Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Utah needs to establish reasonable gun restraints

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mister J SLC, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 5:43 p.m.

    I see this opinion piece has (again) devolved into a legislation vs common sense argument thanks to a certain S Jordan denizen.

  • Martin Blank Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2012 7:42 a.m.

    Mike the Limey:

    I'd be going to jail? For what? Where in that parable do I become a criminal?

  • Mike the Limey England, 00
    Oct. 10, 2012 3:21 p.m.

    @Martin Blank
    Salt Lake City, UT

    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).....

    ....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 incarceration.

  • TEEBONE MIAMI, FL
    Oct. 10, 2012 10:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Jarhead1982 DEARBORN, MI
    Oct. 10, 2012 7:20 a.m.

    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.



    Unless 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 profits.



    cont.

  • Jarhead1982 DEARBORN, MI
    Oct. 10, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    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!

  • Jarhead1982 DEARBORN, MI
    Oct. 10, 2012 7:16 a.m.

    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."

  • Martin Blank Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 6:48 a.m.

    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?

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 10, 2012 6:25 a.m.

    Re: Truthseeker SLO, CA

    Let'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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 9, 2012 8:46 p.m.

    re:JoeBlow

    I 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: unconstitutional
    Laws prohibiting guns in or around schools or anywhere else: unconstitutional.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 9, 2012 7:59 p.m.

    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 private armies.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 9, 2012 5:25 p.m.

    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?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 4:28 p.m.

    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".

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 9, 2012 3:56 p.m.

    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 four wheelers).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 9, 2012 3:38 p.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 9, 2012 3:06 p.m.

    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?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 9, 2012 1:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 9, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    Re: JoeBlow Far East USA, SC

    The 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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 9, 2012 12:54 p.m.

    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?

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Oct. 9, 2012 12:43 p.m.

    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 stroked.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    @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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    @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.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 9, 2012 10:55 a.m.

    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 those words.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 9, 2012 10:35 a.m.

    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?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 10:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 9, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    re:MikeRichards

    You are way to the right of the conservatives on the Supreme Court who stated:

    "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 9, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    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 editorial writer.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 9, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    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?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 9, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    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 grandstanding.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    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.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 8:45 a.m.

    Ett,
    The questions raised by JoeBlow are not provocative, they are specious.

  • Ett Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 9, 2012 8:25 a.m.

    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.

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    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 constitutional rights.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 9, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    Can someone tell me

    1) 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.

  • JohnH Cedar City, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    Considering the state's extremely low violent crime rate as compared to the national average, it seems that other states should be emulating Utah.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 7:03 a.m.

    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 rights.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 2:33 a.m.

    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.