I see this opinion piece has (again) devolved into a legislation vs common sense
argument thanks to a certain S Jordan denizen.
Mike the Limey: I'd be going to jail? For what? Where in that
parable do I become a criminal?
@Martin BlankSalt Lake City, UTFor those advocating no
restrictions, a parable:I am an open-carry advocate, though most of
the time I carry concealed (a 9mm Glock in a shoulder holster).........takes the safety off... ----------------------------If
you were an open carry advocate, you would know that your Glock doesn't
possess a safety as such.In the scenario you propose, you would be
going to jail & all responsible firearm owners would concur with your
First of all, the legislature isn't "claiming" that this involves a
Second Amendment right, it DOES involve a Second Amendment right. Your attempt
to establish a burden to prove what is plainly stated in the text demonstrates
an egregious misunderstanding of American civics.Second of all, the
Supreme Court doesn't "expand" rights, it rules on whether or not
government actions infringe them. The rights exist independent of any written
document, and are not granted by men, but are endowed by our Creator. I realize
that all of this is inconvenient to your argument, but contrary to what you
apparently believe, you do not have a right to have things made
"convenient" for you, particularly when what you deem
"convenient" flies in the face of constitutional constraints.Bottom line: Our right to arms is not subject to anyone's approval.
Understand that, and move on.
The anti gun extremists have nothing to offer in concessions or compromise, they
only wish to take based on their unsubstantiated and illogical fears of their
mythical boogeyman, the law abiding gun owner.
of course they are willing to wear a symbol to identify their gun free status,
uh like the STAR OF DAVID. Such an appropriate mark for disarmed victims.Then they should be required to post on their front door, their lawn,
their vehicle they are gun free. This way the police will know whom they must
protect, even though by law they have no legal liability to do so.
Those who choose to rely on the police, should themselves alone pay any
increases in costs for the police to do so and those signs on person, clothing
and home will allow the police to maximize and be efficient in their efforts.Then any company, organization, govt. entity that wishes to disarm
patrons etc, must then put in place protective measures to defend the innocents
they disarm, making it illegal on the federal level to increase their costs to
pass on to their customer or patrons, taking such costs directly from their own
Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They
always fail to prove, that the militia existed before the armed individual.The anti’s always fail to prove that a collective right can exist
without the individual right first existing as how does a collective begin, oh
that’s right, pre-existing individuals come together to form said
collective, DOOOHH!Funny how all that was before the 2008 rulings
eh?Funny how in the 2008 Heller ruling all 9 justices agreed that
bearing arms was an individual right. That 5-4 vote was on the constitutionality
of the Washington D.C. gun ban, read it, you will see!
Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You
know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was
changed to what exists today. Why did our founding fathers change the amendment
draft if it was what they wanted? Oh thats right, actions do speak louder than
words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.original proposed draft BILL of
RIGHTS (17 TH of 20 amendments)on display at the Karpeles Manuscript
Library Santa Ana, California"That the people have a right to
keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the
people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State.
That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore
ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community
will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict
subordination to and governed by the civil power."
For those advocating no restrictions, a parable:I am an open-carry
advocate, though most of the time I carry concealed (a 9mm Glock in a shoulder
holster). One day in church, I'm sitting in the pew next to
your family. The room's a little warm, so about halfway through the
service, I remove my jacket. Your five-year-old son sees the Glock, and scoots
over to look at it. I notice his attention, so I take the gun out of its
holster, make sure the safety's on, and hand it to him. He, bright boy that
he is, examines it for a few seconds, takes the safety off, points it at his
mom's head, and pulls the trigger.Now, where in that story does
"reasonable regulation" begin? If you're in favor of unrestricted
firearms use, how would I ever be charged with any crime for what happened? Or
are you so enamored of unregulated firearms that you'd argue that nothing I
did was wrong, or punishable by law?
Re: Truthseeker SLO, CALet's be honest. It gets your goat that
you live in Utah where we have reasonable gun regulations, where unlike in
Chicago, law abiding US citizens can obtain concealed carry permits.Contrary to your condescending comment above which is in lockstep with the
thinking of the rabid anti-2nd Amendment crowd we don't believe it is
reasonable to carry guns everywhere including churches and airplanes.
re:JoeBlowI think Mike Richards answered your questions:1. It is reasonable to carry a gun anywhere. 2. There should not be
limits/restrictions against any firearms. Laws prohibiting guns on
airplanes: unconstitutionalLaws prohibiting guns in or around schools or
anywhere else: unconstitutional.
J Thompson,I’ve missed a point or two in my time. Since you
always cover for Mike Richards, I assume you are him.All the govt.
is our servant. But the people do not interpret the constitution. The Supreme
Court does. The people don’t make laws, the Congress does. The people
don’t enforce laws, the President does. The people have sovereignty and
grant the power to the govt. then the constitutional officers do the
governing.So, whatever you may think, the Supreme Court is the
arbiter of constitutionality. Not you, not me, not the people generally. There
are, of course, ways to amend the constitution. But until that time, the
interpretation of the Supreme Court is the final word. You or I may disagree
(and I sometimes do) but that is our tough luck. And the other constitutional
officers will uphold their views.No one has the right to go outside
the constitution. That is called treason. We work within the constitution or
wear that label.You still have not answered my question about
Geez people. Are my questions so tough that no one even tries?Look.
In logically thinking thru an argument, I try to look at areas that challenge
the general thinking. To me, that is how I understand peoples position."The Court MUST NOT infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
" Fine. Now, what does that really mean to you Mr Thompson.Can I own any "arms" and carry them "anywhere"? If not,
where do YOU draw the line?It is those answers that would make most
logical people think that there are degrees of grey here.On one
extreme, most people, me included would rise up in protest if the govt tried to
stop me from owning and keeping guns in my house for protection.On
the other extreme, some would argue (mr Thompson perhaps? Rifleman perhaps?)
that I should be able to own any weapon, without restrictions, and bring them
anywhere I choose. I suspect that many people are somewhere in the
middle.Mr Thompson. Please explain your quoted statement above.
What does that mean, specifically, to you?
Twin Lights,You also seem to miss the point. The Supreme
Court is our servant. It does not dictate to the citizens what the Supreme Law
of the Land is. The Constitution, written and ratified by the citizens tell the
Court what it must do.The Court MUST NOT infringe on our right to
keep and bear arms. That is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Court cannot rule
otherwise without breaking the Supreme Law of the Land.You may have
another opinion, but your opinion is not the Supreme Law of the Land. The
Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It tells us that we
have the right to keep and bear arms. It tells the government that the
government cannot abridge that right.It doesn't matter what the
"time period is". We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Period.Antonin Scalia did not write the Constitution. He did not ratify the
Constitution. He is BOUND to uphold the Constitution, as written, not as
"interpreted" by him or by any other "lawyer".
Mike,Please. Let’s forgo the histrionics.No, I do
not think that govt. controls us. Yes, I agree that we control the govt. No, I
don’t generally fear my neighbors (well, maybe one neighbor but that is
for another day . . .) and I acknowledge no earthly king.But none of
this addresses the rights issue. That is, whether the wording of the Second
Amendment grants back to the citizenry an unrestricted right to all
armaments.The current Supreme Court (perhaps the most conservative
in decades) believes there are limits to the right. Antonin Scalia, certainly
no liberal, has opined that “yes, there are some limitations that can be
imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were
reasonable limitations at the time.”I think this means that a
personal right to own tanks is questionable (though they would be really fun
Twin Lights,You seem to think that the government controls us. That
is false. We control the government. When that fact is established, then you
will understand that free people self-govern. They don't need "big
brother" looking over their shoulder, telling them what they can or cannot
do.You fear your neighbor. You and your neighbor ARE THE
GOVERNMENT. Those we elect to represent us are part-time workers. They enable
us to go about our normal activities without being bound to the Internet or to a
telephone all day long to vote on every little matter. WE hold all power. WE
control all things. WE have all responsibility.The government is
our servant. It is not our master.WE told the government that it
will make no rules concerning OUR RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Who
is YOUR king who has taken your rights away; who dictates to you what you can or
cannot do? The RIGHT to keep and bear arms was not given to us from the
government. WE RETAINED that right as citizens.
Mike Richards,Taking your statement to its logical end, we should
then have the right to possess any and all arms (in the broad sense). That is,
private individuals with access to whatever firearms, explosives, or armaments
they could afford. The inevitable result would seem to be private armies.Is that what you are arguing for?
More than forty years ago, I served as a missionary for the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints in France and Belgium. There, the
"policemen" carried fully automatic rifles. They walked among the
people. They did not hide the fact that they were carrying weapons that could
kill hundreds of citizens within seconds.The "policemen" in
the United States work at the pleasure of the "citizens". We tell them
what they can do and where they can "walk". We tell them what
"weapons" they can carry and how them can use those weapons.What few people realize is that WE, THE PEOPLE, hold all other rights. We do
not need to be told what weapons we can carry. We do not need the government to
restrain the right that WE, THE PEOPLE reserved to ourselves.NO
government agency has the right to restrict our personal freedoms, including the
right to keep and bear arms. That RIGHT supersedes all law coming from the
government. The government does not allocate "rights". WE,
THE PEOPLE, hold all rights independent of the government.
Re: JoeBlow Far East USA, SCThe vast majority of Americans who
believe in the right to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones
have no problem with reasonable firearm regulations. Your questions are
puzzling and have the appearance of being condescending. I think you will find
the answers you seek by checking out the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence" web site.May I suggest that you get someone familiar
with law enforcement to explain the concept of "response time" to you.
I actually do want to have reasonable dialogue. And I want commons sense gun
laws.There is probably a good, reasonable middle ground. I am trying to
figure out where that is.I fully support peoples right to own
guns.But not an UNLIMITED right as some seem to suggest.I believe that guns should not be allowed everywhere. I am trying to
understand where the agreement is on that. When the guy carried a
rifle around the Orem Mall last year, several people called 911. Why? Because
it scared them. Some suggest that people need to be
"trained" to accept that behavior. I disagree. I do NOT want America
to be a society where people openly carrying guns is commonplace. So, again I ask (not as an avid anti gun person)1) Where (if
anywhere) is it reasonable to prohibit gun carry?2) Are there any weapons
that should be regulated?
Isn't it a shame that we are so fearful that we have to even has this
argument? Politicians love to stroke the gun nuts, and the gun nuts love to be
@atl134,Do you really want to get into a discussion about
"Chicago style" politics? Do you really want to talk about government
corruption, which is the basis for our right to keep and bear arms? Do you
really want to revisit the history of Chicago and how Chicago has repressed the
rights of its citizens?We are a free people, unrestrained by
politicians who want to "control us" by controlling our right to keep
and bear arms. No politician can gain control over the populace unless he first
takes away their right to keep and bear arms. Chicago politicians know that.
That is one of the reasons that Chicago violated the 2nd Amendment. They wanted
to control the citizens by taking away the rights of those citizens. They
inspired contempt for law. They taught the citizens how to be disobedient. Now
they whine and tell us that allowing citizens their rights is causing harm.
What a despicable mess their corruption has left THEM.
@1conservative"Guns are tools. I'm not fearful of tools.
Likewise, when I see a construction crew working I have no fear whatsoever that
one of the workmen will attack me with a nail gun or his hammer."A nail gun and a hammer have clear primary uses to help build things. A
gun's use is to harm or kill people or animals. @Flying Finn"Are you not aware of the US Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2008 wherein
they said "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun,
apart from service in a militia"?"That ruling just said you
can't ban guns (on a related note Chicago's homicide rate has spiked
dramatically since their gun ban was struck down). Doesn't say you
can't regulate them.
@ Happy Valley Heretic writes: "Mike why do you and others ignore this first
part written first for a reason? "A well regulated militia" would
suggest Regulated would be included."Are you not aware of the US
Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2008 wherein they said "the Second
Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun, apart from service in a
militia"? They discarded your bogus line of reasoning if favor of the intent
of the Founding Fathers.
Truthseeker,Haven't you got the "cart" before the
"horse"?The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It
is binding on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not write the
Constitution. The Supreme Court did not ratify the Constitution. The Supreme
Court does not and cannot give us "rights". WE, THE PEOPLE, hold all
rights except those that we have delegated to government. 2nd
Amendment:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!That is the
Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court is bound by that law. They cannot
modify it. It supersedes their authority."Shall not be
infringed" does not mean, "shall not be infringed - except". There
are NO exceptions when the words say "shall not be infringed"! That is
the will of the people. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change
Re: Truthseeker SLO, CA"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right
is not unlimited."We have numerous state and federal laws that
govern who can legally possess and legally possess firearms and carry them
concealed. Where did you get the idea that we don't have existing controls
and limits on the possession of firearms?Why the paranoia from those
with an unreasonable fear of firearms who think nothing of sharing the highway
with drunk drivers on a daily basis?
Since Gun lovers are more likely to be killed with their own firearm, I say
it's chlorine for the gene pool.I own several guns and at no
point do I believe they are tools to show off in public, little men feel this
need to intimidate.I believe we no longer live on the frontier, with
hostile natives and deadly wildlife, although the NRA would have you believe
your gun is your most important "friend" still.Joe asks a
reasonable question and is met with unreasonable responses typical of rabid NRA
disciples.Mike why do you and others ignore this first part written
first for a reason?"A well regulated militia" would suggest
Regulated would be included.
re:MikeRichardsYou are way to the right of the conservatives on the
Supreme Court who stated:"Like most rights, the Second Amendment
right is not unlimited."
I disagree with the entire premise of the editorial.The 1st
Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."Religion cannot be legislated - period!Speech cannot be restricted - period (although prosecution can follow shouting
"Fire!").Now, what does the 2nd Amendment state?"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."SHALL NOT means exactly that! Our right to keep and BEAR arms shall not
be infringed!People must be punished for deeds, not for intentions -
especially when those "intentions" exist only in the mind of an
In Heller v D.C. (2008) the Supreme Court stated: "1. The
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected
with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful
purposes, such as self-defense within the home. 2. Like most rights,
the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For
example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or
state analogues."Joe Blow asked 2 legitimate questions, which so
far, have gone unanswered:1) Where (if anywhere) is it reasonable to
prohibit gun carry?2) Are there any weapons that should be regulated?
First, I am a gun owner. I enjoy using firearms.Second, the
argument that a firearm is a tool like any other is simply wrong. That we have
constitutional protections regarding their ownership is evidence of this. We
have no such guarantees of owning hammers. Yes, I know, other tools can kill
too. But none with such efficiency (otherwise, armies would carry nail guns)
and tools all have another primary use for which they were specifically
designed. Firearms (dedicated target arms being the possible exception) are
designed to kill something. That is their purpose.Third, I have no
problem with concealed carry. But, other than transporting firearms to the
range or the hunting area, carrying openly makes a certain statement. One that
frankly calls into question the good judgment of the individual doing the
carrying. And, if I am not confident in their judgment, now I am nervous,
watching them closely and getting ready for any foolishness on their part.Except in certain rare circumstances, open carry is just political
Ray's bill makes sense, and I applaud it. There are some police officers,
police chiefs, or other public officials who don't believe private citizens
should be allowed to carry guns ("bear arms"), concealed or
otherwise.Some of these public officials have ignored the law and
sought to impose their own personal views, violating the rights of private
citizens. Law-abiding citizens have been arrested, threatened, detained,
expelled, jailed, or otherwise treated unlawfully.Ray's bill is
a wise attempt to reign in these out-of-control public officials and force them
to obey the law. Granted, these incidents happen in other states more than
they do in Utah, but when they do happen, they are a serious violation of
Constitutional rights.Here's another way to look at it. Some
police officers are surely opposed to abortion (which is not even a
"right" included in the Constitution, by the way). What if even one of
them attempted to impose his own view by preventing a woman from entering an
abortion clinic? Now THAT would get some attention in a hurry.Jean
Hill's op-ed is well-meaning, but off-base.
Ett,The questions raised by JoeBlow are not provocative, they are
JoeBlow, you raise the same failed argument that has been raised, refuted and
rendered as nonsense, that Liberals have raised a thousand times before. States
and the Federal governmant can regulate the presence of arms in certain areas,
as stated above by Utah_1. The FAA already regulates firearms on board aircraft.
(Coincidentally, those regulations wouldn't have stopped 9/11) RPG's,
tanks, grenades and fully automatic weapons are not classified as personal arms,
thus illegal to possess and carry. If you want to have a productive debate, stop
regurgitating the worn-out and embroidered arguments of the left. You can't
expect reasonable dialog by employing provocative questions.
Re: JoeBlow Far East USA, SC"Should I be able to own a RPG, a tank,
grenades, fully automatic weapons?"An RPG, tank or grenade
doesn't fall into the category of firearms, and US private citizens already
can be licensed to possess fully automatic weapons and therefore your
condescending question is moot.In two recent rulings the US Supreme
Court answered your question on what restrictions are appropriate. Here's
a hint: The anti-2nd Amendment crowd was deeply disappointed.
Guns are tools. I'm not fearful of tools. Likewise, when I see a
construction crew working I have no fear whatsoever that one of the workmen will
attack me with a nail gun or his hammer.What I DO fear though is the
fact that my government ROUTINELY tries to find ways to abridge my
Can someone tell me1) Where (if anywhere) is it reasonable to
prohibit gun carry?2) Are there any weapons that should be regulated?Should citizens be allowed to carry guns into bars? Football stadiums?
Courtrooms? Airplanes?Should I be able to own a RPG, a tank,
grenades, fully automatic weapons?I am trying to get a feel from gun
advocates as to what restrictions are appropriate?Specifics please.
Considering the state's extremely low violent crime rate as compared to the
national average, it seems that other states should be emulating Utah.
We see people walk around with guns all the time, and we are used to it, these
people are called policemen / policewomen.So far as I know, no one
in Utah is proposing that violent felons be able to carry guns nor should
they.Other than that, what legitimate reason is there to prevent
fellow citizens from exercising their Second Ammendment rights?There
is more reason that the writer of this article be denied her First Ammendment
right to publish this article advocating we abondon the Constitution, than there
is to deny law abiding and constitution respecting citizens their 2nd Ammendment
Try looking at Utah's Constitution. It isn't just about the US 2nd
amendment. Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]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. If we don't
allow Open Carry, are we violating the Utah Constitutional Rights of citizens in
Utah if we have a concealed carry permit requirement? I somehow doubt the writer
wants to get rid of the concealed carry permit requirement.