Ebeye
Regular Member
imported post
I've recently written a couple of emails out and thought the forum, particularly locals to Logan, might be interested to know of them.
The first is to the new Logan police chief Gary Jensen. The email should be self explaining.
"Chief Jensen,
I caught a few minutes of you on the radio (KVNU) this morning with Jenny but didn't have the opportunity to call in.
When asked about coming legislation, you expressed concern that a proposed bill might "allow" (your word) people to carry firearms on their hip. What did you mean by that?
The self- protection community is already wondering why such a bill would be forwarded as the state law, which by verbiage, pre-empts any more restrictive county and city ordinances, since the current law recognizes the peoples' rights to openly carry already. For reference sake, start at Utah State Code 76-10-500 through at least 76-10-505.
Up until late last summer, Logan did have an ordinance which restricted open firearm carry within city limits. When it was brought to light that Logan was in violation of state law, under the advice of the state AG's office and the city attorney, the city council removed the ordinance.
I would suggest that citizens open carrying are at least as much a crime deterrent as officers are. (A concealed carrier looks like another indefensible while there's not doubt about the open carrier). If carrying made people a bigger target, then officers would be under necessity of concealing 24/7. Open recognition of the ability of a citizen, whether an officer or not, to prevent or mitigate bad behavior should be an appreciated benefit by all. Except in the rarest of cases, I've not seen in the news where criminals openly carry or brandish PRIOR to committing a crime. They hide their weapons. I know that the department does it's best at crime prevention, but unfortunately, when physical crime does occur, it's usually the officers' job to define what happened and clean up the mess post facto. And many of us won't be at the convenience of our homes' gun case if/when someone with mal intent chooses to pick on us.
Though not regularly, I, and other locals, have open carried in our business about town. I have been in quite a number of shops, grocery stores and restaurants, with my wife and child and without them, and have yet to have ANY negative comment or be asked to leave a property. I HAVE had some number of positive comments from people. I must assume that the rest either don't notice or don't care. It's hard to miss a Glock in a Serpa holster on someone's hip!
I am not trying to make waves or be a trouble maker. To carry the ability to defend oneself and friends has always been the mark of a free citizen, long before anyone tried to write it down on paper. If our pledges and citizens and your oaths as officers mean something to the freedom of all, then no peace officers have nothing to fear from any peace loving citizens, gun toting or not.
I look forward to your comments. Thanks in advance for your time.
Walt Appel"
The second email regards my still unanswered question about seemingly contradictory laws on the books and is written to Curt Webb, my local representative. It also should be self explanatory.
"Rep. Webb,
I'm sure that with the session coming up that you have plenty of work
to do so I'll try to keep my interest/question short. BTW, I am
writing to you because I emailed the same query to the state AG's
office about a year ago and they declined to answer my query, stating
that I should contact an attorney to find an answer! I find it odd
that the state agency tasked with enforcing the law would not care to
answer a seemingly simple question! I know you're not a trained
attorney, but perhaps either by way of understanding, or via peers in
the Legislature, you could answer find an answer.
How can the Legislature pass laws which surpass the clear limits
placed by the State Constitution? To wit, this particular area
(though I'm sure there are others!), which has been of considerable
interest to many.
Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for
security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state,
as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but
nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful
use of arms.
Versus these:
76-10-500 Uniform law.
WP Zipped -- 2,133 bytes
76-10-501 Definitions.
WP Zipped -- 5,203 bytes
76-10-502 When weapon deemed loaded.
WP Zipped -- 1,810 bytes
76-10-503  Restrictions on possession, purchase, transfer, and
ownership of dangerous weapons by certain persons.
WP Zipped -- 3,164 bytes
76-10-504 Carrying concealed dangerous weapon -- Penalties.
WP Zipped -- 2,492 bytes
76-10-505 Carrying loaded firearm in vehicle or on street.
WP Zipped -- 1,910 bytes
76-10-505.5 Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-
off shotgun on or about school premises -- Penalties.
Subsequent sections define the USE of firearms, which is clearly
stated to be in the purview of the constitutional mandate. That
said, how is it that legislation has long been passed, and to my
understanding more is being proposed this coming session, that
clearly is an "infringement" according to the true definition of the
word usage???? How can the plain language of the Constitution be so
clearly bypassed AS WELL AS supported by officers and judges who, to
my understanding, have sworn to uphold the law? The laws seem to be
quite contradictory.
I hope you'll be able to shed light on this for me. I don't want to
create waves nor find myself crossways with good laws. But it seems
to me that the laws of the land are no more straight or crooked than
the people themselves. Ink on paper guarantees nothing.
Thanks for your time and efforts in advance."
Rep. Webb did send this ditty in return.
Hi Walt,
I forwarded your email to Rep. Oda. He is kind of our resident gun
expert. Let me know if you don't hear from him.
Curt
I've recently written a couple of emails out and thought the forum, particularly locals to Logan, might be interested to know of them.
The first is to the new Logan police chief Gary Jensen. The email should be self explaining.
"Chief Jensen,
I caught a few minutes of you on the radio (KVNU) this morning with Jenny but didn't have the opportunity to call in.
When asked about coming legislation, you expressed concern that a proposed bill might "allow" (your word) people to carry firearms on their hip. What did you mean by that?
The self- protection community is already wondering why such a bill would be forwarded as the state law, which by verbiage, pre-empts any more restrictive county and city ordinances, since the current law recognizes the peoples' rights to openly carry already. For reference sake, start at Utah State Code 76-10-500 through at least 76-10-505.
Up until late last summer, Logan did have an ordinance which restricted open firearm carry within city limits. When it was brought to light that Logan was in violation of state law, under the advice of the state AG's office and the city attorney, the city council removed the ordinance.
I would suggest that citizens open carrying are at least as much a crime deterrent as officers are. (A concealed carrier looks like another indefensible while there's not doubt about the open carrier). If carrying made people a bigger target, then officers would be under necessity of concealing 24/7. Open recognition of the ability of a citizen, whether an officer or not, to prevent or mitigate bad behavior should be an appreciated benefit by all. Except in the rarest of cases, I've not seen in the news where criminals openly carry or brandish PRIOR to committing a crime. They hide their weapons. I know that the department does it's best at crime prevention, but unfortunately, when physical crime does occur, it's usually the officers' job to define what happened and clean up the mess post facto. And many of us won't be at the convenience of our homes' gun case if/when someone with mal intent chooses to pick on us.
Though not regularly, I, and other locals, have open carried in our business about town. I have been in quite a number of shops, grocery stores and restaurants, with my wife and child and without them, and have yet to have ANY negative comment or be asked to leave a property. I HAVE had some number of positive comments from people. I must assume that the rest either don't notice or don't care. It's hard to miss a Glock in a Serpa holster on someone's hip!
I am not trying to make waves or be a trouble maker. To carry the ability to defend oneself and friends has always been the mark of a free citizen, long before anyone tried to write it down on paper. If our pledges and citizens and your oaths as officers mean something to the freedom of all, then no peace officers have nothing to fear from any peace loving citizens, gun toting or not.
I look forward to your comments. Thanks in advance for your time.
Walt Appel"
The second email regards my still unanswered question about seemingly contradictory laws on the books and is written to Curt Webb, my local representative. It also should be self explanatory.
"Rep. Webb,
I'm sure that with the session coming up that you have plenty of work
to do so I'll try to keep my interest/question short. BTW, I am
writing to you because I emailed the same query to the state AG's
office about a year ago and they declined to answer my query, stating
that I should contact an attorney to find an answer! I find it odd
that the state agency tasked with enforcing the law would not care to
answer a seemingly simple question! I know you're not a trained
attorney, but perhaps either by way of understanding, or via peers in
the Legislature, you could answer find an answer.
How can the Legislature pass laws which surpass the clear limits
placed by the State Constitution? To wit, this particular area
(though I'm sure there are others!), which has been of considerable
interest to many.
Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for
security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state,
as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but
nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful
use of arms.
Versus these:
76-10-500 Uniform law.
WP Zipped -- 2,133 bytes
76-10-501 Definitions.
WP Zipped -- 5,203 bytes
76-10-502 When weapon deemed loaded.
WP Zipped -- 1,810 bytes
76-10-503  Restrictions on possession, purchase, transfer, and
ownership of dangerous weapons by certain persons.
WP Zipped -- 3,164 bytes
76-10-504 Carrying concealed dangerous weapon -- Penalties.
WP Zipped -- 2,492 bytes
76-10-505 Carrying loaded firearm in vehicle or on street.
WP Zipped -- 1,910 bytes
76-10-505.5 Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-
off shotgun on or about school premises -- Penalties.
Subsequent sections define the USE of firearms, which is clearly
stated to be in the purview of the constitutional mandate. That
said, how is it that legislation has long been passed, and to my
understanding more is being proposed this coming session, that
clearly is an "infringement" according to the true definition of the
word usage???? How can the plain language of the Constitution be so
clearly bypassed AS WELL AS supported by officers and judges who, to
my understanding, have sworn to uphold the law? The laws seem to be
quite contradictory.
I hope you'll be able to shed light on this for me. I don't want to
create waves nor find myself crossways with good laws. But it seems
to me that the laws of the land are no more straight or crooked than
the people themselves. Ink on paper guarantees nothing.
Thanks for your time and efforts in advance."
Rep. Webb did send this ditty in return.
Hi Walt,
I forwarded your email to Rep. Oda. He is kind of our resident gun
expert. Let me know if you don't hear from him.
Curt