1987. St George, British Columbia on my way to California
I was talking to someone today about “moments that change who you are”. I want to share a few experiences of mine that shaped who I am.
Lesson 1: Know Who You Are
My formative years were spent in Wasilla, Alaska. I was taking a US History class with Jeanne Krause as a student at Wasilla High School, and it was in her class that a challenge was given that I will never forget. She asked the class to describe one of our political beliefs. Then she asked why we believed it, and she kept asking us why. This is a concept of business inquiry called the “five whys” that attempts to discover a root cause/issue of a problem. I didn’t know that back then, but I eventually understood what she was doing. She was pushing us to really think about political stances we had adopted, and question whether those stances would, in fact, hold water when compared against our actual values. I was able to listen to other students describe their justifications, whether they actually explored the reasons or simply held firm without reflecting on “why”. I also had to think about my own stances, recognize what I was familiar with, what I might have simply accepted because it was convention, what I knew, and more importantly what I didn’t know but had assumptions about. It was an uncomfortable discussion, but I learned that I was responsible for questioning and testing my own perceptions. I learned that my opinion mattered. And I learned that part of growing up was becoming critical of assumptions and making choices based on my own values, that might conflict with others. I’m grateful to Ms. Krause for pushing us to look inward and outward.
I mention it here because we are in a really polarized election period, and it’s important that we (all of us) are thinking about our root values and making decisions based on what matters most to us.
Lesson 2: Do Something
When I was 12 my mother was diagnosed with an aggressive form of Multiple Sclerosis, and it had devastating impact on her life and for our family. One of the biggest changes for us was the relative abandonment of my mother’s friends, and of our church family. My mother had always sought a church where we lived. She started as a Methodist in her home town, and my earliest recollection was attending a Lutheran church when we lived in Minnesota. When we moved to Alaska she started at the Lutheran church in Petersburg, but found services uninspiring. We eventually settled into a membership with the Assemblies of God, and after another move to the mainland, found another AOG church. She loved to sing, and the song worship was one of the best parts of going to there.
When my mother was diagnosed, it seemed like everything changed. Friends would check in at first, but eventually dropped away. The church offered to help drive us to services, but it wasn’t dependable. My mother, with a wheelchair and kids in tow, were too much for any long commitment from other churchgoers. When we attended, one of the key messages that we would repeatedly hear was that if my mother truly asked god for forgiveness for her sins, he would heal her; that the endowment of the holy spirit upon her was a sign of her faith, and it was through god that she could live again. We heard this from the pastor, from the visiting pastors, from faith healers, and from the churches we were directed to when theirs didn’t work. In one of the last visits to a church, they were laying hands on my mother and yelling at her, commanding the demons to leave her body so that she could accept Christ. They tried to pick her up from her wheelchair to walk, but she couldn’t. As her 14 year old son, it was heartbreaking to watch this. When they were done the pastor told me that I had the patience of Job. I have never felt the urge to punch someone in the face more than at that time.
It was during this very difficult time in my life that I learned how cruel people can be, even when it’s unintentional. The church was not an answer. I was forced to become a caretaker for my sick mother at a very young age, and I also became a caretaker for my younger siblings. I learned by going through my own very difficult childhood that if I didn’t do the work, there would be no-one to do it for you.
I learned that bad things can happen to good people. I also learned that prayers only go so far. Prayers, if you believe in them, should lead to reflection, which should lead to resolution, which should lead to action.
The lesson here was and always will be to do something. For me, that meant running for office; and this year it means being informed and voting for change you want to see.
Lesson 3: Kindness Exists
When I was 19, and after my mother was moved to a long-term care facility, I wanted to escape by moving to California to attend college. When I left home, my father told me that I would “come crawling back” and refused to say goodbye. I was angry when I left home, and I was determined that I would not go back. Within a semester, my roommate who traveled with me gave up and asked his parents to come back home. I was alone, poor, working part time and trying to go to college. I couldn’t afford the apartment, and a room rental I had arranged after my roommate left fell through unexpectedly, and I suddenly had nothing. I found a room to rent from Helen, a bar owner who rented to divorced dads and heroine addicts who were in recovery, and I was grateful for the space because I had a room with a lock on the door, and it was my safe space. A friend of one of my sisters showed up unexpectedly; she was supposed to stay with me for two weeks and travel home. After several months, a disconnected phone for hundreds of dollars in long-distance calls, and wrecking my car, she was gone.
I was young, and poor, and angry. I had to drop out of school because I had to earn money for rent and food. I didn’t have a car. I had no friends, and felt like anyone who I met wanted something. The situation changed, but it wasn’t overnight.
My first job in California was working night security at Eden hospital. On my first night I was holding doors for the ambulance arrival of a vehicle accident that took place on the San Mateo bridge, and there were several injured that arrived and needed to be unloaded. A nurse was triaging patients and asked me to hold a baby (uninjured) that was in the party. The baby stopped crying as I held her, so she told me my job was to continue holding the baby. Seeing the trauma, but holding this infant was unforgettable.
Another job was working mornings as a stable person/groomer/trainer at Fairview Arabian Farms. The owner Marilyn was another parent figure who I learned to trust and talk with. She was kind, and she was someone who encouraged me to stick with it and be hopeful.
I was offered a job at a bank after working a couple of nights as a temp to conduct a phone survey. The bank manager heard me talking to customers and decided I was worth investing in. It was the first time that worked around other employees who really cared and looked after each other. It was also where I succumbed to watching soap operas (specifically Loving) so I could keep up with office chatter.
At that job, a bank manager who checked in on me as a father figure. He was Hindi. I knew nothing about his background, but he made sure to talk to me about life and our passage through it. I am grateful for him recognizing that I needed someone who could counsel and guide me.
I met an insurance agent who became a father figure to me when he recognized that I was struggling to make ends meet. He had a sardonic sense of humor (his regular joke was “better you than me, @$$hole” when he was listening to clients filing claims) but he was always kind, and he looked out for others.
It took a long time to get my feet under me, and I wouldn’t be where I am without the people who stopped to see me and do more than look past me. I am truly grateful for their kindness, and what it meant to me.
Lesson 4: Life Happens
Things go well, until they don’t. How you respond when things don’t go well is a testament to who you are as a person, the burdens you carry, and what shaped you. How you respond to others when things don’t go well for them is about your empathy, willingness to listen and understand, maturity, patience, with very likely some tolerance thrown in.
You have heard about #disagreebetter in Utah politics. That hashtag is used with sarcasm more than for encouraging real discussion. Know that how you respond, and how you respond to others matters.
Summary
Today is September 19, which means there are 26 days until mail-in ballots are sent out, and 47 days to the November 5 election. We’ve had some crazy turmoil in the elections, some of it good, some of it bad.
Know Who You Are, and know what matters most to you.
Do Something. Learn about candidates (it’s why I’m writing this) and what they stand for.
Seek to be Kind. Don’t make decisions based on fear and anger.
Know that Life Happens. This year has been a travesty in Utah politics. But there is something that you can do about it.
For South Jordan and West Jordan residents who are part of House District 44, you have an important decision to make when casting your vote for House Representative.
My opponent was the house sponsor for Amendment D to steal voter rights away from Utah voters. He takes his constituency for granted and is doing nothing for District voters, while ingratiating himself with conservative national think tanks. He passes legislation that ends up in costly court battles that are ultimately lost, and leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. His recent focus has been to strip constitutional rights of voters, weakening the rights of public employees, attacking our system of public education, and indoctrinating school curriculum.
We need a legislator who will represent ALL of our constituents, who will listen and respond to the local issues that matter to us. We are better when we work together, and I’m asking for your vote this November.
Reading on mobile? Use landscape mode to view columns
Greg Green
Jordan Teuscher
Summary
I’m a first time candidate with an objective to unseat Teuscher and stop the flow of really bad legislation that he introduces. When elected, I intend to work with like-minded legislators and the minority caucus in the House to prioritize, support and pass legislation that focuses on local issues important to Utahns. I am committed to listening to voters to better represent issues that matter here. I am also committed to protecting the rights of all Utah constituents.
Summary
The current house representative elected in 2020, who is part of the legislative supermajority taking rights from voters. His issues are moving further to the right, and he is becoming obsessed with control (see the bills he sponsored below). Consistently submits bills to dismantle worker rights. Does not support women’s rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, or religious freedom. Several of his bills resulted in expensive litigation paid by taxpayers.
2025 Priorities
Address government over-reach. Protect voter rights and voter access. Support Better Boundaries initiative to restore fair districting.
Invest in our system of public schools. We need to stop legislating and politicizing our public school systems.
Support legislation that strengthens labor laws and improves worker rights.
Improve private and accessible medical care. A person’s healthcare is a conversation between a patient and their doctor, full stop.
Resolve the issue of Medicaid funding, address waivers that do not sufficiently allow full Medicaid expansion in the state. Fix gaps in eligibility for disability coverage.
Mental health services and drug treatment programs are critical for many Utahns, including a significant portion of our homeless population.
Infrastructure for Southern Utah roads, bridges and railways
Expand accessible commute options for North-South and East-West travel along the Wasatch Front
Seek owner accountability for unsecured firearms that are part of an injury, death or criminal action
2024 Legislative Actions
SPONSOR: SJR401 House Sponsor of Amendment Dto strip Utah voters of legislative rights (Blocked by Utah Courts on Sep 12, 2024 for deceptive language, not following due process) – he now says that he will run it again
Utah State Democratic Party, 2024 National Delegate
Utah State Democratic Party, House District 44 Vice Chair
Utah Developmental Disabilities Council (UDDC), Member
Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities (LCPD), Member
NAACP, Member
Special Olympics, Athlete Parent
Known Engagements/Donors
ALEC – the right wing lobbyists who meet with legislators behind closed doors, and a source of copy/paste legislation (including bills introduced by Jordan Teuscher)
Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) – whose focus is to push, repackage and franchise conservative ideas to implement
Teuscher accepted money from Young Americans for Liberty, a group with extensive ties to White Nationalist activists
Labor: Utah AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Utah Public Employees Association; American Federation of Teachers (AFT-Utah); LiUNA Laborers’ Local 295; Operating Engineers Local 3; United Steel Workers Local 392; Teamsters Local 222; UA Local 140; United Mine Workers (UMWA D22), SMART-TD Union
Schools: Utah Education Association (UEA) PAC; Jordan Education Association; Utah Parents for Teachers
Religious Freedom: Center for Freethought Equality PAC
Caucuses: Womens’ Democratic Club of Utah; Disability Caucus; Black Caucus; Hispanic Caucus; Asian Pacific Islander Caucus; Progressive Caucus; Stonewall Caucus; Environmental Caucus
I will defend Utah’s constitution, and Utahns legislative right to representation
I support employee fair wages and benefits, safe work environments, education and the right to organize
I believe in working across aisles to build good legislation for all
I support private access to medical care. The government needs to stay out of the doctor’s office
I support public schools, inclusive environments for ALL of our students, and trust librarians
I’m a first time candidate. I have a whole bunch of endorsements behind me because groups believe that I can make a change
I will ALWAYS defend voter access and mail-in ballots
WHO IS MY OPPONENT (Jordan Teuscher)?
He is the floor sponsor of SJR401/Amendment D that takes away voter rights
He sponsored HB285 to weaken public employee unions for firefighters, police, state, county and municipal employees, and our teachers
He calls the Utah Supreme Court “liberal” for ruling to allow Better Boundaries to pursue their gerrymandering case
He doesn’t believe that women should have control of their own bodies
He supports vouchers that are pulling money from public schools
He takes money from Young Americans for Liberty, a group with ties to White Nationalists
He is a copy/paste legislator. He works with groups like ALEC, the right wing lobbyists who meet with legislators behind closed doors, and the Foundation for Gov’t Accountability (FGA) whose focus is to push, repackage & franchise conservative agendas
I want to flip this seat. I know that it’s a long shot but this is an extraordinary election season. Teuscher is taking his constituency for granted and is doing nothing for the voters of our District, while ingratiating himself with conservative national think tanks. We need a voice, we need representation, we need someone in the legislature who will work for us, the people.
I’m not interested in this endorsement because the NRA does not represent responsible and accountable gun ownership. Their PAC actively works against the better interests of our citizenry.
The NRA sells fear.
What’s interesting is that their survey fails to address owner accountability. In Utah during the month of August-September 2024, 3 children were shot and 2 subsequently died as a result of finding unsecured, loaded firearms. Question #13 of the survey (owners of lost/stolen weapons to be held blameless) is the closest the NRA will get to negligent storage of a firearm.
For transparency, I completed answers (but did not submit) the National Rifle Association – Political Victory Fund 2024 NRA-PVF Utah Candidate Questionnaire so that my positions on these questions can be shared with constituents.
Message from NRA-PVF (ilastateaffairs@nrahq.org) Dear Utah Candidate,
The 2024 Utah Primary Election is right around the corner, and our members want to hear about you regarding your stance on the Second Amendment.
As America’s foremost defender of our Second Amendment rights, the NRA, since its inception, has been the premier firearms education organization in the world. Our continued leadership is due to the tireless service of our millions of members that have championed Second Amendment rights and NRA programs throughout the nation.
NRA members are deeply involved in the democratic process at all levels of government. It is important for them to learn about your commitment to preserving and protecting their Second Amendment rights. The 2024 Utah NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire can be found above by clicking on the Review & Sign button. Candidate questionnaires are not released to the public, but the information derived from them is used to determine candidate ratings, which are communicated to our members. Please take the time to fill out and return this survey as soon as possible, so we can let our members know your positions on these important issues.
If you choose not to return a questionnaire, you may be assigned a “?” rating, which can be interpreted by our members as indifference, if not outright hostility, toward Second Amendment-related issues.
Should you have questions concerning the questionnaire or the rating process, please contact me at (564) 236-9746 or KHopkins@nrahq.org.
Thank you for your prompt attention, and best of luck in the upcoming election! Sincerely,
Keely Hopkins Utah State Director
Please mark the best and most appropriate response that aligns with your views.
1. Do you agree that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding Americans? (Yes/No)
x No, it is not a guarantee. Like all rights, the 2nd amendment is not limitless. It says that “a well regulated militia” (i.e. a military force that is raised from the civil population) is necessary.
What about the “well regulated” part?
What “Arms” should be defined as belonging to the citizenry?
What fundamental right does this grant to an individual?
Does one person’s fundamental right to bear Arms supercede another person’s fundamental right to a safe community?
The “right of the people” does not presume individual ownership.
Thequestion states that the right should be for law-abiding citizens, but the 2a doesn’t say that, it says “the right of the people”. Do you disagree that the right of the people is all people who are US citizens?
I want responsible, accountable gun ownership with regulation, and a common acceptance that defense is for the mutual benefit of a free state, not gun hoarding, not fanaticism, not Battle Royale.
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. – U.S. Constitution – Second Amendment
2. Firearm registration is a system in which a government agency maintains immediately accessible records of specific firearms owned by individual citizens. Current federal law prohibits the creation of a federal firearm registration system (other than the existing registration requirement for machineguns and short-barreled rifles and shotguns). Firearm registration has led to gun bans and confiscation in the United States (California and New York City) and abroad (Australia and Great Britain). Do you support requiring firearm owners to register their firearms with a government agency? (Yes/No)
x No. Utah does not require firearm owners to register their firearms.
3. Statewide preemption laws ensure that the state controls firearm regulations, and prevents counties, cities, and other municipalities from passing a “patchwork” of more restrictive and conflicting local laws throughout the state. Do you support Utah’s firearms preemption law? (Yes/No)
x No.
4. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed a 10-year ban on the importation and manufacture for sale to private persons of nearly 200 models of semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds. This became known as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Federal studies determined the ban had no measurable effect on crime, and it was allowed to expire in 2004. Do you support a similar ban on semi-automatic firearms in Utah? (Yes/No)
x It’s complicated. Certain firearms are not for hunting, sport, or personal defense. Those weapons should qualify for restrictions that are reasonable. Additional modifications, regardless of the actuating mechanism, that can turn a firearm into an automatic weapon also need to be restricted.
5. While there is no evidence that limiting the capacity of an ammunition magazine has any impact on reducing crime or increasing public safety, some states are introducing legislation to restrict the possession, ownership, purchase, sale, and/or transfer of ammunition magazines by limiting the number of rounds of ammunition a magazine can hold. Many of these magazines are sold standard with firearms and are commonly-owned. Do you support banning the possession, ownership, purchase, sale, and/or transfer of magazines based on their size? (Yes/No)
x No.
6. Efforts at the state level are increasingly targeting access to ammunition, with proposals to ban mail order sales, require background checks and point-of-sale record-keeping, eliminate traditional lead shot, ration purchases, and even restrict the amount of ammunition that may be possessed at one time. Most of these proposals at the state level aim to punish law-abiding people who practice, train, and participate in recreational shooting activities. Do you support new restrictions on the purchase and possession of ammunition beyond current law? (Yes/No, if Yes, list restrictions)
x Yes, however I disagree that these suggestions are punishment. Ideally we need to phase out lead ammunition used for hunting with a cost effective, more environmentally safe bullet that doesn’t poison scavenger species. This is something that should be introduced within the market and not legislated. Regarding sales tracking, how on earth are you planning to get around that? Internet history, cookies, site accounts, sales records, forums, etc already provide a wealth of information to anyone who wants to look for it.
7. Currently, it is legal for adults over the age of 18 to purchase and possess long guns. Some argue the age to buy rifles and shotguns should be increased to 21. This would effectively deny law-abiding adults, ages 18 to 20, their Second Amendment rights. Do you support raising the age for the purchase of rifles and shotguns to 21 years of age? (Yes/No)
x I support restrictions of firearm sales based on the type of weapon sold that would apply to all buyers.
8. A foundational principle of the American judicial system is the guarantee that an individual is entitled to due process – including notice of the relevant accusations, the opportunity to appear at a hearing before a neutral judge, the opportunity to present evidence in his or her favor, and access to legal representation before they can be stripped of a Constitutional right. Do you agree that an individual’s Second Amendment Right cannot be denied without stringent due process? (Yes/No)
x I support red-flag laws to identify patterns of physical violence and suicidal behavior, or for people who are mentally ill (psychotic, delusional, or otherwise incapable of making a rational decision). The challenge here is what balance there is on when and why to strip a right from a person, and also protect timely restoration of their rights. This is not a simple question to answer, but there are cases where an individual should not have access to a firearm.
9. Gun-free zones create arbitrary boundaries where law-abiding citizens arc disarmed, while zero measures are taken to prevent criminals from entering. Many argue that law-abiding gun owners should be allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense outside their home, especially on public property that is not considered a “secured” facility. Secured facilities are those where all points of ingress and egress are protected by metal detectors and armed security. Do you support state legislation reducing or eliminating gun-free zones that are not secured? (Yes/No)
x No. Churches, Schools, Counseling Centers, Restaurants, Malls, Fairgrounds, Arenas, and any other establishment public or private can have rules on whether firearms are permitted on a property.
10. The “instant” background check system only prohibits the purchase of firearms based on objective disqualifiers. Due process requires the government to substantiate firearm purchase denials with reliable documentation. A “safety valve” provision in current law enforces this requirement by allowing (not mandating) an FFL to proceed with a sale after 3 business days if the FBI still has not denied the sale (illegal possession, of course, remains actionable). Gun control advocates want to repeal this safety-valve and have proposed increasing the “acceptable” time period of delays to a week, ten days, or even indefinitely. Do you support current law allowing the purchase of a firearm to proceed after 3 business days if the FBI still has not denied the sale? (Yes/No)
x No. Point of correction, in Utah background checks are performed by the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI).
11. Efforts at the state level are increasingly targeting the expansion of Utah’s background check system. Currently, all sales in Utah, through a federally licensed dealer, have to go through the state’s Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) for the criminal background check, which uses the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), along with other Utah databases. Note: Transfer includes loans, leases, and gifts. Do you support expanding the background check system in Utah to include private sales or transfers of firearms (so-called “universal” background checks)? (Yes/No)
x Yes. I 100% support this.
12. Several states and the District of Columbia require mandatory waiting periods before the purchaser of a firearm may take possession of the firearm. For example, California and the District of Columbia require a 10-day waiting period from the date of purchase to the date of delivery. Do you support mandating waiting periods between the purchase and delivery of firearms? (Yes/No, if Yes, number of days for waiting period)
x No. As long as the application and background checks have been completed successfully, there should be no waiting period for the purchase of a firearm.
13. Lawmakers at the state and local level have been introducing legislation to criminalize the failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm within a certain period of time from when the owner “knew or should have known” of the loss or theft. Proponents claim, although they have never demonstrated, that this will deter illegal firearms trafficking. While the NRA certainly does not oppose the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, it does oppose stigmatizing and punishing the victims of crime or those who suffer loss from events, such as natural catastrophes, that are not their fault. The message these laws send is that persons whose firearms are lost or stolen are somehow to blame or are complicit in the criminal acts of another person. Do you support making it a crime to fail to report the loss or theft of a firearm within a specified time period? (Yes/No)
x No. Comment: Crimes should be reported, and a loss of theft of a firearm should be recorded to protect the owner from possible legal repercussions if the firearm is later involved in a crime.
14. California recently enacted an excise tax of 11% on the sale of firearms and ammunition in addition to existing fees and taxes. The new tax was referred to by the Governor as a “sin tax”. Do you support imposing an additional tax specifically targeted at the retail sale of firearms or ammunition? Note: All firearm and ammunition sales are currently subject to an 11% federal excise tax known as the Pittman-Robertson Act and applicable state and local taxes. (Yes/No, if yes what additional tax)
x Everything is taxable. California bill AB28 “Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Act” was passed on Sept. 26, 2023 and went into effect on July 1. For the California bill, money raised is earmarked to pay for things like violence intervention programs, firearm relinquishment, gun safety education and school-based mental health and behavioral services.
15. Increased development, due to a growing and shifting population, has put many established gun clubs and shooting ranges at risk of being squeezed out. This encroachment has led to lawsuits and local ordinances that aim to put established ranges out of business. To combat this, some states have enacted range protection laws or have strengthened existing range protection laws. Do you support Utah’s shooting range protection laws? (Yes/No)
x No. This isn’t a state legislative issue. Work with cities and counties for permits and zoning issues.
16. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) issues over 250,000 hunting licenses annually and the fees from these licenses pay for wildlife conservation across the state. If hunting is an essential tool for wildlife management and conservation, as well as an American tradition that teaches self-reliance, responsibility, and respect for nature. Further, hunting is already heavily regulated by DWR. Do you support further restrictions or bans on hunting? (Yes/No, if Yes, list restrictions)
x No. Comment: My point here is that the Division of Wildlife Resources can continue to be responsible for regulation. I’m not sure what further restrictions the NRA is suggesting, and their language is leading.
17. Traditional lead ammunition is the most common, cost-effective form of ammunition across the United States, but it has been under attack on both the federal and state levels recently by various anti-gun/anti- hunting groups. Non-traditional ammunition, such as ammunition containing tungsten or copper, is expensive and sometimes difficult to find, especially in rural areas. Consideration of any regulation or limitation on traditional ammunition should be based on sound science and population-level impacts. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies adopted a resolution in 2010 which stated that “state agencies should focus regulation efforts where population-level impacts to wildlife are substantiated.” Do you support banning or limiting traditional lead ammunition? (Yes/No, if Yes, explain)
x As stated previously, we need to phase out lead ammunition used for hunting with a cost effective, more environmentally safe bullet that doesn’t poison scavenger species.
18. Firearm registration facilitates firearm confiscation. Understanding that the federal government and most states are prohibited from or do not keep a registry of firearms or firearm owners, gun control activists have attempted to deputize banks and credit card payment processors to maintain private firearm transaction data that will be used to track the purchasing habits of law-abiding gun owners. These gun control activists have encouraged banks and payment processors to utilize a gun dealer specific Merchant Category Code to monitor lawful credit card purchases at firearm retailers. Do you support Utah’s recently enacted law that prohibits banks and payment processors from collecting private firearm owner data? (Yes/No)
x As stated previously, Utah does not require firearm owners to register their firearms. Regarding sales tracking, how on earth are you planning to get around that? Internet history, cookies, site accounts, sales records, forums, etc already provide a wealth of information to anyone who wants to look for it.
19. Are you a member of the National Rifle Association or any other firearm/shooting sports/sportsmen’s organization? (Yes, NRA {Membership Number}, Yes, Member of other Org {List}, No)
x No
20. Have you ever run for or held an elected office? (Yes {List Office}, No)
x No
Please feel free to use the space below to provide additional comments or policy positions you’d like to add, including your history and involvement with the NRA. If your campaign has released a position paper on firearm or Second Amendment related issues, please attach those as well.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Comments:
The NRA sells fear.
What’s interesting is that this survey fails to address owner accountability. In Utah during the month of August-September 2024, 3 children were shot and 2 subsequently died as a result of finding unsecured, loaded firearms. Question #13 of the survey (owners of lost/stolen weapons to be held blameless) is the closest the NRA will get to negligent storage of a firearm.
Sept 17 update: I’m pleased to announce that I was awarded the 2024 Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate distinction for my advocacy of common-sense gun safety.
For transparency, I am providing my answers from my application to Moms Demand Action 2024 Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate questionnaire so that my positions on these questions can be shared with constituents.
Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action are committed to creating a movement and culture that is diverse, inclusive, and equitable, and being intentional about the intersectional nature of our work. To that end, candidates who apply for the Gun Sense Candidate distinction should not only be ready to commit to governing with gun safety in mind, but must also commit to ensuring that their words and actions promote equity across all communities.
x I commit to governing with gun safety in mind and promoting equity across all communities.
Addressing Gun Violence in America
1. Every day, 120 people in the United States are killed with guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is 26 times higher than that of other high-income countries. Data and research shows that common-sense public safety measures can reduce gun violence and save lives.
Do you believe that state elected officials have a role to play in addressing gun violence in the United States? x Yes
Background Checks
2. Federal law requires that a person pass a background check before buying a gun from a licensed firearm dealer. Since 1994, more than 4 million illegal gun sales have been blocked, including to people convicted of a felony, domestic abusers, and people barred due to mental illness. But the federal law does not apply if a person buys a gun from an unlicensed seller. This means that criminals can easily buy guns from strangers they meet online or at gun shows, with no questions asked. States can close this loophole by passing a law extending background checks to unlicensed sellers.
Do you support expanding the background checks requirement, to prevent prohibited people from buying guns with no questions asked? x Yes
Extreme Risk Protection Order
3. When a person is in crisis, loved ones and law enforcement are often the first to see warning signs. Extreme Risk laws, often called Red Flag laws, allow them to ask a judge to temporarily remove guns when a person poses a danger to themselves or others. If a court finds that a person poses a significant threat, that person is temporarily barred from purchasing and possessing guns. Twenty-one states and DC have passed these laws, including sixteen since 2018.
Do you support Extreme Risk Protection Orders (a.ka. Red Flag laws), which can help prevent firearm suicide and mass shootings? x Yes
Secure Storage
4. Secure firearm storage can reduce the risks of suicide, unintentional shootings, and school shootings. An estimated 4.6 million American children live in households with at least one firearm that is loaded and unsecured. Three-quarters of school shooters got their firearm from the home of a parent or close relative. One study found that households that locked both firearms and ammunition were associated with a 78 percent lower risk of self-inflicted firearm injuries and an 85 percent lower risk of unintentional injuries among children and teens.
Do you support policies requiring gun owners to store their firearms securely — locked and inaccessible to unauthorized users, including children and prohibited people? x Yes
Suicide by Gun
5. Nearly six out of ten of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. Gun suicides claim the lives of nearly 25,000 people in America every year–that’s an average of 68 deaths a day. But many of these deaths could be prevented if guns were taken out of the equation: access to a gun triples the risk of death by suicide. In addition to legislative solutions like the Extreme Risk Protection Order and secure firearm storage requirements, building public awareness about the suicide risks posed by firearm access is crucial to saving lives.
Do you support educating the public about the unique role firearms play in America’s suicide epidemic? x Yes
Ghost Guns
6. New products designed to evade gun laws–including widely available kits that convert unfinished parts into fully functional firearms and new capability in 3D printing technology–make it easy for prohibited people to make their own guns at home. These untraceable “ghost guns” can be assembled in less than an hour and let criminals skip the background check system. Ghost gun recoveries across the U.S. are on the rise, and have been connected with criminal enterprises, gun trafficking rings, and far-right extremists.
Do you support prohibitions on building “ghost guns” at home outside of the background check system? x. No (see comment below)
Protecting Victims of Domestic Abuse
7. Women in the U.S. are 28 times more likely to be killed by gun homicide than women in other high-income countries. And when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the woman is five times more likely to be killed. Federal law prohibits many domestic abusers from possessing firearms, but states play a primary role in enforcement — and can pass their own domestic violence laws. Evidence shows these state laws are especially effective at preventing gun violence if they require abusers to turn in their guns once they become prohibited.
Do you support state legislation that prohibits gun possession by abusers convicted of domestic violence or under final restraining orders, and ensures abusers turn in their guns promptly after becoming prohibited? x Yes
Funding Community Violence Intervention
8. Community-based violence intervention programs apply a localized approach to address gun violence in neighborhoods with particularly high rates of gun violence. Numerous studies demonstrate that evidence-based intervention and prevention — for example, through street- or hospital-based outreach — can reduce gunshot woundings and deaths in the communities most impacted by gun violence.
Do you support robust public funding in your state for localized violence intervention programs that support people at the highest risk of being shot and killed? x Yes
Public Carry of Firearms
9. Over the last several years, the gun lobby has gone from statehouse to statehouse seeking to enact “permitless carry,” which would pose a public safety risk by removing the requirement that a person get a permit before carrying a hidden, loaded handgun in public. These laws often remove important safety standards, such as denials for people who pose a danger and requirements for safety training and no recent violent acts. Strong permit laws are critically important after the Supreme Court decision in Bruen struck down gold-standard provisions in some states.
Do you support state permitting requirements, including firearm safety training, in order to carry concealed handguns in public? x Yes
10. Increasingly in recent years, political extremists have taken advantage of gaps in state law to carry guns openly in public as a means of intimidation. In 2020, anti-government extremists, including the ascendant boogaloo movement and white supremacists, used guns, in particular assault weapons, as tools of intimidation and violence in increasingly open ways. Taking advantage of weak state gun laws, they have brandished weapons at anti-government protests, intimidated peaceful protests for racial justice, and even killed people.
Do you support a law prohibiting the open carry of firearms in public? x. Yes
Police Use of Force and Accountability
11. Police violence is gun violence – 95 percent of civilian deaths caused by police are with a firearm, and Black people are victims at a disproportionate rate. Police shootings have a corrosive impact on our communities as they foster distrust which makes it harder for law enforcement to keep communities safe. Local leaders must commit to supporting targeted reforms that will help prevent shootings and build trust. These reforms should include: a strong legal standard barring the unnecessary use of force and a standard requiring officers to intervene to stop abuse, a commitment to de-escalation, deploying formal tools to identify misconduct, a thorough and independent review system for use of force incidents, and transparency about use of force and other policies and procedures.
Do you support police accountability measures that promote deescalation, promote transparency, and that aim to eliminate unnecessary use of force? x Yes
Shoot First Laws
12. Shoot First laws, called “Stand Your Ground” by the gun lobby, allow people when outside of their home to shoot and kill others even if they could safely and easily avoid using deadly force. These laws go well beyond traditional self-defense principles – emboldening vigilante violence and encouraging people to seek out confrontation. They are also associated with increases in firearm homicides.
Do you oppose Shoot First laws? x Yes (see comment below)
Guns in Schools and Colleges
13. The gun lobby has campaigned in statehouses to allow guns in K-12 schools, to arm teachers, and even to force colleges and universities to allow guns onto their campuses. There is no evidence that arming teachers can help stop school shootings—and on the contrary, armed civilians are more likely to cause confusion when law enforcement respond to a shooting, and guns in schools may be accessed by children when not under the teacher’s control. College life is also full of risk factors that make the presence of guns dangerous, with research showing that college students face significant mental health challenges. Arming teachers and forcing guns onto college campuses is broadly opposed by law enforcement, students, and educators.
Do you oppose allowing guns in K-12 schools and colleges, outside of law enforcement and security staff? x Yes
Preemption of Local Gun Safety Laws
14. After a decades-long effort by the gun lobby, most states now have some form of firearms preemption law, blocking towns and cities from adopting their own gun laws suited to local needs. These preemption laws often bar mayors and police chiefs from taking steps to address gun violence, and in some cases even have punitive provisions that leave taxpayers on the hook for court costs and fees.
Do you oppose broad firearms preemption laws, which block local officials from passing and enforcing laws that keep communities safe from gun violence? x Yes
Holding the Gun Industry Accountable
15. In 2005, at the strong urging of the gun lobby, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, one of the biggest giveaways to private industry in American history, giving the gun industry more protection from litigation than makers and sellers of cars or tobacco products. In recent years, several states have fought back against this unique type of immunity, passing laws that push back on industry by empowering gun violence survivors (and/or state authorities) to file suit against gunmakers and dealers whose bad conduct results in harm.
Do you support giving gun violence survivors access to justice by allowing them to take bad industry actors to court? x Yes
Assault Weapons
16. Assault weapons have been shown to increase the number of people killed and wounded in mass shootings—as they enable shooters to fire more quickly and with more destructive force. Researchers have found that the federal prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was associated with a significant decrease in public mass shootings and related casualties.
Do you support an assault weapons ban that would bar new civilian purchases of these weapons of war? x Yes (see comment below)
ABOUT
Moms Demand Action Moms Demand Action is part of Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization with nearly ten million supporters. Moms Demand Action is the nation’s largest grassroots volunteer network working to end gun violence and campaigns for new and stronger solutions to lax gun laws and loopholes that jeopardize the safety of our families, educates policymakers and parents about the importance of secure firearm storage and works to create a culture of gun safety through partnerships with businesses, community organizations and influencers. There is a Moms Demand Action chapter in every state of the country and more than 700 local groups across the country.
Students Demand Action Students Demand Action is the largest grassroots, youth-led gun violence prevention group in the country with more than 550 groups and active volunteers in every state and the District of Columbia. The movement, created by and for teens and young adults, aims to channel the energy and passion of high school and college-aged students into the fight against gun violence. Students Demand Action volunteers organize within their schools and communities to educate their peers, register voters, and demand common-sense solutions to this national public health crisis at the local, state, and federal level. Students Demand Action is part of Everytown for Gun Safety, the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country with nearly ten million supporters and more than 700,000 donors. For more information or to get involved visit www.studentsdemandaction.org. Have you been an active participant with a Moms Demand Action Chapter, Students Demand Action Group, or the Everytown Survivor Network?
x No
Survivors of Gun Violence The Everytown Survivor Network is inclusive of anyone who has personally experienced gun violence—whether you have witnessed an act of gun violence, been threatened or wounded with a gun, or had someone you know wounded or killed with a gun. This includes but is not limited to gun suicides, domestic violence involving a gun, and unintentional shootings. Have you or a loved one experienced gun violence – such as homicide, suicide, wounding, witnessing gun violence?
x Yes
COMMENTS
Would you like to provide any background? I grew up in rural Alaska in a hunting and trapping family; lived in the East Bay, California for 10 years, and have spent the last 24 years here in Utah. I had a childhood friend killed by his brother because they were playing with unlocked guns in their house. At my first job I was one of two assault victims where a person used a gun. I have extended family who have been stalked, attacked and shot, or killed. In the East Bay I had co-workers who were killed, or seriously disabled in drive-by shootings. I had a much-revered teacher who committed suicide with a gun. Since living here in Utah I have had a co-worker who committed suicide with a gun, and there have been multiple child fatalities in my own neighborhood from access to unlocked guns. I haven’t even mentioned school shootings, mass shootings, road rage incidents, or brandishing.
Would you like to provide any additional background for any of your responses to this questionnaire?
Thank you for this questionnaire.
Beside working on common sense gun control measures, I want to start building a coalition of voices for 2a regulation that can advocate at the state level. I really would be interested in strategies for engagement, and making conversations that build trust and respect.
My commitment in the campaign (Utah House District 44) is that I will listen to constituents, and I will represent local issues for Utahns. Gun control here is hotly contested, even when most agree that sensible measures need to be put in place to improve safety and reduce harm. There is a lot of the mentality of “a good guy with a gun” that results in bills being passed for non-permitted concealed carry, to arm teachers, and to place lockboxes in classrooms for their guns. We were the first state to declare an official state firearm (the Browning 1911). Along with Browning there are a large number of gun and ammunition manufacturers in the state. Much of rural Utah sees the gun control issue as an urban problem that doesn’t understand or appreciate their lifestyle. There are additional issues for us with militias and white nationalist movements.
Re: Ghost Guns There is no system in place for comprehensive firearm registration, and there are no laws in place to track changes of ownership past the initial purchase. Private gun sales and the proliferation of gun shows in the Midwest are the likely sources of private sales of firearms. Cost and accessibility lean towards private sales. Ghost guns and kits are geared more towards firearm enthusiasts than criminals seeking to manufacture and distribute weapons. Weapons used in crimes are still traceable based on the ammunition type, bullets used, rifling of expended bullets, etc. If legislation were proposed for private gun manufacture, it would have to be comprehensive and/or pragmatic, i.e. focused on holding component manufacturers, distributors, assemblers accountable for firearms used in a crime, or in the case of organized crime, that the component manufacture was part of an organized crime operation. There are other issues apparent for this topic; I believe that our priorities lie elsewhere.
Re: Shoot First Laws I agree, but need to comment here. The best defenses in order of priority is de-escalation, running away, getting help, non-lethal defense, then lethal defense. Acts of provocation (following a person, confronting a person, brandishing) should exempt anyone from claiming self-defense. Bottom line here is that a gun owner MUST be responsible and held accountable for actions.
Re: Assault Weapons I agree, but we need to update definitions on what an assault weapon is. Example: Bump stocks turn a gun into a machine gun, but aren’t legally defined as such based on recent supreme court ruling (Garland v. Cargill). Regardless of the actuator, any firearm that produces a rate of fire above XX threshold should be defined as a machine gun, and parts used to convert a firearm into a weapon like this should also be illegal. I would like to see clear definitions of firearm types to distinguish differences between hunting, competition, self defense, security/police, and military grade weapons.
I appreciate these questions, and encourage that we continue conversation.
Labor Day is a time to honor the American worker and their contributions to society. In Utah, this holiday holds particular significance, as the state has a rich history of union activity that has shaped its workforce and economy. Unions have played a crucial role in Utah’s labor movement, advocating for fair wages, safe working conditions, and workers’ rights. Through collective bargaining, unions have negotiated contracts that have provided workers with better benefits, education and career advancement, job security, and a voice in the workplace. Labor Unions have been primary drivers for workplace safety, standard working hours, ending child labor, and emphasis for improved public education.
In 1852, the National Typographical Union was organized in Salt Lake. It became the first permanent national union in our country. Through its evolution, the International Typographical Union (ITU) merged and is now part of Teamsters and CWA unions.
Joe Hill was a famous activist songwriter and member of the Industrial Workers of the World (aka the “Wobblies”). In 1914, Hill was accused of a murder and subsequently sentenced to death at Sugarhouse Prison. His lawyer stated “The main thing the state had on Hill was that he was a Wobbly and therefore sure to be guilty. Hill tried to keep the IWW out of [the trial] … but the press fastened it upon him.” Prior to his execution, Hill had written to Bill Haywood, an IWW leader, saying, “Goodbye Bill. I die like a true blue rebel. Don’t waste any time in mourning. Organize …” A monument to Joe Hill was raised in 2023 at Sugarhouse Park, the site of the former Sugarhouse Prison.
In 1933, Utah passed its Prevailing Wage Law, which lasted almost a half century before being repealed in 1981, using claims that prevailing wage was in conflict with right-to-work laws passed in 1969
In 1955, Utah became the 18th state to adopt Right to Work legislation (Since the 1920’s there was the national, anti-union, open-shop “American Plan”, a predecessor of right-to-work; and followed closely after the 1947 Taft-Hartley act)
When Martin Luther King addressed the AFL-CIO’s fourth convention in 1961, he dubbed the AFL-CIO and the civil rights movement “the two most dynamic and cohesive liberal forces in the country”
Under Title 34, Chapter 34 of Utah Code adopted in 1969, the state code maintains a “neutral” stance in that an employer cannot require or abstain employees from belonging to a union, and does not deny employees’ right to collective bargaining. This means that unions can be formed, but individuals are not required to join a union, or pay union dues.
It’s important to note the difference between Right-to-Work laws and Right-to-Organize laws. Right-to-work typically focuses on the individual employee, and weakens collective bargaining power. Employees not covered by a union can be subject to at-will work agreements where employers can reduce workforce, lay-off and re-organize with no significant repercussions to the business, but devastating impacts to the employee. Additionally, employees often discover that loyalty to a company isn’t rewarded through commensurate advancement, pay or recognition because employees are treated like assets rather than an investment. In contrast, Right-to-organize typically focuses on the fundamental right of workers to form unions and perform collective bargaining, and strengthens collective bargaining power.
Utah is a right-to-work state, which means that individuals cannot be compelled to join a labor union as a condition of employment. This law has significant implications for unions in the state. While it allows workers to choose whether or not to join a union, it also limits the ability of unions to negotiate exclusive contracts that cover all workers in a particular workplace. As a result, unions in Utah may face challenges in organizing workers and bargaining for collective agreements that benefit all employees. Right-to-work laws can weaken the bargaining power of unions, making it more difficult to negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions. The loss of a prevailing wage in our state has significance in that there is a constant demand for “cheap” versus “good” that only encourages a slow spiral to the bottom for workers’ wages, their workspaces, product quality, and service availability.
Unions are one of the most important tools to address the disparity of wealth distribution, and a legitimate tool to manage the welfare and way of life for Utahns. This is a key issue separating myself from incumbent Jordan Teuscher. The current representative from our district is anti-union and is the sponsor of HB285 Labor Union Amendments which impacts public employees. He has also submitted bills in past legislative sessions (like the 2023 HB241 Labor Union Amendments) that work against worker rights. We are facing anti-union actions from a national level to degrade unions in Utah. Groups like ‘Workers for Opportunity’ and ‘Mackinac Center for Public Policy’ are engaging with conservative legislators to introduce legislation veiled as “worker freedom”, but in reality represent a furthering of “right-to-work” policies that weaken labor laws and tear down worker rights. Teuscher is a copy/paste legislator introducing right-wing legislation from ALEC that was also run in Texas and Florida. He’s doing the same thing working with the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) whose focus is to push, repackage and franchise conservative agendas. He literally takes his cues from national right-wing think tanks rather than representing the people in his district.
This Labor Day, think about workers’ rights and the state of our economy. We need to build from the middle up, and that means giving workers the ability to negotiate fair compensation, fight for workspace safety and product quality in response to the do-more-with-less mantra of companies that treat employees like assets rather than real people, and seek less regulation, less liability, less community commitment, but constantly report record profits. Take time to celebrate the achievements of Utah’s labor movement and the contributions of the state’s working people. It is a reminder of the importance of unions in protecting workers’ rights and ensuring fair and equitable workplaces.
Update:If you are here because of recent social media posts about the passage of SJR401 on August 21, and would like to donate to Better Boundaries Utah for their “vote no” campaign, please use this link. If you would like to support my campaign running against Jordan Teuscher, please register with me at https://utah44.com/get-involved/.
In a specially called session this week, SJR401 was introduced specifically because the legislature is fearful that voters want to hold legislators accountable for actually doing their jobs. Let’s call out the coalition of Utah GOP legislators who are taking away Utahn’s rights to citizens initiatives: Sen Leader Stuart Adams, Rep Leader Mike Schultz, Sen Kirk Cullimore (chief sponsor) and Rep Jordan Teuscher (House sponsor).
Let’s start by describing what they want to take away from us. Citizen Initiatives are literally a tool for “We the People” to have a voice when our representatives don’t effectively represent its citizens. The resolution introduced this week is seeking to take away legislative power from Utah citizens, and give that authority to the Utah legislature. Keep in mind that if this passes, state legislators are TAKING AWAY POWER from Utah voters. Powers to introduce important legislation. Powers to approve constitutional amendments. Powers that belong to us unless we give them away.
There is a REASON that Citizens Initiatives exist. Our LAST AND SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT privilege is to raise a vote to the people when our representatives either lack political will or (in Utah) suffer under a super majority that obstructs the people’s will.
We are a representative democracy, and we have a state constitution with checks and balances. As citizens, we can vote for who represents us, we can create Citizen Initiatives, and we can sue or suffer under the legislation our representatives pass. I would mention impeachment but you have seen how our Utah legislator lacks the political will to deal with bad actors (like Natalie Cline) in their own party.
This year, a coalition of Utah GOP legislators were checked by the Utah Supreme Court for failing to represent Utah citizens, and now they are actively writing legislation to strip our rights away. They don’t like being checked by the courts, by the executive branch (although our current governor coddles to the legislature) or by us, the people. In their proclamation for the special session they warn about foreign interests. ONLY UTAH VOTERS can submit a Citizen Initiative. They are literally calling the interests of Utah voters “foreign interests”. Are you mad yet? You should be.
In their announcement leading up to this bill, they even admit their own impertinent behavior: “While past legislative overreach has understandably led to some distrust among the people…” but they have the gall to call a special legislative session specifically to write a bill that then STRIPS our voice as voters so they can continue the very same legislative overreach they are committing. We are even paying them to go into session so they can actively work against us. We are literally paying them right now to write laws to hurt us.
Here are 3 things all Utahns can do:
CALL your legislator and tell them you are a constituent, and you want them to vote NO on this.
If the bill passes, then YOU can vote NO on this initiative.
In November, vote like it matters. Be informed, vote on all the races, and vote for people who will represent and LISTEN to you.
Do you Vote In House District 44? There’s One More Thing
If you live in Utah House District 44 (South Jordan, West Jordan) please consider voting for me in November. I listen. I’m committed to local representation & true Utah values that embrace community and respect for ALL people. It’s time to push the Teusch out.
On Sunday it will have been nine weeks after my son left home in psychosis, convinced that a casual remark I made about calling Vocational Rehab for help with a job meant I was (in his mind) a sociopathic narcissist who he wasn’t safe to be around. He left a home to live in his car, with no savings or income. It’s not the first time that he has done something like this, but each time I worry that it might be the last time I see him.
In February there was a national shortage of his antipsychotic medication, a long acting injectable that he took every four weeks to relieve symptoms of psychosis. Although it didn’t “cure” him, he was stable and had been at home since his last big break in 2019. Since then we had negotiated through parole visits and mental health court. He struggled to work steadily but couldn’t keep a job. He has worked at more than 40 places since he was diagnosed, but hasn’t averaged more than 3 weeks in any single job. In almost all of these jobs he has chosen not to reveal that he has a mental illness. He is fired, or quits, or stops showing up. There are unreported accidents from work. There are timecards left unsigned and unaccounted. There are customer complaints, or employee complaints, or HR reports. Oftentimes he would come home to say that a co-worker was one of the new voices in his head tormenting him, and he didn’t want to work around them any more.
To make up for the temporary shortage, his prescriber decided that another LAI could be prescribed. I had immediate concerns because we had tried switching over to this other medication before, and the results were that he lost efficacy in his treatment. The three of us got on a Zoom call to discuss treatment options, and the doctor was steadfast that the treatment would work with a new method of onboarding doses before transitioning to a more standard regimen. I was skeptical, but my son trusted the doctor and we agreed that this new plan would be followed. Less than a month after beginning the transition I contacted my son’s doctor and counsellor to say that there were some minor but noticeable changes. It didn’t appear that the new medication had the same therapeutic effect as the one it was replacing. This was the beginning of me regularly emailing the hospital to describe my concern as his psychosis became apparent. My son was beginning to drift into paranoia, and it was going to get harder to bring him back each day we delayed. The prescriber suggested that my son supplement his shot with an oral-form antipsychotic. This was not suitable at all – the entire reason we were using a long acting injectable was because my son didn’t take oral meds. They asked him to come in to pick up the oral medication, and he agreed but didn’t show up. He re-scheduled, then called and cancelled the appointment. He didn’t want to take the oral meds. He didn’t want the injection either. He just wanted to be safe because he didn’t trust the hospital anymore, and he didn’t trust me.
In the week before he left he would come upstairs and talk to the pets. “I’m not afraid of you”, he would say. He no longer looked at any of us, instead he would look up, or look past us, or ignore us altogether while drowning us out with the music playing in his ear buds. At night, when we were in bed, he would go to the same computer that I’m typing this on to watch Youtube videos on narcissism, trauma bonding, sociopathy, tarot and astrology. I was finding drawings and symbols that were his attempt to cast protective spells and use magic. When he found work he would often complain that a co-worker was a narcissist. Now that he wasn’t able to work and became more isolated, he was beginning to turn this view on me. When he left he broke his bedroom door. He was angry, or afraid, or both. I didn’t stand in his way, and just let him take what he wanted before he left home.
My son decided in his psychosis that his doctors and counsellor who had been with him for the past 5 years weren’t safe. He decided that his family wasn’t safe. He decided that the course of treatment he had been following wasn’t safe. He left home without money in his account, without a job, with no place to go. I was keeping tabs through his hospital until he stopped talking to them. I have called the local police department to explain that he’s out there, and if they meet him they should have a note on file that he has paranoid schizophrenia but has typically been cooperative with police. I wait to hear something, but there is nothing. I lie awake at night wondering if I would hear him come in during the night when he is routinely up and about. I wonder if he wants to come home but thinks he can’t. In one of our last exchanges I told him I didn’t feel safe around him because he was using threatening language about me. I didn’t want him to come home, not until he was willing to get help.
A few weeks ago there was an officer-involved shooting near my home that involved reports of an adult male looking into cars at a nearby park that I knew my son frequented. When officers responded in early morning hours, the person was aggressive and was shot and killed. The area was shut down while the investigation of the scene followed. When I heard, I panicked. Could that have been my son? I got in the car and drove to see, not sure what I would find. When I arrived on the east side of the park, I could see his car and my heart sank. All I could think was “Please, no“. I approached the car slowly. The windows were down. As I came past the vehicle I could see him, sitting in the back seat. He saw me too, and he wasn’t happy to see me. But he was there, he was alive.
I don’t know when I’m going to see him again. I don’t know under what circumstances that I hear from him, or from the hospital, or a police officer, or from the metro county jail. I have lost my son to psychosis, again. As an adult, only he can consent to receiving treatment. The exceptions being that he is a danger to himself, or to others. As his father I cannot request help, and I can’t talk to him in a way that would make him want to seek help. He has been at UNI twice. The first time I implored him to get help because I was losing my son, the second time he was committed because I found him after a period of homelessness, bloodied and seeing “how far he could go” to cut himself. He doesn’t want to go back, and he thinks he knows better.
It’s hard to say all of this. I’m truly at a loss, and I don’t know what to do. We don’t have any laws to protect us from ourselves, and we don’t have any laws to step in when someone is experiencing psychosis. It doesn’t matter if it leads to financial ruin, or destroying your health, or if it takes away the stability that you worked for years to have. None of this matters.
How do I get my son back? How much will he suffer before something can be done? My heart is breaking for him, for my family, but also for every family who shares a similar story of loss.
Update: Some readers responded and pointed me to Unsheltered Utah, a 501(c)3 nonprofit with outreach in the south valley. I have contacted them and they have engaged my son. Thank you.
One of the biggest things to come out this week was the Utah Supreme Court decision that allows Better Boundaries to proceed in its case against the Utah Legislature for its issuance of gerrymandered lines before the 2020 election. It’s clear that the courts side with the people to say that we are not beholden to the special interests of legislators who seek to tie up districting in such a way that it favors their party, or their own election. Although the case has yet to have a final decision, it now has support to proceed with the validation of the Utah Supreme Court. In Utah, we have experienced a demonstration of the powers of balance between branches.
Responses from Republicans in the Utah Legislature fall flat. House Speaker Mike Schultz and Rep. Jordan Teuscher decry the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that it would be in our better interests to be served by the better judgements of elected officials, that the interests of the elected should trump the egalitarian principles our nation was founded on. Their response has been rightly criticized on social media as legally false, pretentious, and willfully ignorant.
At the same time this week, Governor Cox stated that “Disagree Better” is working at the National Governors Association.“We’ve gotten really, really good at tearing things down,” Cox told attendees gathered at The Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City. “We need more builders. And that’s exactly what we’re trying to do.” (Deseret.com) If he’s serious, one of the most significant acts that a governor can do is to support fair districts to achieve more ideal representation of voter populations.
If we are to disagree better, we need a voice. If we are to disagree better, we need to be able to elect legislators who will represent the issues and address the causes that are important to us.
If you fly a US flag for the Fourth of July, think about what that means. You are celebrating the hard-fought freedoms of our country, and you are celebrating as a member citizen of the United States. Think about that for a moment, then read on. If a state chooses to ignore federal laws, or specifically to write law contrary to federal law, what precedent does that set?
The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law generally takes precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. With the recently passed Utah SB0057 “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act” our state plans to fight out in courts a concept of state’s rights that raises questions about the applicability of law and the right to govern citizens. A question that will certainly come up is the question of Sovereign Citizens, who will seek precedence that favors their stand as willfully excerpted from the laws of government. Their ideal is to enjoy the privileges of living in our democratic republic with its infrastructure and frameworks, but disregard their duties as citizens and abstain from legal recourse that are a consequence of their actions. If conservatives are truly a party of limited government, should their argument be that we are allowed to rule ourselves in true libertarian fashion? Or is their argument more simply “rules for thee and not for me”?
There are frequent tests of states rights. If we take the case of medical marijuana legislated at the state level for medicinal use, or for recreational use, this was favorably received by constituents as a move away from heavy-handed government overreach, specifically for the Controlled Substances Act, and DEA Drug Schedule that classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance.
There is substantial research which shows that marijuana is not addictive, and has beneficial properties.
Drug companies have exemptions to sell marijuana derivatives as anti-seizure medication (ex: Epidiolex by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), and as a pain-reliever and anti-nausea medication for cancer patients.
Allowing access to marijuana at the state level is pushing federal law to move in a just direction.
In the case of Title IX protections, conservative legislators are doing the opposite by attempting to take away citizen protections at the federal level. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Utah wants to claim sovereignty for the purpose of discriminating against trans students, and they are not only willing to lose federal funding for schools, but additionally grant the State Attorney General to pursue “any appropriate legal action to challenge the federal directive on the basis of state sovereignty.” None of this benefits Utahns.
Students and their families will unjustly face discriminatory practices.
The state will suffer from the loss of funding for public education, federal grants and programs.
Utahns will take up the burden of cost to fund expensive legal battles in the federal courts on whether or not states are allowed to willfully discriminate against a class of citizens.
There are fights that are worthy, as in the first case. What Utah legislators are doing in the second case is a slap in the face of its people. They are claiming that federal civil rights protections can be ignored, and states can invoke discriminatory laws to burden its constituents. They are effectively making the same argument that a Sovereign Citizen would make, but at the state level. “Rules for thee and not for me”.
Can a state simply write a law to say that its relationship to the federal government only applies as convenient to its legislature, that its willful participation in federal governance can be excerpted on a whim? If this is allowed, then the question becomes whether a county, municipality, city, or citizen claim the same right of sovereignty? Where is the rule of law when sovereignty can be claimed without repercussion?
In principle, laws are designed to protect, not punish its citizens. Many of the laws we have are hard fought – the freedoms of all our people as citizens, the right to vote, the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of our age, ancestry, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity or expression, HIV/AIDS status, military status, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran status.
Take time to celebrate on this day, but recognize that our federal laws, and our state’s membership in a union of states has a long history that we should be careful to defend.
