Reader comments
Senate bill would bar certain gun restrictions

Paul | 1:53 a.m. Jan. 25, 2008

This law makes sense. It's unfortunate that the actions of the government during Katrina make such a law necessary.

Bob G | 5:37 a.m. Jan. 25, 2008

It's the exceptions in this bill that is scary. Who makes these determinations? Fighting a subversive government or its leaders could be constured as a criminal act, counter to what the federal contstituion gives us the right to do. Felony laws that deny the possesion of firearms are uncconstituional and should be revoked as such. The constitution does not or imply restrictions on possesion of firearms so these felony laws are unconstional and impede the rights of americans. The death penalty should be enforced more and not gun rights restrictions. Deterent of crimes has more to do with the degree of punishment than abridging our rights and freedoms. If more criminals died then acts of crime would drop and have more of an effect than interfering with gun rights and gun laws. We do not want law enforcement only to be armed, they work for the government and its beuracacy, not the people. To Protect and Serve is a self interest slogan to protect and serve themselves from the public. The 'blue code' is proof of that. Law enforcement can't serve two entities so the blue code has precedent. Gun laws serve only government to protect itself.

Some nuts | 6:58 a.m. Jan. 25, 2008

Some of these guys won't be happy until every baby has a rattle in one hand and a snub-nose 38 in the other. Jeez.

Comments continue below

Mahershalalhashbaz | 8:15 a.m. Jan. 25, 2008

KUDOS to Madsen. Wish there were more like him.

Michigan | 8:01 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Several state governors have already signed similar laws into effect across this nation. It's good legislation and prevents a police-state scenario like the one that played out in New Orleans.

Stu | 9:32 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

This is a bill that would preserve our God given right to defend ourself when communications break down and law enforcement is unavailable.

Disarming the people is the first step to Communism.

Steve | 11:01 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Way to go, Madsen. We're not out to get firearms in the hands of everyone - just to keep our constitutional rights intact. In this case, the goal is to protect the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for their personal protection. If law-abiding citizens lose that right, then the only ones with firearms are those who do not obey the laws. We saw it in New Orleans; let's not allow it here in Utah.

dlyn | 11:13 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Dear "Nuts"
We tried your way of only letting criminals psychos and tyrants have guns. It didn't work out well. Grow up and accept adult responsibilites, like YOU choosing if and when your kids learn about firearms.

Elizabeth | 2:11 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Self defense is needed when things get out of control - as history shows they do repeatedly.

Al | 2:51 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

We do not want law enforcement only to be armed, they work for the government and its beuracacy, not the people. To Protect and Serve is a self interest slogan to protect and serve themselves from the public. The 'blue code' is proof of that. Law enforcement can't serve two entities so the blue code has precedent. Gun laws serve only government to protect itself.

Where do you get off thinking that Law Enforcement is only there to protect themselves from the public? It is a proven fact that the MAJORITY of Law Enforcement officers (and I am talking the patrol officers, not the guys with the scrambled eggs on their hats that brown nose politicians)back citizen concealed carry. And I am one of them.

Mike | 5:45 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Al....You are speaking the facts, I shoot weekly at a 5 star range where law enforcement officers come in to practice, Never met one yet that was against concealed carry. Police officers are not the enemy, so don't talk like they are people! They are mainly hard working Americans just like the rest of us. We should be worry about the bone heads we have voted into office that have no respect for any of us!

Bob | 7:50 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

A free man does not ask permission to bear arms

"In America we have freedom"
(by permit only)

A. Mom | 3:39 a.m. Jan. 29, 2008

I think you all in Utah have some smart leaders.
I wish in my state (NC) they would look for the truth, we still have the draconian "Jim Crowe" laws on the books and a blind sheriffs dept. to boot.
No, it's not necessary to carry 24/7 but, if the bad guys have to wonder who is and who isn't they're less likely to shoot first and more likely to go somewhere else.
Common sense and the 2nd. make us a free people and should protect us but the government loves to make laws because that's all they know how to do... lets face it, mostly everyone in govt./politics are lawyers.
G'luck UTAH I hope this bill passes for you!

dlyn | 9:48 a.m. Jan. 29, 2008

You are so right ï¿½momï¿½ and bob. The problem is we have a huge class of people--politicians and bureaucrats --who are in the business of passing laws. Most of these amount to limits on the rest of us. When I was a boy we were told that the difference between US and the Soviets was that they had to have permission from the government for everything they did. Well, I challenge you to tell me what you can do in America now without dealing with some government regulation permit license or restriction. We have reached the point where people say ï¿½Its unregulated !ï¿½ as if thatï¿½s a bad thing. It is way past time that the reins be pulled on the government rather than the people.

Bart | 11:30 a.m. Jan. 29, 2008

The gun grabbers are people who believe anyone who wants to "keep and bear arms" is a criminal. Whatever happened to "guilty until proven innocent? Prosecute the bad guys who abuse their gun rights in the commition of crimes and leave alone the decent, law-abiding citizen who want/need guns for lawful purposes. State and federal laws should protect these gun rights as this bill would surly do.

Barbara Jean | 4:34 p.m. Jan. 29, 2008

I'm all for this bill. The only safe woman is a woman who can protect herself and the thought of having my gun taken from me during an emergency makes me shutter. Go Madsen. Excellent and timely bill.

MassGunner4life | 5:01 p.m. Jan. 29, 2008

It comes down to it that Law Enforcement and Government
people don't want to shear the power as in right to carry or self protection, They are hard enough on hunters but really don't want us to have what they have in any way and all that is to me is an Equal opportunity to make our own decisions in self protection, I live in a state where we have a person who became a senator even though he killed someone and got away with it & you know who that is. To everyone here please vote with your minds not with your heart or else we will lose everything. It's good people like you that can make a difference .

Jon | 10:52 p.m. Jan. 29, 2008

Go Utah! I love reading how the different states are starting to reaffirm our rights to keep and bear arms. Kalifornia also just passed a non-confiscation bill during emergencies. However, there are the brandishing laws to contend with. Brandishing is the best use of a firearm when it prevents a crime.

Logically, the lawyers argue that a crime that was prevented, never occurred, so the criminal did not commit a crime. So, brandishing that prevents a crime is a service to the community and is good for the children.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.