Quantcast

Comments about ‘Burbank and gun laws’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 6 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Lets look at this letter.

"I have long suspected that Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank was anti-gun and gun ownership."

Hardly. Many Many people who are for universal background checks are anything but anti-gun.

"Several studies have shown that the ban had no affect on crime reduction or crime prevention."

While not specifically referring to fully automatic weapons, the point is the same. WHY have fully auto weapons NOT been in the headlines in these shootings?

Why? Because they were banned many years ago.

"The majority of gun purchases in the country are through federal licensed firearm dealers"

The most common number is about 60%. Yes, the majority, but not by much. So, 40% of gun buyers go through NO background checks. Very easy to circumvent.

15 Million people in 10 years were denied firearm purchases because of the background check requirement.

Yes, probably most still got firearms. They looked in the want ads or went to gun shows or bought off the internet.

Why would we NOT want to include those avenues in background checks? I don't get it.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"Why would we NOT want to include those avenues in background checks? I don't get it." Joe it's easy. Barack Obama wants it..enough said. He could create a boycott on strawberry ice cream if he wanted.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Our Constitution protects us against police chiefs and presidents who think that the Supreme Law of the Land can be changed because they don't like the way that it is written. They forget that they are not above the law; that they are servants of the people who ratified that law through the vote of their State; that they are required to respect the law, just as they expect us to respect the law.

Chief Burbank needs to spend some serious time reflecting on what it means to be a citizen in a country where the rights of the citizens come far before the "right" of any police chief to re-interpret the Supreme Law of the Land.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Mike,

You use the "unconstitutional" argument every day.

Like it or not, the Supreme court interprets the constitution. I would have to believe that the Heller ruling would have been considered an overall win with gun advocates.

However, here is part of the text from majority opinion. Supported by Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Clarence Thomas.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

airnaut
Everett, 00

@Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

==========

Mike - that is called word-smithing, cutting and pasting, and taking OUT of context.
It's the same thing Satan does to twist and misrepresent the "scriptures"....

"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.

I want to know what Militia you happen to belong to,
and what you do to consider it, or you as for that matter, as full filling the Constitutional requirement of being "well-regulated"?

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Thanks to JoeBlow for presenting useful facts about gun control and to Chief Burbank for his sensible efforts to reduce gun violence.

Those who argue that the Constitution does not allow restrictions on gun ownership need to become better informed on the law. In particular, they need to learn why there is "tension" among the various rights under the Bill of Rights and why no right is absolute.

Personally, my favorite part of the 2nd Amendment is the term "well-regulated."

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@airnaut

Militia duty is *a* purpose for the right to bear arms. It doesn't say anywhere that that's the *only* purpose.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Joe Blow and LDS Liberal,

YOUR version of the Constitution in not the Constitution that is used by the United States of America. No matter how much you whine and moan about freedom being excessive in America, it will not change the fact that we are a free people and that we have restricted the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. You both know that the Supreme Court has not ruled at any time that the people must get permission from the government to keep and bear arms. You both know that the Supreme Court specifically stated that our right to keep and bear arms is not tied in any way to membership in a militia; yet, you continue to ignore the Constitution, substituting your own beliefs as you try to tell us that your constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Fortunately, in America, we, the people have access to the true words of the Constitution so that we don't have to rely on your interpretation.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . the same thing Satan does to twist and misrepresent the 'scriptures'...."

Well, I guess liberals oughtta know how Satan works.

But, it is not, of course, honestly arguable that the Second Amendment, by saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed, actually means that the right SHALL or MAY be infringed, unless you're a member of a militia group.

It's just not honest.

And, by the way, even if it did, the historical definition of militia includes ALL people able to respond to a call to defend the community or its freedoms, not some more limited, but disingenuously defined liberal configuration.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@JoeBlow "Why would we NOT want to include those avenues [Internet and gun shows] in background checks? I don't get it."

If this had been all that was in the legislation, it may have passed. But gun-control proponents couldn't resist overreaching.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "However, here is part of the text from majority opinion."

Yeah, part of the text. But not necessary to the decision of the case, and, therefore, nothing more than an obiter dictum.

It's simply dishonest to suggest that the Supreme Court supports any of the unconstitutional liberal proposals currently on the table. The Court simply has never been called upon to decide their constitutionality.

So, if you want to honestly bolster your case for infringing, in the face of an unambiguous prohibition on infringing, you'll have to go elsewhere.

Liberals can, and probably will, continue to use disingenuous sophistry to suggest their approach is correct, but that's all it is.

There is no honest, reasonable support for the constitutionality of their useless, ridiculous proposals in anything other than older, now thoroughly discredited cases.

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

Honestly do people have the mentality of 3 year olds? Background check will never ever work because the criminal wil never ever ever ever submit to background checks. Didn't anybody learn anything from prohibition? anything at all? If you throw a dog off a cliff, it will never grow wings and fly back into your arms.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

Joe Blow/LDS Liberal - Clearly, you two are the ones subverting the Constitution by taking into account the entirety of the COTUS and all subsequent SCOTUS case law that flows from it.

Mike Richards, on the other hand, is a "purist." In that he "purely" follows the parts of the COTUS and SCOTUS case law he agrees with and then ignores blatant, explicit SCOTUS case law to the contrary.

Let's compare an individual's gun rights to actual fundamental rights within the COTUS:

Can a convict get married? Yep. Can a convict get a gun? Nope.

Does a person with certain mental challenges still enjoy the right to privacy? Yep. Abortion? Yep. Speech? Yep. Can that same person get a gun? Nope.

Does an individual in the US enjoy a personal right to gun ownership? For the last five years or so: Yep. For the previous 230 years or so: nope.

Is the standard of "strict scrutiny", which is applied to the limitation of fundamental rights, applied to gun control? Nope.

In spite of McDonald v Chicago, has the SCOTUS ever applied a strict scrutiny standard to gun regulation? Nope.

Thus, is gun ownership a fundamental right? Nope.

airnaut
Everett, 00

@Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

==========

I've served in an actual "Militia" as defined by the US Constitution.
[State National Guard]

Let me ask a couple more questions --
How much ammo do you have?
Is it standardized [meanings, can you share or have shared when you run out]?
Do you have a uniform?
Who is your commanding officer?
What is your Chain of Command?
Where are your orders, and Who authorized them?

If you can not answer those questions completely --
You are nothing more than armed thugs and armed MOBS.

No different that the "Militia" Mobs who killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith saying they are defending the Constitutional right to a Free Press.

Not meeting the Requirement of "Well-Regulated Miliita".

You have your right to your gun to protect your house,
But you are NOT by any stretch of the most wold imagination a "well-regulated militia".

This is real life - not Rambo, RedDawn fantasyland.

airnaut
Everett, 00

futhermore --

the Constitution recognizes state Militias, and gave them vital roles to fill: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). The Constitution distinguished "Militia(s)", which were state entities (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3).

The Constitutional "Militia of the Several States" were not entirely independent, however, because they can be federalized. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States Congress "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Congressional guidelines "for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" (clause 16). The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias "when called into the actual Service of the United States". (Article II, Section 2).

---------

In Summary,
Mike Richards could never be part of Militia --
He would never subject himself to orders from President Obama as Commader-in-Chief.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "If you can not answer those questions completely -- You are nothing more than armed thugs and armed MOBS."

I also served for a time in the National Guard. But, nothing in the Constitution limits militia service to National Guard service. In fact, most Americans that served honorably and well as part of a militia did so long, LONG before the National Guard was established.

But, I digress. Nothing in my National Guard service, nothing in my 30+ years of active military service, nothing in my time as a cop -- NONE of those -- entitle me to keep and bear arms.

Rather, the Second Amendment guarantees that right to "the people." Not the "militia people." Not the "police people." Not the "national military people." Not even the "liberal, oligarch-wannabee people."

Liberal sophistry notwithstanding, nothing in the Second Amendment magically makes the words "shall not be infringed" mean "shall" or "may be infringed."

I don't get to choose whether liberals are honest or dishonest. But I can and do choose to ignore them when they're patently dishonest.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

LDS Liberal / airnaut,

You claim to uphold the doctrine of the LDS Church and to stand for its principles. One of those principles is NOT bearing false witness nor misrepresenting. What does the LDS Church tell us about keeping an oath? Hasn't God told us that though the heavens and the earth pass away, yet his word shall not be altered.

Obama, the Commander in Chief, took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, yet he actively disregards DOMA. He actively disregards his duty to secure our boarders. He actively disregards his duty to evict those who entered the United States illegally. He actively gives machine guns to gangs in Mexico. He actively selects tax cheats to serve on his cabinet.

You may follow Obama but your oath as a soldier to protect the Constitution is in direct conflict with your desire to support Obama.

No, I would never serve as a solder under Obama. I value my word. When I take an oath, I keep that oath. Circumstances will never dictate to me where my allegiance should be.

"Shall not infringed" has not changed since the Constitution was ratified notwithstanding you or Obama.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mike Richards
No, your view of the constitution is the one that is incorrect since all of the justices including Scalia believe that the 2nd Amendment allows for regulation on guns, just not a total ban (this is noted in the Heller case that overturned the DC/Chicago total gun bans).

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

@alt134,

Your assumption that the Court has upheld laws that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms is totally false. The Court has not upheld a law that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. No law that they have ruled on takes away a citizen's right to keep and bear arms or to infringe on that right. You have read into a ruling something that is not there. You may wish that they restricted our right to keep and bear arms, but your wish is not their command.

Saying that someone may be prosecuted for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as restricting a person's right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. There is a huge difference between censorship and prosecution. There is a huge difference between infringement before a criminal act takes place and prosecuting for committing a criminal act after the fact.

We are not a pre-emptive society where government prosecutes us before we commit a felony. We are a nation of people who have agency to act without government pre-authorization.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Mike,

DOMA is NOT part of the constitution.

It is a law passed by the congress that it looks like was unconstitutional. We'll know next month.

to comment

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