unwritten ... policy would be imposed

A planned gay and lesbian Queer Prom on April 21 was the unlikely thread that unraveled a little known weapons ban at the Salt Palace Convention Center. Venue staffers agreed to host the Utah Pride Center Inc. event but told event planners that an unwritten weapons-ban policy would be imposed. Planners promoted the event as having a 'zero tolerance policy for ... weapons' and said that venue policies 'allow police officers only to carry concealed weapons.'

Several Second Amendment groups including the gay and lesbian Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah (SSSU) researched the matter and lobbied county-government leaders to obey state laws by reversing the policy. SSSU owner David Nelson told the event planners and venue staffers that state laws prohibited the policy and its enforcement at public-government properties.

[...]

"Venue General Manager Allyson Jackson told me on April 13 that the policy did, in fact, exist, but not as a written contractual statement which she could cite verbatim or by number," Nelson said. "She said that venue law-enforcement officers could detain and question any visitor, and confiscate any weapon which the visitor possessed. She emphasized that this was the venue 'way of operating.'"

Chief Deputy District Attorney Dahnelle Burton-Lee disagreed on April 17 and reversed the venue policy in a published legal opinion.

"Salt Lake County does not have a regulation or policy that regulates firearms or weapons on its public properties beyond the scope of the authority granted by the Utah Legislature," Burton-Lee said. "The county is very cognizant of the Utah Legislature's retention of firearm regulatory authority and the limitations on local governments' ability to inhibit or restrict the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property."

[...]

A similar weapons ban was promoted in 2005 by Utah Pride festival planners who dropped the policy after Second Amendment groups including SSSU lobbied them and Salt Lake City-government leaders that the ban was unenforceable. Since then, only illegal weapons are banned.

(Washington)The people of the District of Columbia moved a step closer Thursday to gaining voting rights they have been denied for more than 200 years.

But the legislation passed by the House on a 241-177 vote faced a veto threat from the White House, which said it was unconstitutional.

The bill would permanently increase full House membership to 437, giving the largely Democratic half-million residents of the district a seat and adding a temporary at-large seat for Republican-leaning Utah. The House has consisted of 435 seats since 1960.

The House still needed to approve an accompanying tax bill before the legislation could be sent to the Senate, where its fate was uncertain. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., echoing the position of the Bush administration, said it was unconstitutional and he would oppose it.

"This legislation corrects a serious flaw in our democracy," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "We will not rest until full voting representation in the House is granted to the District of Columbia."

Democrats had to pull a nearly identical bill from the floor a month ago after Republicans surprised them by proposing language, with a good chance of passing, that would have lifted the district's ban on

semiautomatic weapons and other tough gun restrictions. This time, over strong protests from Republicans, Democrats came prepared with a floor procedure blocking a gun vote.

Y'think maybe that could have sumpin' ta do with The Queer Factor?

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's longstanding handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.

Tom G. Palmer was one of six plaintiffs who won a 2 to 1 ruling on Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when it disagreed with a U.S. District judge that the federal Second Amendment protected no individual rights.

Palmer told the court that as "a gay man" he'd "been assaulted on account of his sexual orientation and successfully warded off the assault with a handgun."