Quantcast
Opinion

Call Sen. Lee about universal background checks for gun purchases

Comments

Return To Article
  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    March 28, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    J Thompson. A person can be punished for using a firearm to committ a crime. True. That must be a lot of comfort to crime victims. Knowing that the person who killed their family member or close friend will be prosecuted and incarcerated at taxpayer expense. I am not anti-gun. I am against criminals having easy access to firearms. I am tired of hearing that criminals will always find ways to obtain firearms. If we can stop one in ten felons from obtaining a gun by requiring universal background checks I support it. Given a choice I would rather prevent a crime than punish someone after the crimne has been committed.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    March 28, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    airnaut, Thanks for pointing out our differences. Your number was for ages 0 to 19 and included both intentional and unintentional discharge of a firearm. I intend only to focus on accidental deaths, and then only on the deaths of those from ages 5 to 9. I want to point out that we experience tragedies more troubling than Sandy Hook every year. I say "more troubling," because it's pretty hard to blame the accidental shooters when they are also victims.

    We may say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." But whom do we blame for accidents?

    I also wonder why these accidental deaths have dropped significantly following the implementation or our gun control laws, but are starting to creep up again after loosening the laws. We are responsible for our laws.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:54 p.m.

    Yeah, "patriot", you said Chicago did not do background checks. "There are ALREADY background checks for guns... many cities such as Chicago just WON'T enforce them." You want to provide any proof for that? Like I asked.

    Not sure what the quote from Cuomo has to do with anything I said.

    "Now Mark, what could have happened had that mother had some recourse to get her son help ... when he was younger?"

    Ah. . . You mean something like Universal Health Care with a mental health provision? Like I said.

    "most socialist and ALL Communist countries ban guns."

    Ah. . . Like I already said, thank goodness we aren't a Communist, or Socialist, country.

    So did you want to actually respond to anything I said? Or just say the exact same stuff again and think that addresses my challenges?

    Oh well.

    "Why focus on the small number of gun deaths, when putting kids into cars is more dangerous?"

    RedShirt, are you really trying to say we can't look at other things just because cars are dangerous?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 27, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    re:mark

    Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data-gathering and research organization run by Syracuse University found that on enforcement of federal gun laws Chicago is dead LAST in the enforcement of the federal gun laws. They are #90 out of 90.

    The far leftist Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo said that following regarding enforcement of gun laws in the state “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option."

    If you paid attention to the Sandyhook killings the killer was mentally ill and his mother reached out many times over the years for help for her son ... with little if any success. Now Mark, what could have happened had that mother had some recourse to get her son help ... when he was younger? How many other mentally ill killers have we seen this past 24 months that could have been helped and stopped from killing. Do ya think this is a worth while investment Mark ...instead of banning guns?

    Yes Mark - most socialist and ALL Communist countries ban guns - of course you don't see the connection here in the US do you.

    Anyway here are the facts to my 'rant'.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    "Patriot", can you back up your claim that cities, such as Chicago, refuse to do background checks?

    "Once they register em - they can and WILL take and or tax em!!! "

    So you are saying they will take your guns and tax them? Strange. How would they do that? Take 'em and tax 'em.

    "they would enforce the laws already on the books!"

    Which gun laws are not being enforced by "liberals"?

    "What about laws aimed at giving parents that have kids with mental illness a fighting chance of getting help???"

    Wow, those three question marks really make your point. Anyway, so you mean something like Universal Health Care with a mental health provision?

    "Communism doesn't allow guns!"

    Thank goodness we aren't a Communist country.

    Okay carry on with your rant.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 26, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    Wise up !!! There are ALREADY background checks for guns... many cities such as Chicago just WON'T enforce them. This new bill is nothing more than a backdoor attempt at registration of guns bent on doing one thing.... taking your guns away!!! This entire facade by liberals as well as this nonsense by Nanny Bloomberg of NY about "mayors against illegal guns" is nothing more and nothing less than a a desperate attempt at gun registration. Once they register em - they can and WILL take and or tax em!!! Wise up AMERICA because the lib's want your guns and safety is the LAST thing they really care about otherwise they would enforce the laws already on the books! What about laws aimed at giving parents that have kids with mental illness a fighting chance of getting help??? NAH - that makes too much sense!

    Remember - the bad guys will STILL get their guns because they don't go through back ground checks!!! If you want to have a gun to protect yourself or family ya better wake up or lose your guns forever. Communism doesn't allow guns!

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 26, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    John C. C.
    Payson, UT
    Every year about 20 children in the U.S., ages 5 to 9, die as victims of accidental shootings.

    John C.C. Where on earth did you make up that statistic?

    The CDC reports, and I quote, "In 2007 there were 3067 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group."

    20 vs. 3,000 on average is off by a factor of 155.

    =========

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Speaking of poisonings....
    There are over 450 deaths per year here in Utah due to medications.
    Even more deaths than automobiles.

    And that's with very tightly contolled regulations.

    And while we are on the subject of poison, and the 2nd amendment....
    Do you fully support my Constitutional right to keep and bear chemical weapons?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 26, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Your right mountainman... in fact, under age drinking and smoking goes on.... so all you are doing by having ID laws is preventing law abiding citizens from being able to buy these products.... right?

    Good grief... who made this logic up? If criminals are just going to do it anyway, heck, lets abandon all hope of making it harder on them.

    And no one has yet explained to me how having the ID checked of a gun buyer is going to prevent a single, law abiding person, from buying a legal weapon. All they are trying to do is reduce the number of venues where a criminal can buy a weapon without challenge. Why in the world is this so controversial?

    You have to register to go to school. You register each year you pay your taxes. If you want to leave the country, you have to register to get a passport. You want to make hazardous products, you have to register. Your house, your car... all registered. No one is going to prevent you from going to school, take your income, prevent you from leaving the country, or take gun, if you haven't done anything wrong.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 26, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Demanding more gun laws because criminals can get guns is like having yourself neutered because you think your neighbors have too many kids.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    Call Senator Lee? Don Quiozte will have more luck taking down that windmill.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    March 26, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    Thak you. I have already called Sen. Lee and told him that I did not support universal background checks either. Thanks anyway. I do not want the likes of Obama and Bloomberg in my life or home.

    1."A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government."

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    March 26, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    I don't know how we expect to implement and enforce these "universal background checks." They sound nice on paper and it only makes sense since if you buy guns from a retailer you already have to have a background check, but the thing that people don't seem to understand is that the government has no way, I mean NO WAY, of ever tracking all the private gun sales and insisting on background checks. So While it sounds awesome on paper it does nothing of substance because it will be really easy to just hand a man cash and get a gun. Making laws does not equate to making the country safer. You have to be able to reasonably implement the laws. Besides crime statistics (FBI website) show we really shouldn't even be talking about this in congress. The possibility of being shot is pretty low. Congress is wasting our time and money based on a handful of unfortunate events instead of focusing on a much more important issue of terrible federal fiscal policies.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 26, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" let me get this straight. You are saying that the limits to magazine size are not limits. What sense does that make?

    To "andyjaggy" and how would you feel if 100 people lost their life because of the regulations you support to save 1 life? That is the situation that will occur with the draconian regulations and gun laws that will come.

    To "John C. C." yes, and every day 6 kids die in car accidents and another 694 are injured. Using your logic, we should further regulate cars and not allow children into vehicles or into areas where vehicles are present. Who is to blame for the car accidents? Do the cars cause them?

    Why focus on the small number of gun deaths, when putting kids into cars is more dangerous?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 25, 2013 11:25 p.m.

    Re Irony Guy

    A Well Regulated Person Or Militia Behaves Responsibly.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 11:25 p.m.

    If you have more than one assault weapon and find them amusing, there should be a reality check.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:28 p.m.

    Universal background checks would have had no impact on the Sandy Hook shooting.

    You have a sick society that is entertained by violence. This is a much more complex issue that is only being capitalized by the gun control crowd.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 25, 2013 8:31 p.m.

    The CDC reported that between 2004 and 2005, that 71,000 children were seen in emergency rooms because of poisoning. That's about 100 per day. In 2009, there were 41,592 deaths (children and adults) caused by poisoning, or about 113 per day.

    Every death is a tragedy, but why is there no uproar about poisons? Why is Obama not flying around the Country demanding that people should register with the government before being allowed to buy "poisons"? Why are Senators not demanding that "poisons" should only be available in 2oz bottles?

    What is wrong with the government when they turn a blind eye to 42,000 deaths? Were those lives not important? How many people must die before government forces us to be pre-qualified before buying "poisons"?

  • The Judge Kaysville, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:16 p.m.

    Open Minded,

    Read Heller v DC (554 U.S. 570). In it, the supremes...you know, the highest court in the land, interpreting what you supposedly swore an oath to defend, stated clearly that the second amendment applies to what you call "non-uniform wearing billy bobs." I'll quote just a bit of it:
    "We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above..."
    Go ahead and read the whole thing. You might learn something, and it is the law of the land, which, by your own admission, you've sworn to uphold.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:13 p.m.

    Every year about 20 children in the U.S., ages 5 to 9, die as victims of accidental shootings. That's the age of the students attacked at Sandy Hook Elementary. But whom do we blame for these accidental shootings? Certainly not the guns. They don't kill, people kill. And we don't blame those who accidentally kill, especially those innocents who accidentally kill themselves.

    Just think, the equivalent of one Sandy Hook tragedy every year, but no outcry and no headlines.

    Before the gun control laws from 1968 to 1999 there were three or four times as many such accidental deaths. And still no one to blame.

    Unfortunately, this particular death rate has started to trend upwards again, coincident with the lapse of the 1994 assault weapons ban in 2004, and the new law in 2005 protecting gun sellers from liability.

    Do future innocent victims of innocent shooters have any constitutional rights?

  • ronnie sandy, utah
    March 25, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    So much of what I read on the Editorial page is about protecting our children and promoting family values. In light of this how could anyone not support more background checks and/or more controls on assault weapons?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 25, 2013 6:02 p.m.

    To Red Shirt..Infringed means "act so as to limit or undermine (something); limiting what specific guns you purchase, or how many bulletts a magazine contains does not..does not, limit your "right to bear arms" which is what the second amendment guarantees. Even if you can't buy a magazine that holds thirty bulletts you can still purchase and own a shotgun or a rifle etc... It's a right to own/bear an arm/gun..not any specific gun. If you want to word smith you need to at least apply your reasoing to the issue at hand.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 25, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    If there were no restrictions allowed on arms then individuals could buy cruise missiles or predator drones.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 25, 2013 5:47 p.m.

    "And the bad guys are going to fall in line and obey more gun laws? Any of you seriously believe that?" The point mountainman, and the all the rest of "criminals won't obey the law and then only criminals will have guns" crowd, is they can legally not comply now and you are aiding and abetting that situation. First of all over 60% of all guns purchased now are bought from dealers that have to register your purchase and there is no national register. You can bet all those purchses are from law abiding citizens. With over 60% all ready having to register what is Obama waiting for to start a national registery to take away all your guns, the criminals? It's a fantasy..hasn't happened and will never happen. No President in your life time or mine will try and outlaw guns..you all are making this up. All conservatives are doing now is supporting the legal purchase of guns by criminals. That's it that's what you are pushing.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 25, 2013 3:40 p.m.

    This proposed Gun bill is no better than Prohibition. It will be just as effective.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    March 25, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    Background checks are probably largely ineffective, but if it prevents just a hand full of murders in any given year,even just ONE murder in a year, then it is worth the small hassle and inconvenience for everyone. That's my opinion.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    March 25, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    I love how all the right wing ultra conservatives call polls "liberal biased" anytime they don't say what they want them to say. Lee uses the State legislature as a better guide to the will of the people, that's a good one, keep living in fantasy land Lee. Kind of like when Gayle Ruzicka said the public didn't really know what they wanted concerning the sex ed bill, and that's why we have "representative" government instead.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 25, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    "More gun laws only keep guns out of the law abiding citizenry, not criminals."

    How is this possible. The only people this law would prevent from getting easy access to guns is criminals. If your not a criminal, by the nature of the law, it would allow you to buy guns. In fact, it might even make more types of guns more available... since only responsible adults would have access to them.

    I would love to have someone explain to me how only allowing non-fellons and the mentally ill from accessing guns will keep law abiding people from aquiring guns.

    In the case of the firman shootings, back ground checks did provide an impediment to the felon from buy guns... he would not have gotten them if not for the idiot who bought them for him... which should be part two of the law... holding these people equally responsible.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    This Senator is so far out of touch that he may not have email. He is too busy throwing tea out of the British ship.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Open minded mormon
    HAHAHAHAHAHA. “infringe means confiscate”

    Oh please, stop! My side aches from laughing!

    Roland,
    Thank you for pointing out how the SCOTUS has failed us numerous times, most recently telling us the feds can tax us for not eating broccoli.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 25, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    To "Roland Kayser" do you read what you write.

    If people already have to pass a background check to legally buy a gun, why do we need additional laws telling us to do the same thing?

    FYI, the constitution forbids people from aiding our enemies, which would include giving away secrets.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" you are wrong. Infringed means "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on" according to the Oxford dictionary. If the government sets limits on gun purchases, they are infringing on that right.

    As for the oath you took, do you live by it, or just give it lip service. You often say that you have taken the oath, but what do you live up to that oath? We now see government infringing on our rights, and you seem to be going against the oath you took to defend the constitution.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 25, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Re: "I've sworn the oath, and you?"

    The oath I swore contains no reference to Billy Bob, contains no indictment of freedom-loving Americans as terrorists, it requires me to defend the Constitution [including the Second Amendment] from all enemies. I took that oath seriously that day back in '72, and I take it seriously today.

    Enough so, to stand up against anyone disingenuously attempting to pervert into something it isn't. Anyone suggesting an enlistment oath doesn't apply to protecting all honest, decent Americans exercising their well-established Constitutional rights is clearly referring to some oath other than the enlistment or commissioning oath taken by American service members.

    Maybe a secret, liberal, anti-American oath to some secret combination, but not an American enlistment oath.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 25, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    Lds Liberal

    "Are you calling the US military a secret combination?"

    No but I'm calling the US Government one. Things like NDAA, The Patriot act, TSA, Warrantless wiretapping, etc convinces me of this.

    Before you say, "Where were you when Bush did this? " I was in the 12th grade and couldn't vote.

    Blaming Bush won't work anymore because in my eyes they are both Tyrants that deserve to be in prison for the rest of their lives.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    March 25, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Roland,

    The Courts punish those who use speech illegally after they have "spoken", not before. The government does not require anyone to "pre-register" his speech before "speaking". The government does not limit the "quantity" of words a citizen may use every day. The government does not restrict "which words" a citizen may use.

    Too many liberals can't see the difference between "pre-authorization" and "punishment". Too many liberals want to limit the type of firearms that citizens can own - when the Constitution prohibits that infringement. Too may liberals want to limit the capacity of those firearms - when the Constitution prohibits that infringement.

    Owning a firearm is not a punishable crime - under the Constitution. Using a firearm when committing a crime is punishable.

    Speaking is not a punishable crime - under the Constitution. Using speech improperly may be punished - after the "speech" has taken place.

    We are free to speak, knowing that there may be consequences to using speech improperly.

    We are free to own and bear firearms - without being a member of a militia - knowing that there may be consequences to using firearms improperly.

    The government cannot infringe either speech or firearms without violating the Constitution.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 25, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    Once again, criminals will never follow the rules to obtain a firearm. they will get them and there is no stopping them. That's just a fact. Punishing law abiding citizens for something they didn't do is just as dumb. The Government needs to let people choose for themselves or it is facist and the are hindering the progress they claim to be all in favor of as long as it stays in the party line.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    Senator Lee took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He is doing that. He is putting the Constitution above the public outcry for more government control of our lives.

    He understands the difference between people who want to turn everything over to the government and the people who want the government to be leashed.

    He understands that the federal government has very little authority and that the federal government has no authority to regulate the firearms that any citizen may wish to own and operate.

    He has read the Constitution. He knows that all government authority comes from the people and that the government has no authority outside the consent of the governed. The people (the governed) have clearly stated that government has no authority to limit personal ownership or use of firearms.

    He knows that laws restricting firearms are both illegal and ineffective. He knows that government can punish those who use firearms to commit crimes after the crime has been committed.

    It's a shame that so many are so willing to give away their freedoms when hundreds of thousands have died to protect those freedoms.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    @Mike Richards: The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, yet courts have ruled that Mormons can't practice polygamy, states can prevent Native Americans from using peyote in religious ceremonies, and religions that believe in human sacrifice can't use that as an excuse against murder charges. The freedom is not absolute.

    The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, yet courts have ruled that you can't publish military secrets or child pornography. Neither can you engage in speech that will bring on immediate violence. The freedom is not absolute.

    I would suggest that there are some restrictions on virtually all of our constitutional freedoms.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    March 25, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    I just contacted Senator Short-Sale and told him I favor universal background checks. It's absurd that any nutter can walk into a gun show and buy without any check at all.

    The constitutional arguments here are invalid; every enumerated right is subject to limitation. Even my right to vote is regulated -- I have to register first!

    And when will ANY gun worshiper answer my question: What is meant by "well-regulated"?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 25, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal
    Tooele, UT
    Re: "Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs . . . I've sworn an oath against . . . you."

    Sounds kinda secret combination-ish.

    =============

    Are you calling the US military a secret combination?

    Military oath --

    against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic...

    As I stated:
    Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs,
    riding around in pick-up trucks,
    open carrying and brandishing assault rifles and such,
    are not meeting the Constitutional muster
    -- they are nothing more than domestic terrorists.

    I've sworn the oath,
    and you?...

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    March 25, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    I enjoy reading comments from those posters who portray themselves as constitutional scholars. Puts a smile in my face knowing that the beauty of the Internet gives everyone the opportunity to exercise their First Amendment rights, even when they probably should not.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    Re: "Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs . . . I've sworn an oath against . . . you."

    Sounds kinda secret combination-ish.

    I know you're not talking about any military or other governmental oath, since they all swear to defend the Constitution.

    Couple that with calling anyone exercising well-established Constitutional rights a terrorist, and it gets pretty scary.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    March 25, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    I will contact Lee's office again, although it will do no good. Like some commenting here, the man is criminally deluded. If reasonable gun controls are not implemented, with each new gun slaughter of the innocents, I will remember him as one valuing guns over life.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    Re: "Convicted felons . . . buy guns through venues where no check will be required."

    I'd love to see your statistics backing up such a ludicrous statement.

    It runs counter to what 35+ years prosecutorial experience tells me. I've never known a felon in receipt to have bought the gun they're prosecuted for. They either steal them, receive them from other felons, or from family members/accomplices.

    NONE of these issues is addressed, nor could they realistically be addressed, by any of the unconstitutional, liberal anti-gun legislative proposals.

    Since these sophomoric, illegal proposals don't actually address the problems given as their raison d'etre, we can safely assume they are actually part of a poorly-disguised liberal agenda to identify, vilify, and sanction gun owners, and to eventually confiscate their guns.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 25, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    LDS Liberal / Open Minded Mormon,

    You wrote, "Infringed means confisgat".

    Baloney!

    Why would you expect anyone to accept your redefinition of a word simply because your definition suits your thought process? Why not use the dictionary?

    Infringe: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another"

    Confiscate: "to seize by authority"

    Using your redefinition, the government could do anything it wants with your family as long as it didn't confiscate your children. It could tell you how to feed your children. It could tell you how to clothe your children. I would call government interference in my family "infringement". What would you call it?

    Just what limits do you place on government? I can't see that you place any limits on government; but, I can see that you would restrict the freedom of the people.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    Why have any laws against abortion, stealing, and murder?

    People will still have abortions, will still steal, and commit murders.

    Laws don't have any effect on those who wish to do evil. Just like how gun laws have no effect on those who want to have guns and do evil with them.

    Any weapon ever invented should be allowed for the public to purchase. Bazookas, machine guns, nerve gas, nukes, etc.

    Nothing would deter crazy people from attacking schools than a teacher armed with a machine gun, tank, or nuke.

    If we, the public, are unable to purchase these then only the bad guys will have them......

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    I know Mike Lee supports the 2nd amendment, but it wouldn't hurt some of us to drop him a brief email to support HIM.

    The credibility of the federal government is at an all-time low. Why would we want to trust them with our personal gun information?
    Why should we believe the feds wouldn't sell our personal info.? Does anyone need any more "visa" offers?
    How can the feds afford the money to collect personal gun information while at the same time they SAY they are forced to let 6000 illegal aliens loose because they "don't have the funds"?
    No tours of the White House, but nagging gun owners for their personal information is o.k.?

    Besides its' unconstitutionality, any more 2nd amendment "databases" or other attempts at progressively denying American citizens their rights should also be considered a waste of money.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 25, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    Where would Senator Lee, or any other government official, get the authority to legislate anything that directly violates the Constitution?

    "shall not be infringed" still has meaning to those who don't pretend that the Constitution is null and void.

    "shall not be infringed" still prohibits government from requiring any prequalification to firearm ownership.

    ================

    "Infringed" means confisgate Mike.
    It doesn't mean free and totally unrestricted.
    Your fantasy world interpretations of the Consitution remind me of Somalia or Columbia.

    BTW -- Why it your "ilk" constantly and purposefully ignores the REST of the 2nd Amendment -- you know -- the part about the right to keep and bear arms is only being allowed for a "well regulated militia".
    [there's that evil nasty word again...REGULATED, i.e., must meet certain government criteria and restrictions.]

    Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs, riding around in pick-up trucks, open carrying and brandishing assault rifles and such, are not meeting the Constutional muster -- they are nothing more than domestic terrorists.

    I've sworn an oath against them/you.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 25, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    @ Wonder. You are missed the point. Will passing ever more laws against grand larceny, rape or murder stop people from murdering, rapine or stealing? We already have gun laws, what good are more and more gun laws going to do? The truth is, more gun laws or more laws prohibiting murder, rape or stealing will not do any more good than have the strictest gun laws in the world have done in Chicago which is NOTHING! With your logic since Chicago is he murder capital of America, we should pass more and more laws against murder! Wrong target (no pun intended). More gun laws only keep guns out of the law abiding citizenry, not criminals.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Anyone who buys a gun from a retailer already has to pass a backgound check. Convicted felons know this, so they buy guns through venues where no check will be required. I am generally pro gun rights, but this is no more than common sense.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    @Mountanman -- We typically don't make laws by first determining that 100% of people are already doing what the law calls for. Following your logic, since there are people who commit murder we should have no laws prohibiting murder. In fact, we should have no laws at all, because there's always going to be somebody who doesn't obey that law.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 25, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    Where would Senator Lee, or any other government official, get the authority to legislate anything that directly violates the Constitution?

    "shall not be infringed" still has meaning to those who don't pretend that the Constitution is null and void.

    "shall not be infringed" still prohibits government from requiring any prequalification to firearm ownership.

    "shall not be infringed" is the people's guarantee that no one, not the President, not Congress, not the Court will ever require a background check BEFORE a firearm is owned.

    Driving a vehicle is not a Constitutionally protected right. Government can require a driver's license BEFORE allowing anyone to drive.

    Owning a firearm is every citizen's right. No law can be passed that infringes on that right - unless those who pass laws think that they are above the Supreme Law of the Land and that they can put government's desires above the will of the people - people who have prohibited government from having authority until itself.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 25, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    And the bad guys are going to fall in line and obey more gun laws? Any of you seriously believe that?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 25, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    The support for " I can do anything I want regarding guns" is getting whackier and whackier, and a poll that shows over 90% support for something is only a liberal bias..my, my..did any of you work for the Romney camp.

    BTW a good story on the front page of what all these macheeesmos fantasize about and what the real world consequences are (guy with no training and a short fuse who supposedly defends his daughter and winds up in prison).

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    The Problems with Universal Back Ground Checks

    The universal back ground checks as some are trying to write it is really a back door gun registration, which would come in handy if ever the government decided to confiscate guns. Or the list could leak out and gun owners would then be targets for thieves.

    Another problem is the writers of this bill would require the seller of a gun to keep records of any gun sale. Presumably if they lost this record they would be in trouble. This is too much of an imposition.

    I ask any of our Senators and Representatives, if you do find a gun restriction you would like to vote for, insist that in that same bill there also be some give back of gun rights. One example would be to all all people to have silencers on guns, which would help to prevent hearing loss. The era of take take take of gun rights needs to be over.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 25, 2013 5:43 a.m.

    Re: "I would ask any citizens who are concerned about this issue to take a second and call Sen. Lee's office to express your opinion."

    I will. And so will many of my friends.

    We'll call to express our disgust at this useless, dangerous, illegal intrusion into our lives by an out-of-control liberal federal government.

    These new, expanded "background checks" have but one object -- to make it more difficult and dangerous to exercise Second Amendment rights.

    They won't prevent a single murder. They won't protect schools. They won't keep guns out of the hands of the mentally impaired. They won't be enforced to deter criminals any better than the law currently in place.

    What they will do is establish a permanent database giving the location of every legally purchased gun in a law-abiding home, and set up a whole new bureaucracy to make felons out of honest, decent Americans.

    Thanks for reminding us to do the right thing!

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    March 25, 2013 12:32 a.m.

    Far right politician's definition of a "liberal" poll -- one that disagrees with their preconceived notion of what people should say in response to the poll question. Yeah, yeah, skewed polls and all that. I thought we got past that nonsense after Nov. 2012.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 25, 2013 12:22 a.m.

    Thank you for the heads-up.

    My e-mail to the out-of-touch Senator Short-Sell has just been sent!