Quantcast

Comments about ‘My view: Utah needs to establish reasonable gun restraints’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 9 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

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.

JohnH
Cedar City, UT

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

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

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.

1conservative
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

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.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

Ett
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

4601
Salt Lake City, UT

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

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

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.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

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?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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

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."

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

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.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

Flying Finn
Murray, UT

@ 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.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

@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.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments