[marksman]

This on just got added to the 3rd reading calendar.

 

[bane]

Also, to clarify, this is the one that clarifies that CC'ers are not obligated to remain CC... reinforces legality of OC...

 

[Jeff Johnson]

Link to this bill: H.B. 473 - Firearms Amendments -- Oda, C.

 

[Kevin Jensen]

Rep. Urquhart has proposed an amendment to Oda's HB 473 that would codify that firearms must be kept concealed on school premises. ALL of them, including day cares and grade schools, as well as colleges. No more permitted open carry to vote if your polling place is in a school.

Violation would be an infraction. Inadvertent, unintentional, or accidental exposure would not count, but are not defined. I'm guessing too short of a jacket or "casually concealed" would be a tall defense to make.

http://le.utah.gov/~2008/pamend/hb0473.hfa.01.htm

Please contact your Rep. and oppose Rep. Urquhart's amendment to HB 473. If you live in Urquhart's district in St. George, or have family or friends who do, please ask them to contact Urquhart and POLITELY voice their disagreement with this position.

http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/DistrictInfo/NewMaps/State.htm

 

[bane]

Sgt. Jensen, Good hat-tip, Thanks!

Here's the letter I wrote my Rep:

Rep. Dunnigan,

I am writing to ask you to vote *NO* to Urquhart's proposed changes to HB473.

I am not an Open-Firearm-Carrier (I do carry concealed, with a permit), but I feel this proposed change opens too many cans of worms that are very serious.
I am a student at SLCC and next year will be transferring to the U. With the U's track-record against lawfully-carried firearms, I fear that they would do everything they could to press a case against me were my firearm to become ACCIDENTALLY revealed. I realize the proposed change makes accidental disclosure NOT a crime, however, neither does this proposal define accidental disclosure nor can one reliably feel certain that, in such an environment, that the Administration would NOT still attempt to prosecute for such an event -- and though I would likely be found innocent, the expense, time, and hassle of defending myself would be very egregious given the nature of the alleged "crime".

Some people have an "itch" to rid society of ALL weapons -- this bill's modification merely opens a hole for them to hassle and pursue us, regardless of the fact that we are otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Please do not vote to limit our rights in a way that might inadvertently make us criminals.

Thank You for Your Representation,
(signed)

 

[roseblood]

You do realize that this amendment allows for inadvertent exposure, and that open carry is only listed as an infraction.

Based on what I have heard from my university administration contacts, this bill was going to die or be legally challenged by the U if it passed as it was.

While I don't like the amendment, I consider it an acceptable modification. I would consider this a win for concealed carry people over what the U policy currently is; though a loss for open carry advocates.

Just remember this phrase: "I was just scratching my butt, officer"

 

[bane]

roseblood: The problem, in my view, is what happens at the U once this law passes and I *INADVERTENTLY* reveal my gun (say, my bending over to pick my books of the floor at the end of class)???

The U has already demonstrated what will happen. I have read of 2 cases where CC'ers accidentally revealed their weapon (one whose shirt rode up and the other I can't recall the details other than I recall he lives on campus and is confined to a wheelchair, I'm sorry, I'm sure a google can reveal both stories pretty easily). The U went after both of these guys.

I understand the bill APPEARS to protect from accidental exposure... the problem is that since the U has demonstrated their antagonism against CC'ers who have accidentally exposed, there is not question in my mind that even once the law is passed they will continue to persecute CC'ers... only this time they will use this new law to do so and will attempt to argue that it was NOT accidental. They will stretch the law as far as they possibly can.

Will they win? I'm guessing not.
But they will make those individual's lives VERY PAINFUL trying to defend themselves against ludicrous assertions.

Furthermore, this law helps to reinforce the stigma commonly held that *SEEING* a weapon is "BAD". Simply, this law will not achieve any good and will only create more problems.

 

[roseblood]

I see your point, and while I understand where you're coming from I do know that the U president was involved in creating this amendment and agreed to the inadvertent exposure language.

Yes, they can make life hard for you. But would you really want to attend a school that is out to get you at every turn? In this case, talk economics and attend CSU. Knowing how money gets divided up for higher ed in the state, I can tell you that losing students hurts them badly.

 

[bane]

I understand your point about attending a different school. I have considered going to either Weber (I can take all of the classes locally at SLCC) or going to Westminster.

However, talking about economics, which is what led to my decision to stay the U, I realized that if I ever leave the state (which is likely at some point considering my career options are stronger in WA) it would be better to come from a recognizable school. All the others in the state, except BYU, just don't have that sort of clout. Well, Westminster does a bit but their CS program to my understanding just doesn't compare to the U's program.

 

[marksman]

I think this amendment neuters the bill.

 

[Kevin Jensen]

While I don't like the amendment, I consider it an acceptable modification. I would consider this a win for concealed carry people over what the U policy currently is; though a loss for open carry advocates.

You have missed the point. The U of U already recognizes the legality of concealed carry. It is open carry that they are opposing. "Either we are equal, or we are not." Lets not "Negotiate Rights Away."

HB 473, in is original state, did NOTHING to current law. It only seeks to clarify existing law. This hostile amendment has effectively infringed on our rights. Not only is it one more restriction, but open carry would be illegal within 1000 feet of a school.

Imagine, I am taking my Glock for a walk, and I am 973 feet (random number) away from my daughters elementary school. One of Santaquin's finest could issue me a citation for open carry about school property, where without HB 473 it is still currently legal. Or how about exercising my right to open carry while exercising my right to vote. ANY law that further restricts what we can do with our lawfully carried arms only serves to punish the law abiding.

Please email your Rep. and ask him to oppose this ammendment. Also, please send an email to Rep. Curtis Oda, [email protected] and ask him to kill this bill if this amendment is allowed to be attached to HB 473. The De Facto legality open carry is FAR better that further restrictions of our rights.

 

[roseblood]

I see your point.
If I could ever get my reps to return an email or a phone call, I would be happy to talk to them about it.

 

[Kevin Jensen]

I see your point.
If I could ever get my reps to return an email or a phone call, I would be happy to talk to them about it.

An email with no reply is better than ignoring it. Lets fill their email with opposition!

 

[roseblood]

One thing I would hate to see is an addition to the amendment to include definitions of accidental exposure.
As it stands, because it's ambiguous there is room for legal defense. Also, I have heard that there is no need for an affirmative defense in cases that would involve incidents like this; in other word, they would have to prove that you intended to reveal your weapon, and you do not have to prove that you accidentally revealed your weapon.

 

[tapehoser]

Sent an email to my representative. Thanks!

 

[divegeek]

I realized that if I ever leave the state (which is likely at some point considering my career options are stronger in WA) it would be better to come from a recognizable school. All the others in the state, except BYU, just don't have that sort of clout. Well, Westminster does a bit but their CS program to my understanding just doesn't compare to the U's program.

I don't think you need to be concerned about that.

I've been a professional software developer for nearly 20 years now, and in much of that time hiring decisions have been part of my job. I've also had lots of opportunities to be on the job candidate's side of the table (as a consultant, I effectively get a new job every few months, and as an architect/team lead I end up hiring a new team every few months).

In this field, degrees matter very little, and choice of school is almost completely irrelevant. What gets you jobs is your experience first and foremost, interviewing skills second and degree is a very, very distant third and even then it's more of a yes/no question. No one after your first job is going to care about evaluating the quality of your degree.

The catch, as always, is how you get that first job so you can start building a resume, and of course a degree is a much greater consideration there. If you graduate from WSU, for example, you'll have a much harder time getting that first job with a big corporation than if your degree is from the UofU or, even better, a really big-name school like Stanford, MIT, CMU, or CalTech. But there will be plenty of small companies who are glad to exploit you for peanuts no matter where your degree is from.

Assuming you're bright, talented and motivated by a love of the work, you'll quickly end up in a decent job no matter where you start, so the only difference your choice of school will really make is how much money you can pull down in the first year of employment. And even that isn't true if you can manage to acquire some solid experience before graduating. I highly recommend trying to get some part time work while still in school, or, perhaps even better, write some open source software. When I'm hiring people fresh out of school, a good open source project on the resume is extremely compelling, plus it also gives me an easy way to evaluate their ability.

My advice to CS students is to choose their school based on where they'll get the best education, not what will look best on their resume. The environment that will give you the best education is different from person to person. In my case, what worked for me was a mediocre program that gave me a key to a lab full of millions of dollars of equipment so that I could go through a serious larval stage where I worked with lots of high-powered professors -- none of whom taught at the school I was attending (WSU).

The CS world has changed dramatically, however, and unless you want to focus on massive parallelism or similar niches (though that one is growing rapidly -- even my laptop has two cores these days) access to equipment isn't the issue. Nowadays, I'd focus on finding a program that is very heavy on both classroom theory and on practical student projects. The theory is crucial for long-term survival in an industry where you get a completely different toolset every couple of years. A bone-deep understanding of algorithms, data structures, modeling and data communications theory will work for you whatever tools you're using, whereas deep skill in the current hot language will be obsolete in a few years. The practical student projects are essential because they teach you a lot of the issues you'll face in the real world in a less stressful environment.

Honestly, though, if you're motivated enough you'll self-educate on whatever pieces your school's program doesn't cover, so what you really need to do is focus on finding a way to get some experience.

Come to think of it, if you know any PHP, or want to learn it, I might have a job for you. PM me if you're interested.

 

[bane]

swilden,

*GREAT* feedback, thank you!

I do actually already have an engineering job. I work with a company that does wireless stuff. They hired me as a PT Intern and I'm learning a ton. So by the time I grad. I'll have the experience.

I'll PM you about this a bit more.

 

[marksman]

There is a second ammendment now on the table that restricts open carry (like the first) but now only on postsecondary schools.

 

[marksman]

some representitive just moved that the ammend to require that concealed permit carriers carry concealed.

 

[marksman]

I think it's litvack's amendment it failed still considering Urquhart's amendment.