Alerts &









Sign Up

Get free alerts
& updates.
Send email to
(no spaces)

Site Index



Home > Free Ammo Page > 2013 Utah Government Corruption Report



2013 Utah Government Corruption Report

Click here for printable pdf format.



Rating Summary




 Executive Monarch (governor)




 Senate Average



Democrat average



Republican average



Democrat “leadership” average



Republican “leadership” average





 House Average



Democrat average



Republican average



Democrat “leadership” average



Republican “leadership” average




About UT Gun Rights

Corruption Chart & Rating System

Senate/Executive Report & Legend

House Report

Summaries of Reported Bills

Article: Lockhart & Niederhauser Violate Your House & Senate Statutators

Article: HB 76: Political Theater for Suckers

Article: Gored by the Ivory Elephant

Article: Monarch Herbert Endorses Background Checks for BB Guns

Special Awards



Introduction Your right to defend yourself and others is under assault. A coordinated network of corporations, agencies, committees, lobbyists, officials, and bureaucrats is systematically turning every level of government against you.

This report demonstrates how Utah’s culture of political corruption operates, and how gun owners are frequently played for fools. Only a highlyinformed community can overcome the manipulation, deception, and fraud infesting every corner of society.

UT Gun Rights encourages you to read, analyze, question, confront, and challenge the information presented here. Through this examination, you may be better able to hold others politically accountable for their behavior.

Thanks to all who contacted UT Gun Rights with information on bills, actions, politicians, and agencies/organizations that undermine your rights.


About UT Gun Rights

UT Gun Rights promotes the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms, responsible and confident firearms ownership and use, and political accountability at the state and local level.

It is your natural right to defend yourself from unjust attacks by any individual, mob, or government. This is self-evident to all but the naïve — and the corrupt politicians and institutions that manipulate them.

Please help to get this information out. Sign up for alerts and updates at info@utgunrights.com (also at www.facebook.com/UTGunRights).


Corruption Chart & Rating System

*Statutator: In its ongoing quest to expose systemic societal manipulation, deception, and abuse, UT Gun Rights introduces the new term “statutator”. The former term “legislator” misrepresents the subversive and contemptuous behavior of the members of the statutory branch of government towards law. It is critical to distinguish law from statute. Law represents rules of conduct that are inherently just, unchanging, and beyond human perversion. By contrast, statutes are demands and impositions of statutators which frequently undermine and subvert natural law.

There is nothing "neutral" or harmless about destroying freedom.
How We Rate Statutators

Many political rating scales mirror the academic world of “A-F” or “0-100%”. An “A” or “100%” indicates perfection or perfect mastery. When a student gets something right, he/she gets points toward perfection, and when he/she gets something partially or completely wrong, fewer (or zero) points are received.

This system might suffice for students who don’t harm others when they make a mistake. When a politician votes harmfully on a significant issue, however, there is a tangible, negative impact.

If, for example, statutators unjustly subject you to imprisonment for exercising your natural rights, he/she is not being neutral, or “less correct”. He/she is dangerous because the consequences of his/her behavior destroy the lives of innocent citizens.

Because of this reality, UT Gun Rights utilizes a positive and negative score for each bill. A “+1” is assessed for every correct vote and a “-1” is assessed for every harmful vote.

In Utah, a constitutional majority (15 of 29 senate statutators and 38 of 75 house statutators) is required for any bill to pass. This means that “absent/not voting” is equivalent to a “NO” vote. Therefore, if a statutator was absent/not voting on a good bill, he/she receives a “-1” score (italicized so you know that he/she didn’t even vote).

If a statutator was absent/not voting for a bad bill, he/she is marked “awol” or “Absent With Out Leave”, receives no score, and that bill is not counted in his/her Rating. Because he/she failed to cast a public vote, credit cannot be given. Rather than give him/her a zero or negative score, however, UT Gun Rights recognizes that “awol” statutators who “saunter” (i.e. loiter/wander outside the statutory chambers on the public dime) are at least not voting for a bad bill.

Because bills require a primary sponsor to move forward in each chamber, each primary house and senate sponsor receives an additional “+1” or “-1” score, depending on whether the bill was good or bad.

Finally, a score of “-2” was assigned to the two statutory monarchs — the senate president and house speaker — for any bad bill that passed his/her chamber, and for any good bill that was not enacted into statute. Though not applicable in 2013, a “+2” would be assigned if a good bill was successfully enacted. For rationale, see “Lockhart & Niederhauser Violate Your House & Senate Statutators”.


2013 Utah Senate Statutator Ratings

Statutator's Name Party District HB
Adams, J. Stuart R 22 awol 1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -1 -67%
Bramble, Curtis R 16 -2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -138%
Christensen, Allen R 19 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -113%
Dabakis, Jim D 2 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 1 -1 -1 -71%
Davis, Gene D 3 awol -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -100%
Dayton, Margaret R 15 1 1 awol -1 -1 -1 awol -2 -50%
Harper, Wayne R 6 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Henderson, Deidre R 7 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Hillyard, Lyle R 25 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -100%
Hinkins, David R 27 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Jenkins, Scott R 20 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Jones, Patricia D 4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Knudson, Peter R 17 -1 -1 awol -2 -1 -1 awol -1 -117%
Madsen, Mark R 13 1 1 1 awol -1 -2 -1 awol -17%
Mayne, Karen D 5 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 awol -100%
Niederhauser, Wayne R 9 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -200%
Okerlund, Ralph R 24 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Osmond, Aaron R 10 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 awol awol -1 -67%
Reid, Stuart R 18 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Robles, Luz D 1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 awol -1 awol -100%
Shiozawa, Brian R 8 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Stephenson, Howard R 11 1 1 1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -38%
Stevenson, Jerry R 21 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Thatcher, Daniel R 12 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Urquhart, Stephen R 29 -1 1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -1 -71%
Valentine, John R 14 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -100%
Van Tassell, Kevin R 26 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Vickers, Evan R 28 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Weiler, Todd R 23 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Total votes (yeas-nays-absent/not voting) 23-4-2 16-13-0 21-4-4 25-0-4 26-0-3 26-1-2 23-0-6 25-0-4 -84%
2013 Executive Monarch Rating
Name Party   HB
Herbert, Gary R   -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Chart Legend
   1     = Correct vote 2 or -2  = Indicates primary sponsor of that bill in that body.  The score results from an additional 
  -1     = Harmful vote     merit of +1 for a good bill or a demerit of -1 for a bad bill.
  awol = Absent With Out Leave 2 or -2  = A -2 is assigned to senate president and house speaker for allowing a good bill to fail or
             (absent/not voting)     a bad bill to pass. Though not applicable in 2013, a +2 would be assigned if a good bill
  -1     = Harmful absence/not voting     was successfully enacted.  Italicized if absent/not voting.
  SB   = Senate Bill Rating  = Total points divided by the total number of tracked bills for which that statutator was 
  HB   = House Bill     eligible to vote, multiplied by 100%.
Rating Example: Out of the 8 bills tracked, Statutator A voted correctly on 4 bills (+4), voted harmfully on 2 bills (-2), was the senate sponsor of one of those bad bills (-1), was awol for one bad bill (no score), and was harmfully absent for one good bill (-1).  His total points are +4 and -4, or 0.  He scores 0 / 7 (the 7 bills tracked exempting 1 awol) x 100%, for a Rating of 0%.
To look up bills from the 2013 general session, see www.le.utah.gov
If you are unsure who your statutators are, see the Contact Officials Page


2013 Utah House Statutator Ratings

Statutator's Name Party District HB
Anderegg, Jacob R 6 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Anderson, Jerry R 69 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Anderson, Johnny R 34 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Arent, Patrice D 36 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Barlow, Stewart R 17 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Barrus, Roger R 18 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -25%
Bird, Jim R 42 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Briscoe, Joel D 25 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Brown, Derek R 49 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Brown, Melvin R 53 -1 1 -1 awol awol awol -1 -1 -60%
Chavez-Houck, Rebecca D 24 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -100%
Christensen, LaVar R 32 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -25%
Christofferson, Kay R 56 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Cosgrove, Tim D 44 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Cox, Spencer R 58 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Cunningham, Rich R 50 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Dee, Brad R 11 -1 1 1 -1 awol -1 -2 -1 -57%
Draxler, Jack R 3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -100%
Duckworth, Susan D 22 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Dunnigan, James R 39 awol 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -71%
Edwards, Rebecca R 20 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Eliason, Steve R 45 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Fisher, Janice D 30 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 awol -1 -100%
Froerer, Gage R 8 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -100%
Gibson, Francis R 65 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -25%
Greene, Brian R 57 1 1 awol -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -14%
Greenwood, Richard R 12 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Grover, Keith R 61 awol 1 1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -33%
Hall, Craig R 33 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Handy, Stephen R 16 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Hemingway, Lynn D 40 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Hughes, Gregory R 51 awol 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -33%
Hutchings, Eric R 38 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -71%
Ipson, Don R 75 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -1 -100%
Ivory, Ken R 47 1 1 awol -1 -1 -2 -1 awol -50%
Kennedy, Michael R 27 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -25%
King, Brian D 28 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -1 awol -100%
Knotwell, John R 52 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -25%
Last, Bradley R 71 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Layton, Dana R 60 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Lifferth, David R 2 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Lockhart, Rebecca R 64 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -200%
Mathis, John R 55 -1 2 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -38%
McCay, Daniel R 41 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
McIff, Kay R 70 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -1 awol -100%
McKell, Mike R 66 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -25%
Menlove, Ronda Rudd R 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Moss, Carol Spackman D 37 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Nelson, Merrill R 68 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Nielson, Jim R 19 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Noel, Michael R 73 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -50%
Oda, Curtis R 14 1 1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -75%
Perry, Lee R 29 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Peterson, Jeremy R 9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -100%
Peterson, Val R 59 -1 1 1 -2 1 -1 -1 -1 -38%
Pitcher, Dixon R 10 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -113%
Poulson, Marie D 46 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Powell, Kraig R 54 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Ray, Paul R 13 -1 1 1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -43%
Redd, Edward R 4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Roberts, Marc R 67 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 0%
Romero, Angela D 26 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -100%
Sagers, Douglas R 21 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -71%
Sanpei, Dean R 63 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -43%
Seelig, Jennifer D 23 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -113%
Snow, V. Lowry R 74 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Stanard, Jon R 62 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Stratton, Keven R 48 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Tanner, Earl R 43 1 -1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -1 -71%
Webb, R. Curt R 5 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Westwood, John R 72 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Wheatley, Mark D 35 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -100%
Wilcox, Ryan R 7 -1 1 1 -1 1 awol -1 -1 -14%
Wiley, Larry D 31 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75%
Wilson, Brad R 15 -1 1 1 -1 -1 awol -1 -1 -43%
Total votes (yeas-nays-absent/not voting) 61-11-3 41-33-1 44-28-3 72-0-3 61-9-5 68-0-7 72-0-3 67-0-8 -72%


Summaries of Reported Bills

HB 50: Gun Owner Victimization Act

Sponsors: Jennifer Seelig (“D”, house) and Curtis Bramble (“R”, senate).

Summary: This bill empowers a court judge or commissioner — without the check-andbalance of an impartial jury — to issue a 6-month “dating violence protection order” that, “...prohibit[s] the respondent [i.e. accused] from purchasing, using, or possessing a weapon specified by the court.”

The judge is supposed to decide by “…preponderance of the evidence [a ridiculouslylow standard] that the respondent has committed abuse or dating violence against the petitioner,” and also by “...clear and convincing evidence that the respondent’s use or possession of a firearm poses a serious threat of harm to petitioner or the designated family or household member.”

Discussion: If real evidence exists that someone has perpetrated violence against an innocent person, why wouldn’t the judge issue an arrest order for the accused so he/she can be speedily tried by an impartial jury? These new “protection orders” will primarily be issued in lieu of a jury determination, and by one individual — a judge or commissioner — who is largely unaccountable for his/her actions. A disgruntled or mentally-imbalanced date or acquaintance could ruin an innocent gun owner’s life and destroy his/her rights. Before a person is deprived of his/her firearms, substantive due process must occur, and the whims of one court dictator are insufficient toward that process.

Status: This bill passed the house (61-11-3), the senate (23-4-2), and was signed by Executive Monarch Herbert. A “NO” vote is correct.

HB 76 S1: Carry “Unloaded” Firearms Concealed

Sponsors: John Mathis (“R”, house) and Allen Christensen (“R”, senate).

Summary: This bill would have “allowed” adults (21 or older) to carry concealed firearms in an “unloaded” condition without a government concealed carry “permit”. “Unloaded” essentially means that no bullet is in the chamber or, in the case of revolvers, in a firing position (where a single action may cause the gun to fire).

Adults could have concealed firearms in this “unloaded” condition in areas currently authorized to concealed carry government “permit” holders only (with the exclusion of any school or university grounds).

Discussion: The right to defend one’s self upon private or shared (i.e. public) property, either by possessing a weapon openly or in a concealed fashion, pre-exists government. In other words, it existed naturally and was freely exercised before such enslavement statutes and “permits” were imposed.

As Thomas Paine expressed it,

Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have less rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights.”
Source: Rights of Man, Part I, by Thomas Paine in 1791.

Government and private organizations and citizens are not restricted from OFFERING training. But restrictions upon natural rights — such as the right to protect one’s self — must be predicated and substantiated upon more than the fear that an adult MIGHT abuse them in the future.

Several states (AK, AZ, VT, WY) in general or outright do not require government “permits” and have not suffered any ill effects. It is an absurdity that a person carrying openly becomes a criminal by putting on a windbreaker or jacket.

Carrying your firearm — concealed or openly — is your right; NOT a bureaucrat-authorized privilege.

Though the “unloaded” provision added to this substitute bill was offensive and absurd, UT Gun Rights still considered it a move in a positive direction.

Status: HB 76 S1 passed the house (51-18-6), senate (22-7-0), and was vetoed by Executive Monarch Herbert. The house and senate then held a vote on whether to hold a veto override session to overturn Herbert’s veto. The house failed (41-33-1) and the senate likewise failed (16-13-0) to come up with the required two-thirds vote. A “YES” vote is correct, and the house and senate have been graded on their veto override vote, it being the most important vote on the bill. Also see the special article, “HB 76: Political Theater for Suckers”.

HB 121: Legalizing Theft of Firearms

Sponsors: Dixon Pitcher (“R”, house) and Curtis Bramble (“R”, senate).

Summary: This bill legalizes de facto theft of firearms by empowering cohabitants to turn in other cohabitants’ firearms to police.

Discussion: HB 121 creates the definition of the “owner cohabitant,” which “means a cohabitant who owns, in whole or in part, a firearm.” This “owner cohabitant” would be invited to turn firearms in to police if he/she, “…believes that another cohabitant is an immediate threat to… any... person.”

Though there is no penalty if they fail to do so, the police are to, “…Require the owner cohabitant to sign a document attesting that the owner cohabitant has an ownership interest in the firearm…”

HB 121 empowers police to hold the firearms for 60 days (though, again, there is no penalty if they refuse to return them at all), whereupon the “owner cohabitant” [i.e. theft accomplice] can repeatedly and indefinitely request that they hold them for another 60 days.

And what if the other cohabitant wants to know where his/her guns went, so that he can reclaim them?

The bill specifically prohibits statute enforcement from requesting or requiring the “name or other information of the cohabitant who poses an immediate threat or any other cohabitant.”

If the other cohabitant somehow learns about what happened, he/she cannot realistically expect to reclaim those firearms until the 60-day period expires.

UT Gun Rights opposes HB 121 and the audacity of its supporters for defying so many traditional benchmarks of jurisprudence.

Status: HB 121 passed the house (44-28-3), the senate (21-4-4), and was signed by Executive Monarch Herbert. A “NO” vote is correct.

HB 211 S2: Divide & Rule

Sponsors: Val Peterson (“R”, house) and Peter Knudson (“R”, senate).

Summary: This bill waives concealed carry permit fees for active duty military members and their spouses.

Discussion: And what about other people who serve the interests of mankind in so many different ways and capacities? What about the father, mother, and widow of a fireman or community volunteer killed in action? What about the constant labors of small business owners and every taxpayer?

HB 211 S2 opens a Pandora’s Box of favoritism and inequality; marking some segments of society as “more equal” [i.e. free/valued] than are others. It further divides people against each other.

Concealed carry “permits” should cease to exist (save perhaps as a free form of protection from certain onerous federal statutes and when travelling to less-free states). Carrying your firearm — concealed or openly — is your right; NOT a bureaucrat-authorized privilege.

Status: HB 121 passed the house (72-0-3), the senate (25-0-4), and was signed by Executive Monarch Herbert. A “NO” vote is correct.

HB 256: Gun Control by Bureaucrats

Sponsors: Curtis Oda (“R”, house) and Howard Stephenson (“R”, senate).

Summary: HB 256 reauthorizes numerous “administrative rules” created by unelected bureaucrats that have the same effect as state statute. These include gun controls and many other subversions of your natural rights.

Discussion: The Obama regime isn’t alone in exercising executive order-type powers. On the state level, unelected bureaucrats are very busy:

Approximately one half of Utah’s codified law is written by state agencies.”
Source: “Administrative Rules Affect You!” at www.rules.utah.gov/abtrules.htm

Did you get the significance of that? Half of Utah’s codified statutes were written by people other than your elected statutators!

HB 256 reauthorizes state agencies to enforce gun control in the form of bureaucratically-generated “administrative rules.” These crafty concoctions circumvent the checks and balances that differentiate a republican form of government from a monarchy or oligarchy.

Here’s how it works in a nutshell: When statutators and Executive Monarch Herbert impose a statute, bureaucrats get together and “interpret” how government agencies will apply those statutes in the real world.

“…A properly enacted administrative rule has the binding effect of law. Therefore, a rule affects our lives as much as a statute passed by the legislature, restricting individuals AND the agency that issues it.”
Source: ibid

For example, under “administrative rule” R657- 11-14, the statutory definition of “spotlighting” (i.e. using a spotlight to hunt, which is illegal) is expanded to make people vulnerable who “…use or cast the rays of any spotlight, headlight, or other artificial light to locate protected wildlife while having in possession a firearm or other weapon or device that could be used to take or injure protected wildlife,” or who “…use... a spotlight or other artificial light in a field, woodland, or forest where protected wildlife are generally found….”

In other words, an open carry camper on his way to the outhouse at night while using a flashlight is not only “spotlighting,” but must rebut the charge that he is “spotlighting” even if he did not kill, or attempt to kill, any animal. This “administrative rule” makes that camper increasingly vulnerable to being detained, arrested, charged, and convicted of “spotlighting,” and having his/her firearms confiscated.

According to “administrative rule” R501-12, foster parents who do not have a concealed carry “permit,” and who do not have their firearm on their person, must essentially live in a disarmed, or criminally-vulnerable, home environment.

And according to “administrative rule” R512-202-2, Utah’s Child and Family Services agency can intervene in “homes where there are... loaded weapons within the reach of the child...” If, therefore, your 17-year old minor child ever has access to a loaded firearm, a state caseworker could use that to build the case that you are guilty of “child endangerment,” an abuser, and therefore subject to state intervention; potentially by having your child seized from you.

The only effective check on these “administrative rules” is that the state statutarium (“legislature”) must annually approve or reject them, or a court must strike them down. HB 256 gave blanket approval to ALL of these “administrative rules” — including the gun controls outlined above.

Status: HB 256 passed the house (61-9-5), the senate (26-0-3), and was signed by Executive Monarch Herbert. A “NO” vote is correct.

HB 321: Reaffirming Federal Gun Controls

Sponsors: Ken Ivory (“R”, house) and Mark Madsen (“R”, senate).

Summary: This bill re-enacts current state gun control restrictions against “short barreled” rifles and shotguns, further legitimizes federal gun control statutes, and provides another witness to the gun control agenda of Utah’s statutators.

It specifically changes the state statutory terms “sawed-off” and “short barrel” to “short barreled” to conform to federal statute.

Discussion: In light of the 2013 Utah Sheriffs’ Association letter to Obama refusing to enforce federal gun controls, and tough talk by statutators on states’ rights, why should the state legitimize and enforce unconstitutional federal statutes?

Appropriately, Utah does not “conform” to the federal government with regard to banning automatic firearms. Yet, inconsistently it follows federal gun control philosophy when it comes to arbitrary barrel lengths.

For example, those with weapons awareness realize that practical exceptions already exist where handguns with short, rifled barrels will also accept .410 shotgun shells.

If statutators were in favor of states’ rights and your right to keep and bear arms, rather than worry about matching state statute with federal statute, they would repeal anti-gun provisions dealing with “short barreled” rifles or shotguns.

Instead, they re-enact this gun control provision and reinforce the illegitimate power of the federal government.

Status: HB 321 passed the house (68-0-7), passed the senate (26-1-2), and was signed by Executive Monarch Herbert. A “NO” vote is correct. Also see the special article on HB 321’s sponsor, “Gored By the Ivory Elephant”.

HB 384: More Government Power to Steal Your Property

Sponsors: Brad Dee (“R”, house) and Curtis Bramble (“R”, senate).

Summary: Among other abuses, HB 384 empowers Utah government to more easily transfer your seized property (i.e. your firearms, automobile, bank account, home, etc.) to the federal government. Under federal code, an owner must prove her innocence (so much for “innocent before proven guilty”) to regain her property.

The federal government currently incentivizes (i.e. bribes) state governments to transfer property, seized directly or indirectly from innocent owners, to it by providing a kickback to seizing agencies of up to 90% of the proceeds when the property is sold. HB 384 provides greater opportunity and incentive for Utah’s statute enforcement agencies to seize property from innocent owners, and then profit from it.

Discussion: Passage of HB 384, without a single opposing vote in the house or senate, shows clearly the depravity of the statutory process in Utah. Critical failures of this process include:

1) The misleading bill presentation format that conceals what statutory language is being repealed — purposefully obstructing elected house and senate statutators from readily determining the impact of the bill;

2) Unquestioned deference by statutators to Utah’s Statute Enforcement Agents (i.e. police and prosecutors, who lobby for statutes that attack and destroy the work and lives of innocent citizens);

3) Corruption of Utah’s house and senate statutory monarchs who purposely introduce destructive bills at the last moment — providing little time for citizens to read and oppose them; and

4) Perverted ploys organized by the monarchs and their minions like HB 114 to manipulate the uninformed to believe that Utah government cares about federal oppression. Instead, they enact bills like HB 384 to expand Utah’s servitude to the federal government — without any house or senate opposition.

HB 384 further exposes how gun owners are manipulated. The phoniness of the loud-mouthed “states’ rights” and “pro-gun” advocates at the capitol is underscored by their repeal of statutory language that could prohibit transfer of firearms and other property to the federal government “…if the transfer would circumvent the protections of the Utah Constitution….”

The repudiation of Utah’s Constitution and its protections for firearms owners is particularly insidious given that HB 384 was supported by the Utah Law [sic] Enforcement Legislative Committee (LELC). One of the members of this secretive anti-gun committee — comprised of elected officials and bureaucrats — is the Utah Sheriffs’ Association. Their membership in the LELC and support of its actions to advance federal tyranny in Utah has undermined citizen confidence and believability in their 2013 letter to the Obama regime opposing federal gun control.

Bills like HB 384 justify citizen scorn and contempt for Utah government. Citizens who perform their own research will realize they are being fed manipulative rhetoric while agents of government power and abuse run amok.

Status: HB 384 bill passed the house (72-0-3), the senate (23-0-6), and was signed by Executive Monarch Herbert. A “NO” vote is correct.

SB 120: Turning the State Forester and Sheriff into Monarchs

Sponsors: Margaret Dayton (“R”, senate) and Curtis Oda (“R”, house).

Summary: Sold as a positive clarification of existing statute, SB 120 reinforces the political power of the state forester to close and restrict public lands to gun owners. There is no time limit, restriction, or effective check or balance upon his power.

The state forester remains empowered to close areas to “any forms of use by the public, or to limit that use,” under the supposed rationale of “extremely hazardous” conditions now defined by any “nationally recognized standard”. Such closures can include “the use of vehicles” (hard to shoot if you can’t realistically get there), and can continue indefinitely. Theoretically, decrees specifically prohibiting “target shooting” must now be done in collusion with the county sheriff.

Discussion: SB 120 is another farcical reform designed to give the appearance of protecting gun owners from illegitimate abuse of bureaucratic power.

These closures do NOT involve a county statutory body to determine if there is a justifiable basis. And no option is provided for a person to obtain relief in a court (or the basis for doing so).

The “national standard” additional language is also meaningless. No doubt the Obama regime could provide a definition helpful toward denying citizens access and the ability to keep/bear arms.

The state forester can indefinitely close areas to humans and/or vehicles. Regarding firearms and traditional target shooting areas, he need only restrict vehicles to effectively ban the use of firearms on those lands.

There is no consolation if he does bother to include a county sheriff in prohibitions specifically against target shooting. Utah’s sheriffs have supported gun control, and have also participated in closing off public target shooting areas. What will they do now with encouragement from the state forester?

Status: SB 120 passed the senate (25-0-4), the house (67-0-8), and was signed by Executive Monarch Herbert. A “NO” vote is correct.


Article: Lockhart & Niederhauser Violate Your House & Senate Statutators

Two monarchs abuse and dominate the house and senate and work together to destroy your rights: house speaker Rebecca Lockhart and senate president Wayne Niederhauser. Contrary to what you learned in civics class, your house and senate statutators merely serve their gun control agenda.

How can two people possibly exercise such control? As one example, the house speaker and senate president alone appoint and remove EVERY member of EVERY committee. Lockhart and Niederhauser are empowered to do this without any review or confirmation process.
Sources: “The general duties of the Speaker are to:... appoint the members of committees…” (House Rules 1-3-102. Duties of the speaker) and “The general duties of the president are to:… appoint the members of committees…” (SR1-3-102. Duties of the president)

Consider the vast implications of this incredible power! No bill may be voted on in the house or senate without going through a committee. As a result, bills live or die almost entirely upon the calculated orders of these two monarchs.

Monarchess Lockhart candidly admitted her power to the press [bold added]:

I empower [house] committee chairs...”
Source: “Bill banning enforcement of federal gun laws ‘stuck in limbo’,” by Lisa Riley Roche, Deseret News, Feb. 22, 2013.

Lockhart empowers the chairs of each house committee because she appoints and fires them at her will alone, as does Niederhauser for every senate committee.

Their powers are so extreme, no provision exists in the house or senate rules to fire the monarchs before their two-year terms are over. They lord over each body, trade favors, and sell your rights; all while pretending that decisions are made by the will of the majority instead of their monarchial authority.

The political buck stops with Lockhart and Niederhauser for failing to advance positive gun owner bills, and for every gun control bill enacted. Until more statutators are motivated to oppose the iron fists of the monarchs’ near absolute power, your rights will continue to be undermined.


Article: HB 76: Political Theater for Suckers

Thanks to a citizen’s Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) request, Ogden City attorney Gary Williams confirmed the control exercised by monarch Niederhauser on HB 76 S1 (Carry “Unloaded” Firearms Concealed) in a secretive email:

Lincoln [Shurtz, Utah League of Cities and Towns lobbyist], we are concerned that HB76 seems to be moving along on the Senate calendar unimpeded. We had understood that the bill was going to be killed by Senate Leadership. Have things changed?

“Things” as Williams imagined them, had hardly changed at all. Lockhart, Niederhauser, Executive Monarch Herbert, and their statutator accomplices developed a strategy to play gun owners for fools.

Some appeared to vote for HB 76 S1 only with the understanding that Executive Monarch Herbert would veto it.

Thanks to another GRAMA request, here is then house-statutator (and now lt. governor) Spencer Cox’s email to Mike Mower, Herbert’s Deputy for Community Outreach [bold added]:

It was great to talk to you today. I thought you might be interested in my thoughts on HB 76. This document represents my thoughts on why I was wrong and Gov. Herbert was right. It is fairly long and detailed (by design). It is still a work in progress, but I want to be prepared in case my ‘switch’ vote becomes public. Thanks for all you do!

Cox voted for HB 76 during the statutory session. When a secretive poll was later conducted by the house and senate monarchs, however, Cox voted AGAINST holding a veto override for the bill. Cox was preparing to defend his “switch” vote because citizens are waking up to the political games played every statutory session. Many successfully pressured the house and senate monarchs to make the secret veto override poll results public.

South Jordan City councilmember, Chuck Newton, likewise implied that statutators who voted for HB 76 were grateful to Executive Monarch Herbert for vetoing it, and identified “back channels” utilized by those in power. Here are excerpts from his once-secret email [bold added]:

I just got off the phone with the Governor’s office who called to extend a hearty thanks through back channels in response to our work to assist them in ginning up support for vetoing HB 76...

I was informed that the legislature will poll their members for a veto session, after the time period has expired for the Governor to sign all the passed bills. However, given that a number of legislators have privately communicated with the Governor’s office and extended their thanks to him for doing what they were reluctant to do in putting this down, the sense is that a veto session will not be successful. Be that as it may, I was encouraged to proceed with an Op-ed that had previously been discussed in order to provide cover to the legislators who are now supporting the Governor.”

Rather than stand publicly and proudly behind their anti-gun agenda, a “number” of statutators relied upon Executive Monarch Herbert to kill HB 76 and avoid political accountability. Various municipal governments then “provided cover” for their fraudulent behavior.

These officials were joined by lobbyist organizations like the Utah League of Cities & Towns (a United Nations-like conglomerate that zealously pursues gun control) and the Utah Chiefs of Police Association. The tough-talking Utah Sheriffs’ Association also voted against HB 76 in the secretive Law [sic] Enforcement Legislative Committee.

Even W. Clark Aposhian, Chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, appeared to secretively facilitate opposition to HB 76. Here is a transcript of a March 15, 2013 communication between Clark Aposhian and Mike Mower, Herbert's Deputy for Community Outreach:

W. Clark Aposhian: Mike, I have just spoken with Bob Templeton. Bob is the owner of the Crossroads of the west Gun shows. They are based in Utah. I believe they are the biggest gun show in the country. Bob was also [able] to participate in the recent meetings with Joe Biden recently and sat right next to him. Bob added his thoughts to the pro gun side of the debate. My point is he is a well respected member of the pro gun community. He is recognized in Utah and across the country. While we both happened to be at an event in California this weekend and he stopped me. He stated he was strongly against HB76 for its unintended consequences that have nothing to do with the items I communicated to you. I asked him if he would be comfortable relaying this to the Governor but he wanted to speak with you first. Please call me at 801-560- 4836. I'll give you his number and tell you a bit more about him.”

Mike Mower: Thanks Clark. I'll share this information with the Governor.”

Statutators, Herbert, municipal officials, and lobbyists — including supposed gun rights advocates — prefer to operate through secret “back channels” with brazen deceitfulness that exemplifies Utah’s culture of political corruption. They do NOT want you to know where they really stand on issues, who they work with behind closed doors, and their anti-gun agenda.


Article: Gored by the Ivory Elephant

The enemies of personal liberty and self-protection are sophisticated manipulators.

They utilize time-tested tactics to deceive proponents of liberty. One tactic essential to their effectiveness is the deployment of false friends.

Consider, for example, house statutator Ken Ivory. Here are two quotes about him that are supposed to inspire your confidence:

Ken Ivory is a leading voice in Utah, and has become recognized nationally, as an advocate for returning power to the states, reducing oppressive federal overreach and restoring Constitutionally limited government.” — Mike Lee (federal senate), see voteivory.com 

Ivory quotes the Founding Fathers in depth during his speeches, noting among other things that Thomas Jefferson once stated that state governments must be strengthened and states themselves must erect barriers at the Constitutional line.” — Sutherland Institute, “10th Amendment a major theme in 2011 Utah Legislature,” Sutherland Institute, Jan. 24, 2011.

False friends appear to be on your side, but fundamentally serve the purposes of your opposition. They are made popular by publicly affirming principles and positions you support. Because they can often articulate your beliefs, they appear — at least on the surface — to be credible.

False friends also pretend to oppose your enemies, and will sometimes put on a good show to maintain favor with you. But in moments of political crisis and at other times, they will serve their true masters and act in direct contradiction to their public speeches and statements. Such betrayal can seem baffling, because many people can’t imagine anyone being so manipulative and deceitful.

Can they possibly be THAT two-faced and corrupt? Yes, they can. Consider the real-world example of house statutator Ken Ivory, who hides cleverly behind the elephant (“Republican”) logo.

As the leading quotes indicate, you are supposed to believe that Ivory is a champion of our personal liberty and constitutional protections and is an opponent of “oppressive federal overreach”. So, how did he actually behave?

As reported above, Ivory sponsored HB 321, which reaffirms gun control by conforming Utah’s code to federal statutes. If Ivory were your friend, his bill would have instead repealed Utah’s statutory abomination that imposes a felony (or misdemeanor in some instances) for mere peaceful possession of certain types of firearms less than an arbitrary length.

Instead, Ivory is apparently so inspired by federal gun control statutes, he modified Utah code to adopt federal definitions. One wonders whether he will be inspired to introduce a bill to ban automatic firearms in Utah next year to likewise conform to federal statutes.

Ivory is an attorney and an author. He is not an ignoramus who lacks cognitive function to comprehend his actions. As a false friend, he boldly claims to protect the rights of Utahns while simultaneously reinforcing and affirming the illegitimate federal attacks on your right to keep and bear arms.

In addition to sponsoring HB 321, Ivory also supported federal overreach by voting for HB 384. This bill empowers Utah government to more easily transfer your seized property to the federal government without due process.

Are you feeling confident about Ivory’s version of “Constitutionally limited-government” and “states’ rights” now? False friends like Ivory are found wherever political power is exercised. The Ivory elephant will become less of a problem only if you choose not to be manipulated and gored by him.


Article: Monarch Herbert Endorses Background Checks for BB Guns!

Gun control zealot New York mayor Michael Bloomberg (co-founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns) enjoys plenty of support amongst Utah’s wanna-bee elitists. Consider Executive Monarch Gary Herbert [bold added]:

I believe that we ought to have background checks to keep guns, no matter what caliber, it could be a BB gun, out of the hands of criminals and those who are mentally unstable, and that ought to happen when we purchase a gun upfront, and it’s hard to regulate that because we have private purchases that nobody knows about; it’s hard to do background checks on, and unless we come up with a better system than we’ve got now, there are going to be people who slip through the cracks." — Gary Herbert on the Rod Arquette Show, April 22, 2013.


Special Awards

A.W.O.L. Ninja Award!

Rather than vote their conscience and publicly reveal their true position, some statutators vanished like the wind during critical votes on gun rights bills. A few were downright crafty at avoiding accountability, and therefore require special illumination.

The 2013 A.W.O.L. (Absent With Out Leave) Ninja Award is shared in a 3-way tie between the following hallway loiterers:

Mel Brown, house district 53 (“R”)

Wayne Niederhauser, senate district 9 (“R”)

Luz Robles, senate district 1 (“D”)

Each of these stealth-masters disappeared for three final bill votes of the eight highlighted in this report.

French Army Award!

I’d rather have a division of Germans in front of me, than a French one behind me.” — popularly attributed to U.S. General George S. Patton

How did Utah’s supposed “gun rights champions” fare in 2013? So poorly, they each amply deserve The French Army Award for meritorious disservice in leading from the rear.

Here are this year’s recipients, in order of embarrassment (i.e. from abysmal to more abysmal):

Brian Greene: house district 57 (“R”): -14%

Mark Madsen, senate district 13 (“R”): -17%

John Mathis, house district 55 (“R”): -38%

Ken Ivory, house district 47 (“R”): -50%

Curtis Oda, house district 14 (“R”): -75%

With friends like these, who needs enemies? Are you really any better off with these “champions”?

1st Annual Curtis bRamble Award!

While every statutator performed horribly in 2013, Curtis Bramble (“R”), hailing from senate district 16, managed to sponsor more gun control bills (house bills 50, 121, and 384) than any other house or senate statutator. Bramble sponsored three of the seven bad bills highlighted in this report.

Bramble received a -138% rating. Only Monarch Niederhauser and Monarchess Lockhart rated worse.

Bramble was born and raised in Barack Obama’s playtown of Chicago, and now perpetrates gun control schemes — consistent with the location of his upbringing — in the supposedly “conservative” counties of Utah and Wasatch. Apparently any gun-controlling carpet-bagger can be re-elected in his district.


Share this Report

Click here for printable pdf format and share it with people you know.

Sign up for E-mail Alerts & Updates

To sign up for free alerts and updates, email info@utgunrights.com.

Also "Like" the UT Gun Rights Facebook page and share it with your friends at https://www.facebook.com/UtGunRights.

Copying Permission: Permission to reprint articles and material in whole or in part is hereby granted provided that UT Gun Rights is cited.  Feel free to share this information with others.

Disclaimer: The information on this site is for educational purposes only.  If there are errors, email info@utgunrights.com.

Comments or questions?  Email info@utgunrights.com.

Copyright © 2015 UT Gun Rights

Home | About | Alerts & Updates | Free Ammo | Events Calendar | Contact Officials | Other Resources

E-mail: info@utgunrights.com  |  Website: www.utgunrights.com