Weapons and Explosives Restrictions on Private Property, Schools, Churches and Olympic Venues

Dear Utah Legislator,

It has been long-established that the most fundamental human and civil right which every citizen of our nation enjoys is the individual right of personal self defense. This right has long been a cornerstone concept of both Natural and Common Law, and is included in both the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Utah. Inherent in and inseparable from the exercise of that right is the ready access to an effective means or instrument of self defense.

Since 1986, Utah has provided its adult citizens with a mechanism to more effectively exercise this right under the authority of a state-issued permit to carry a concealed firearm. This permit is issued after state certification of the applicant of their familiarity with the safe operation of a firearm and the laws regarding the use of force by a private citizen, and includes a thorough background check to verify no history of violence, substance abuse, moral turpitude or any other factor which would indicate the applicant to be a threat to themselves, others or the public in general. This permit has been valid without restriction throughout the state of Utah for more than a decade, and remains so today.

In 1995, Utah followed a national trend now in place in 2/3rds of the states in the U.S., and shifted the burden of proof from the applicant proving a need for a permit to the state demonstrating disqualifying factors for issuance of a permit to the applicant. Since 1995, more than 20,000 law-abiding Utah citizens, or about 2% of the eligible adult population, have been issued such a permit for the legal carry of a concealed firearm for lawful self defense. In that time, absolutely no pattern of abuse, endangerment or reckless behavior of any kind on the part of Utah concealed firearms permit holders has developed. These tens of thousands of good, decent, hard-working Utah citizens quietly go about their daily lives, more secure in the knowledge that they may effectively protect themselves and their loved-ones from violent criminal assault.

The legislation proposed in HB 92 would prevent and punish these good, decent, law abiding Utah citizens, and thus beginning an open-ended laundry list of prohibited areas, circumstances and situations absent any evidence of abuse or misconduct whatsoever on the part of the impacted individuals.

We trust our teachers, administrators and school staff to educate our children, by giving them responsibility for hundreds of thousands of young people, billions of tax dollars annually and facilities worth many tens of billions more. Many teachers have been assaulted and victimized at school, drivers shot during school bus hijackings, coaches shot during gang fights on school grounds, even custodians abducted from school grounds, and then raped and murdered. Yet by embracing the concept of this bill, you are declaring that while educators may be able to safely and diligently discharge these roles, they are not capable of making responsible decisions regarding their physical safety by lawfully carrying a firearm for personal protection. If they are incapable of prudent, adult decisions regarding lawful self defense, why are they in the classroom with our children?

Churches are by nature voluntary associations with broad latitude to enact discriminatory policies as a condition of membership. Many of these highly discriminatory policies regarding lawful conduct by adults would not be otherwise condoned in any other setting, public or private. However, while a church may implement these policies on a voluntary compliance basis upon their members and a condition of membership, they are not binding on non-members and have no basis or standing in either civil or criminal law. Any potential penalty imposed for non-compliance is limited solely to an individual's membership status.

Private ownership or control of property does not and never has authorized or implied the ability to deprive any individual of their right of self defense. Current state law and court precedence do not allow any property owner or tenant to use deadly force to protect or enforce a mere property right. Therefore it becomes clear property rights are by their very nature inferior to the right of preservation of life and personal safety. As such no property right gives anyone the authority to endanger another by denying them their right of self defense and an effective means thereof, particularly when that right is exercised under the authority of a state-issued permit valid without restriction throughout Utah.

The 2002 Winter Olympic Games, to be hosted by Salt Lake City, has raised the issue of whether these good, decent citizens of our state will be welcome to attend the Olympic venues or to participate in other Olympic activities while in possession of a firearm carried under the authority of a state concealed firearms permit.

The recent allegations and admissions of more than a million dollars worth of bribery, widespread corruption and numerous other episodes of monumental ethical and moral misconduct on the part of IOC, USOC and SLOC members and other public officials raise the important question of why any honest, decent Utah citizens should be denied the means of self protection at Olympic venues. Numerous Browning firearms were given and received as bribes, gifts and incentives by Olympic officials, but these same Olympic officials do not trust the average Utah citizen with a similar firearm in their pocket or purse for lawful self defense. These demonstrably corrupt individuals associated with the Olympic movement have no right to demand Utah's decent citizens surrender their rights to self-protection.

According to published news reports, SLOC by contract must provide personal bodyguards to Olympic officials and members of the "Olympic Family," a group which may number as many as 3500 individuals, yet at the same time seeks to deny the average Utah citizen of a similar means to protect themselves, and yet refuse any liability for their safety after being disarmed. Utah's citizens are most useful for hosting, laboring on and being taxed to pay the Olympic's bills, but are not to be trusted to possess the means to protect themselves or their families. This elitist, 'some are more equal than others' attitude is at odds with everything Utah's people hold dear and Utah's traditional values represent. The basic human and constitutional rights of Utah's citizens must not be sacrificed on the Olympic altar, and our cherished Second Amendment rights must not be put to the Olympic torch.

In conclusion, these good, decent, responsible, law-abiding Utah citizens, who have demonstrated their good character by a lifetime of peaceable behavior that they are not a threat to themselves, others, society in general, will never constitute any threat at any school, church, or to any private residence occupant, or to the safety of the athletes, officials, or spectators at any Olympic venue or activity. As such, Utah's concealed firearms permit holders should not be discriminated against, denied full participation in or made to feel unwelcome at any school, church, private residence or at any Olympic venue or activity, based on their decision to take the responsibility for providing for their own personal safety by legally possessing a firearm for lawful self-defense under the authority of a Utah concealed firearms permit.