"Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain."
-- President John F. Kennedy
In recent years, we’ve been willing to publish candidates’ own statements regarding their views on the right to keep and bear arms. Pertaining to the upcoming primary election in Utah, we’ve received one statement from one candidate, Dan Liljenquist, who is running against an opponent from his own party (the Republican Party in this case) to get on the November ballot in Utah State Senate District 23.
My name is Dan Liljenquist, and I am a Republican Candidate for State Senate District 23. This week the National Rifle Association, without speaking directly with me and without soliciting the input of local Utah gun rights advocates, endorsed my opponent in the Utah Senate 23 Republican Primary election scheduled for Tuesday, June 24th.
For the record, I believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. I believe that individuals have a fundamental right to self defense. I believe that our existing gun laws are adequate, and I am opposed to further restrictions on gun ownership and accessibility.
On a personal level, I own several firearms, and have and use a concealed carry permit.
I will be a strong advocate for 2nd Amendment rights in the Utah State Senate.
Please remember to vote in the Republican Primary on June 24th.
Best regards,
Dan Liljenquist
Every couple of years, it seems that the anti-gun people take something that’s not a problem and try to make a crisis out of it. Their allies in the local news media then faithfully parrot their talking points, demanding new restrictions on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. One year the invented crisis is "concealed weapons in schools." Another year it’s "concealed weapons in churches." Then it’s "the need for trigger locks." Then it’s "the need for to prohibit private-party transactions at gun shows." And so on.
The new "crisis du jour" is concealed-weapon permits for non-Utahs. For many years now, the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) has issued concealed-weapon permits to all applicants who meet the criteria set down by state law. The law does not require an applicant to be a Utah resident, and tens of thousands of permits have been issued to qualifying non-residents over the years. This does not seem to have caused any problems, either in Utah or in other states. In fact, as we discussed in our previous alert and will discuss further in the future, non-resident permits actually benefit everyone, including Utahns. Furthermore, the bureaucrats who oversee BCI have stated that the process is self-funding. BCI collects sufficient revenue from applicants to fund the entire application-processing operation – including out-of-state applicants -- without having to rely on tax revenue.
However, according to our sources, Utah’s governor, Jon Huntsman, Jr., has recently made it a top priority to stop issuing permits to non-Utahns. As if on cue, Sunday’s Deseret Morning News editorialized ["Limit gun permits to Utahns only"] against issuing permits to non-residents, and the matter of non-resident permits has suddenly become a hot topic even though nobody can provide a logical-sounding reason why BCI shouldn’t issue permits to non-residents.
The good news is that BCI can’t stop issuing out-of-state permits unless the legislature changes the law. The bad news is that unless we act on this, the legislature just might change the law.
We thank those of you who wrote to Gov. Huntsman in response to our last alert. Unfortunately, he seems to be unwilling to change his mind on this issue. So our next focus will be on key members of the state legislature.
We’ll have more about this in future alerts.
From our friends at Gun Owners of America (GOA) we received the following alert on 18 June in regard to CCW reciprocity. Utah has the most recognized CCW permit in the nation. There is an idea that a CCW in one state should be valid in any other state of this nation that is a union of sates.
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is planning to introduce a concealed carry reciprocity bill next week.
Senator Vitter had been working closely with Gun Owners of America to draft and file a reciprocity amendment a few weeks ago, but that amendment, unfortunately, never saw the light of day -- thanks to powerful opponents inside the Senate.
However, Sen. Vitter has continued undaunted and last week sent a Dear Colleague letter to his fellow senators, asking them to cosponsor his forthcoming bill, the "Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act."
The Vitter bill treats concealed carry permits much the same as drivers' licenses, where one state's license is recognized in all other states.
In addressing the matter of reciprocity, the first concern of GOA and Sen. Vitter is that it be done constitutionally and that it respects states' rights.
Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter's bill does not establish "national standards" for concealed carry. It simply says that states that allow concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.
Vitter's bill also respects the rights of states that allow concealed carry without a permit. Citizens of Vermont and non-license holders in Alaska are allowed to carry concealed without a permit. Under the Vitter bill, these states would be recognized in the same manner as states that do issue permits.
States that do not allow concealed carry at all are not forced, under the Vitter bill, to recognize out-of-state permits. There are currently two such states, Illinois and Wisconsin. While it is deplorable that these states refuse to trust their citizens with firearms, this is an issue that has to be dealt with at the state level.
Citizens should not be forced to sacrifice their right to self-defense at the state line. The Vitter bill will allow more Americans to defend themselves away from their home state.
From our friends at the Utah Shooting Sports Council we received the following alert in regard to the pending legislation regarding firearms in our national parks.
If you did it before, do it again. The network of leftist groups are all mobilizing their members to submit comments, so we need to ensure their opposition is matched by an even larger number of comments protecting gun rights! In the spirit of Chicago politics, comment early, and comment often!
After several years of prodding by gun rights groups (including USSC and the NRA) the U.S. Department of the Interior has finally issued a proposed rule to eliminate the prohibition on Right-to-Carry in national parks and wildlife refuges. First there is a period for "public comment". Gun owners must take action now to keep the anti-gunners from blocking these improvements. This has a direct impact on YOU if you ever drive across any of fourteen National Parks, National Monuments or National Historic Sites located on more than 2.3 million acres of land in Utah! If the changes are approved, your concealed weapons permit will be good there, just like everywhere else in Utah, and it will no longer be a crime if you don’t disassemble your guns before driving across these areas.
It is always best to write in your own words. You can use our pre-written letter at http://UtahShootingSports.com/doisuggestedcomments.htm but here are some talking points to assist in writing your own letter:
-- Rules on carrying and transporting firearms should be consistent—across the board—with the laws of the state that includes the national park or wildlife refuge
-- Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges
-- The new rules should provide uniformity across all federal lands, eliminating the patchwork of laws that create confusion for gun owners
-- Current regulations fail to account for the significant change in state laws since 1984. 48 states now have laws that permit laws that permit carrying and 40 have strong Right-to-Carry laws.
-- Federal regulations should recognize the change in state laws and follow their lead
-- The new regulations should restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for all lawful purposes on most DOI lands, just as they do now on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands
It is critical that ALL gun owners and sportsmen submit comments during this process. You can submit comments online at: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648053d497
Or, you can mail comments to the following address:
Public Comments Processing
Attn: 1024-AD70
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203
Remember, all comments must be received by June 30. They usually count the number of comments for or against a proposal, so get your spouse or kids to send separate comments as well.
Another "crisis du jour" seems to building in the hoplophobe media in Utah. It has the name of "Open Carry". While the legality of this practice seems to not be in question, the exercise of this right appears to frighten the the hoplophobic Tribune staff. In an "editorial" article on 22 June, Rebecca Walsh, Tribune Columnist, in an article titled "Time to grow up and put your guns away" characterised the open carry proponents as "overcompensation, paranoia, antisocial personality" sorta of people. While she likes "the thrill of firing a Glock" she apparently cannot comprehend the idea of guaranteeing her own personal safety visibly.
She cites noted hoplophobe Steven Gunn, an attorney and board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, characterizing open carry advocates "We have inconsiderate boors walking around on the street carrying firearms openly, I don't think they are truly afraid for their safety. Most of them are trying to make a statement about the Second Amendment."
Perhaps she and Steve have never been mugged.
She further cites "[A]nthropologist Charles Springwood says open carriers are trying to 'naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood."'
Isn't that the point?
All persons are entitled to the the safety of their persons.
Her finale is from Springwood, a professor at Illinois Wesleyan University, saying "Second Amendment questions aside, the real debate seems to me a cultural and social one: Do we want a society in which it is an unconscious emblem of everyday life that folks move about with 'portable killing machines' strapped to their bodies?"
If we may quote: "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society"
"It was with disgusted dismay that I read Maria Villasenor's report on Travis Deveraux's complaints about being harassed by West Valley City police for openly carrying his gun on his hip ('Gun toters want cops to holster harassment,' Tribune, June 18).
Deveraux's alleged plight caused me to flashback to all the Westerns I watched as a kid, where many a marshal had everyone check their guns upon entering town to end needless shootings and other gun play. It was a sign that the town had become 'civilized.' The bad guys always resisted and lost in the end.
What has changed? Is there something I am missing? What possible good could come from carrying one's gun openly on one's hip when 99.99 percent of the rest of us don't feel the need to do so?
Deveraux is not part of any well-regulated militia that I am aware of. That being the case, if one is going to brazenly brandish weapons when it's unwarranted, one needs to learn to deal with a skeptical law enforcement community.
Are Deveraux and his ilk so obsessed with their own powerlessness that the only way they can feel secure is to try and intimidate the rest of us?"
-- Gordon LaFleur/B>, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 21 June 2008.
"The other night I listened to the advocates for open-carry weapons before the West Valley City Council ('Gun toters want cops to holster harassment,' Tribune, June 18). What's the big difference between concealing a weapon and showing it to the world? Intimidation, pure and simple. If those people are not aware of how frightening it can be to see someone other than an officer of the law walking around with death strapped to their hips, they are experiencing severe cases of denial.
I understand that a .40-caliber semiautomatic would take some doing to conceal, unless the owner was wearing a heavy jacket. If a smaller handgun doesn't feel sufficiently powerful, then counseling may be the solution to feelings of inadequacy."
-- John R. Petersone, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 22 June 2008.
That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #302 for 22 June 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