Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: USSC URGENT ACTION ALERT 3/7/2011 Immediate action required- ADVANCE YOUR GUN RIGHTS!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy, Utah, USA
    Posts
    31

    USSC URGENT ACTION ALERT 3/7/2011 Immediate action required- ADVANCE YOUR GUN RIGHTS!

    Since concealedcarry.com is down.......

    YOUR HELP IS NEEDED!
    PLEASE CONTACT LEGISLATORS IMMEDIATELY TO PASS ONE GOOD BILL AND STOP ONE BAD BILL (OR FIX IT AND PASS IT!)- SEND TWO EMAILS NOW!

    ***************
    The Legislature's session ends Thursday at midnight. They still are working on many bills, but Utah Shooting Sports Council needs your help to push them to work on two important bills, and there are other less important bills pending as well. Seven good gun bills have already passed. Details on the USSC website http://UtahShootingSports.com


    ***************
    ACTION STEP ONE
    Email or FAX the draft email below (or one similar to it using your own words) to all members of the House Rules Committee listed below. This is needed to get Rep. Paul Ray's HB 424 passed to fix the problem with some government agencies trying to harass gun owners over the mere sight of a legally carried gun by claiming it constitutes "disorderly conduct."

    Send to all of these: wharper@utah.gov; bird@utah.gov; biskupski@utah.gov; dclark@utah.gov; mikemorley@utah.gov; ryanwilcox@utah.gov; wiley@utah.gov; cwimmer@utah.gov; billwright@utah.gov

    DRAFT EMAIL OR FAX
    Subject- Ensure HB 424 Firearms Revisions by Rep. Paul Ray gets considered

    Dear House Rules Committee members: I urge you to ensure that HB 424 Firearms Revisions by Rep. Paul Ray gets to the floor in time for passage by both chambers this session. This bill is urgently needed to stop harassment of lawful gun owners by some who wrongly claim that the mere sight of a gun somehow constitutes "disorderly conduct."
    [insert your name and address]


    ***************
    ACTION STEP TWO

    Contact your Representative by email, phone or FAX and ask them to vote AGAINST HB 129 Firearms Modifications by Rep. Carl Wimmer unless the amendments made in Committee are removed. This was an excellent "Constitutional Carry" bill eliminating the need for permission slips for law abiding citizens to carry legal self defense weapons. However, a committee added a convoluted notification scheme that negatively impacts existing laws regarding legal possession of firearms. If the amendments are removed, USSC strongly favors the bill.

    Email, call or FAX this message to YOUR representative (see next item if you need to find their name and email address:

    DRAFT EMAIL OR FAX
    Subject- Vote NO on HB 129 Firearms Modifications unless returned to original form

    Dear Representative
    I must regretfully request that you vote AGAINST Rep. Wimmer's HB 129 Firearms Modifications bill (sometimes called "Constitutional Carry") unless the amendments made in Committee are removed. If the amendments are removed, then I would strongly urge you to vote FOR this bill. This bill would make Utah's weapons laws similar to the current provisions in Vermont, Alaska and Arizona, and currently being advanced in a dozen others.
    [insert your name and address]


    ***************
    HOW TO FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE'S CONTACT INFORMATION
    Use this easy tool to identify your Utah Representative District and their email address and phone number- http://www.le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp

    Just enter your address, and then click on the name of the REPRESENTATIVE and then click on their email address to open a form where you can email them.

    If you know your district or your Representative's name you can go to the House roster and click there for the email addresses for all Utah Representatives http://www.utah.gov/house/representatives.html

    House FAX number for all members is (801) 326-1544


    ***************
    USSC WEBSITE-
    http://UtahShootingSports.com includes frequent updates of gun related news stories from Utah and around the nation. There are daily updates on gun related bills during the Legislative Session. You can sign up for our Alerts, or remove your name, or change your email address (add the new one and delete the old one).

    Thanks for your time!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    HB 129 is currently circled (held) on the House third reading calendar which means that unless a representative specifically requests that it be brought up for a vote, it is dead for the session.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    5
    Too bad... This could have been a good bill, but got screwed up in committee. The amendment as the INTENDED to put it in wouldn't have been horrible. At least it wouldn't have affected permit holders. But it got written in wrong and blew up in our faces. DOH!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashbob View Post
    Too bad... This could have been a good bill, but got screwed up in committee. The amendment as the INTENDED to put it in wouldn't have been horrible. At least it wouldn't have affected permit holders. But it got written in wrong and blew up in our faces. DOH!
    ANY requirement to notify is poison whether it affects permit holders or not. SCOTUS has already ruled that it is a 5th Amendment violation to require a criminal to notify, so it would only apply to law abiding citizens.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    ANY requirement to notify is poison whether it affects permit holders or not. SCOTUS has already ruled that it is a 5th Amendment violation to require a criminal to notify, so it would only apply to law abiding citizens.
    I agree with that. But would the baby step (getting constitutional carry but with the exception that those who carry without a permit be subject to notification) be better than no improvement at all? If the bad notify clause doesn't impact those who can already carry, it seems that a small step forward is better than no step forward. I'm interested to hear your opinion.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    The way it was intended, the requirement to notify would be nothing more than entrapment because the vast majority of those without a CFP would not know of the requirement and criminals would, by SCOTUS ruling, exempt from the requirement.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashbob View Post
    I agree with that. But would the baby step (getting constitutional carry but with the exception that those who carry without a permit be subject to notification) be better than no improvement at all? If the bad notify clause doesn't impact those who can already carry, it seems that a small step forward is better than no step forward. I'm interested to hear your opinion.
    I believe that if the requirement to notify applied ONLY to those carrying under the new law, it would be a tolerant compromise to advance RKBA a bit forward.

    But to impose an RTN on those who can already legally carry (permit holders, in your own car, on your own property, while afield, at your campsite, etc) without any RTN would be too big of a step backward on that front in order to gain a little easier carry on the other front.


    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne
    The way it was intended, the requirement to notify would be nothing more than entrapment because the vast majority of those without a CFP would not know of the requirement and criminals would, by SCOTUS ruling, exempt from the requirement.
    I will respectfully disagree with this assessment. True criminals are not required to notify under the 5th amd. But anyone who presumes to carry a gun is public better know the laws. And anyone carrying loaded or concealed without a permit better know the law well enough to know whether or when he needs to notify; just as we all need to know that there are certain locations off limits that may not be clearly posted at the location itself including some churches, schools, and the 1000' buffer zone around schools.

    I would, of course, prefer no RTN at all. But I do think an RTN affecting only those who are gaining the ability to carry without a permit is probably tolerable.

    Charles

Posting Permissions

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