My commentary on a variety of issues that interest me including gun rights, individual liberty, illegal immigration, politics, religion, taxes, aviation, judicial activism, journalistic bias and laziness, environmental activism, education, family, health, gardening, history, Scouting, genealogy, etc.
My employment is as an international airline captain. In real life, I strike fear into the US Department of Homeland Security as a rightwing extremist (in other words, I believe in God, go to church regularly, own a gun or two, oppose Al Gore and the environmentalist fraud, expect the government to aggressively enforce immigration laws, believe English should be established as the nation's official language, believe the US Constitution says what it says, seek a return to the limited federal government described in the US Constitution, and as a military veteran have sworn to support and defend the Constitution). To quote one of my heroes, Captain Moroni: "I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country." (Book of Mormon, Alma 60:36) In my spare time, I serve on the local Boy Scout District Training Committee. I coach a 4-H Shooting Sports club (see 4-H link below). I also teach the Utah Hunter Education Course, the Utah Concealed Firearm Course, and various other gun safety classes including most NRA courses (see Firearm Training link below).
The Clinton Administration claimed it's policy was to make abortion "safe, legal and rare." Obama also claims that this also is his administration's policy.
Safe? Abortion is not as safe for the mother as advocates want us to believe and it is especially not safe for the baby -- half of whom are girls.
Legal? Abortion is legal only because too American voters seem to view life as nothing more than something to be discarded -- like used toilet paper.
Rare? This nation has been killing one-fourth of its pregnancies for decades -- 3,300 per day. Unless voters muster up a sense of morality, abortion will never be rare because it is so lucrative for abortionists and for politicians who accept donations from abortionists and abortion advocates.
Most abortions are performed only because the child is inconvenient -- and, by law, disposable. Abortion is evil. Every voter who votes for a pro-abortion politician is complicit this mass slaughter.
First they came for the full autos and silencers, and I did not speak out because I did not own full autos or silencers.
Then they banned trading guns across state lines, and I did not speak up because I bought my guns in state.
Then they banned guns at school, and I did not speak up because I home schooled my children.
Then they came for the semi-automatic rifles with 2 cosmetic features, and I did not speak up because I did not have any semi-automatic rifles with 2 cosmetic features.
Then they came for the semi-automatic rifles with 1 cosmetic feature, and I did not speak up because I did not have any semi-automatic rifles with 1 cosmetic feature.
Then they came for the pump action shotguns with pistol grips, and I did not speak up because I did not have any pump action shotguns with pistol grip.
Then they restricted ammunition magazines to 30 rounds, and I did not speak up because none of my ammunition magazines were larger than 30 rounds.
Then they created a de facto national gun registry guised as background checks, and I did not speak up because I already bought my guns through licensed dealers.
Then they came for all semi-automatic rifles, and I did not speak up because I did not have any semi-automatic rifles.
Then they came for the ammunition magazines over 10 rounds, and I did not speak up because none of my magazines were larger than 10 rounds.
Then they came for the semi-automatic handguns, and I did not speak up because I did not have any semi-automatic handguns.
Then they came for the pump action shotguns, and I did not speak up because I did not have any pump action shotguns.
Then they came for the revolvers, and I did not speak up because I did not have any revolvers.
Then they came for the bolt action rifles, and I did not speak up because I did not have any bolt action rifles.
Then when they came for the double barreled shotguns and single shot rifles, there was no one left to defend them from government confiscation.
A man must not only stand for the right principles, but he must also fight for them. Those who fight for principle can be proud of the friends they've gained and the enemies they've earned. — Ezra Taft Benson
Any time we deny any citizen the full exercise of his constitutional rights, we are weakening our own claim to them. — Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th US President, WWII General (Reader's Digest, Dec 1963)
A person's rights are best secured by conceding the very same rights to every other person under the same jurisdiction. — Balint Vazsonyi
We're most likely to lose our rights when we allow ourselves to be persuaded to deprive others of theirs. — L. Neil Smith
he strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty-bound to do his share in this defense are constitutional rights secure. — Albert Einstein
There is no question that we must be good stewards of the planet that God gave us. But, those who learn from history know that EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulation is an expensive and inefficient way to protect our environment.
Innovation is best driven by consumer preferences and entrepreneurial spirit, not forced by regulation and central planning. While regulation does drive some innovation, the net effect of the EPA’s regulation is job and income losses and constrained innovation by companies to meet consumer desires. Government-driven innovation almost always results in products that don't work, that fail prematurely, and that don't meet consumer needs. EPA-driven fuel-economy and emissions standards for automobiles are a prime example.
An example of how the EPA has adversely distorted the market is the SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle). Many Americans drive large gas-hog four-wheel-drive SUVs -- not because they need the off-road capability, but because they need the space and payload capacity. They need to move family, groceries, soccer teams, Cub Scout packs, camp trailers, ski boats, etc. A generation ago, Americans did all these chores with relatively more efficient and cheaper "station wagons". The traditional station wagon has been so crippled by EPA-mandated 'innovations" that it no longer meets the needs of many American families. So, Americans have resorted to SUVs -- trucks in disguise -- to meet their transportation needs.
If not disbanded altogether, the EPA clearly needs to take a different path -- a path which must be based on the US Constitution and the limits it imposes on central-government power. More specifically, our laws and regulations must come from the legislative branch of the central government -- not from unelected and unaccountable career bureaucrats.
Obama has nominated career bureaucrat Gina McCarthy to run the EPA. By her actions and her words, she has made it clear that she wants to micromanage American life. She wants to make the rules in defiance of Congress. She said,
But I will tell you that I didn't go to Washington to sit around and wait for Congressional action. Never done that before, and don’t plan to in the future.
This activist mentality is not appropriate for any federal employee, especially an agency administrator. The EPA’s regulatory overreach has already surpassed every other agency in abusing legal authority to the detriment of the economy, jobs, and Liberty. The EPA desperately needs a leader who will rein in the EPA, not one who seeks to use it to defy the elected representatives of the People.
Gina McCarty must be denied any position of influence or authority in the central government.
On April 2, the United Nations General Assembly voted 153-4 to pass the Arms Trade Treaty, with the United States voting in favor. The Community Organizer in Chief reportedly will sign the treaty early in June. The primary beneficiaries of this treaty will be third-world dictators who will be relieved of concerns that freedom fighters might be able to overthrow tyranny.
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) urged Senate opposition, declaring, "It's our job to make sure any treaty the US enters doesn't interfere with our sovereign ability to uphold the rights of Americans....The arms treaty simply doesn't include strong enough protections to pass that test, and I won't support any treaty that undermines the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Montanans."
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) joined in by saying, "I have great concerns that this treaty can be used to violate the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, and do not believe we should sign any treaty that infringes on the sovereignty of our country."
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) added, "The UN Arms Trade Treaty that passed in the General Assembly today would require the United States to implement gun-control legislation as required by the treaty, which could supersede the laws our elected officials have already put into place."
I find the text of the approved treaty to be deeply troubling because threatens the rights and privacy of American gun owners. Signatories are encouraged to keep information on the "end users" of arms imported into their territory and supply such information to the exporting country. The treaty also encourages states to adopt domestic legislation to facilitate the treaty's onerous requirements. It is clear that the Obama Administration is eager to do so.
If ratified by the US Senate, this treaty would join the US Constitution as a significant part of "the supreme law of the land." Ratification of the treaty would require the consent of 67 senators, something which seems unlikely.
Unfortunately, once a treaty has been signed, it typically haunts American Liberty in perpetuity, unless a later president withdraws from it. Even if not ratified by the Senate, history proves that anti-Constitution presidents and bureaucrats can and will do much to comply with unratified treaties through administrative action. Congress also can, and likely will, do much to comply with an unratified Arms Trade Treaty through legislation that doesn't need the two-thirds treaty-ratification vote.
It is every senator's sworn duty to defend the US Constitution. I therefore urge every senator to not only work aggressively toward Senate rejection of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, but to implement legislation that will defund and/or prohibit any and all Administration efforts to comply with any feature of the treaty which adversely affects American rights to arms.
Further, this vote highlights how important it is for the Senate to never confirm a presidential nominee who is an enemy of the Constitution. If the Senate took this essential role seriously, there never would have been anyone representing the US to the UN who would have voted for this monstrosity.
This week, the US Supreme Court has announced that it will decide whether a couple of marriage-defining laws are valid: California's Proposition 8 wherein a majority of California voters defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman and the Federal Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) which does the same thing for federal purposes.
For all of recorded history, society has defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman -- sometimes multiple spouses. Nature establishes the same definition.
Ah, but some people are smarter than God, don't you know? In recent years, a tiny segment of society has chosen to change that definition and impose it on others. Because we have lost touch with God and Nature, that tiny minority has successfully evangelized and bullied a growing segment of society into accepting that revolutionary redefinition. This is where the State Religion of Secularism has taken us.
The redefinition and destruction of marriage began many decades ago when we allowed government to usurp control over marriage away from the Church and the family -- for racist reasons. Fellow commentator Connor Boyack agreed that, regarding marriage, Caesar has usurped the role of God.
99% of American's can't, or refuse to see, the root of the problem. We have allowed, even demanded, government to grow to the point where it controls every aspect of our lives. Americans have decided to use government power to impose their values upon others. The extreme divisiveness we have in our nation today is not merely because we all have differing opinions -- but because too many of us want government to impose their own will on those of differing opinions. We have lost sight of the most basic right -- the right to be left alone. Yes, even homosexuals and heterosexuals.
What everyone fails to understand is that politicians, judges, and bureaucrats have decided how we are supposed to behave. They have written laws -- most notably tax laws -- to manipulate us. Instead of fighting to abolish those manipulatory laws, the homosexual community has chosen to have those laws modified to manipulate everyone's behavior the way they want behavior manipulated. Instead of having minimally intrusive government wherein everyone can quietly live their lives so long as they don't infringe the rights of others, activists seek to impose their will on everyone else.
The founders wisely envisioned government as existing to protect our rights -- not to define and regulate them. They wrote a Constitution with very limited and clearly define powers delegated to the central government, leaving all other power to the States and the people.
But, being ignorant products of a Secularist education system most Americans have no clue what their rights really are nor how the Constitution would protect them if followed. So, instead of telling the government to keep their hands off our rights, Americans demand that government define and redefine rights to suit one special interest group or another!
Consequently, the central government gets to make decisions on virtually every aspect of life -- even basic religious and family issues such as marriage and how to raise a child.
The controversial cases currently before the Supreme Court (California's Prop. 8 and DOMA) ask the wrong question. The correct question is whether the central government has any authority whatsoever to define marriage or to reward/punish one form of marriage or another or even punish/reward bachelorhood. A careful reading of the Constitution shows that it does not.
I subscribe to the time-tested Biblical definition of marriage. But, I do not seek to impose it on anyone else. I only ask homosexual activists to give me the same respect -- to not bully me into endorsing their lifestyle or to use government to force me to endorse or pay for it. Leave me and my religious beliefs alone!
Utah HB.114 (Second Amendment Preservation Act) was probably the most important piece of legislation to be considered in Utah this year. I am pleased that my representatives, Senator Evan Vickers and Representative John Westwood had the courage to support this bill and I thank them.
Not only was HB.114 an effort to enforce the Second Amendment, it was a effort to enforce the Tenth Amendment. More importantly, it was an effort to enforce the entire US Constitution by telling the central government that it has exceeded its authority and that the People of Utah will not tolerate that usurpation of power.
I am saddened that the leadership of the Utah Senate and Utah Governor Gary Herbert were unwilling to take that stand. The People of the State of Utah and the People of the United States also lost when that bill failed.
Every member of the Utah Legislature as well as the Governor have a sworn duty to defend the Utah Constitution and the US Constitution. HB.114 was designed to do exactly that. Unfortunately, not enough of those sworn defenders were willing to take a stand.
I suspect that many of the weak-kneed politicians who didn't support HB.114 were largely concerned about money. You see, a substantial portion of each state's budget is "free" money from the central government. That shameful dependency includes Utah. Standing up to the central government is a good way to lose that "free" money. Too many of the Utah's elected officials prefer the comfort of that "free" money over defending the the Utah Constitution, the US Constitution and Liberty.
To compound the issue, there was a rumor that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" (MAIG, also known as "Muggers Against Individually-owned Guns") funded lobbying efforts against HB.114 and other pro-gun bills this year.
Utah's politicians who failed to support HB.114 should be ashamed. More importantly, the voters who put them in office should be ashamed.
Maxim of the day: Anyone who has to say "I am not a sixth-grader" to get respect probably is.
Today, gun-owning, anti-gun Senator Dianne "I am not a sixth-grader" Feinstein of California had a testy exchange with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas confirming that her gun-control agenda is founded primarily on emotion supplemented by reliance on flawed judicial rulings.
Emotion is a horrid foundation for laws of any kind. This is one of the very reasons we have the US Constitution and why we expect our politicians and judges to fully comply with its limits on government power. When followed, the Constitution protects the People and Liberty from people who are ruled by emotion.
Rand asked Feinstein whether it is appropriate to ration other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights just as she wants to ration the right to arms. She never answered the question, responding only with vague emotion-laced banalities. When challenged on her failure to answer simple questions on rationing rights, she only responded with more emotion-laced banalities. You see, in her mind, her feelings and her desire to get her way trump the Constitution.
It is even more troubling that Feinstein looks to a Supreme Court ruling for loopholes she can exploit to further her agenda. Her oath of office dictates that her sole source for what is constitutional must be the plain wording of the Constitution itself -- not the opinions of lawyers in black robes who can't agree on almost anything and, indeed, did not agree in the Heller Decision she leans on to rationalize her emotional gun-control agenda! It is an awfully weak legislator or president who relies on another branch of government to say what's constitutional -- where is the so-called "balance of powers" in that?
My own oath to the Constitution requires me to oppose any politician whose judgement is so clouded by emotion for so long as is Feinstein's obviously is and who is not consistently guided by the Constitution.
I urge Feinstein, all other politicians, all judges, and all bureaucrats (all of who take an oath to the Constitution) to clear their minds of emotion and base all legislative, regulatory, judicial, and policy decisions on the Constitution.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. -- Second Amendment to the US Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
Every American must understand and always remember that there is no room in the Second and Tenth Amendments (or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights) for any compromise. There is no authority anywhere in the Constitution -- regardless of what lawyers in black robes say -- for the central government to regulate firearms in any way. Indeed, both the Second and Tenth Amendments specifically prohibit the central government from meddling in the right to arms (including the bazooka Feinstein petulantly mentioned in her retort to Cruz).
All federal gun-control legislation, regulation, and policies must be nullified and rescinded immediately. The Constitution and clear-thinking Americans demand it.
There is a bit of grumbling about gun-control activist, retired astronaut, and husband of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly, buying a couple of firearms. Some among the tin-foil-hat brigade are alleging that Kelly committed a crime because he says he wants to give away one of the firearms.
Hypocritical, yes. Unlawful, no.
Buying a firearm as a gift to a law-abiding responsible person is perfectly lawful according to federal law and the laws in the free states such as Arizona where Kelly bought these firearms.
A "straw purchase" is where the purchase is made on behalf of a restricted person. Here is the law:
18 CFR § 922. - Unlawful acts
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who [1] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Kelly's local police department is [hopefully] not a restricted entity.
Remember that Kelly's fellow hypocrite Sarah Brady also bought a rifle as a gift to another (a law-abiding, responsive son). Hypocritical, yes. Unlawful, no.
You see, anti-gun zealots like Mark Kelly, Dianne Feinstein, Sarah Brady, and Barry Soetoro don't want to ban all guns -- just the guns that aren't in the hands of the elite (eg Mark Kelly) and myriad government agents -- just like the Soviet Union.
Kelly claimed that the process of buying the rifle was easy. So? Just how hard should it be for responsible people to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right? My question is, Mr. Kelly, how hard do you think that purchase would have been if your name were in a government database database as one of several categories of restricted persons?
My advice to Mr. Kelly is to keep that rifle. Take it out and shoot it regularly. Take your bride shooting with you. Celebrate your priceless right to responsibly own and use it. Besides, the police will only use it for one of the reasons you need it -- self defense and the defense of your family. But, if you chose to donate it to the local police department, good for you. It's one less expense they need to make -- but don't expect your local taxes to go down. And, don't forget to take that donation off your federal and state income taxes.
Buying a gun is different from voting in many states in some very meaningful ways:
• To buy a gun from a dealer, one must show photo ID to prove identity. The wise seller in a private gun sale imposes the same requirement. On the other hand, in many States, no proof of identity or citizenship is required to vote.
• It is unlawful to legally possess, buy, or sell a firearm or ammunition through a dealer or through a private sale if the buyer has a history of being irresponsible (that'd be that list of a dozen restricting characteristics that Kelly checked off on the Form 4473 he filled out to buy his firearms). On the other hand, in all States, irresponsible people are encouraged to vote.
• The buyer must be a legal resident of one of the United States. On the other hand, many States have no effective process to screen out those who shouldn't be voting.
• To get a firearm permit, one must go to the effort to seek it out and then pass a criminal background check -- in addition the the check required to buy a gun. On the other hand, if a chimpanzee successfully applied for a driver's license, he'd likely also be automatically registered to vote.
Wouldn't it be nice if similar basic standards were applied to voting?
As in the past, I argue that we are not in a struggle against Democrats and Republicans, Liberals against Conservatives, RINOs against Republicans, Left against Right, Moderate against Conservative, Moderate against Liberal. None of those.
Good can carry several names: Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, RINO, Republican, Left, Right, Moderate, Libertarian, etc.
Evil can carry several names: Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, RINO, Republican, Left, Right, Moderate, Libertarian, etc.
The biggest problem we have in our society today is that most people have failed to learn how to recognize the difference between Good and Evil. Instead, we assume that certain labels are good enough to make that distinction. They aren't.
No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. — Samuel Adams (letter to James Warren, 4 Nov 1775)
There is one way of identifying what is True and Good. And it isn't mere labels. It's reliance on God and the guidance he has given us through prophets and personal inspiration. Much of what is True and Good is written in the Scriptures. Some of God's Truth is also found in this nations founding documents. Truth and Goodness is not found in moral relativism or political correctness. The only standard for what is Good is the absolute truth God has given us.
What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth. — Steven Robiner
I believe that the nation's founding documents have God's hand in them. I believe that both God and natural consequences, hold us accountable if we fail to follow the inspired principles found in our founding documents and if we fail to insist our politicians follow them.
Senator Rand Paul has made an effort to get the Obama Administration to say whether it will wage drone warfare without a proper declaration of war as required by the Constitution and whether life and property will be destroyed without due process of law as required by the Constitution. Unfortunately, we have elected both Democrats and Republicans who are all too willing to ignore these -- and most other -- basic protections of the Constitution.
Additionally, the filibuster held up a vote on whether John Brennan, an enemy of the Constitution, is to be Director of the CIA. Again, this is a struggle between Good and Evil. The Constitution demands Senate confirmation of presidential nominees specifically to protect the Constitution -- and Good -- from such people.
If our leaders and judges were consistently Good, there would be no need for the Constitution. But, we cannot reasonably elect a perfect or consistently Good person to public office or appoint a perfect or consistently Good judge to the bench. Adherence to the Constitution protects Good from imperfect politicians and judges. It is the duty of voters to insist that every politician and judge adhere to the Constitution.
Politicians on both the Left and the Right condemned Dr. Paul's filibuster. Most visible among the critics were Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Was Paul's filibuster little more than a political stunt? Yeah, probably. But, McCain, Graham, and Barrack Obama are not on the side of Good in this debate. The vast majority of voters don't care -- if they even know. Most of those who care only care about the labels. They don't care about what is Good or Evil.
The Utah Legislature is well into its 2013 session. On the agenda are some pro-gun and some anti-gun bills. As is their right, there have been several pro-gun citizens in attendance at some of the committee meetings where these bills are being considered. There also have been some pro-gun rallies on the Capitol steps. Some of these activists have openly carried firearms -- both handguns and long guns. Open carry is perfectly legal in this state. In fact, when visiting the Utah Capitol Building myself, I have seen legislators and their staff openly carrying firearms themselves.
Of course, I have some opinions about these gun bills and have written to the governor and to my legislators about what to support and what to oppose. For example, on 22 February I wrote to my legislators about HB.76 (Concealed Weapon Carry Amendments):
I am deeply concerned that Governor [Gary] Herbert is wobbly-kneed on protecting our state and federal Constitutions. A few hours ago, he commented on HB.76 saying, "Background checks ought to be a part of the process. We ought to keep them out of the hands of criminals, of those who are mentally unstable. It doesn't matter if it’s an assault weapon or a .22-caliber handgun. They shouldn't have them."
I've read HB.76 several times. I fail to understand how the above comment relates to HB.76 -- how does HB.76 nullify federal and state laws which prohibit irresponsible people from possessing firearms? How does forcing good people pay for a background check to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right stop bad people from buying or using a gun without a background check? More to the point of the governor's statement, how does HB.76 put guns in the hands of irresponsible people?
Like you, Governor Herbert swore an oath to both the Utah and US Constitutions. Please hold him to that oath. Both Constitutions specifically prohibit any infringement of the right to arms. The requirement to submit to a background check and to pay a fee in order to get government permission to exercise a constitutionally-protected right is an unacceptable violation of both Constitutions and must be rescinded!
I urge you to do everything you can to ensure that HB.76 is passed with an overwhelming veto-proof majority.
One of my legislators answered:
If this bill makes it to the senate I will vote for it. The sponsor is concerned by some of the people who showed up to the committee hearing basically acting very abusively and derogatory while brandishing weapons. This type of behavior just hurts our efforts to protect gun rights. (Emphasis mine)
I was surprised by his report of "brandishing." Merriam-Webster defines brandish as "to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly" or "to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner".
The word brandish isn't used in Utah gun law. Instead, what Utah law (76-10-506) says is that
a person who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
That section also says,
As used in this section, "threatening manner" does not include...the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening.
I've seen news reports confirming that some gun-rights advocates wore or carried their firearms openly while attending recent committee meetings related to gun rights. If there truly was some brandishing of arms, that would have been unlawful -- why was no one arrested? In most cases, such open-carry seems a bit silly and counterproductive to me. I agree with my legislator that it "hurts our efforts to protect gun rights" -- especially when trying to influence a person as fickle on this Constitutionally-guaranteed right as Governor Herbert. But, open-carry hardly meets Merriam-Webster's definition of brandishing nor is it the equivalent of brandishing as expressed in 76-10-506.
Using the word "brandishing" to describe a lawful, but silly, behavior in the capitol building is a bit extreme. In my opinion, whoever told my legislator that people were brandishing firearms does not understand (or choses to ignore) the meaning of the word and has lost credibility on the issue of gun rights. My legislator and/or his source(s) need to be more careful in choosing words because words have meanings.
...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....
A few years later (1787), the founders established a new government to protect our natural, God-given rights. They designed the US Constitution with clearly-limited authorities and roles. To further clarify the limitations imposed on the central government, they quickly amended it with the Bill of Rights (1791) to protect "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" from imperfect government officials.
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. — Robert H Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), 319 US 624)
Nobody is the perfect elected official or civil servant. Some are more flawed than others. Too many are clearly evil.
Some Americans aren't particularly concerned about some of the rights protected by the Constitution. One might not be concerned about being forced to house occupying soldiers (Third Amendment), or having to pay excessive bail (Eight Amendment), or having property taken by government agents without just compensation (Fifth Amendment), or being forced to give up the best means of self-protection -- a gun -- (Second Amendment) because these events are so rare nowadays or because one doesn't have a gun.
But, anyone who would ignore, tolerate, or encourage the loss of any natural right of any other person is subject to the loss some or all of the rights they cherish themselves. We all must be willing and prepared to fight for, and demand that government protect -- not infringe, all the natural rights of each other, regardless of whether we personally use or think we need those same rights.
Think of the US Constitution as a "Power of Attorney" wherein one person authorizes another to do certain acts on his or her behalf and which prohibits other specific acts. The Constitution is a "Power of Attorney" to do certain specifically-enumerated things on behalf of the States and the People. If the central government goes beyond that authority or if it fails to do anything it is required to do, it is in violation of the Constitution (Power of Attorney).
A key feature of the Constitution is the requirement that each of the above imperfect public servants (elected, appointed, and employed) swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution -- not to an agenda, political party, or to any person (including voters). They swear to comply with the Constitution ("Power of Attorney") and to protect it from anyone who would violate it. That oath doesn't seem to mean much to most public servants nor to a very large portion of the American voters.
If our public servants follow that Constitution, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are protected for all Americans and visitors. If it is not followed, only the elites have Liberty -- just as in feudal England, the former Soviet Union, or Mao's China -- so long as they aren't hanged by rivals for power or by the People -- just as in feudal England, the former Soviet Union, or Mao's China.
Unfortunately, the Constitution isn't self-enforcing. Experience has proven that the three branches of the central government cannot be relied on to enforce the Constitution nor to limit the usurpation of power by the central government.
Only one person can enforce the Constitution: the voter. We need smarter voters.
HB.389 would allow a "parent to move the parent's child from the classroom of a teacher if the teacher is carrying a concealed firearm."
I suppose parents have that right. They are already free to exercise that right by moving their children to a private school that bans responsible adults from possessing guns. The people who are opposed to such school choice also tend to be those who are opposed to teachers having guns. Ironic.
But teachers also have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to self-protection. Most of Utah's legislators honor this right. If a Utah public-school teacher is ever forced by circumstances to activate this right, the children of hoplophobic parents will also, by default, be protected. Ironic.
HB.389 is aimed at armed teachers. Why single out the teacher? What about the custodian, secretary, principal, nurse, counselor, and bus driver who are also carrying guns? Shouldn't paranoid parents and legislators discriminate against them too?
In order for HB.389 to work, several people must know which teachers carry firearms for self-protection. The bill therefore requires
teachers who carry concealed firearms to school to notify the principal of the school;
permits a parent to inquire if the teacher of the parent's child is carrying a concealed firearm;
requires a principal to tell a parent who inquires if the teacher of the parent's child is carrying a concealed firearm;
allows a parent to request removal of the parent's child from a classroom with a teacher carrying a concealed firearm;
requires the school to comply with a parent's request to remove the parent's child from a classroom with a teacher carrying a concealed firearm;
and provides that the information obtained by the parent is confidential. *
There are those who call for armed uniformed police officers in every school. I oppose this idea even though it has been proposed by the NRA, of which I am a life member. School duty would surely be a very boring assignment for most police officers. But it would also be very dangerous because a uniformed officer, or anyone who is known to be armed, would most certainly be the first target. Once the officer is down, the attacker(s) would have unfettered control in the school -- plus the officer's weapons. What then? Wait for the rest of their 20-minute lives for help to arrive as did the teachers and children of Sandy Hook?
One of the profound beauties of Utah's concealed firearm permit process is its confidentiality. Nobody knows who has the guns. That substantially increases the uncertainty and risk for those who chose to commit violence. It gives the teachers and school staff the element of surprise if his or her classroom is attacked.
In the case of Utah's school teachers and staff having firearms, not even the principle knows, or needs to know who has the gun. In fact, nobody else in the school knows, or should know, whether the principal carries a gun! That protects every armed employee from being a primary target in the event of a school attack.
HB.389 would defeat all of that security to satisfy the anti-gun bigotry of a tiny handful of parents and legislators.
Every employee in our public schools is under constant scrutiny by supervisors, taxpayers, and parents and must pass a background check to even have the job. They must pass another background check to obtain a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit (CFP). They must pass still another background check or verification of a valid CFP to buy a firearm. The men and women working in our schools are therefore FBI-double-or-triple-certified as being responsible adults! HB.389 implies that they are not. HB.389 is dangerous for reasons outlined above and it is a slap in the face of every one of Utah's teachers.
Most Americans distracted from the real problem by political sleights of hand such as:
• drones, • the 47%, • fair tax, • stimulus, • abortion, • flat tax, • ObamaCare, • inflation, • deflation, • TEA Party, • health care, • Arab Spring, • gun control, • fiscal cliff, • War on Drugs, • unemployment, • War on Drugs, • gold standard, • sequestration, • waterboarding, • War on Terror, • hanging chads, • school lunches, • United Nations, • War on Poverty, • gasoline prices, • Federal Reserve, • balanced budget, • environmentalism, • school shootings, • cash for clunkers, • Keystone pipeline, • confusing tax code, • alternative energy, • union rights/power, • Food Stamps (SNAP), • Occupy Wall Street, • homosexual marriage, • First Lady vacations, • presidential vacations, • Balanced Budget Amendment, • high-capacity gun magazines, • homosexual Cub Scout leaders, • First Lady's sense of fashion, • Inflation and worthless money, • attacks on American embassies, • TSA groping and pornographic photos, • selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, • hints of religion in the public square, • battle-scarred and dead American Warriors, • a vice president with diarrhea of the mouth, • politicians caught in myriad scandalous situations, • amnesty for, or deportation of, illegal immigrants, • bombing Libya and other inconsequential spots on the map, • nuclear bombs in the arsenals of nations led by crazy people, • global warming/cooling/climate-change or whatever the term-of-the-day is, • etc.
All are nothing more than clever and effective diversions used by everyone in power (including the "news" media) regardless of political party label -- often staged -- from the real problem: Runaway government. The political elites know that we all have our favorite little causes such as those in the above list. The elites divide and conquer us by exploiting our differences on such relatively trivial interests.
In spite of our differences on all these issues, the vast majority of us can all agree on the one big problem: We have central, state, and local governments that are too expensive, too corrupt, too powerful, too wasteful, too arrogant, and too intrusive -- far worse the the British government our forefathers rebelled against back in 1776!
We need smarter voters who know what the real problem is and who can keep their eye on the ball!
The state senator for my little corner of the State of Utah, Evan Vickers, published part of the results of a survey he conducted recently. The survey results show how poorly informed the typical voter is (not that a politician would ever exploit that ignorance). Here we go:
Ban automatic assault weapons
The National Firearms Act of 1934 essentially did that in umm, 1934 with a tax, background check, registration, and government permission to own any automatic firearm.
Additionally, civilian ownership of any automatic firearm made after 1986 has been completely banned since the Gun Control Act of 1986 in umm, 1986. Apparently, 28.94% of the senator's constituents are unaware of this.
High capacity magazines are magazines (clips to those too lazy to know or use proper nomenclature) which hold more cartridges than the gun was designed for. A 9mm Springfield XD pistol (one of my favorites), for example is designed to hold 15 cartridges in the magazine. The magazine is completely contained within the grip. The grip is designed to fit in the human hand. That is NOT high-capacity -- it is normal or standard capacity.
Only a magazine that extends beyond the grip to hold, say 30 rounds, would be a high-capacity -- and clumsy -- magazine. Gun banners chose an arbitrary number of 10 (now 7 in New York) and decree that a magazine that holds anything more than that is a high-capacity magazine when in reality; it is a politically-correct, crippled magazine.
Clearly, 27.48% wouldn't know a high-capacity magazine if they saw one.
Make our schools gun-free zones
All public schools (and neighborhoods within 1000 feet) in the US were decreed gun-free zones by the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 in umm, 1990. With some exceptions, all persons who enter those zones are required to be defenseless against violent attackers who violate the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. How's that working out for the 15.65% of survey respondents who think this is a good idea?
This restriction violates the Second and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution and must be repealed.
Require hands-on gun training with Concealed Weapons Permit Training
Senator Vickers reveals his lack of knowledge that Utah does not have a "Concealed Weapons Permit." We have a "Concealed Firearm Permit." Other weapons (eg a pocket knife) may be carried concealed without a permit in Utah. That basic ignorance is important considering that the ignorance is held by a state lawmaker, but not it's essential to issue he's addressing.
Some states require no permit or training (eg Arizona). Some require a permit with no training (eg Washington). Some require a permit with classroom-only training (eg Utah which does require "hands-on" training but no live-fire). Some require a permit with classroom and live-fire training (eg Nevada).
There is no significant training-related difference in accidental shootings, wrongful shootings, etc. by responsible adult civilians carrying concealed firearms between any of those groups (although civilians are statistically less likely to wrongfully shoot someone or to miss the target or commit a crime than are cops).
This shows that mandating a permit or mandating training of any kind has no measurable effect other than to impose an unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucratic burden on responsible adults.
Support the NRA's position to have more armed officers in our schools
Here, I must differ sharply from the NRA (of which I've been a life member since the mid '70s). I oppose the central government taking on another unconstitutional role as the NRA recommends – in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Armed officers in schools will likely be the first targets in any attack on a school. Now who’s gonna protect the kids?
Utah has the best possible school protection system in place. When they have a Utah Concealed Firearm permit, our public-school teachers and other staff have their right of self-protection restored. They don't need the permission of a principle, school board or anyone else. That permit constitutes permission from the central government and the State of Utah to have a gun in the classroom. They don't even need to, nor should they, tell anyone they are armed.
Their job doesn't become that of SWAT officers. They are not equipped or trained to run to the sound of gunfire. When a Utah public school is attacked, the armed teacher's (or janitor's, or secretary's) sole responsibility to protect self. By doing so, he or she, by default, protects all the students around him or her.
The beauty is that there is no single person (an armed officer) to eliminate before having free reign over the school. The attacker has no clue which rooms have the guns. That uncertainty is a very significant deterrent.
But, it's not enough. We need even more teachers and staff to carry guns in school. If they're responsible enough to be trusted around our children, they're responsible enough to have a gun too.
Encourage teachers, staff and administrators to receive concealed weapons training and arm themselves while in our schools
See the above paragraph. However, I oppose any mandate to receive training and I oppose designating specific individuals to have the gun.
Require background checks on individuals purchasing guns at gun shows
All firearms dealers are already required to run background checks for all gun sales regardless of whether the sale is in the store or at a gun show.
Only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. Yeah, that's 2 percent too many. But criminals rarely get their guns from gun shows or other legal sources. They can't! They steal them or buy them on the black market.
It also is already unlawful for anyone to transfer a firearm to a restricted person (felon, addict, illegal immigrant, mentally incompetent, etc.).
The gun show "loophole" is only a sinister ruse to divert attention from the real goal: A background check on all private firearm transfers which would be permanently recorded in federal records. That includes a gift of a .22-caliber rifle from father to son or a woman allowing her husband to shoot a couple of rounds from her pink revolver.
The gun-banners know that the so-called "loophole" is fiction. That's why even they put quotation marks around the word "loophole"! Most voters are idiots and don't know or understand how they're being manipulated.
There is no authority in the US Constitution for the central government to do anything to restrict the People in owning and/or using arms. The Second Amendment specifically tells the government to never infringe the ownership and use of arms (including firearms and pocket knives). The Tenth Amendment clearly prohibits the central government from doing anything not specifically authorized in the Constitution. The Utah Constitution also restricts the imposition of any of the above gun-control schemes.
The results of Senator Vickers' survey clearly show that Utah needs smarter voters. But, that'd be inconvenient for politicians and other power-mongers. We need smarter voters.
Today, there was some speculation that Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) could be the Democrat presidential ticket for 2016. Some readers were quick to poo-poo the idea because they think that 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution forbids it. That's an incorrect reading/understanding to the amendment. But, it probably doesn't matter anyway. I'll explain.
The 22nd Amendment states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once...." (Emphasis mine.)
Note that a key word is "elected". Obama cannot legally be elected to another term. But, he can return to the oval office for a third (or more terms) if elected as vice president and the elected president leaves office due to death, resignation, impeachment, etc. or if elected as president in defiance of the Constitution (many say he already has been).
Considering his popularity with the moocher class and the big-government elites, I predict that
1 - If Obama were to run as president again in spite of, and violation of, the 22nd Amendment (and many believe there is no valid evidence that he was even eligible for election in '08 or '12), he would be reelected regardless of the Constitution and its 22nd Amendment or,
2 - If Obama were to run as vice president, his ticket would win regardless of who the presidential nominee is, but especially if his wife is nominated as president.
It's clear that the Constitution has little meaning for at least half the voters and even less meaning for virtually all of the politicians they elect. How can it have any meaning? Very few Americans or politicians have ever read and understood it. Most Americans don't care that 95% of what the central government does is prohibited to it by the US Constitution. I must conclude, therefore, that most Americans won't care if Obama violates the Constitution to return to the Whitehouse in 2016 or even if we ever have another presidential election. The elites and the moochers have their guy in office -- that's all that matters.
Without smarter voters, the Constitution -- with all its protections of Liberty -- is dead and buried. We need smarter voters.
On his Facebook page Utah's governor Gary Herbert says, "The ONLY viable solution to the national debt crisis is to streamline government and trim budgets, empower states, and allow the private sector operating in a free market to help the nation GROW to prosperity."
If the governor expects the central government to fulfill any of his expressed wishes, it is evidence that Utah made a very serious mistake in the 2012 governor election. It is naive, irrational, delusional, and futile to expect any of the three branches of government to do anything to reduce its power.
A key component of our "checks and balances" is expressed in the Tenth Amendment. It is up to the States to assert their rights and authority instead of meekly waiting for the central government to "empower states" as the governor is meekly wont to do.
Governor Herbert can start "empowering states" by supporting and signing legislation that pushes back against all unconstitutional federal laws, regulations, and policies. He has a chance to do just that with this year's HB.114 (Second Amendment Preservation Act). If he doesn't, he is only enabling an out-of-control oppressive central government and he is, by default, nothing more than a functionary of the central government!
I am always astonished at some of the unjustified spending that goes on in the Utah legislature. Sometimes, it seems we are trying to beat California to the Bankruptcy Court! For example, spending under consideration by just one legislative committee -- the Business, Economic Development and Labor Appropriations Subcommittee -- for this year includes the following items:
• Box Elder Boys and Girls Club - $35,000
• Cedar City Air Service - $400,000
• Hexcel - $2,500,000
• Hale Center Theater - $2,000,000
• Hope Lodge - $1,600,000
• Liquor Stores - $1,500,000
• Moab Music Festival - $25,000
• Museum of Natural History - $600,000
• Ogden Rodeo Museum - $50,000
• Pioneer Museum - $150,000
• Rio Grande Depot Security - $55,000
• Sundance Film Festival - $1,000,000
• Syberjet Taxiway - $400,000
• Topaz Museum - $250,000
• Treehouse Museum - $750,000
• Utah Shakespeare Festival - $5,000,000
• Wasatch Cooperative Market - $10,000
Total - $16,415,000!
I have listed only a few of the dozens of blatant assaults on free-enterprise and on the principle of limited government that are on that committee's agenda. An awful lot of the items on the list should be paying their own way (eg, Utah Shakespeare Festival) -- not a drain on the taxpayer.
I know "they" say that they bring tax revenue to the community. But should government be in the business of enhancing tax revenue? Should government be in the business of supporting selected charities or businesses (eg American Cancer Society or SyberJet)?
I say, "No!"
It is my opinion that all revenue-producing entities, whether government agency (eg, DMV) or private business (eg, a film/theater/music festival) must pay their own way or die a quiet death. Nor, should government be picking winners and losers by subsidizing charities and businesses.
If legislators think that such budget items are worthy of investment, they can invest their own money -- not mine!
If we had smarter voters, federal, state and local politicians would never get away with this crap. Instead, the voters would limit government to its proper role -- protecting our God-given rights. And our taxes would be negligible -- just like they were before that landmark year for the progressive movement: 1913.
Some of the paranoid-delusional folks of Utah persist in raising a fuss about guns in public whether on the city bus or on the college campus.
Roughly 10% of Utah adults have a Utah-issued permit to carry a concealed firearm. Because their guns are usually concealed, nobody knows what portion of that 10% actually carry on a regular basis. (It oughta be all of 'em! They are, after all, trained to be safe and certified by the FBI as good and decent people.)
Assuming all permit holders carry a concealed handgun all the time they are clothed, all of the hoplophobes in the State must surely be scared to death that a tenth of the adults they see on the bus or in the Walmart are armed. However, the hoplophobes rarely see any of the omnipresent guns and thus happily and ignorantly go about their otherwise paranoid day.
But, let just one of those responsible gun owners carry his/her gun on the outside (yes it's legal Utah and many other States) of his/her sweater instead of inside, the hoplophobes start getting those panic attacks and start reaching for Xanax, Clozaril and 911.
So, is the problem really the gun or is it the twisted perception of the gun by those prone to mental illness -- the people who, when seeing or thinking of guns typically imagine themselves committing evil?
The answer, it seems to me, is simple: Keep guns out of the hands of hoplophobes and other crazy people. Then, leave the rest of us alone!
My little home town, Cedar City, Utah, has a multi-million dollar "aquatics center" it can't afford. The center was ostensibly built to provide a pool for our local high schools whose old pool was razed a couple of years ago. Oddly, none of the four pools in the new center meet the needs of high school competitive swimming!
The aquatics center grew with a dream for a city recreation complex including a gym, a game room, bowling, and billiards. The dream was scaled back to an overgrown hot tub when people realized how expensive dreams can be. Now, there are rumors that the dreamers are back. They reportedly want to start by adding a gym.
If anyone wants to add a gym or otherwise enlarge that already bloated aquatics center project, I [facetiously] demand the center also include an indoor 20-lane 100-yard rifle range, an indoor 20-lane 25-yard pistol range, an indoor skeet range (for when Obamao visits or little town), and an indoor trap range.
Since it's my idea, I expect a lane to be perpetually reserved for my exclusive use on each range. Hunter education classes and shooting clubs, of course, should get scheduling priority on the rest of the lanes.
In other words, dreaming is good. I only ask that people fulfill their extravagant dreamswith their own labors and money -- not mine!
Something like this would be a good start for Cedar City's new indoor shooting complex:
Posts
