Comments about ‘Legislation addresses brandishing of guns’

As the hysterical tone of this article demonstrates, the media has shown themselves to be overwhelmingly anti-self defense. A biased media cannot be trusted to conduct an unbiased poll. Therefore, our elected officials should trust no poll except that which occurs on election day.

As far as the changes in the law goes, they are simply common sense, and long overdue.

There are some excellent articles about firearms on the internet. The rule of thumb seems to be, that the more people who own guns in a country, the greater number of people die from firearms. Not exactly rocket science.

Dell Shanze and those Neighborhood watch guys in Bluffdale that shot each other are delirious with joy if this bill passes.

Yet another reason I don't miss living in Utah . . .

I don't believe that this legislation is needed. I am a concealed carry permit holder and the only reason I would even reveal my hand gun is if life is threatened and I have no other option than to fire my weapon to staop this action.

Only proven responsible gun owners should be given this priveledge. I definetly don't want the old west returning.

Actually Liberal Larry the evidence nationwide proves you wrong. More guns less crime!
Just as the anti-self defence legislator Gunn got it wrong. There is nothing like looking down the barrel of a gun that makes a would be rapist an absolute southern gentleman. A presence of a weapon in the hands of a law abiding citizen absolutely deters crime!
A little humor hopefully gets the point across.
By the way it is already legal to carry a gun openly without a permit as the article stated.

Lets make this easy for those folks who don't seem to understand why anyone wants a gun. Its about crime. Lets execute anyone who commits a crime with a gun, period! Case closed.

The more guns are visable the safer citizens will be. Bad guys think twice when they know you will defend yourself.

Interesting- none of us appear to have missed you either!

Contrary to claims by the gun lobby, I've had a gun pointed at me and I've been harmed irreparably. The gun was loaded, the guy was angry, and I was innocent. I've had nightmares ever since. Now. . . who do you think should be in therapy?

this law. I definitely support citizens with guns. It make take away some lives of those who would defile or murder, but it will save many more. Of course those citizens should be screened and carrying permits.

I agree with Bill. This legislation is not needed. Rep. Sandstrom is making us Oremites look like idiots for electing him. It should be against the law to point a gun at someone unless it is intended to be used. And if you use a gun against someone it better be a life or death situation.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but it comes with a responsiblity and a cost. I happen to know a couple of people who are in prison because they had a gun and got mad at someone and used it.

I think it is quite funny that "Anonymous" apparently hated living in Utah, but still finds it necessary to read the Deseret News and write comments. As far as the proposed legislation goes, I don't know that it will make such a huge difference. I'm sure that the majority of people who already have a concealed weapons permit would only fire their weapon as a last resort anyway. I believe in the second amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Even requiring people to apply for a concealed weapons permit seems like a violation of the second amendment.

Does Sandstrom ever read the newspaper? Look what happened with the neighborhood watch guys in Bluffdale. His love affair with guns is strange indeed.

You make a good point, lets have this on the ballot at the polls and see if it passes or not, if not then it isn't just the media against the open carry, but most of the law abiding citizens.

I for one, used to hunt, still have a rifle, but don't want some self rightous gun toting individual pulling a gun out during a robbery and then having an all out gun battle, with how many innocent bystanders being shot!

Lets put it on the ballot and see if it really is the will of the people, not just a few paranoid individuals.

There are several issues about which people will never agree. Possession of a weapon, abortion, health care as a "right" are all hot-button issues that divide families, towns, and nations. It seems to me those that are opposed to possession of a weapon are the same group that favors abortion on demand and feel that somehow medical personnel are beholden to everyone's needs.
We are, regrettably, becoming a nation of "gimmees" who demand everyone "do me something".
The USSC has ruled the police have NO obligation to protect or defend anyone. That leaves you and me to protect yours and mine.

Did any of you actually read the bill? Here are the pertinent lines:

"Section 76-10-506 is amended to read:
76-10-506. Openly carrying a firearm -- Drawing or exhibiting -- Investigations -- Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.

(1) An individual who is not prohibited from doing so by federal or Utah state law may:
(a) openly carry a firearm; and
(b) communicate to another person the fact that the individual has a firearm.

(2) If an individual who is carrying a firearm reasonably believes that the individual or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the individual may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force against the aggressor, including drawing or exhibiting the firearm.

1. Open carry is *already legal* in the state, this bill just clarifies it to those LEO's who enforce their own opinions rather than the law.

2. This bill says that if the person drawing the firearm "reasonably believes that the individual or another person is threatened with bodily harm" that person may draw their weapon.

I believe in the "Second Amendment" and as a gun enthusiast I believe people have every right to protect themselves. I also believe if it is necessary to point a gun at someone for any reason, it is also necssary to fire the weapon. I agree with those that an armed populace does deter crime.

To continue:

Regarding the situation in Bluffdale, it is covered by this proviso:

"(4) Except as otherwise provided in Subsections (1) and (2) and for those persons described in Section 76-10-503 , an individual who draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon, not in self-defense of the individual or another person, in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses the weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor."

Essentially, whomever pulled their weapon first in Bluffdale would have been guilty of a class A misdemeanor as nobody was in immediate danger of bodily harm. As for the gentleman who fired, as soon as the other gent dropped his weapon his life was in no immediate danger. He therefore had no reason to fire, legally.

as the great author once penned
"Guns were made to put holes in people."

Great law for a state claiming to be Christians and therefore should not believe in intimidating others with violence.

Another quote by a great person
"Live by the sword, die by the sword."
In this case I think guns can be substituted for sword.

Openly carrying guns will only get more people killed not less.