• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
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)

20080110__ut_airportguns%7E2_Viewer.jpg


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

date.png
January 10th, 2008
filed.png
Top Stories http://www.newsnet14.com/2008/01/10/utah-gun-owners-allowed-to-carry-in-airport/




gun-and-holster.thumbnail.jpg
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.


[align=left]--


http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/172102.html



[/align][align=justify][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][/font]


[/align][align=justify][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][/font][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]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
[/font][/align]



--
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.


--
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
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.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Pa. Patriot

State Researcher
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,441
Location
Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
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....
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.
 

b1ack5mith

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
1,146
Location
Payson, Utah, USA
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!)
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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.
 

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
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?
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
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
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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.
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
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.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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.
 
Top