Comments about ‘Utah lawmaker: Guns should be legal without permit’

Another horrible idea by Wimmer.

Sounds like a very logical, constitutional step to take. I can't seem to find any application nor requirement for a permit to attend church, read or publish a newspaper, have a jury trial, or not to self-incriminate.

If the 1st amendment protects pornography and the 5th amendment means some number of criminals are going to escape prosecution, then the 2nd amendment means we don't need a government permission slip to own or peaceably carry a gun.

It was about 15 years ago that Utah adopted our current, non-discriminatory (ie shall issue) permit system. In the past 15 years it has become clear that allowing large numbers of adults to legally bear arms in public is not a practical problem.

In that same time we've expanded the number of locations where a person can carry a loaded and/or concealed gun without a permit to include his business and his own car.

We've now seen the Heller and McDonald decisions from the supreme court affirming an individual right.

Simply put, we've seen a very thoughtful, careful, gradual approach to this subject and it is obvious that we can and should respect this right.

Right on, Wimmer!

Stephen Gunn... how ironic.

... insane

'In the past 15 years it has become clear that allowing large numbers of adults to legally bear arms in public is not a practical problem.' - Considering | 1:08 p.m.

The last week's events with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords contradicts this claim.

We have learned nothing.

Hoooo Weee.
I can see it now -
Officer, that cretin had the audacity to smoke near a public building, POW.
Officer, the driver of that Subaru goin' 60 wouldn't move over into the right lane, BLAM.
Judge, I'm tellin' ya - she had 15 items in the express checkout line. WHAMMO.
It's pretty evident that educated, religous adults can't control themselves in the judgemental vitriol that passed for 'civil' discourse these days; Now we should add firepower to the mix.
Jury, Judge, Executioner.

That idea would turn this into the wild wild west.
Dumb idea. You'd have simple arguments turn into someone drawing his weapon and using it. We need to protect ourselves yes but this idea is 17th century stuff. Having a gun on you is one thing but if you do, you better have the sense as to how and when and if you should ever use it.

I believe the right to bear arms when needed. But this idea takes it a little to far. It makes confrontations between individuals become dangerous.

The legal basis and rationale for a permitting system for concealed carry is dubious at best. The Supreme Court decision on this matter cites no previous cases and provides no legal rationale for the reason that one's unalienable right to bear arms is not infringed upon by a concealed carry permitting system.

There is no right to carry arms concealed for the purpose of committing a criminal act.

I exercise my unalienable rights and bear arms and walk around with a gun on my hip. This is completely lawful activity. Now the weather turns and I decided I want to wear a coat. The act of putting on a coat while I am exercising some of my unalienable rights and the arms I am carrying are now not visible suddenly somehow changes what I am doing into an illegal act. How legally absurd?!

The Utah Constitution allows the legislature to legislate concerning "use" of arms. This means they can criminalize truly criminal acts involving a firearm, it does not mean they can criminalize my unalienable right to bear arms (in the manner I choose). The exercise of a right cannot be converted to a crime!

The very foundation of our legal system is based on a "social contract" that man has made with himself. All laws take away some rights in favor of collective protection. To argue individual rights vs protection is to ignore the basis of law. To emphasize the right to carry a loaded gun without a permit is to emphasize the "right" over the collective "protection" that permitting offers all, those with guns and those without. In a lawless society one could argue that everyone must carry a loaded gun for their daily protection, but I have not seen that point advanced by any of those who support unpermitted concealed weapons. There is no need to arm everyone therefore there is no need to "exchange" the protection we gain from a permitting systen in exchange for a no holds barred gun carrying population. Especially we don't need this "exchange" just to make the author of the bill look like he is our savior. This is not a shining example of our social contract, just an example of a "headline hunting politican" trying to raise the fear level and get himself elected to Congress.

I don't know how many of you have had a pistol pointed in your face, but when it happened to me, there was no time to reach for a gun. All the hawks told me "I'd have have reached under my jacket and grabbed my gun." I didn't have time to react like that. And I was in the Army at the time and I was held up at a fast food restaurant right here in Utah. You all talk tough, but trust me, when it happens, there isn't this slow motion effect. Time doesn't stop so you can reach into your jacket. I guess it makes you feel important and tough.

"The last week's events with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords contradicts this claim."

The criminal conduct in Arizona says NOTHING about our gun laws. Similar violence is far more common in DC, and other areas that infringe on the RKBA than they ever do in Arizona or Utah.

Tragic that one who finds some "right" to alter the definition of marriage to suit his personal tastes refuses to acknowledge a clearly enumerated right to peacefully own and carry a firearm. Nut cases ignore the law; it one reason some of us choose to take some measures to defend ourselves. Indeed, anyone who may be at unusual risk for attack should consider doing likewise. I encourage you to check out the Pink Pistols. While you and I disagree on the definition of marriage, I wholly support your right to live your life in peace. "Armed [homosexuals] don't get bashed."

"The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms."

"The very foundation of our legal system is based on a "social contract" that man has made with himself."

That may be. But the ACTUAL contract that man has made with his neighbors is contained in written form in the federal and Utah State Constitutions. And both documents protect an individual right to own and peaceably carry a firearm.

That my doing so makes you uncomfortable is no more relevant than whether your speech, peaceful religious practices, or favored choice of printed material makes me uncomfortable. We may well both be uncomfortable knowing that the 4th and 5th amendments allow some number of known criminals to escape justice.

Either we respect the terms of the WRITTEN contract, the supreme law of our land, or we have no law.

If you wish to alter the terms of the contract to allow government to infringe on my right to peacefully carry a firearm, the amendment process provides for that.

If you want to violate the terms of the standing contract when it comes to guns, do I get to violate it when it comes to your jury trial or taking your property for public use?

Once again we hear the hysterical worries about "wild west gunfights... shootouts over parking spots... somebody will shoot their eye out..."

Those sounded plausible 15 years ago when Utah and more than 30 other states were passing "shall issue" laws allowing virtually all law abiding citizens to get concealed weapon permits.

Some opponents even argued that "only cowards concealed their guns and that people should be required to carry in the open."

Well, nearly 15 years experience and hard data from 30+ states prove that all such fears are utterly false. Many early opponents, including cops, have confessed that their fears were wrong. To make such claims now indicates either ignorance of the facts, or deliberate dishonesty.

Thank you, Rep. Wimmer for taking one more step to restore the rights and freedoms guaranteed by both the Utah and U.S. Constitutions!

I have to agree with Wimmer, gun restriction laws are illegal laws. Even restrictions on who can have and carry guns is illegal. Those convicted and release from jail for crimes have the same right to defend themselves. Once a person is released from jail it also restores all his constitutional rights without restrictions or persecution.

If Mr Gunn and law enforcement don't think those that served their time of incarceration then change the incarceration and release from jail laws. There is no logical reason to restrict individuals from their rights by class or eduction or race or hate.

Mr Gunn's arguments are weak, racist, and hateful. He is not in charge of our rights or decide who should have rights.

With Law and Order no longer the rule of law, Utah and most of the US are reverting to the lawless years of growth, the Wild West days. There are too many racist laws, unenforced laws, too many laws ignored, too many wrongful prosecutions and a law enforcement that can pick and choose laws to enforce we have lost law and order. Along with a Justice system where truth is no longer a defense.

'Tragic that one who finds some "right" to alter the definition of marriage to suit his personal tastes refuses to acknowledge a clearly enumerated right to peacefully own and carry a firearm.' - Considering | 4:48 p.m. Jan. 13, 2011

1) As a gay man, I did not lead the charge in Utah to change the 'traditional' definition of 'two people' to 'one man, one woman', which was Amendment 3. Passed in 2004.

2) I also did not amend marriage in CA in 2008 with Prop 8.

So, that is two factual changes to marriage, in 4 years, by those who claim to defend the 'tradition' of marriage.

3rd, your claim considering, was not about laws.

'In the past 15 years it has become clear that allowing large numbers of adults to legally bear arms in public is not a practical problem.' - Considering | 1:08 p.m.

So it's not a 'practical problem' over the last 15 years...

unless you are the 13 who were wounded last week in Az.

Or rep Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head...

or the killed 9yr old girl.

The recent murder of 6 people, says much about our gun laws.

As a firearms instructor, I have a vested interest in keeping the requirement for training and licensing of those who choose to carry a gun. As a freedom-loving American, I oppose those same requirements because one should not be required to seek permission of the State to exercise a Constitutionally-enumerated right. I endorse Wimmer's proposed legislation. It would change nothing with regard to people with bad judgment -- they'd still be banned for even touching a gun or ammunition. I also urge all gun-owners to voluntarily get appropriate formal training -- even if it is not required.

A great idea. Our Constitutional rights should not be subject to permit issuance. All the things that bad folks could do with a gun are illegal. If we KNOW they are bad folks, keep 'em locked up.

Murray Dad, sniggy, really??? You're both using the same old arguments anti-gun nuts have been using for decades. "That idea would turn this into the wild wild west." They say that EXACT SAME THING when any gun laws become more lax. And guess what....it NEVER HAPPENS.

"The last week's events with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords contradicts this claim.

We have learned nothing" Pagan | 1:22 p.m. Jan. 13, 2011

"So it's not a 'practical problem' over the last 15 years...

unless you are the 13 who were wounded last week in Az.

Or rep Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head...

or the killed 9yr old girl.

The recent murder of 6 people, says much about our gun laws." Pagan | 8:42 a.m. Jan. 14, 2011

All of you do yourselves and everyone else a favor and take a little time and read "The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong" by John Lott. Statistical proof that virtually every single anti-gun "fact" is false.

Criminals are cowards, they don't target people who they think will fight back.

It sounds like common sense to me.

The constitution is clear. Unless you are a criminal, and lose the right... You have a right to self-defense in the US.

What is with the lust for guns? How did gun lovers get so irrational? This will bring nothing but trouble.