Comments about ‘Utah Legislature hopes to hold a gun to federal law’

YES!
This is one of the best things the Legislature has done.

Another classic case of your tax dollars being wasted on frivilous laws that will not stand up.

If this actually went to court, the state would easily get funding from the NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, SFA, and countless other gun rights groups that would be happy to support the test case.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that limits or questions federal power is a fine idea right now- especially when it concerns the overreaching application of the commerce clause.

I don't care what it costs. The feds are messing with the freedom and rights that are reserved to the states and the people under the 10th Amendment. The "interstate commerce clause" does not over ride the 10th Amendment to grant Congress and federal bureaucrats the power to do anything they want.

If we will not pay the sot to defend these rights, what about freedom of religion, or freedom of the press?

This is a good bill, and much needed. It has been passed in Montana and Tennessee and similar bills are pending in TWENTY TWO other states.

Stand up to tyranny and defend liberty no matter what the cost!

Gov. Herbert- Please sign the bill into law!

Interstate commerce and the commercial sale of guns has become an integrated industry with guns being transported in and out states. The only way the State of Utah can conceivably get around federal gun regulations (that are has the implicit backing of the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008) would be to set up a likely expensive taxpayer monitoring system that carefully tracks the movement of locally manufactured guns to ensure that such guns are not transported across state lines. We might for example need to have state border checks like the one we have between the United States and Mexico to make sure that guns purchased in Utah remain in Utah otherwise, federal laws would need to be legally adhered to.

What a ridiculous boondoggle.

And I thought Utah had grown up a little since the days of Washington City's attempt to repeal the 17th amendment, Kanab's paranoid anti-U.N. law, Virgin's mandatory gun policy, etc.

Explain to me again why my liberties are in danger if criminals aren't allowed to purchase guns in Utah without a background check?

This is exactly the kind of crazy "bunker mentality" that Pres. Hinckley warned against. How quickly we've erased decades of progress and devolved back to the Bo Gritz/Cleon Skousen/John Birch days.

Progressives aka liberals espouse the virtues of progress while they ignore the damage they do to liberty. Those who will sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither. Crime has gone up across this country since 1968 when the federal gun las were enacted while at the same time otherwise innocent people have been turned into felons for merely possessing a firearm. We already have plenty of laws regulating what you can do with a firearm and possession laws have done nothing to curtail felons from getting guns. All gun laws regulating the purchasing and possession of firearms are unconstitutional and need to be abolished while at the same time we need enforce laws that punish acts of violence involving a firearm to the fullest.

I've got to completely agree with MormonDem.

I don't see why so many Utahns cherish the right to UNRESTRICTED gun access. Why not make laws about gun ownership and restrict gun ownership?

If you feel that you are a responsible gun owner, then no worries, you'll be able to own a gun.

If you think only irresponsible gun owners account for gun accidents, then why not restrict these people from owning a gun.

What's the deal?

Why wouldn't a sane, reasonable, smart person want to restrict gun ownership!

If it's safety that compels you to buy and own a gun, then why not make the world safer by limiting gun ownership to those who won't make the US less safe?

I don't get it. I've lived in 3 countries that have 0 gun access and they are FAR safer than the US!

SIGN IT!

How can our rights and defending those rights be placed in jeopardy because of costs? There is no cost in defending rights and its foolish not to defend them.

It's no problem in prosecuting individuals and spending millions to prosecute an individual, but call it too expensive to defend constitutional rights. For the poor layman individual costs have driven many innocent people to jail without a trial.

In this case it is the states responsibility to defend itself and the people and forget the costs. If Herbert really tried, I'm sure he can find the funds to defend rights. If UDOT and UTA can find $17M to build money collecting system, then the state can find what it needs in making cuts to these frivolous projects.

Federal and state government cannot enact laws that infringe on any of our constitutional rights, interstate or otherwise. Commerce and individual right are two different and individual subjects where one is not related to the other.

The pendulum has definitely swung too far in the federal government's favor. If this bill has any chance of weakening the 'commerce clause', I'm all for it. I'll even donate funds.

re: MormonDem This bill says nothing about favoring doing away with criminal background checks, etc. Just that restrictions should be the purview of States, not the Federal Government.

All this, and yet I still can't purchase a Long Island Iced Tea legally in the state of Utah. Seems like they want to throw off all control in some areas yet keep an iron fist in others.

I strongly support this bill, so much so in fact, that if Herbert vetoes it, my money and time will go to opposing him in the election. We need to fight for freedom from the tyranny of this Obama administration in every way we can at any cost. This is a great place to do it.

Voter nailed it. This is ultimately about protecting freedoms that are being rapidly eroded by a federal government that refuses to abide by its Constitutional limitations. As Thomas Paine pointed out there are always steep costs associated with maintaining & defending freedom. Would you rather pay in money or blood?

You don't put off, until a more convenient time, the cause of liberty. We have a moral responsibility that trumps convenience to safeguard our freedoms. If is obvious to anyone but MormonDem that the democrats in Washington have been steadily moving for decades toward stomping out the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. They know that once the peoples access to guns has been taken away, they can then easily remove the remaining freedoms we have. Look what happened to the saints in Nauvoo as soon as they turned over their firearms. Much has been written about the importance of not relinquishing this vital constitutional freedom to bear arms.

Help me understand this notion that tyranny and the loss of liberty only exist at the federal level? What in the world makes anyone think that the legislature of the State of Utah DEFENDS liberty while the Congress of the Untied States steals it away from us. If the State of Utah was such an arch defender of liberty, then why do they have such a tight grip on liquor sales? Perhaps the truth is that they want to ardently defend the states right to be a tyrant and deny liberty.

That's because alcohol is meant to do damage to a person or persons around them.

Not like a gun that's sole purpose is to kill.

Oops, that didn't come out the way I wanted it too!

before you go starting calling people names you may want to gt your basic facts straight, crime rates have actually fallen considerably. I am a liberal and all for gun rights but this bill and your silly claims do nothing to forward this cause.

Sign the bill, Governor - or enjoy a short term

"I don't get it. I've lived in 3 countries that have 0 gun access and they are FAR safer than the US!"

I doubt it. What countries, and when? Then, let's take a look at the details, shall we?