, the 2008 General Session of the Utah Legislature ended a week ago. We’ve been catching our breath ever since as we recover and assess what happened.
On the last day of the legislative session, an inside source whom we consider highly reliable informed us that HB 473 (which had been transformed from a pro-gun bill into an anti-gun bill) was destined to pass because the Senate leadership had decided to send it directly to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
We were told that the Board of Regents of the University of Utah really, really wanted HB 473 to pass because of the anti-gun amendment that got attached to it on Monday. This amendment (House Amendment 2) would have prohibited open carry by permit holders on all college and university campuses in the state, as well as prohibiting certain forms of concealed carry on campus.
But you intervened in this ugly situation. You phoned the Senate leadership and you contacted your own state senators. And, lo and behold, they got the message. HB 473 never made it to the floor of the Senate. Instead, it was left to die in the Senate Rules Committee.
Another piece of good news: Sen. Mark Madsen’s "Katrina bill", SB 157 Substitute, actually made it to the floor of the House on the final day of the session, where it passed. This pro-gun bill is designed to prohibit law enforcement officers from confiscating legally owned firearms from private citizens during times of emergency, as happened in New Orleans during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
In the next alert we’ll give details about other gun-related bills. Basically, at least two anti-gun bills passed, but only one significant pro-gun bill (SB 157 Substitute) passed.
The following state legislators deserve special thanks for supporting gun rights and self-defense rights:
Sen. Mark Madsen (R-13). He sponsored two pro-gun bills: SB 67 and SB 157 Substitute. Thanks to his perseverance and your efforts, SB 67 (the bill that would have prevented employers from banning firearms that are kept locked in motor vehicles in the company parking lot) passed the Senate. Unfortunately, it died in the House for reasons that will be detailed below. And, as mentioned above, SB 157 Substitute passed.
Rep. Curt Oda (R-14). He sponsored HB 473, which was designed to clarify the existing Utah Code to make it extra-clear that permit-holders may choose to carry either openly or concealed. Unfortunately, anti-gun Rep. Steven Urquhart (R-75) hijacked the bill at the last minute and turned it into an anti-gun bill on the floor of the House.
Sen. Mike Waddoups (R-6). Sen. Waddoups, a member of the Senate Rules Committee, worked hard to keep HB 473 from reaching the floor of the Senate after it had been turned into an anti-gun bill. He succeeded, with your help. Unfortunately, certain powerful interests in the state are trying to unseat Sen. Waddoups in the next election. You can help Sen. Waddoups by sending a donation to his campaign. We’ll give further details in the near future.
Rep. Stephen Sadstrom (R-58). He did a great job of opposing the anti-gun Urquhart amendment to HB 473 on the floor of the House. He gave what was by all accounts a powerful speech.
Rep. Mike Noel (R-73) He delivered a great speech on the floor of the House, which led to the defeat of anti-gun HB 247, the "dating violence" bill. It failed by a narrow margin, but would almost certainly have passed without Rep. Noel’s speech, in which he pointed out that this bill would have been a major attack on gun rights.
On the bad side, it is our opinion that the biggest single opponent of gun rights in the House this year was Rep. Steven Urquhart (R-75). Rep. Urquhart, as chairman of the House Rules Committee, was, we believe, instrumental in killing SB 67, the pro-gun "parking lot" bill which had already passed the Senate. We believe that Rep. Urquhart, as Rules chairman, had it in his power to send SB 67 to the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee, where it would probably have passed. That’s the House committee that hears most gun-related bills anyway, so it would have made sense to send it there. A second-best scenario would have been to send it to the House Business and Labor Committee, as this bill would have affected business owners. An inside source informed us, however, that there were probably enough votes in this committee to pass the bill. So we were disappointed but not terribly surprised when the bill got sent to the House Judiciary Committee, which virtually never hears gun bills but which is overwhelmingly dominated by anti-gun representatives. SB 67 was defeated in that committee. Rep. Urquhart, as chairman of the Rules Committee, has a lot of power to steer bills toward the committee of his choice. We blame him for the fact that SB 67 was sent to a committee where it would suffer certain death.
Rep. Urquhart also sponsored the very poorly written House Amendment 1 to HB 473 (the open-carry bill). This amendment would have made open carry and several forms of concealed carry illegal in thousands of vaguely-defined "school zones" throughout the state. We believe that it was drafted at the last minute at the behest of the anti-gun people who run the University of Utah. Thanks to your phone calls and e-mails, this awful amendment got replaced by a somewhat less hideous (though still anti-gun) amendment, House Amendment 2, which was also sponsored by Rep. Urquhart. House Amendment 2 got attached to the HB 473 in the House and the amended bill passed, only to die (thank goodness) in the Senate.
Here is a list of reps [district number - party, in brackets] who voted in favor of House Amendment 2. Their support for this amendment should be interpreted as a strong statement against gun rights:
House Speaker Greg Curtis (R-49) did not vote one way or the other on this amendment, despite being present, which in our opinion constitutes support for the amendment. We speculate that he is a political opportunist who is merely trying to "have it both ways."
As Speaker of the House, Rep. Curtis has a lot of power to prevent stuff like this from happening. For example, we find it highly unlikely that the anti-gun floor amendments to HB 473 would have gotten anywhere without Rep. Curtis’ consent. And if he had supported SB 67 (the parking lot bill), we believe that he could have used his influence to make sure it got sent to the right committee. We don’t know whether he actively worked behind the scenes to mess with these two bills, or whether he stood back and allowed Rep. Urquhart to mess with them. Either way, we consider Rep. Curtis culpable for not using his power to defend our rights.
Over on the Senate side, we were disappointed that the Senate leadership (according to two sources who spoke to us on the last day of the session) apparently tried to bring HB 473 to the floor of the Senate at the last minute after it had been turned into an anti-gun bill. The good news is that it didn’t happen, thanks to your efforts. The bad news is that you had to scream and holler at the Senate leadership to prevent it from happening.
While we’re on the subject of the Senate leadership, we have not enjoyed our experience in dealing with Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble (R-16), and we would love to see someone from his own party run against him at that party’s convention in Utah County, if only to create some political pain for Sen. Bramble. If you live in Senate District 16, please consider filing to run against Sen. Bramble. Contact your county clerk’s office for details. The filing deadline is March 17. It is our own opinion that Sen. Bramble is a political opportunist who has few if any qualms about selling us out for political gain.
The best way to deal with anti-gun politicians is to create political pain for them. The worst kind of political pain occurs when a politician loses an election. However, even if we can’t defeat every anti-gun politician at the polls, there are other ways to cause political pain for them, and in many cases a nominally or opportunistically anti-gun politician may become a pro-gun (or at least not anti-gun) politician after he’s been on the receiving end of some political pain. For example, if an incumbent politician does not get at least 60% of the vote at his party’s nominating convention, he gets forced into a costly primary election. Utah politicians hate primaries. They’d much rather get nominated directly at the convention. Forcing a politician into a primary is a great way to let him know that you don’t approve of his anti-gun voting record.
In our next alert, we will go into more detail about how you can become a delegate to a political convention to support pro-gun candidates and to cause political pain for anti-gun candidates.
In the meantime, please set aside the evening of March 25th to attend the local party caucus meeting of your choice.
If you are not affiliated with a political party, you may attend any party’s caucus meeting. However, some parties (such as the Republican Party) will require you to officially register as a party member at the beginning of the meeting if you wish to vote in the meeting or run for party office. Forms will be provided.
A certain amount of strategic thinking on your part may be helpful. For example, if you live in Rep. Urquhart’s district (75), which is very heavily Republican, and you are not officially registered with any political party, you may want to consider temporarily registering as a member of Rep. Urquhart’s party (the Republican Party) in order to participate in your precinct’s Republican caucus meeting and either vote or run for the position of county delegate. The county delegates will get to decide whether Rep. Urquhart gets on the ballot in November, or whether he has to go through a primary race in June.
By the same token, for example, if you live in anti-gun Rep. David Litvack’s district (26), which is very heavily Democratic, and you are not affiliated with any party, you may want to consider participating in your local Democratic caucus meeting for the purpose of voting for a different candidate at the Democratic convention.
And, of course, you may even want to consider running as a candidate for the House or Senate yourself. The deadline for filing to be a candidate is March 17. In fact, if you have an incumbent anti-gun state senator or representative, you may want to run against that person at his party’s convention simply to inflict political pain on him. You can file for candidacy at your county clerk’s office. If you live in House District 75, House District 14, Senate District 16, or if your State Representative is on the above list of people who voted for House Amendment 2, we urge you to check with your county clerk’s office and consider filing as a candidate to run against the incumbent.
GOUtah! does not endorse any political party. We’re merely outlining the steps you can take, regardless of whether you are currently affiliated with a party, to inflict political pain on your incumbent state senator or state representative if he or she is opposed to gun rights and self-defense rights.
Our friends at Gun Owners of America (GOA) issued the following email alert on 10 March, 2008 in regard to Utah SB 157, Sen. Mark Madsen’s "Katrina bill", SB 157 Substitute.
A bill that is designed to protect your gun rights (SB 157) is on its way to the governor, now that is has been passed by the state house and senate.
This bill would change state law to prohibit the confiscation of firearms and ammunition during a state of emergency. In fact, this Emergency Protection bill would be one of the strongest of its kind in the nation as it will protect government officials who refuse to carry out a confiscation order.
That bill -- introduced by Senator Mark Madsen (R-Dist. 13) -- passed the state senate in late February, and more recently, passed the state house by an overwhelming vote of 70-2 (with three abstentions).
The only thing keeping this excellent bill from being unanimous in the House were these two naysayers: Reps. Rebecca Chavez-Houck (D-Dist. 24) and Rosalind "Roz" McGee (D-Dist. 28).
SB 157 is an extremely important piece of legislation. The Madsen bill was introduced following egregious examples of anti-gun misbehavior by the New Orleans police during the "state of emergency" there. This bill will ensure the same thing doesn't happen in Utah.
It would help if GOUtah! readers contacted Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr., to ask him to support SB 157.
You may recall from Alert 292 our reference to David Young's article "Why DC's Gun Law Is Unconstitutional". He has informed us that he has put up a web page of critical commentary on the pro-DC historical amicus briefs.
On 3 March, 2008 WorldNetDaily reported, in an article titled "Shirt with gun image banished on campus", of a Pennsylvania middle school student punished for wearing a T-shirt with the silhouette of a handgun on it. Donald Miller III wore to his school in the Penn Manor School District a T-shirt with the following slogans on the front and back: "Volunteer Homeland Security" and "Special issue – Resident – Lifetime License United States Terrorist Hunting Permit – Permit No. 91101 Gun Owner – No Bag Limit" in addition to the image. The T-shirt was a gift from his uncle, who is deployed in Iraq, and he wore the shirt "...to make the political and emotional statements that he supports his uncle, and all our armed forces, as they bravely exercise their duty to defend this great nation."
The school officials interviewed expressed the opinion that the T-shirt posed a "threat" to the students so they "protected" the students by banning the shirt and punishing Miller.
Go figure.
On 5 March, 2008 WorldNetDaily reported, in an article titled "Georgia bill pushes guns in churches, Christian Coalition supports expanded carry provision", on the Georgia Christian Coalition getting behind a state bill to expand gun-carry laws into company parking lots and churches.
It seems that with 10 attacks in the past four years at churches across the country the idea of having armend parishoners in church is gaining some currency in Georgia.
You probably recall the shootings at Jerusalem's Mercaz Harav seminary that left 8 dead and 12 wounded before the terrorist gunman was stopped.
What you probably haven't heard is that it was an armed student, Ytizhak Dadon, who shot the gunman with his legally carried handgun.
Alan Gottlieb, the chairman of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms (CCRKBA), has accused the US media of trying to conceal that it was an armed student that stopped the gunman. "Yitzhak Dadon is a hero," he said, "and he is living proof that armed students have a place on college campuses. Thankfully, his quick action was reported by the international press … so unlike incidents here in the United States where the press was able to completely ignore the actions of armed students or teachers, the truth about this incident will not be suppressed."
This was in an article posted 7 March, 2008 by WorldNetDaily titled "Press 'ignore' terrorist stopped by armed student, 'Yitzak Dadon's apparently well-placed bullets interrupted a rampage'"
"Talk to people from England, Canada or Australia: When guns were 'eliminated' in their countries, crime rates went up 50 to 300 percent, depending on the crime, because the criminals knew the people couldn't defend themselves.
When the population of a small town in Alabama was requested by their civic leaders to all become armed, the town's crime rate dropped to zero. Criminals knew they could get shot if they tried anything illegal.
Switzerland has three times as many guns as Germany. The murder rate in Switzerland, where nearly everyone is armed, is 40 percent less than it is in Germany. When criminals know you might be armed they avoid you.
Why are schools targeted as a safe killing place? Because no one is going to be shooting back at you. At schools people can't defend themselves. Any workplace or church that has a 'gun-free environment' policy invites the same results.
No more guns would be a wonderful idea if there was a way to eliminate all guns from the planet. I don't see that happening."
-- Patricia Thompson, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 4 March 2008.
"I take issue with the idea expressed by University of Utah Vice President for Government Relations Kim Wirthlin that 'The impression of safety is as important as the actuality of safety.' Do we really entrust our security to an organization that thinks the impression of safety is as important as its actuality?
After a bill that would have allowed Virginia college students to carry self-defense firearms was defeated, a Virginia Tech spokesman said, 'This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.' Not long after the 'feel safe' comment, an outburst of thoughtless violence at Norris Hall illustrated in tragic fashion the difference between feeling safe and actually being safe."
-- Brent Tenney, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 8 March 2008.
"Patricia Thompson used statistics on a very small number to prove a point about violence and guns ('Arm everybody,' Forum, Mar. 4). Here is the actual data: The number of gun murders in Great Britain in 1997, the year Britain banned handguns, was 59; in 2001 it was 73. That's a scary increase of 24 percent, but only 14 more deaths.
The 2001 gun murder rate in Britain was 0.13 per 100,000 people, while the U.S. number in 2000 was 6.24 per 100,000. That's 48 times higher! According to a former British police superintendent, 'The average person in the United Kingdom is unlikely to ever see a gun. You are more likely to choke to death on your food than be shot.'
The statistics published in the Tribune as a Pat Bagley cartoon, on April 19, 2007, were much more frightening:
1. 'A gun in the house is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide or accident than in self-defense.'
2. 'A gun in the home triples the risk of homicide.'
3. 'Shootings of Utah children occur 43 percent of the time at home and 40 percent of the time at the home of a neighbor or relative.'
It certainly doesn't sound like 'arm everybody' is a good solution."
-- Kermit Heid, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 8 March 2008.
"Let's take a look at N. William Clayton's ideal world of armed college students ('Self-defense on campus,' Forum, Feb. 28).
Say there are 50 students at the library of either Brigham Young University or the University of Utah, and 35 of them are armed. You are an armed student looking for a reference book on the Bill of Rights. Another student on a nearby aisle is researching potato farming and accidently discharges a round from his Taurus 9 mm pistol. You hear the shot, pull out your .357, come around the corner and see him trying to clear his jammed 9 mm. Another student with a Colt .45 sees you with your weapon drawn and pointed at the student with the 9 mm and shoots at you.
The student in the botanical section hears two rounds go off, immediately draws his Glock 9 mm, runs down the aisle to see you bleeding and starts firing at the madman with the Colt 45. Four girls studying at a table one floor below hear the shots and all lock and load their Beretta 9 mms and start heading up the stairs.
I can't possibly see any problems at all with a heavily armed citizenry, just as long as we keep those guns out of the hands of madmen."
-- J.J. Spencer, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 11 March 2008.
"I enjoy reading the views of informed citizens in the Tribune's letters. However, writers often make statements or cite facts without disclosing their sources. It's as if readers are supposed to take the writer's word that whatever he or she states is fact, when investigation may prove otherwise.
For example, Patricia Thompson's letter 'Arm everybody' (Forum, March 4) states that 'a small town in Alabama' had zero crime after civic leaders requested that everyone carry a gun. She also shares gun and crime statistics about a few European countries and Australia. Dutifully, I searched the Internet but was not able to find any Web site to substantiate any of her claims. Possibly I was not diligent or computer savvy enough, but it would be better if writers provide authentication for the data they give. If they don't, it diminishes the credibility of the writer and the cause they support."
-- Kenneth C. Evans, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 11 March 2008.
That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #294 for 13 March, 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