Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona • Page 33

Saturday, October 23, 1993 The Arizona Republic B7 Courts did great service to U.S. in Wal-Mart C3SG Trying to clear name of daughter iimitm fat Large mass merchandisers as these do no good for the local market, our economy as a whole, the country and the customers. Small business does not run from the big bullies such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or Kmart. We can outdo them any day on a level playing field; we only ask they play fair, and selling below cost with deep pockets is not fair. Sam Walton began his career in retailing under the very same set of circumstances and competitive environment as now faces those three pharmacists.

Does the right of those pharmacists to a reasonable profit margin outweigh the right of the truly poor and destitute to purchase their needs at the lowest available market price? giant. Sam Walton began his careej in retailing under the very same set of circumstances and competitive environment as now faces those three pharmacists. It isn't so much that he worked "harder" than his competitors (after all, there are only 24 hours in a day), but he worked "smarter." He knew just how, and where, and at what price to introduce a truly better mousetrap. He grew and prospered and eventually surpassed even Woolworth's and Sears, Roebuck in total dollar sales. Not bad for a lone young man from Arkansas.

Unfortunately, capitalism has run head-on into the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act, in the eyes of Judge David Reynolds. To my dismay, I am ignorant of what this act says about meeting the greatest common good, or whether or not it acknowledges "economies of scale" in both the manufacture and sale of commodities. (This very same issue has just come up between the large chain pharmacies and the pharmaceutical companies.) What supplier (or manufacturer) in his right mind would price his product to an extremely high-volume buyer, willing to sign a 10-year purchase agreement, identically with a small Mom-and-Pop operation that buys at six-month intervals? Far too many people in this world want a free lunch. We point with pride to the long hard hours we put in to try and get a leg up; but it really hurts when we have to face the reality that our competition worked "smarter" and more "effectively" than we did. What do you do? Go back to the drawing board and figure out an even better mousetrap or do you cry and moan and get your lawyer to file a lawsuit, and your lobbyist to get protectionist legislation on the books? GM is seeking a partial "free lunch" from the UAW because Ford and Chrysler worked a lot harder and smarter than they did over the last 12 years to get costs and break -even points under control.

At the other end of the economic spectrum, we have small farmers, ranchers, miners, and timber types, all crying andor yelling about federal lands being part of their natural birthright, and that they are deserving of greater government subsidies if "their way of life" is to be preserved. I don't recall this much hubbub when tens upon tens of thousands of steel workers, auto workers, or ore and coal miners got their pink slips over the last twenty-five years. Perhaps those three pharmacists over there in Arkansas are really hard workers and perhaps they did their darnedest to fend off Wal-Mart's competition. Instead of going back to the drawing board and trying to come up with a better strategy (perhaps going into a different business), they went crying to their lawyers. They want the courts to do what they cannot do.

It's interesting that this case comes up just at the time that President and Mrs. Clinton are attempting to sell their health care plan to the American people. Why would the truly poor, the indigent, the handicapped, the retired on a fixed income want to do business with those three pharmacists at prices higher than those afforded by Wal-Mart? Does the right of those pharmacists to a reasonable profit margin (reasonable by their standards) outweigh the right of the truly poor and destitute to purchase their needs at the lowest available market price? Obviously, the case will be appealed. If Wal-Mart loses, all of America's consumers will be losers. This all-consuming sentimental attachement we have to small, marginal entrepreneurs is archaic.

Richard K. Guenther Phoenix This is in response to your editorial dated Oct. 14, "When David sues Goliath." Contrary to your position that the large mass merchandisers such as Wal-Mart are being unfairly picked upon and the recent lawsuit which has forced them to not sell below cost as being unfair, the judicial system did perhaps the greatest service to this country that we've seen in perhaps 50 years. Wal-Mart did not grow because it sold goods below cost; rather, it grew because it went into rural markets where it could have some semblance of lower prices while still maintaining a relative healthy margin and then used that margin of profit to subsidize its losing money in metro markets against specialty shops, drug stores, while forcing these competitors out of business. Large mass merchandisers as these do no good for the local market, our economy as a whole, the country and the customers.

First off, they force 10 to 15 small-business people making $30,000 to $40,00 a year out of the marketplace by selling below cost as they can continue to operate with their huge line of credit, immense buying power won from intimidated suppliers, and the use of their profitable markets to subsidize them. These shopkeepers are usually replaced by 30 to 40 employees in the $4- to $7-per-hour category of which many are part-time and without benefits. This allows them to say that they have aided in fighting unemployment when in reality the employers they have bankrupted by this stupid, illegal, unethical practice of selling below cost has cost the community lots more than they gained because of the true lost social resources and tax base which has shrunk. We who do compete with these giant organizations say that if they sell at cost plus one penny, then that is fair, but to sell below cost and rely on the adage that those with the deepest pockets win is not right. By following a basic rule that a business must make a profit to stay in business allows for competitors to adjust or disappear.

In America, we should not have gouging by stock manipulation, big lines of credit or unreasonably large or discriminately applied pricing for the big boys while small business does the work. Small business does not run from the big bullies such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or Kmart. We can outdo them any day on a level playing field; we only ask they play fair, and selling below cost with deep pockets is not fair. We Americans love competition, love fairness, and love winners, but the cold hard fact is that the predatory selfish acts of mass merchandisers who do sell below cost would have the homespun-created image of Sam Walton throwing up in disgust if he were alive. I fear for America; small business is what made us, but for too many years we've taken the short path to riches, and this act is one of them.

No business can exist without profit. No business can grow without service, and no business will be there for the long haul without a moral backbone. In this instance, Wal-Mart had none. John M. Fillmore Phoenix If Wal-Mart loses appeal, U.S.

consumers also will lose Regarding your editorial in the October 14 edition of The Arizona Republic titled, "Wal-Mart's Sin When David Sues Goliath." I heartily applaud your paper's taking on this issue. The vast majority of the media have depicted those three pharmacists as poor, hard-working souls being bludgeoned into bankruptcy by an overbearing, predatory retail We are simply a family trying to clear our daughter's good name and reverse a miscarriage of justice. On May 1 our daughter Siriana Kvalvik, an outstanding student and cheerleader was arrested, fingerprinted, mug shot, cited and given a court date simply for being out past curfew even though she had our permission to be out. The city curfew ordinance clearly states that a child may be out after curfew with parental permission. We went to court, pleading not guilty, but the judge ruled against us and Siriana was found to be guilty and incorrigible.

It should be noted that we exhausted all avenues for compromise in this case before filing our appeal. We were- basically stonewalled by the police, the City Council and the prosecutors in this case. Contrary to what you have heard, we never sued the city of Phoenix. We simply filed an appeal of our daughter's conviction on procedural and constitutional grounds. A transcript of the hearing shows police violated their own procedures in this case by failing to call us from the site of the curfew violation.

After effectively arresting our daughter, they also refused to read her her rights, as she requested, and refused to allow her to call home. Although we told police at least three times that Siriana had permission to be out, they chose to ignore this completely. The park where the incident occurred is within view of the house where our daughter was supposed to be. The idea that it is unsafe is untrue. A recent report in your newspaper showed that most of Phoenix is safe, although some areas of the city have higher crime rates.

The issue of trespassing was never raised by the police. Apparently the arresting officers did not see the sign. There was never any evidence in the hearing that our daughter or her friends were trespassing or disturbing the peace. We appealed our daughter's case because we do not understand how the curfew ordinance created by a well intentioned city could be so poorly implemented and misinterpreted by the Police Department. If our daughter had been given a warning or citation, that would have been sufficient.

Other cities with curfews do not routinely detain, fingerprint and photograph juveniles for such a trivial infraction. Although curfew violation is considered like a traffic violation, just think what would happen if we routinely arrested and fingerprinted every speeder. We have no desire to fight City Hall or the police. We are not against a curfew per se, and believe it can be a valuable tool. We also believe that the city has gone overboard in enforcing it.

All juveniles arrested have been entered into a police computer without probable cause and despite the fact that they curfew law. They have obviously forgotten what it was like to be young. Marie Miranda Phoenix Teen's parents should let girl pay fine, do service This is in response to the front-page story of Oct. 9 detailing Siriana Kvalvik's challenge of the Phoenix curfew As the parent of two teen-agers and a preteen youngster, I find it appalling that parents advocate and support the belief that laws or rules or city ordinances are for other people (those who live in Maryvale) not for their children. I would remind the Kvalviks that the young woman whose body was found in the canal recently was a good student who lived in the Arcadia area and of the two young men who were gunned down in downtown Scottsdale after a traffic altercation.

The police officer who arrested Miss Kvalvik did not do so because she is a "good" or "bad" kid. He did so because she was in violation of the law, a law which is in place not to harass young people, but to protect them. Juveniles have the right to be protected by our community. Unfortunately, city parks are not an appropriate place to "goof around" after 11 p.m. Parks and their surrounding areas are often patrolled by officers because under-age drinking, drug activities, and other illegal activities do occur in those areas after hours.

Miss Kvalvik's parents would do well to let their daughter pay the fine and do the community service. It's an inexpensive life lesson even for a cheerleading honor student. Incidentally, as her attorney, Mr. Klahr has the obligation to inform his client that her "record" is not lifelong. Her juvenile records will be expunged after the age of 18, providing there are no additional arrests.

Dinah Jones Phoenix may have their parents' consent to be out. Even in the most trying circumstances civil rights must be observed. If in the interest of security we allow our rights to be compromised, someday we may Wake up with no rights at all. Mike and April Kvalvik Phoenix Honor student's answers in story were inconsistent In your Oct. 9 article about "Teen, ACLU challenging the curfew law," Siriana Kvalvik was very inconsistent with her answers to the press.

She states that she is an honor student. I guess she isn't smart enough to read the paper. Her parents gave her permission to visit a friend's house. When his parents retired for the night, it was time to go home instead of going to the park across the street at 1 1 1 5 p.m. Also, she stated she is a junior in high school, a straight-A student, valedictorian of her class.

You don't get to be valedictorian until you are a senior and graduating. She and her mother are both wrong. The Phoenix curfew law should be upheld. James Northrup Mesa Curfew breakers given unpublicized treatment As a former teen-ager who wrote many letters to your newspaper about teen rights, the curfew incident with the 15-year-old caught my attention. The girl was at fault for being out after curfew.

What very much disturbed me was that Mayor Johnson and your newspaper led the-public to believe that kids caught for breaking curfew would be taken to a recreation area, where they could play basketball, games, and their parent or guardian would be called. The public was not told that these kids would be fingerprinted like criminals and fined money for breaking curfew. I am disgusted that Phoenicians seem to commend this part of the 'Fanny packs' may be illegal, but they've already saved a life restraint to interpret the current law rather than to rewrite it according to the judge's personal belief as to what the law should be will end this injustice by ruling in a precedent-setting decision that it is lawful to carry a gun concealed in a "fanny pack" gun case. If this occurs and the Legislature decides to reconsider the law, citizens that wish to protect themselves by using such "fanny packs" to carry concealed guns will have a chance to be heard, including Brad Perkinson. Perkinson is the owner of the Tempe blueprint shop who was kidnapped at gunpoint on September 6, when he returned home after jogging.

He was able to escape from his kidnappers by using a gun that he had concealed in you guessed it a "fanny pack" gun case. Does The Republic think that Perkinson should be prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon, even though the gun he was lawfully concealing in his fanny pack may have saved his life? Richard D. Coffinger Phoenix Logical conclusion: Stay out of bed; you might die there The article in a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, offering "proof that we are nearly three times more likely to be murdered if we have a gun in the home than if we don't, does prove that the irresponsibility and idiocy of playing fast and loose with statistics knows no bounds. It would not be at all surprising if this august publication next concluded that since most people die in bed, that's the most dangerous place to be. Harold Debbi Scottsdale Superior Court Judge Norman Hall's ruling that carrying a gun in a "fanny pack" guncase violates the law against carrying concealed weapons, and recommends that it be affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Current law specifically allows a concealed weapon to be "carried in a scabbard, or case designed for carrying weapons, which scabbard or case is wholly or partially visible, or carried in luggage." Nothing in the current law requires the scabbard or case to be easily recognizable as one commonly used to carry firearms. This fact doesn't matter to The Republic, Judge Hall, the more than 2,000 Phoenix police officers and 60 city prosecutors that continue prosecuting citizens for carrying guns in "fanny packs" they just conveniently read this requirement into the law! According to Webster's Dictionary, a scabbard is a sheath for carrying a hand weapon or tool for ready use, a case is a box, receptacle or a container, and luggage is baggage, suitcases, and other articles containing a traveler's belongings. Since a gun can lawfully be carried while completely concealed in luggage such as an open briefcase or gym bag from which it could be just as suddenly drawn for use against an unaware aggressor as from a "fanny pack," the requirements that a scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons be easily recognizable by the public as such, is illogical. Judge Hall's reasoning that these "fanny pack" guncases qualify as a "pack" (in which it is lawful to carry a concealed gun, while worn in or on a motor vehicle), but not as a "case" also doesn't make sense. Hopefully, the higher court with the courage and I cannot begin to fathom where Judge Hall is coming from in his ruling against Mr.

Diaz and Mr. Moerman. The judge says a "fanny pack" gives no indication that it contains a gun around one's waist while in public." True, but, if he can show me in the statutes where it says any holster or scabbard needs to give an indication of what it contains, I would surely listen to, and possibly abide by, his ruling. Fortunately for many, the law does not read the way Judge Hall would have us all believe. as well as every one of my companions who carry a firearm for safety, will concede that carrying a weapon in a "fanny pack" renders that weapon concealed.

By the "definition of concealed, that statement is true. However, Section 13-3102, Subsection of the Arizona Revised Statutes clearly states that Subsection Paragraph 1 (carrying a deadly weapon concealed) shall not apply to a weapon if it is in a holster or scabbard that is partially or wholly visible. How anyone can read anything else into that is beyond me. The funny thing about the article by Brent Whiting is that he reports that "fanny packs" are illegal, right after which he reiterates the fact that Brad Perkinson owes his life to one of these "fanny packs" which held a weapon he used to protect himself when abducted in September. Michael Stevens Glendale Judge, prosecutors, police, and 'Republic' ignore the law The Republic's October 18 editorial praises Fortunately for many, the law does not read the way Judge Hall would have us all believe..