People that are working, but struggling to
have enough money to pay bills often target a mortgage/rent, utilities,
transportation and then food. When someone walks into a store with $3
left to buy food, you don't tell them it is OK they don't
have enough money to buy milk or chicken, they will get $80 at the end
of the year. Raising the tax on food increases the number of people
needing help from the community, church or government and is the wrong
thing to do.
I am hopeful this will not pass the house this year, like an increase in
the food tax didn't pass the house in 2011 even though it passed the
senate.
The proposal that passed the senate in 2011 and was killed in the house
was to lower the overall sales tax and raise the tax on food to match.
It was to be no overall increase on tax.
That still would have hit fixed income individuals and those struggling to make it in the current economy.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Utah has good gun laws
Utah has good gun laws
Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
"The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. "
The Legislature has limited it so there is no "open carry" inside the property of a K-12 public school or college campus, without a CFP, so to carry a gun on to a public K-12 school or college campus, you need a concealed fire arms permit. The permit allows an individual to carry a firearm into public schools and college campuses.
There is no reason the principal, custodians, or teachers can't obtain a concealed carry permit and carry a gun to protect themselves or their students.
Open carry doesn't allow a bullet in the chamber. If you want to carry a loaded gun with a bullet in the chamber, you need a concealed firearms permit.
You can not conceal carry without a permit.
See:
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_050505.htm
Allowing it so someone without a concealed firearm permit, CFP, can open carry, may be the only reason the Utah Legislature can require a CFP for someone hiding that they are carrying a firearm.
Many people don't want to get rid of the CFP requirement.
Now Rep. Paul Ray's bill, 2013 HB 268 , Disorderly Conduct Amendments, might make it so the person with the 223 rifle strapped to their back at JC Penney might get in trouble with the law, but that same bill is going to make sure his Glock strapped to his waist is perfectly fine, as long as he isn't doing something scary with it. Without the CFP the gun can't have a bullet in the chamber, but that doesn't take too long to load in most cases.
So unless you are planning on a State Constitutional Amendment, that person with the 45 colt. strapped to their waist is going to stay. You should be grateful that a CFP is required, unless the principal gives permission, to carry a gun on to a public K-12 school. The good news is that the janitor, teacher, parent, or even the principal could be packing using a CFP. Hopefully the next time some person off their meds gets ready to shoot at a crowd, they are dropped on the spot by someone else, whether or not they have a CFP or just a glock strapped to their waist.
Remember to change the state constitution you would need 2/3 of the legislature, many of who have CFP. Some of whom would love to take things a step further and get rid of the requirement of a CFP to conceal carry.
Modifying our state constitution on firearms may not be an option as we do have a 2nd amendment for the US Constitution. While some would love to change that, that isn't going to happen .
Instead of being freaked out about the guns, why don't you take a NRA safety course. You don't have to own a gun. The NRA does a great job of teaching gun safety to scout leaders and others that teach children how to safely handle guns.
Guns are tools. Most people don't seem to mind a hammer strapped to the waist of a contractor.
For my thoughts on Constitutional Carry, see:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/07/constitutional-carry-thoughts.html
Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
"The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. "
The Legislature has limited it so there is no "open carry" inside the property of a K-12 public school or college campus, without a CFP, so to carry a gun on to a public K-12 school or college campus, you need a concealed fire arms permit. The permit allows an individual to carry a firearm into public schools and college campuses.
There is no reason the principal, custodians, or teachers can't obtain a concealed carry permit and carry a gun to protect themselves or their students.
Open carry doesn't allow a bullet in the chamber. If you want to carry a loaded gun with a bullet in the chamber, you need a concealed firearms permit.
You can not conceal carry without a permit.
See:
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_050505.htm
Additional comments based on this article:
Allowing it so someone without a concealed firearm permit, CFP, can open carry, may be the only reason the Utah Legislature can require a CFP for someone hiding that they are carrying a firearm.
Many people don't want to get rid of the CFP requirement.
Now Rep. Paul Ray's bill, 2013 HB 268 , Disorderly Conduct Amendments, might make it so the person with the 223 rifle strapped to their back at JC Penney might get in trouble with the law, but that same bill is going to make sure his Glock strapped to his waist is perfectly fine, as long as he isn't doing something scary with it. Without the CFP the gun can't have a bullet in the chamber, but that doesn't take too long to load in most cases.
So unless you are planning on a State Constitutional Amendment, that person with the 45 colt. strapped to their waist is going to stay. You should be grateful that a CFP is required, unless the principal gives permission, to carry a gun on to a public K-12 school. The good news is that the janitor, teacher, parent, or even the principal could be packing using a CFP. Hopefully the next time some person off their meds gets ready to shoot at a crowd, they are dropped on the spot by someone else, whether or not they have a CFP or just a glock strapped to their waist.
Remember to change the state constitution you would need 2/3 of the legislature, many of who have CFP. Some of whom would love to take things a step further and get rid of the requirement of a CFP to conceal carry.
Modifying our state constitution on firearms may not be an option as we do have a 2nd amendment for the US Constitution. While some would love to change that, that isn't going to happen .
Instead of being freaked out about the guns, why don't you take a NRA safety course. You don't have to own a gun. The NRA does a great job of teaching gun safety to scout leaders and others that teach children how to safely handle guns.
Guns are tools. Most people don't seem to mind a hammer strapped to the waist of a contractor.
For my thoughts on Constitutional Carry, see:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/07/constitutional-carry-thoughts.html
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Against Recall Elections in Utah
There is a proposal to change Utah law, or more likely the Utah Constitution to allow or require a system to recall an elected official mid term.
I do not agree with this change. We already have impeachment and other proceedings to remove someone for the abuse of office.
We have elections for a reason. It would lessen the importance of elections. We live in a republic.
"Opponents argue that it can lead to an excess of democracy, that the threat of a recall election lessens the independence of elected officials, that it undermines the principle of electing good officials and giving them a chance to govern until the next election, and that it can lead to abuses by well-financed special interest groups."
The best information I know on recalls is at:
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/recall-of-state-officials.aspx
I do not agree with this change. We already have impeachment and other proceedings to remove someone for the abuse of office.
We have elections for a reason. It would lessen the importance of elections. We live in a republic.
"Opponents argue that it can lead to an excess of democracy, that the threat of a recall election lessens the independence of elected officials, that it undermines the principle of electing good officials and giving them a chance to govern until the next election, and that it can lead to abuses by well-financed special interest groups."
The best information I know on recalls is at:
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/recall-of-state-officials.aspx
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Election Results
Update of results from Nov. 20, 2012:
House 30 added 1036 votes including at least 329 provisional ballots. I picked up 573 votes, Rep. Fisher picked up 462 votes and one more write-in.
Final votes in this race 5385 Rep. Fisher, 5029 Rep. Cox and 11 write-in votes.
There are 356 votes difference. 51.65% v 48.24% v 0.11%
https://secure.slco.org/clerk/elections/results/public/
House 30 added 1036 votes including at least 329 provisional ballots. I picked up 573 votes, Rep. Fisher picked up 462 votes and one more write-in.
Final votes in this race 5385 Rep. Fisher, 5029 Rep. Cox and 11 write-in votes.
There are 356 votes difference. 51.65% v 48.24% v 0.11%
https://secure.slco.org/clerk/elections/results/public/
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Rainwater Capture
Small storage
http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/video/0,,20045365,00.html
1200 Gallons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH16e-1RwE8
8:30 into the video until about 11:30
Current law in Utah allows the 1st option, the 2nd option would have to be an underground tank. That is being proposed to change.
http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/video/0,,20045365,00.html
1200 Gallons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH16e-1RwE8
8:30 into the video until about 11:30
Current law in Utah allows the 1st option, the 2nd option would have to be an underground tank. That is being proposed to change.
Land Rulings
Land Rulings
POLLARD'S LESSEE V. HAGAN, 44 U. S. 212 (1845)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/44/212/case.html
FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, 114 U. S. 525 (1885)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/114/525/case.html
WILSON V. COOK, 327 U. S. 474 (1946)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/327/474/
7. The State has legislative jurisdiction over the federal forest reserve lands located within it which were public lands of the United States when Arkansas was admitted to statehood. P. 327 U. S. 487.
(a) Upon admission of Arkansas to statehood upon an equal footing with the original States, the legislative authority of the State extended over the federally owned lands within the State, to the same extent as over similar property held by private owners, except that the State could enact no law which would conflict with the powers reserved to the United States by the Constitution. P. 327 U. S. 487.
Page 327 U. S. 476
(b) Such authority did not pass to the United States by virtue of the provision of Article I, § 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution, which authorizes it "to exercise exclusive Legislation . . over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the
Same shall be." P. 327 U. S. 488.
(c) Since the United States did not purchase the lands with the consent of the State, it did not acquire exclusive jurisdiction under the constitutional provision, and there has been no cession of jurisdiction by the State. P. 327 U. S. 488.
(d) Although Arkansas has conferred on Congress power to pass laws for the administration and control of lands acquired by the United States in Arkansas, it has not ceded exclusive legislative jurisdiction either over lands reserved by the United States from the public domain or over lands acquired in the State. P. 327 U. S. 488
UTAH DIV. OF STATE LANDS V. UNITED STATES, 482 U. S. 193 (1987)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/193/
HAWAII ET AL. v. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1372.pdf
UNITED STATES V. SIOUX NATION OF INDIANS, 448 U. S. 371 (1980)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/448/371/
Why Art. 1, 8, 17 was created:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s2.html
On the residue, to wit, "to exercise like authority over all places purchased for forts &c.
Mr Gerry contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government--
Mr. King thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would move to insert after the word "purchased" the words "by the consent of the Legislature of the State" This would certainly make the power safe.
POLLARD'S LESSEE V. HAGAN, 44 U. S. 212 (1845)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/44/212/case.html
FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, 114 U. S. 525 (1885)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/114/525/case.html
WILSON V. COOK, 327 U. S. 474 (1946)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/327/474/
7. The State has legislative jurisdiction over the federal forest reserve lands located within it which were public lands of the United States when Arkansas was admitted to statehood. P. 327 U. S. 487.
(a) Upon admission of Arkansas to statehood upon an equal footing with the original States, the legislative authority of the State extended over the federally owned lands within the State, to the same extent as over similar property held by private owners, except that the State could enact no law which would conflict with the powers reserved to the United States by the Constitution. P. 327 U. S. 487.
Page 327 U. S. 476
(b) Such authority did not pass to the United States by virtue of the provision of Article I, § 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution, which authorizes it "to exercise exclusive Legislation . . over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the
Same shall be." P. 327 U. S. 488.
(c) Since the United States did not purchase the lands with the consent of the State, it did not acquire exclusive jurisdiction under the constitutional provision, and there has been no cession of jurisdiction by the State. P. 327 U. S. 488.
(d) Although Arkansas has conferred on Congress power to pass laws for the administration and control of lands acquired by the United States in Arkansas, it has not ceded exclusive legislative jurisdiction either over lands reserved by the United States from the public domain or over lands acquired in the State. P. 327 U. S. 488
UTAH DIV. OF STATE LANDS V. UNITED STATES, 482 U. S. 193 (1987)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/193/
HAWAII ET AL. v. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1372.pdf
UNITED STATES V. SIOUX NATION OF INDIANS, 448 U. S. 371 (1980)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/448/371/
Why Art. 1, 8, 17 was created:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s2.html
On the residue, to wit, "to exercise like authority over all places purchased for forts &c.
Mr Gerry contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government--
Mr. King thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would move to insert after the word "purchased" the words "by the consent of the Legislature of the State" This would certainly make the power safe.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
My Mistake
You have no reason to be sorry for me.
There are a lot of things I could have done differently. I will only describe one.
When I re-budgeted my available funds, based on what was donated, which was more than I expected anyway, I and chose to get some billboards, and a media piece for the SL Tribune - I left enough time and money for a 4th flyer.
I spent about $1500 I hadn't planned on to send out some additional Mitt Romney pieces, (trying to respond to poll info I didn't request), but I was able to get SLCO. GOP to fund or reimburse the campaign for that detour.
That still left me enough for my 4th postcard.
When the 5th flyer was proposed to me, I felt it was the wrong thing to do. It smacked of the negative political consultants and their ilk, the dregs of politics, more dangerous than the most feared and powerful lobbyist. I have seen too many races ruined in years gone past, and this year in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, listening to that "dark side". They will create a problem just to get money for work to solve it. I was lobbied from all sides to run what I believed was a negative piece. I wouldn't budge. That wasn't a mistake. I feel good about that choice. Even if, as some believe, it cost me the race.
I don't blame anyone for promoting the idea.
To try to deal with this new idea, with the possible funding of a 5th postcard, I delayed working on my education piece.
When I had seen Rep. Fisher's, postcard of a child walking down the road, getting left behind on education, I knew I needed to counteract it. It included the multimillion dollar distortion a few groups have funded for many years about the "essential" problem of per pupil spending and the teacher pupil ratio. I was born and went to public schools in this valley. I know a great teacher with the right tools is more important than class size, fancy buildings, or stuff. But the photo of the child walking down the road alone being left behind would sway too many parents and grandparents. It was a game changer.
My mistake wasn't agreeing to send out the modified positive slick postcard with shading and stars My supporters loved it. They told people about it. I do not, however, believe it was the game changer I needed. That was why no one else wanted to fund it.
My mistake was to use the 7000 household campaign money and mailing list for for this slick piece on leadership with stars and Gov. Herbert - and what I had left in the budget for the 2200 household campaign money and mailing list for my education piece. I should have swapped lists and money, but didn't know how. I felt trapped.
I didn't have any personal funds or credit to use. I couldn't fully fund both, and didn't have the campaign funds remaining. I had used them. When I realized I would not get funding for the 5th postcard if it wasn't negative, but it had now been re-designed to be positive and was ready to go, I felt like I had to pay for it.
I did.
I was left with no time to get more funds. I shortened my education piece mailing list to 2200 active most likely to vote for me but hadn't yet. The pretty stars and Herbert piece went to all the active voters that hadn't voted, including those that had seen the left behind child. I knew at the time that was a mistake, but couldn't figure out what other choice I had. I would not choose the dark side.
My game changing education piece, while not as fancy, clear, or well designed, would not get seen by those that needed to see it. Rep. Fisher would remain in their mind as the one to save the children and I would be seen as someone supporting Mitt and being supported by the republican governor.
There are a lot of things I could have done differently. I will only describe one.
When I re-budgeted my available funds, based on what was donated, which was more than I expected anyway, I and chose to get some billboards, and a media piece for the SL Tribune - I left enough time and money for a 4th flyer.
I spent about $1500 I hadn't planned on to send out some additional Mitt Romney pieces, (trying to respond to poll info I didn't request), but I was able to get SLCO. GOP to fund or reimburse the campaign for that detour.
That still left me enough for my 4th postcard.
When the 5th flyer was proposed to me, I felt it was the wrong thing to do. It smacked of the negative political consultants and their ilk, the dregs of politics, more dangerous than the most feared and powerful lobbyist. I have seen too many races ruined in years gone past, and this year in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, listening to that "dark side". They will create a problem just to get money for work to solve it. I was lobbied from all sides to run what I believed was a negative piece. I wouldn't budge. That wasn't a mistake. I feel good about that choice. Even if, as some believe, it cost me the race.
I don't blame anyone for promoting the idea.
To try to deal with this new idea, with the possible funding of a 5th postcard, I delayed working on my education piece.
When I had seen Rep. Fisher's, postcard of a child walking down the road, getting left behind on education, I knew I needed to counteract it. It included the multimillion dollar distortion a few groups have funded for many years about the "essential" problem of per pupil spending and the teacher pupil ratio. I was born and went to public schools in this valley. I know a great teacher with the right tools is more important than class size, fancy buildings, or stuff. But the photo of the child walking down the road alone being left behind would sway too many parents and grandparents. It was a game changer.
My mistake wasn't agreeing to send out the modified positive slick postcard with shading and stars My supporters loved it. They told people about it. I do not, however, believe it was the game changer I needed. That was why no one else wanted to fund it.
My mistake was to use the 7000 household campaign money and mailing list for for this slick piece on leadership with stars and Gov. Herbert - and what I had left in the budget for the 2200 household campaign money and mailing list for my education piece. I should have swapped lists and money, but didn't know how. I felt trapped.
I didn't have any personal funds or credit to use. I couldn't fully fund both, and didn't have the campaign funds remaining. I had used them. When I realized I would not get funding for the 5th postcard if it wasn't negative, but it had now been re-designed to be positive and was ready to go, I felt like I had to pay for it.
I did.
I was left with no time to get more funds. I shortened my education piece mailing list to 2200 active most likely to vote for me but hadn't yet. The pretty stars and Herbert piece went to all the active voters that hadn't voted, including those that had seen the left behind child. I knew at the time that was a mistake, but couldn't figure out what other choice I had. I would not choose the dark side.
My game changing education piece, while not as fancy, clear, or well designed, would not get seen by those that needed to see it. Rep. Fisher would remain in their mind as the one to save the children and I would be seen as someone supporting Mitt and being supported by the republican governor.
I
only ended up needing to help change the mind of about 250 voters of about
9400. That would change the overall difference by 500. I would then win.
I don't know what I will do in the future. I do know if I run again, I won't choose the dark side, and I won't be detoured at the last minute.
I don't know what I will do in the future. I do know if I run again, I won't choose the dark side, and I won't be detoured at the last minute.
I want to thank everyone for all the many hours, help support and ideas. I may not be as "knowledgeable" in politics as some, but I have lived here in this area for almost 25 years and the Salt Lake Valley my whole life. I can choose the good side.
I congratulate Rep. Fisher for sticking to our agreement to stay positive and for apparently and most likely winning. If the number of votes not counted yet but will be released on the 20th ends up being enough to make up the difference, I will gladly serve. That would take a miracle at this point.
Fred C. Cox
Representing House District 32 until the end of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)