Comments about ‘My view: Vetoing HB76 was for the public good’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 23 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "HB76, however, would allow any person over age 21 to carry a concealed firearm regardless of any history of these convictions or behaviors."

Chief, you're not really trying to tell us that current law in any way prevents criminals from carrying concealed, are you? Here's betting a significant number of the criminals you arrest are already carrying concealed.

HB76 was only designed to remove unnecessary hassles and even the odds for the law-abiding.

The Hammer
lehi, utah

Current Law provides layers to prevent criminal behavior. If a criminal is caught with a gun and doesn't have a concealed permit he can be charged with a crime and jailed. Sometimes this maybe the only crime they get charged with but it takes them off the street. If they are caught doing other crimes in connection with it the penalties are much more severe. Without Concealed carry laws criminals will carry without fear of being caught because they are within their rights to carry openly.

Great Article by the way! And thank you GOV. Herbert for doing the right thing. In the end people will see this veto actually protects second ammendment rights.

Owl
Salt Lake City, UT

A tip of the fedora to our Gov.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Vetoing it was the right thing to do. It's just common sense.

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

Well, you opposed Rep. Ray's Disorderly conduct bill. It was the more important bill and you helped block it. It has a good balance between gun rights and public safety. What is up with that?

the truth
Holladay, UT

Arizona already passed such a law over two years,

and no has noticed.

Herbert should have signed this law, the current concearled laws are an unneccessary hassle and are clearly unneeded and unwanted, and serve no purpose.

Doing things based on the irrational fears of liberals, does not make good law, or good decisons.

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

First- Current laws do not prevent criminals from getting and carrying guns anywhere they like. The good Chief should know that, but chooses to ignore this inconvenient truth so he can cling to the fantasy that "Constitutional carry" of any sort would allow criminals to carry guns more than they already do.

As far as his "right to not be afraid of the sight of a gun" I'd like to see exactly where in the Constitution that is written. Meanwhile, he can check Article 1 Section 6 of our Utah Constitution and the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution which specifically recognize (not grant, but recognize pre-existing) explicit rights to keep and BEAR arms. Utah's Constitution only allows laws on how arms can be used, but not the fundamental right to keep and bear.

Finally, Constitutional Carry has been the law in Vermont forever, Alaska for more than 10 years, Arizona for more than three, and Wyoming for more than two years. Zero problems in any of those states.

The Chief's opinions are the same as used against "shall issue" permit laws in the 1990s. They were wrong then, but recycle their same old discredited arguments.

to comment

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