As a broad-based network of responsible and law abiding firearms owners in Utah, we too deplore the recent tragedies which have resulted in the deaths of and injury to our fellow citizens and our children at the hands of violent individuals who have been described by some as "mentally ill." These innocent victims have been struck down without warning and without provocation while engaged in their work, education, recreation and other everyday activities.

As citizens and as responsible and law abiding firearms owners, we are also deeply offended by the increasing hue and cry of some community activists, opportunistic politicians and representatives of the media demanding a change in Utah firearms laws to deal with these isolated incidents. Indeed, most murder and other violent crime has no connection whatsoever with mental illness.

To review the facts, both existing Federal and State laws, now decades old, prohibit any individual "who has been adjudicated as a mentally defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition. (Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and Utah Code 76-10-503 )

The recent tragedies at the Church History Library and the Triad Center have caused some to demand changes to the law, in order to give law enforcement bureaucrats broad access to private doctor/patient medical information, and to them give wide discretionary power to block retail sale of a firearm to those whom they may decree should not have a firearm.

In reviewing the known facts of the two local incidents as are publicly available at this time, there is no information before us which indicates Sergei Babarin, the individual responsible for the Library incident, obtained his firearm from any legitimate source or controlled chain of distribution. Further, Mr. Babarin had been evaluated by competent mental health professionals several months earlier and was found to not be a threat to himself or others at that time. As such, there is no basis to believe that any legislative proposals now before us would have prevented this incident.

In the Triad event, Ms. De-Kieu Duy had indeed been in treatment prior to the incident, but as one mental health advocate stated, she "fell through the cracks in the court system." In cases such as Ms. Duy, court ordered releases before full and successful treatment are reported as commonplace, and clearly point more to potential problems in the court commitment statutes and mental health treatment system rather than to the existing firearms laws.

In fact, even Handgun Control. Inc. representatives have recently stated on the record that "It’s bad precedent to have a knee-jerk removal of any right or privilege based on what the medical profession itself would say are very cloudy, ambiguous parameters." A Deseret News website poll taken immediately after the Library incident revealed 67% of respondents felt current gun laws were adequate, while only 28% felt they should be changed.

By allowing law enforcement to have access to private mental health medical information, the doctor/patient bond is compromised, and therefore proper diagnosis and successful treatment may not be possible. Further, we must now redefine what constitutes "mental illness." Is it acute, profound paranoia, or will we define it as anyone participating in family counseling or a program of stress management in the workplace? Will we develop a list of "red flag" medications which will include Lithium, Prozac or St. John’s Wort? Will we now adopt the age-old Marxist definition of mental illness as ‘not following the current party line’ or ‘questioning authority?’ Such information access by agents of the state may well have a chilling effect thus preventing those who might benefit from some form of counseling or medication from seeking it due to concerns over the potential loss of their civil rights. Such non-judicial discrimination denies these individuals of the right of privacy, due process and equal protection under law.

Law enforcement, driven by either political agenda or public pressure, will likely view their discretionary powers very broadly and prohibit any firearms purchase or possession to huge numbers of otherwise peaceable and law abiding citizens for no other reason than because they can. Anyone thinking this information will be restricted only to firearms purchases for any length of time is optimistically deluded. Any such information made available will shortly be distributed throughout the law enforcement information network, opening up a huge potential for abuse and misuse.

Finally, there is the dubious policy concept, that by controlling retail sales of firearms via a police background check, society will interdict every possible unlawful or dangerous gun transaction. This ignores the fact that the vast majority of firearms in the hands of violent criminals are stolen and move in the totally unregulated channels of black market commerce. Still others may get an individual with no disqualifying record to purchase a firearm for them at retail, and bypass any such controls.

As current Utah Brady Check statistics show, nearly 98% of retail purchases are approved, thus indicating the entire Brady concept is a nearly 98% failure in stopping firearms access to the criminal element. Further, according to Utah DPS personnel, there has been not a single arrest, prosecution or conviction of attempted firearms purchase by a prohibited person since Brady has been in effect. Not one! In short, the concept of police interdiction at point of sale as a means of preventing and prosecuting unlawful firearms sales is a largely empty political promise that is more demonstrably an expensive, intrusive and ineffective program geared to enhancing public relations and increasing revenues than providing improved public safety.

In light of these tragedies, we must ask ourselves why did these homicidal individuals choose these specific venues as their targets? Could it be that Ms. Duy assumed that KSL personnel would likely be unarmed by company policy, given KSL’s long-time, outspoken anti-gun editorials and new reports? Could Mr. Babarin have been aware of the LDS Church’s policy on prohibition of lawful possession of a licensed concealed firearm by their members and assumed the devout patrons of the Church Library would be unable to effectively protect themselves? Could the recent rash of school shootings have anything to do with the wide-spread knowledge that guns are outlawed on school campuses, and therefore the faculty and students are defenseless ‘sitting ducks’ for some madman? These homicidal individuals may have been crazy, but they were not stupid. The perceived anti-gun, anti-self defense positions and policies of these companies and institutions may well have contributed to their selection as targets.

We agree with the assessment of LDS President Hinkley, in that we should not have a "bunker mentality" to life. We should not be forced to hide behind locked doors and shuttered windows, afraid to walk our own streets and participate in the activities of our community, all because we are afraid of being victims of violent crime. We should also not ignore the fact that there are some elements on our society which do not share our respect for law or life. They are predators looking for the easiest prey available to them. They seek victims who are slow, weak, aged, young, or unarmed and therefore unable to defend themselves.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if only one responsible adult in the Triad Center, Church Library, or a school had not been forced to choose between following a prohibitionist corporate or institutional policy or law denying them the ability to protect themselves and had instead had available at that terrible moment a lawful, effective and readily accessible means of self defense, the outcome would have been much different. Innocent lives of all ages may well have been spared, not taken by the acts of a violent and disturbed individual. Any society that does such a dismal job of protecting its individual citizens from violent crime has absolutely no right to prevent those same citizens from lawfully providing for their own protection.

This is why GOUtah! has always maintained our uncompromising position in support of "unrestricted" carry of a concealed firearm for lawful self-defense by licensed individuals. Like lightning, one never know where tragedy or violence may strike. We can only be ever-prepared to protect ourselves and our loved-ones should the need arise and no other options be available to us. Our position has not been popular in some circles. Often the cold, hard truth often is unpopular, but it nevertheless remains the truth.

We would encourage all involved in this policy discussion to take a rational and measured approach to this issue. Let’s remember that we cannot, never have and never will prevent the violent acts of criminals and madmen by discriminating against or denying the peaceable, law abiding and responsible adult members of our community of the lawful means to possess the instruments of effective self defense, without undue limitation as to time, place or circumstance. By pursuing any policy of lawfully-possessed firearm prohibition, we can only create more innocent victims of violence. There is nothing wrong with current Federal or State firearms statutes, and there is no need to rush to judgment in light is these tragic but nevertheless isolated incidents.

If you wish to be added to or taken off the GOUtah! list, please send an e-mail to goutah@goutahorg.org or send a FAX to (801) 944-9937 asking to be added to or removed from the GOUtah! list.
If you wish to forward or share this copyrighted information with others, you are welcome to do so, on the condition that you pass along the entire document intact and unmodified, and that GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original source of the material.

Return to GOUtah! Home Page

Return to GOUtah! White Papers Index