Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Gun owners miffed by SLC airport's confusing no-firearms signs

  1. #1
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,317

    Post imported post

    Gun owners miffed by SLC airport's confusing no-firearms signs
    Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7929804

    By Brandon Loomis

    Article Last Updated:01/10/2008 06:38:58 AM MST

    Click photo to enlarge


    Clachelle and Kevin Jensen,
    each carrying a Glock handgun, pose...
    (Photo courtesy Tashina Taylor)



    It doesn't take a genius to know you can't tote your .40-caliber Glock through the metal detector at Salt Lake City International Airport. It does take a book of statutes to decipher the no-guns-allowed sign at the airport door, though.

    It implies that you can't pack inside the terminal, but it lists a state law that says you can.

    "The average citizen has to be a lawyer or a mind-reader to figure out what that sign means," said Mike Stollenwerk, a Virginia-based gun-rights advocate who has asked the airport to remove the signs. Utah gun owners likewise complain of the mixed message, and some proudly ignore the warning.

    That's their right, and no one is stopping them, airport officials say.
    "The public area - the ticket counter, terminal, lobby - is public," city airport spokeswoman Barbara Gann said. "The laws that apply to public areas apply there."

    The law mentioned on the sign, Utah Code 76-10-529, allows concealed-weapons permittees to carry their guns as permitted and most everyone else to carry in plain sight, with an empty chamber, in most public places.

    Anyone strolling out of the short-term parking garage toward the sliding glass doors by the car rental desks learns that smoking is prohibited within 25 feet of the entrance and it's a "prohibited area for all weapons." Except, as airport officials acknowledge, the prohibited area doesn't start until passengers walk past the baggage claims and ticket counters and queue up for the security checkpoint.

    The signs alert people early so they won't walk into a problem, Gann said. Though Stollenwerk e-mailed the airport about the confusion, Gann said there's no plan to change.

    Kevin Jensen is a Utah member of Stollenwerk's opencarry.org Internet community, and he gladly responded when Stollenwerk put out a call for a local to photograph the premature signs for his Web site. He, with his Model 23 .40-caliber Glock, and wife Clachelle, with her Model 26 Glock 9 mm, stood smiling by the door as his sister-in-law snapped a shot of them last month.

    Jensen sees the signs as a nuisance to the uninformed, but he knows better. He arms himself for airport trips because he believes that supposedly gun-free zones are dangerous. "When someone has posted that they don't allow weapons, criminals see that as an opportunity," he said.

    That hypothetical criminal is a bogeyman to Steven Gunn of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. He knows state law allows guns into the airport, but he wishes it didn't. There are plenty of authorities with guns at the airport, he said.

    "If you've got a concealed weapon, don't try to protect me," he said. "I'll take my chances with the security forces."

    Clark Aposhian of the Utah Shooting Sports Council said he plans to visit the airport and ask again for the signs' relocation.

    "If I'm going to pick up folks or drop off my wife at the airport, I carry a firearm wherever I go," he said. "It's the law. I obey the law, and I expect the state and municipalities to know and obey the law."

    bloomis@sltrib.com




    Utah Gun Owners Allowed to Carry in Airport

    January 10th, 2008 Top Stories http://www.newsnet14.com/2008/01/10/...ry-in-airport/




    SALT LAKE CITY, Jan. 10 Utah gun-owners say they have a right to carry their weapons at the Salt Lake City International Airport as long as they stay out of secured areas.

    The airport has signs at the terminal doors warning against bringing weapons on the premises, The Salt Lake City Tribune reports. But the signs cite a Utah law that allows weapons in public areas.

    Gun-rights advocates have asked the airport to remove the signs. But the airport says they will stay in place, suggesting that they are an early warning for those boarding airplanes that they cannot carry their weapons through the security checkpoints.

    Under Utah law, people with concealed-carry permits can take their guns, hidden, to all public places, while most other adults can bring weapons that are openly displayed.





    SALT LAKE CITY, Jan. 10 Utah gun-owners say they have a right to carry their weapons at the Salt Lake City International Airport as long as they stay out of secured areas.

    The airport has signs at the terminal doors warning against bringing weapons on the premises, The Salt Lake City Tribune reports. But the signs cite a Utah law that allows weapons in public areas.

    Gun-rights advocates have asked the airport to remove the signs. But the airport says they will stay in place, suggesting that they are an early warning for those boarding airplanes that they cannot carry their weapons through the security checkpoints.

    Under Utah law, people with concealed-carry permits can take their guns, hidden, to all public places, while most other adults can bring weapons that are openly displayed.

    Kevin Jensen, a Utah member of opencarry.org, said he always takes his gun to the airport.

    "When someone has posted that they don't allow weapons, criminals see that as an opportunity," he said.

    Copyright 2008 by UPI




    --
    Utah gun owners go armed at airport
    01/11/08 - 07:05 AM



    http://www.tdsmetro.net/news.php?story=39328

    SALT LAKE CITY, Jan 10, 2008 (UPI via COMTEX) -- Utah gun-owners say they have a right to carry their weapons at the Salt Lake City International Airport as long as they stay out of secured areas.

    The airport has signs at the terminal doors warning against bringing weapons on the premises, The Salt Lake City Tribune reports. But the signs cite a Utah law that allows weapons in public areas.

    Gun-rights advocates have asked the airport to remove the signs. But the airport says they will stay in place, suggesting that they are an early warning for those boarding airplanes that they cannot carry their weapons through the security checkpoints.

    Under Utah law, people with concealed-carry permits can take their guns, hidden, to all public places, while most other adults can bring weapons that are openly displayed.

    Kevin Jensen, a Utah member of opencarry.org, said he always takes his gun to the airport.

    "When someone has posted that they don't allow weapons, criminals see that as an opportunity," he said.

    URL: http://www.upi.com

    --

    Utah gun owners go armed at airport

    http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/01/10/utah_gun_owners_go_armed_at_airport/2583/

    Published: Jan. 10, 2008 at 9:11 PM

    Print story
    Email to a friend


    SALT LAKE CITY, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- Utah gun-owners say they have a right to carry their weapons at the Salt Lake City International Airport as long as they stay out of secured areas.

    The airport has signs at the terminal doors warning against bringing weapons on the premises, The Salt Lake City Tribune reports. But the signs cite a Utah law that allows weapons in public areas.

    Gun-rights advocates have asked the airport to remove the signs. But the airport says they will stay in place, suggesting that they are an early warning for those boarding airplanes that they cannot carry their weapons through the security checkpoints.

    Under Utah law, people with concealed-carry permits can take their guns, hidden, to all public places, while most other adults can bring weapons that are openly displayed.

    Kevin Jensen, a Utah member of opencarry.org, said he always takes his gun to the airport.

    "When someone has posted that they don't allow weapons, criminals see that as an opportunity," he said.


    --


    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,158

    Post imported post

    Good job, and thank you.

    I too have long ignored the signs at the airport doors and carried as I've seen fit.


    What really needs to happen is quite simple: They need to move the current signs inside the building just before the security checkpoint. Then, they need to either do nothing on the outside doors, OR place new signs with different wording that makes clear the SECURE/STERILE area of the airport is off limits to weapons.

    I don't expect them to post signs inviting me to carry my firearm in the non-sterile areas of the airport. Just don't post signs saying it is prohibited.

    OTOH, so long as all officers working the airport understand and comply with the actual law--IE no harrassing of perfectly lawful conduct--it is a bit of a non-issue. OR, at the very least, it remains a bit of lower priority than those cases where people are being harrassed, cited, or arrested for lawful conduct.

    In any event, thank you for following up on this one. There are a thousand and one little fiefdoms. Some have tin-hat dictators. Others just have ill- or mis-informed folks making honest mistakes. It is a lot more than anyone one of us can keep track of or try to correct. If we all do a little, we can get a lot done.

    Charles

  3. #3
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,885

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    That hypothetical criminal is a bogeyman to Steven Gunn of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. He knows state law allows guns into the airport, but he wishes it didn't. There are plenty of authorities with guns at the airport, he said.

    "If you've got a concealed weapon, don't try to protect me," he said. "I'll take my chances with the security forces."
    Don't worry Steve, we won't. Just dial 911 and pray for your life. I'm sure the cops will get to you sometime soon. Keep praying Steve.





  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    317

    Post imported post

    Steve has nothing to worry about because we do not have concealed weapons.
    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,615

    Post imported post

    OK folks - anybody from PA willing to take on the illegal Alleghenny County Airport ban at the "Pittsburgh Airport"?

    We need to figure out a way to get them to acknoeledge they are preempted or file a civil action to have it declared void.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,615

    Post imported post


  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,442

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    OK folks - anybody from PA willing to take on the illegal Alleghenny County Airport ban at the "Pittsburgh Airport"?

    We need to figure out a way to get them to acknoeledge they are preempted or file a civil action to have it declared void.
    Wish I was a little closer... Maybe we could make an "event" of it....

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    No longer an OpenCarry.org subscriber.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    No longer an OpenCarry.org subscriber.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,721

    Post imported post




    Great job.
    "The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. If the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms,' a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to possession of firearms, runs afoul of that amendment's protections" (U.S. v. Printz, 1997) ~Clarence Thomas (SPJ)

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,158

    Post imported post

    David Nelson wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    ...so long as all officers working the airport understand and comply with the actual law--IE no harrassing of perfectly lawful conduct--it is a bit of a non-issue. OR, at the very least, it remains a bit of lower priority than those cases where people are being harrassed, cited, or arrested for lawful conduct.
    This is the same argument that tells me that, as long as it's unenforced, Utah's sodomy law is a nonissue despite not being repealed after almost five years since being ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

    Unfortunately, both oversights make me a prima facie criminal even if not "technically." If it's a simple matter of removing the signs (or hitting the delete key in the Utah Code sodomy section), it's equally easy to demand that it be done. After all, if we don't ask, we don't get.

    David Nelson
    Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah
    Salt Lake City
    No. The argument is that I (and I know others) have had higher priorities because there are situations (as you are well aware) where people actually are being harrassed, arrested, and saddled with at least legal costs to defend against bad arrests. I do applaud those who are working this particular issue.

    I will also point out that a sign does NOT carry the same weight as a statute. Unless an officer or at least a prosecutor can point to a statute, he's got a long rough row to hoe. And it takes a lot more than hitting a delete key in Utah code. The courts do NOT get to repeal laws. They may well render a law unenforcable. But ONLY the legislature and governor get to change the actual code.

    Being a nation of laws we conservatives will bow to the grossly flawed majority opinion in Lawrence. We might ask as much from the new SLC Mayor when it comes to deference to Amd 3 to the Utah Constitution banning both gay marriage and prohibiting giving the same or substantially equivalent legal effect of marriage to any relationship other than marriage. The guy swears an oath to uphold the Utah Constitution one day, and the very next he is pushing for a "domestic partnership" registry designed for the specific purpose to help grant marriage-like benefits to gay couples. But I guess over violations of such black-letter constitutional language doesn't bother you nearly as much as having an unenforced and unenforcable law left on the books for a while.

    That said, and with the greatest of respect, Dave, I'd really rather NOT see gay issues, much less any particulars of your sex life being dragged into nearly so many discussions on this board. I find homosexual sodomy repulsive and would really prefer it not come up. I certainly don't bring up the particulars of my sex life here. I'm sure there are plenty of places to discuss those issues. I choose not to frequent them. I choose to participate here because the topic is RKBA generally and OC specifically. And I make a sincere, imperfect, but sincere effort to avoid too much discussion of my views of other political issues.

    Our strength as an RKBA community in Utah comes from our willingness to work together on RKBA despite potential disagreements on any other issues including: abortion, environment, welfare, taxes, church-and-state, speed limits, sexual preferences and identity, UFOs, hate-crimes, animal "rights" (there I did it again), the war, etc. That is easier to do if we all tend to avoid too much discussion of our personal views of those other issues on RKBA centric lists such as this one.

    Or, if I'm way off base in making this request, let me know. I'm more than willing to share my views on a host of off-topic issues if this is really the place to do it. And all of them will involve my "rights" (as I see them).

    Charles
    Writing only for myself.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,244

    Post imported post

    , I'd really rather NOT see gay issues, much less any particulars of your sex life being dragged into nearly so many discussions on this board. I find homosexual sodomy repulsive and would really prefer it not come up. I certainly don't bring up the particulars of my sex life here.
    Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't seem to remember David posting a particular about his sex life here. He was pointing out the sodomy laws being on the books still here but unenforced, and the belief that it should be repealed off of the books, similar to other unenforceable laws such as preempted local codes and statutes on guns.

    Unless he's posting graphic particulars of his activities, the statement made is exaggerated.

    I had a person take an issue with the fact that when I had a bad encounter with the State Patrol here in Washington on the State Ferry system, because, like several other heterosexual couples on the boat, I held hands while on the ship's lookout with my partner. It was almost as of this particular person wanted me to have a bad encounter with the State Patrol because how dare I do that. Luckily for both of us it didn't happen during the trip there, but the trip back when he wasn't with me upstairs on the Ferry boat.

    Just a perspective from me on that score.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,147

    Post imported post

    the rig that kevin posted (very top picture on the page) is the one i plan on carrying next time we go over to SLC (COME ON PETE! YOU GOTTA DO IT TOO!)

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,158

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't seem to remember David posting a particular about his sex life here. He was pointing out the sodomy laws being on the books still here but unenforced, and the belief that it should be repealed off of the books, similar to other unenforceable laws such as preempted local codes and statutes on guns.

    Unless he's posting graphic particulars of his activities, the statement made is exaggerated.

    I had a person take an issue with the fact that when I had a bad encounter with the State Patrol here in Washington on the State Ferry system, because, like several other heterosexual couples on the boat, I held hands while on the ship's lookout with my partner. It was almost as of this particular person wanted me to have a bad encounter with the State Patrol because how dare I do that. Luckily for both of us it didn't happen during the trip there, but the trip back when he wasn't with me upstairs on the Ferry boat.

    Just a perspective from me on that score.
    Lonnie,

    It may have been a bit of an exageration on my part. But when Dave stated that current laws against sodomy make him a defacto criminal he was revealing certain aspects of his sex life that are none of my business, are more detailed than necessary for any discussion here, and are in fact repugnant to much of the population. I can and do respect everyone's right to conduct their private affairs in private. I will voice my continued belief that such thins ought to remain PRIVATE. Nor will I make any apologies for what repulses me or what I consider to be grossly immoral conduct. I won't thrust my morals on others. (I will support laws on marriage and other public policy issues with a view to what I think is good and proper public morality.) But neither do I care to have others' private sexual preferences thrust into my face. I don't think an RKBA list is the place to mention homosexual sodomy any more than it is the place to mention heterosexual vaginal intercourse.

    I also note that a seeming growing number of Dave's recent posts to this board have included various pro-gay positions. Being pro-RKBA does NOT pre-suppose ANY position at all on gay issues. One may be strongly pro-RKBA and be very much opposed to gay marriage and very much in favor of laws against homosexual sodomy. One may be just as strongly pro-RKBA and be in favor of gay marriage and/or opposed to laws against homosexual sodomy.

    Ditto RKBA and abortion, RKBA and taxes, RKBA and the war on terror, RKBA and welfare, RKBA and "hate" crimes, RKBA and school vouchers, RKBA and animal "rights", and RKBA and almost every other issue.

    That all said, one finds FAR more social and fiscal conservatives strongly supporting RKBA than one does social and fiscal liberals. And by and large I think the social, fiscal, and other conservative members of this (Utah) forum have been pretty good about leaving their other issues under-stated so as to maintain an environment here that is comfortable for the minority who are socially or fiscally liberal. It is not asking too much for the social, fiscal, or other more liberal members to do likewise in return, thus showing forth a modicum of respect for the views and beliefs of the conservative majority. Courtesy and consideration are two-way streets.

    And I think it better to point that out overtly and politly than to simply decide that I should start lacing half of my posts with my political views on non-RKBA issues in a tit-for-tat fashion.

  15. #15
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,885

    Post imported post

    Sorry, I didn't go back and read the entire thread, but "sodomy" is not a purely homosexual act. The previous poster may have indeed been referencing a homosexual act, but I don't recal him being specific about it. (but it has been several days since I read that post) I won't copy/paste the dictionary definition, but I just looked at it, and sodomy can be either hetero or homosexual. It describes a sex "act" and not the orientation of the offender. Can we drop this baloney about homosexual references now that it's been clarifies that sodomy is not a strictly homosexual act?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    Sorry, I didn't go back and read the entire thread, but "sodomy" is not a purely homosexual act. The previous poster may have indeed been referencing a homosexual act, but I don't recal him being specific about it. (but it has been several days since I read that post) I won't copy/paste the dictionary definition, but I just looked at it, and sodomy can be either hetero or homosexual. It describes a sex "act" and not the orientation of the offender. Can we drop this baloney about homosexual references now that it's been clarifies that sodomy is not a strictly homosexual act?
    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    , I'd really rather NOT see gay issues, much less any particulars of your sex life being dragged into nearly so many discussions on this board. I find homosexual sodomy repulsive and would really prefer it not come up. I certainly don't bring up the particulars of my sex life here.
    Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't seem to remember David posting a particular about his sex life here. He was pointing out the sodomy laws being on the books still here but unenforced, and the belief that it should be repealed off of the books, similar to other unenforceable laws such as preempted local codes and statutes on guns.

    Unless he's posting graphic particulars of his activities, the statement made is exaggerated.

    I had a person take an issue with the fact that when I had a bad encounter with the State Patrol here in Washington on the State Ferry system, because, like several other heterosexual couples on the boat, I held hands while on the ship's lookout with my partner. It was almost as of this particular person wanted me to have a bad encounter with the State Patrol because how dare I do that. Luckily for both of us it didn't happen during the trip there, but the trip back when he wasn't with me upstairs on the Ferry boat.

    Just a perspective from me on that score.
    Charles and David are both from the same state, and have worked together on RKBA issues more than once.

    The dialog in posts by both men, in this thread and in others,reflects facts not in evidence in this forum.



    Tarzan

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,158

    Post imported post

    David Nelson wrote:
    Once I'm called "repulsive" and un-Mormon (as a rare double-descendant of George Q. Cannon, I don't know how much more Mormon anyone could be) by ONE person, the dialogue is over for me with him. But, nothing else about my posts will change.

    Next. Move on. Nothing to see here. Have ya seen those new AR-15s?!?

    David Nelson
    Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah
    Salt Lake City
    I have NEVER called YOU repulsive.

    I have stated that certain ACTIVITIES repulse me. Just as I'm sure certain things would not appeal to you. I have requested that we avoid making reference to sexual activities. They have NOTHING to do with RKBA and those who strongly support RKBA can have very differing views on gay-marriage, the Lawrence SCOTUS decision, etc.

    Nor I have ever called you "un-Mormon."

    I have offered my opinion on efficacy of making financial threats to the LDS church trying to change their position on privately carried firearms in their houses of worhip. I also questioned how often you actually frequented LDS houses of worship or the extent to which you were currently involved in the LDS church. You ancestry to early LDS leaders is WHOLLY irrelevent to ANY of this.

    If you wish for me to start to include my views of abortion, gay marriage, and other issues into my RKBA posts, I can and will.

    All I've done is tried to civily request that we stay on topic AND respect differences of opinion on non-RKBA issues.

    Is that too much to ask?

    I will do my very best to be respectful and keep my opinions on non-RKBA issues off of RKBA boards. But I won't live by rules others are not abiding.

    If you wish to bring up gay issues, I will comment on them. If that offends you, your choice. But you may want to consider whether your RKBA is better preserved by raising occassion to be offended on gay issues or whether it is better preserved by saving those discussions for other forums.

    Charles

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,158

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    Sorry, I didn't go back and read the entire thread, but "sodomy" is not a purely homosexual act. The previous poster may have indeed been referencing a homosexual act, but I don't recal him being specific about it. (but it has been several days since I read that post) I won't copy/paste the dictionary definition, but I just looked at it, and sodomy can be either hetero or homosexual. It describes a sex "act" and not the orientation of the offender. Can we drop this baloney about homosexual references now that it's been clarifies that sodomy is not a strictly homosexual act?
    More than happy to drop it. Wish it hadn't come up in the first place.

    Whether it is strictly homosexual or not is NOT the crux of my concern. My concern is that it is grossly off topic on this board.

    Just so all know, Dave Nelson and I know each other and have worked together on RKBA issues here in Utah in the past. I like Dave personally. And he lends a very important and diverse voice to RKBA issues in Utah since he is the founder of Utah's "Stonewall Shooting Sports Association" (previously they were affiliated with the national Pink Pistols) a gay, lesbian, transgendered, etc friendly and centric pro-RKBA organization with the very credible and pithy motto "Armed gays don't get bashed." Dave is openly homosexual. So when he mentions that anti-sodomy laws make him a de facto criminal, I assume he is writing in that context. He is free to correct me if I am wrong. But I won't be beat up on less than honest dodging on that one.

    David is at least as passionate about pro-gay issues as he is about RKBA.

    While I do not spend nearly the time and energy on such issues as I do on RKBA, I am strongly opinionated and guided by my most deeply held religious, moral, and social beliefs that it would be very bad public policy to legalize gay marriage or grant any further societal recognition or acceptance of homosexual conduct. NO desire to see anyone bashed for their private sexual choices. But a strong desire to see society not further reduce acceptable morality.

    There is no reason for Dave and me to discuss gay issues beyond the right of self defense. There is no reason to risk damaging a working relationship on RKBA over other issues.

    I've done my best to remain mute on those issues and polite in my request that they not be discussed on this forum. But if Dave or others bring them up I do feel both within my rights as well as compelled in standing for societal morals (just as I stand for OC and RKBA in general) to offer my views. As can be seen from Dave's post, that leads to hard feelings.

    So YES, please, let's drop the topic and lets avoid brining it up again in the future.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    Ditto RKBA and abortion, RKBA and taxes, RKBA and the war on terror, RKBA and welfare, RKBA and "hate" crimes, RKBA and school vouchers, RKBA and animal "rights", and RKBA and almost every other issue.
    Allow me to add one to your list: RKBA and immigration policy.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,158

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    Ditto RKBA and abortion, RKBA and taxes, RKBA and the war on terror, RKBA and welfare, RKBA and "hate" crimes, RKBA and school vouchers, RKBA and animal "rights", and RKBA and almost every other issue.
    Allow me to add one to your list: RKBA and immigration policy.
    Fully agreed.

    I'm sure many of us here have strong opinions one way or the other on immigration, border security, etc. Except perhaps in the rare case of discussing RKBA/OC/CC on the part of non-citizens, these issues are off topic.

    I'll reiterate again, GOUtah! and Utah's other pro-RKBA groups have been very successful largely because we have not allowed non RKBA issues to fracture us. Among those of us who comprise GOUtah!'s governing board, for example, we have a conservative, a libertarian, and a liberal.

    The gun grabbers do a pretty good job of dividing and conquering us as they go after machine guns, or "assault rifles" or "Saturday nigh specials" or sniper rifles, or "pocket rockets." And for far too long we've played along. Rural duck and deer hunters haven't considered they might be the next target after self-defense shooters are disarmed. Urban self-defense shooters have been too quick to support laws making hunting more difficult or expensive, not considering the strength to be had with the large number of hunters.

    We too often see conservative gun owners unwilling to reach out to liberals, never considering the unique perspective that gay or inner-city or minority gun owners can bring to legislative hearings. They forget that many union democrats voted against Gore and Kerry and the further infringements those administrations would have brought. Liberal gun owners are often far too quick to be offensive in expressing their non-RKBA views, never considering that were it not for conservatives, RKBA would have ceased in this nation long ago and that it is conservatives who, by and large, lead the charge on RKBA still. The GOP is far from perfect on RKBA. But the Democratic party remains downright hostile; but smart enough to avoid admitting to it at election time.

    We can hang together on RKBA, or we can hang separately. But hanging together requires that we place ALL other issues asside when working on RKBA. We then need to be civil in our disagreements when we find ourselves on opposite sides of other issues.



  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,158

    Post imported post

    David Nelson wrote
    And another: RKBA and the Mormon church. It expressed its opinion clearly.
    I agree that all Churches and religion are generally off topic here as well.

    However, considering that houses of worship are one of only TWO privately owned properties in the State of Utah (along with private residences) where there is any potential for a direct, criminal charge for having an unwanted gun present, there are going to be times when churches are definately directly on-topic here.

    And in the Utah pages specifically, one would have to be grossly ignorant or naive to think that the opinions and views of the LDS Church--both those that are officially and publicly expressed, as well as those that are likely to be expressed privately to law makers--are not relevant when those opinions touch upon gun laws or RKBA.

    And between the '96 press release from the first presidency disinviting ALL privately carried weapons (but exempting LEOs), the official actions of the LDS church to avail themselves of the law allowing them to ban private guns just after the law went into effect in about '03, the press release at about that same time, and the letter sent to Bishop's (but not read over the pulpit) about the same time, along with semi-private information I and others who have worked this issue with the LDS Church know and have attempted to properly convey to any willing to listen, it is clear that the LDS Church leadership does not want privately owned guns on their property here in Utah. I'll say again, the current law was and is a compromise. The LDS Church (and some other churches I might add) did NOT get everything they wanted. Neither was it everything the RKBA community might have hoped for. But it is a workable, if imperfect, balance between RKBA and the right to control private, religious property.

    Dave, let's stop dancing around this and cut to the chase. The LDS Church has taken a political and legal position at odds with most all on this list when it comes to RKBA. They have an even longer, and much more active history taking both political, legal, social, and doctrinal positions in direct confclit with your views on gay issues. I suspect there are several other issues where you and the LDS Church have been at odds given their socially conserativism and your more liberal view of the world including perhpas the ERA and gambling. I would further suspect that most of those who have most actively opposed you on other political and social matters including "hate crimes" legislation have been active members of the LDS Church (though I note the LDS Church did everything short of actually endorsing the last "hate crimes" bill to come along). And yes, I put "hate crimes" in quotes because I'm not sure what a "love crime" is and I oppose giving special protections to anyone because of group membership. Rights are individual, not collective, but such comments are, by my own admission, inapproprite on an RKBA list.

    Your angsts towards and unhappiness with the LDS Church is understandable. It is also tiresome on an RKBA list (especially on the Utah portion of such a list). Let it go and focus on what you can change. Affiliate with whatever church or other organization will meet your spiritual and social needs. Stop digging at or trying to antagonize the LDS Church on RKBA. It does no good, wastes energy, and is likely to result in hard feelings.

    I will also continue to remind you and others of the unique political realities in Utah. Going head to head against the LDS church in Utah is like going head to head against corn growers in Iowa or the UAW in Michigan. It is an exercise best avoided if at all possible. Fortunately, going head to head with pro-RKBA community in Utah is very similar. So we have an uneasy--but perfectly workable--"truce" on guns. Take it for what it is worth.


  22. #22
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,317

    Post imported post

    Well utbagpiper, your lengthy posts of intolerance seemed to have shunned David from this forum. If you check his profile, he has deleted everything he has ever written and replaced it with "No longer a OpenCarry.org subscriber."
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    Well utbagpiper, your lengthy posts of intolerance seemed to have shunned David from this forum. If you check his profile, he has deleted everything he has ever written and replaced it with "No longer a OpenCarry.org subscriber."
    I repeat;



    tarzan1888 wrote:
    Charles and David are both from the same state, and have worked together on RKBA issues more than once.

    The dialog in posts by both men, in this thread and in others,reflects facts not in evidence in this forum.



    Tarzan

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,158

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    Well utbagpiper, your lengthy posts of intolerance seemed to have shunned David from this forum. If you check his profile, he has deleted everything he has ever written and replaced it with "No longer a OpenCarry.org subscriber."
    I am definately verbose. Wasn't aware that was reason to take offense.

    I defy you or anyone else to point to any intolerance in my posts, especially in the full context of those "lengthy" posts.

    I'm sorry to see Dave leave. I fear the he has chosen to take offense where none was intended and that a working relationship has been damaged simply because he cannot accept my personal views on the very issues where I have been more than willing to live with his personal views. That is unfortunate and is why I avoid posting my opinions on non-RKBA topics on an RKBA list. That is especially true for "hot button" issues like abortion, gay issues, etc.

    But again, if he or others feel compelled to preach their views on non-RKBA issues I will feel free to counter with my own positions.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    There are people in this world who will always stand for what is right and speak up, even when others do not like what they say, which is true.

    There are people who are professional victims in this world, will always be victims, and love taking on that role



    The RKBA and professional victims tend to be mutually exclusive, with one group looking always for sympathy and the other group looking to take control of their own destiny.



    Every time I go to the SLC Airport, I carry a loaded handgun that is either open or concealed, while I am in the non-sterile portions of the airport.



    That is what this thread is about and that is why I am posting.





    Tarzan

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •