Comments about ‘Utah joins legal fight against federal gun laws’

If I were president I would see that Utah has less federal interference by moving workloads from Hill AFB.

Anoymouse, then I think it's a good thing you're not president.

Good going Utah GA and Gov, thanks for fighting to preserve our state's rights!

Thank god we have a governor and GA that will always kiss up to the idiotic fringe right.

I think it's a waste of the taxpayer money. How on earth to have a gun manufactured and built in the state and you cannot hunt outside other states, such as Colorado or New Mexico. Tt's plain stupid.

Thank Heaven for the UT governor and his wise and prudent foresight in challenging federal laws that illegally limit state autonomy. I don't live in UT but it makes me want to move there.

Can Utah guarantee these guns won't leave Utah once purchased? What's wrong with the government knowing a guns serial number an who purchased it? I own many guns, some nice pieces, but I'm not At all bothered uncle Sam knows about every single one. Why? I'm not a criminal! That's probably why I hold a cpl and class 3 license (own an auto and a few suppressors) in WA. If you don't have anything unlawful to hide, I cannot see a reason other then opinions. Tracking weapons properly protects the innocent and allows another tool to arrest and jail those who misuse guns. Only criminals should be worried about federal tracking of their firearms.

When the federal government usurps their power it is the duty of citizens and state and local government levels to stand up to the federal government.

If critics are not willing to push back over this unwarranted tyranny on the pretext of the "commerce clause" then what other rights are critics willing to relinquish without a struggle? And what limits on federal power will they ever accept?

Our divinely inspired republic recognized more freedom for individuals and the states than nearly any other system on earth.

Thank God we have elected officials who will defend freedom, and not just bow down to people from Washington who refuse to recognize limits on their power.

Thank you Governor Herbert for signing the bill, and thank you Attorney General Shurtleff for joining the Montana case to enforce similar provisions and defend state and individual rights not granted to Congress.

I don't want the government knowing how many guns I have or how old they are or how powerful they are.

Of course we are worried. Our freedoms are being taken away from us. One by one. etc.

Why track guns? It tracks people who own them. We all know or should know that if any property (cars, knives, guns, etc.) is used in a crime the previous owner must prove innocence. The federal law assumes all guns will be used in a crime so they track them as a convenience to law enforcement. Self defense is not a crime and the laws imply all gun use is criminal whether carrying it or shooting it.

The federal trade laws are meant to allow the freedom of interstate commerce without interference with production or manufacturing restrictions. This and all gun laws are an invasion of privacy and due process. Registering guns is not to protect or stop criminals from obtaining them, its to track innocent gun owners should they ever have a need to use them.

Every american, even felons who have paid their debt, have the right to own and poses guns. The constitution does not say otherwise or have any exceptions to the Right to bear arms. We can use them to protect ourselves and family and possessions without permission.

The right to bear arms empowers individuals to defend against threats from individuals, government, and illegals.

Under United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 115, Section 2384, seditious conspiracy occurs "[i]f two or more persons in any State . . . conspire . . . to oppose by force the authority [of the Government of the United States], or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States."
The U.S. Attorney should charge Gov. Herbert, AG Shurtleff, and all the legislators who voted for the gun law, with seditious conspiracy, and put them away for 20 years.

Thank you, Gov. Herbert for standing up for states' rights. Now is the time to signal the Feds that the states are not buying the continued expansion of un-Constitutional laws under the erroneous use of the commerce clause.
There have been so many infringements on our freedoms by the Feds, meaning Congress, the President and gang, and by the Supreme Court, that many people don't even know what they have lost!

Here we are in Utah a largely LDS population fighting the US Government on a variety of fronts. Have any of you heard of the Article of Faith?? Read them. Think about what they say. If you do you will not be so against the Federal government. What did Joseph Smith say about the Constitution? What have many prophets since said?? Instead of fighting the US Government we should be the biggest supporters. Wake up Utah!!

This is a waste of time and money. This principal of the commerce clause has been well established for many, many years. Attached the word "gun" and "federal government" and it becomes a political issue, this is just something to do to show your politics. If your upset that the Montana law will be ruled unconstitutional because of the commerce clause then you should have stood up back when the commerce clause was being interpreted. Back in 1995 and before that with the Kilborn case. The the Kilborn case was about wheat, but getting upset about growing wheat isn't as fun as getting upset over the "federal" government.

Read your own reference for comprehension. The AG and the other states are NOT "opposing by force", they have exercised legal rights to bring suit against what they believe is an unjust interpretation of a federal statute. Such legal action is not "opposition by force" as specified in your reference. "opposition by force" would involve using armed force in a violent attack.


This ain't it.

ZW...you are missing the point...big time.

To zw: The state of Utah is not trying not to obey the law, they just want the Federal Government to obey the constitution.

As I see it the only way to get the Federal Government under control is to:

1. Make all congressmen employees of the states they represent where the state legislature determines salary and benefits.
2. Pass campaign finance reform prohibiting political donations from anyone or anything that can't vote for the candidate. If you can't vote for a candidate you can't give them money. Neither unions nor corporations vote so they could not give any money. Congressmen are supposed to represent the people in their home districts not special interests.
3. Eliminate soft money (provision 2 above does this). Obama threatened to withhold all party money from candidates who did not vote for Obama care. Once a candidate gets elected they forget who they represent and only represent their party.

Let the states hold the purse strings of congressmen and they will finally figure out who they have to listen to.

Take the time to reread your history, and the Constitution. Using the existing laws to challenge the interpretation of other laws is supporting the Constitution. Doing everything within the law, to challenge a law is legal. Using unlawful means to challenge a law is not. It's called using the system as it was designed. Just because the Constitution is divinely inspired doesn't mean that every interpretation of the document by individuals or the Courts is equally so. It's the same standard applied to the Scriptures.....

Under the Articles of Confederation states would charge a custom on all goods crossing their borders. Manufactured goods from distant locations suffered a huge financial disadvantage. They not only had to charge extra for the transportation costs but for all the taxes they paid along the way.

The constitution prohibits these taxes, fees and duties and grants the Federal government authority regulate interstate commerce. It was never intended to be an excuse to regulate and control everything that moves.

The second amendment is about giving the people the means of defending themselves against a tyrannical government. The state is correct to fight the governments usurpation.

they will (and have) fought against anything federal. Like grants, money and single partner marriage.

My complaint about the so-called Firearms Freedom Act is that it doesn't go far enough. It should address all federal intrusion into our 9th and 10th Amendment rights (and most others listed in the Bill of Rights). Far too many Americans fail to understand that a primary purpose of the US Constitution is to restrict the size and power of the federal government. The commerce clause of the Constitution was was designed only to ensure interstate commerce flows smoothly (ie standard weights an measures, no taxes on goods from another state, etc.) But, Congress misuses the commerce clause to regulate everything from lunches and lessons in local schools to whether a farmer can eat food grown on his own land! Any transaction that occurs in within a State is none of the federal government's business! The sooner all citizens understand that, the sooner we'll have a government that costs billions instead of trillions. I simply cannot understand why so many people want the bloated, intrusive government that we now have.