Quantcast
Opinion

Burbank and gun laws

Comments

Return To Article
  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 8, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Police Chiefs are 100% politicians (not police officers). That's why the drastic difference. POLITICS controls their every word and every decision. They have to worry about votes and polls (not the people the meet on the street and deal with their problems).

    10:49 a.m. May 8, 2013

    ==========

    I disagree.

    I think he's a COP, just trying to do his job,
    i.e., trying to keep citizens safe and his officers from being shot at by
    keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

    Republicans and the NRA are making this 100% political.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 8, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    Police Chiefs are 100% politicians (not police officers). That's why the drastic difference. POLITICS controls their every word and every decision. They have to worry about votes and polls (not the people the meet on the street and deal with their problems).

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    May 7, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    @cjb

    "I find it curious that police chiefs tend to be anti 2nd Ammendment while sheriffs tend to be pro.

    Police chiefs have to move up through the ranks and please their superiors which requires political skills. Sheriffs get their position by appealing directly to the people."

    If you're looking for some sort of correlation, I suggest that police chiefs are from urban areas where crime, including gun violence, is higher, whereas sheriffs are predominately from rural parts of the country where it isn't as great an issue. I suspect that having to deal with the impact of guns on a daily basis colors police officers' views on gun control far more than whatever shady politics you're implying.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 7, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    LDS Liberal
    I thought you respected the rulings of the Supreme Court. The SC recently ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't only apply to police or military (ref the Washington DC ruling) and that YES it does apply to ME, and ALL American Citizens (not the National Guard).,

    Some groups that call themselvs "militias" are just thugs. But that doesn't mean all are. You can't group people you don't know in with the radical "Black Snake Militia" just because you paint with a broad brush and have this stereotype for anybody involved in neighborhood security that isn't in the National Guard. You should know something about them before you stereotype them. I don't know you and you don't know me so don't judge me.

    I think there is a place for the National Guard. And also a place for prepared families and neighborhoods. We may be a mob... I'm OK with that label. The people who stood up to the British in Concord were considered a "Mob" by some. So I'm good with that.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 7, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    mark
    Salt Lake City, UT

    So tell me Officer Procuradorfiscal, when you had a suspect in custody and you took away their weapon. . . what gave you that right? After all, "nothing in the Second Amendment magically makes the words "shall not be infringed" mean "shall" or "may be infringed" "

    Tell me by what authority did you infringe on someone's right to keep and bear arms?"

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

    Beautiful come-back!
    Agreed.

    Officer Procuradorfiscal, what say you?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 7, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal

    "nothing in the Second Amendment magically makes the words "shall not be infringed" mean "shall" or "may be infringed"

    "nothing in my time as a cop"

    Oh. So you were a cop.

    So tell me Officer Procuradorfiscal, when you had a suspect in custody and you took away their weapon. . . what gave you that right? After all, "nothing in the Second Amendment magically makes the words "shall not be infringed" mean "shall" or "may be infringed" "

    Tell me by what authority did you infringe on someone's right to keep and bear arms?

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    May 7, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    All this Constitutional argument is why I cringe at the idea that judges are given the power to "interpret" the Constution, rather than "apply" it. With the power of interpretation, one can do almost anything. The power of interpretation is the power to do anything without guidelines. I don't believe the constitution should be given that much lattitude. If it needs change or updating, as has happened many times, then do it the right way. Judges who on their own whim "find" a right where one was not written, are rendering the Constitution meaningless.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 7, 2013 2:16 a.m.

    I find it curious that police chiefs tend to be anti 2nd Ammendment while sheriffs tend to be pro.

    Police chiefs have to move up through the ranks and please their superiors which requires political skills. Sheriffs get their position by appealing directly to the people.

    No particular point here, but it's a little interesting.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2013 9:56 p.m.

    He supports a reasonable not a hysterical approach.

  • ronnie sandy, utah
    May 6, 2013 9:40 p.m.

    "The majority of Americans say that we have enough gun laws and we only need to enforce them to take criminals off of the streets."

    Mr Pollei you are wrong on two accounts. We already have more people in jail than any other country, but yet we still kill more people with guns than anyone else. By the way a majority of Americans believe in better background checks and more restrictions on assault type weapons. My suggestion is to read, learn and think about the issues as it relates to risk to our children and us as a society.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 6, 2013 9:23 p.m.

    "If you are a federally licensed gun dealer and your license is revoked because you've engaged in misconduct ... your entire inventory under prevailing law is deemed your personal collection. You then can sell it free from any background checks."
    (politifact)

  • GK Willington Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2013 7:56 p.m.

    to cjb May 6th4:56 p.m. May 6,

    Contextually speaking, interpret & clarify are synonyms.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2013 7:47 p.m.

    to Mike R (May 6 @ 7:29a)...

    Its when people such as yourself think they *have the right* to be armed as well as the police & military that I start to worry.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 6, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    Re JoeBlow

    "like it or not the supreme court interprets the constitution".

    ++++++

    No where in the constitution does it give the Supreme Court the authority to go against what the constitution actually says. Where the constitution is ambiguous, a court may clarify its meaning. For example the constitution says "no cruel or unusual punishment" , this is a perfect example of where a court may clarify. In cases where the constitution is clear the court has no authority to rule against what the constitution actually says.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    May 6, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    Re: J Thompson

    "DOMA was passed September 21, 1996 and signed by Bill Clinton, long before Obama was elected as President. Obama knew, before running for office, that DOMA was the law of the land. He knew that he had no authority to NOT enforce that. As President, he is not authorized to pick and choose which laws he will execute. His oath of office requires him to faithfully execute ALL of the laws of the United States, not just those laws that he deems Constitutional nor those laws that you deem to be Constitutional."

    Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush also performed what you term "unauthorized action." There's a concept called departmentalism, look it up. Chadha v. INS is the most recent example, excluding the DOMA cases, where the POTUS refused to defend a law because he believed it was unconstitutional. P.S. The SCOTUS agreed.

    "He swore an oath under false pretense. He had no intention of keeping that oath."

    And you know that, how? What evidence of fraud do you alone have that we are all oblivious to?

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    May 6, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    LDS Liberal, "The Nauvoo Legion was fully State chartered, State sanctioned, regularly drilled, and trained."

    And (it should be mentioned) armed by the state of Illinois, which is why they accepted Governor Ford's demand that they lay down their (state-supplied!) arms after Carthage.

    Many here seem to be buying into the romantic mythos of the militia. The reality is that they were poorly trained, poorly led, poorly disciplined, and rightly held in contempt by regulars.
    That view is consistently backed up by their performance in the colonial period, the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and a laundry list of minor Indian conflicts.

    The militia's apogee was on the green at Concord. The rest of the time their performance ranged from poor to disgraceful.

    Assembling a group of armed people together and to call themselves a "militia" confers neither self-legitimization nor color of law. From some of the arguments here about the definition of a militia, the Bloods and the Crips have every right to quit being gangs and call themselves militias, and the LAPD wouldn't be able to do anything to stop them.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    May 6, 2013 4:46 p.m.

    Re: Mike Richards

    "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."

    The Supreme Law can be changed because we don't like the way it is written. If it couldn't, black people would still be 3/5 of a person and women would still have no standing or rights as citizens.

    "Obama, the Commander in Chief, took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, yet he actively disregards DOMA."

    How so? Has he been giving federal benefits to same-sex unions that no one has noticed? Where in the Constitution is marriage even mentioned, let alone defined?

    "He actively disregards his duty to secure our boarders."

    How so? Have we lost territory to Canada and Mexico recently?

    "He actively disregards his duty to evict those who entered the United States illegally."

    His deportation numbers have been widely reported and documented as higher than any previous president in the modern era.

    Your friend, procuradorfiscal, likes to call out so-called liberals for "sophistry." You tell me Mike, who's really being deliberately dishonest in his speech?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 6, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    We have to find somewhere where one isn't either 'anti gun' or 'anything goes, anywhere, anytime'.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    @J Thompson
    I am arguing that the brief notes that policies we have in place regarding limits on guns for felons, background checks, and assault weapons bans, are regulations that can be considered constitutional.

    If there were no regulations on guns that could ever be allowed we wouldn't have a ban on machine guns. We wouldn't have background checks on purchases from gun manufacturers. We wouldn't have any of the requirements the states currently put on guns. But we do, because they're constitutional.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 6, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    JThompson -- you mean like Bush's "signing statements" that said "Okay, I'll sign this law, but won't obey or enforce it."

    Is that what you're talking about?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 6, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    Again and again we hear the bleating cry that anyone who supports the idea of sensible gun laws including background checks must somehow be "anti gun."

    False.

    But as long as the NRA claims it is, people who are easily deluded and confused will continue their bleating.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 6, 2013 3:18 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    =========

    The "National Guard" - wasn't enacted until the Militia Act of 1903.

    The National Guard still holds and maintains the "Minute Man" icon, as it always has since 1775.

    Regular guys/gasl - 9 to 5, friends and neighbors -- who are duly sworn, trained, certified, drilled, and ready to serve at a "Minutes notice".

    In 1842 (pre-civil war) - The Nauvoo Legion was fully State chartered, State sanctioned, regularly drilled, and trained.

    I maintain you "militia wanna be's" - not meeting ANY of the Constitutional requirements of being "well-regulated" are nothing more than armed thugs and mobs.

    Keep your guns and protect your homes if you must,
    But 2nd Amendment Constitutionally defined “well-regulated militia” you most certainly are NOT.

    In other news --
    Minnesota: A Domestic terrorist suspect was arrest. Buford Rogers (24) is the founder of the "Black Snake Militia".

    I rest my case....

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    May 6, 2013 3:06 p.m.

    atl134,

    Exactly whose rights were infringed by the Heller brief? Does the Heller brief REQUIRE a background check? Does the Heller brief REQUIRE that semi-automatic firearms be turned in to the government? Does the Heller brief REQUIRE high capacity magazines to be turned in? Does the Heller brief ALLOW States to NOT allow you to keep and bear arms? You are putting restrictions where no restriction exists. You are pretending that the Heller brief upheld some non-existent government "right" to take away our firearms. That's just wistful thinking on your part.

    Until the Court upholds a SPECIFIC law passed by Congress that allows infringement on our right to keep and bear arms, we, the people, have the guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. "Might", "maybe" and perhaps don't count. "Shall not" does count.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 6, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    Many are talking about the 2nd Amendment only applying to those in a militia.

    That is not correct as is also spelled out in the Heller ruling

    The Heller ruling's main point was that the 2nd Amendment did not limit the right to bear arms to only those in Militias.

    Overall, Heller was a win for gun advocates.

    Like it or not, the SCOTUS interprets the constitution. Those interpretations ARE constitutional. You cannot separate the SCOTUS rulings from the Constitution.

    In the Heller case, the majority opinion was written by and joined by the most conservative of the court.

    Even the parts where they explicitly spell out that the 2nd Amendment DOES allow for limiting

    - Who can Carry
    - Where they can Carry
    - What they can Carry

    And to Procur.

    What I posted was excerpts form the DECISION. Not ramblings.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 6, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    airnaut
    The Supreme Court has already ruled and did not agree with your presumption that Militia means Police, National Guard, etc... in their decision ruling the Washington DC law "UnConstitutional" that limited gun ownership to police and military.

    You can say that militia = national guard, but that doesn't make it true (and the Supreme Court didn't agree with your presumption). "Militia" CAN mean many things (not just National Guard). The neighborhood militias that existed and acted during the Revolutionary War were not "National Guard" units. They were self organized nieghborhood entitites that the government did not form, fund, or control. They were groups of concernd people (call them MOBS if you want but you owe the contry we have today to them).

    There was the "Mormon Militia" organized by Joseph Smith back in the day. They were not a National Guard unit.

    There are nieghborhoods today that have organized militias because they do not take their security for granted and want to be prepared to HELP the government if outsiders threaten their neighborhood... and are also prepared in the unimaginable case that the government should turn on it's own people some day in the distant future.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    @J Thompson

    "Your assumption that the Court has upheld laws that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms is totally false. "

    Then how about...

    "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. [United States v.] 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."

    From the Heller brief written by Scalia.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    May 6, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    @ Lany Myer,

    DOMA was passed September 21, 1996 and signed by Bill Clinton, long before Obama was elected as President. Obama knew, before running for office, that DOMA was the law of the land. He knew that he had no authority to NOT enforce that. As President, he is not authorized to pick and choose which laws he will execute. His oath of office requires him to faithfully execute ALL of the laws of the United States, not just those laws that he deems Constitutional nor those laws that you deem to be Constitutional.

    He swore an oath under false pretense. He had no intention of keeping that oath. He misrepresented himself to the people of America, who have every right to expect him to FAITHFULLY execute the duties of his office.

    Read his oath of office. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    If he disagrees with the law, he needs to step down or Congress needs to remove him.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 6, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    Re JoeBlow...

    Mike,
    JoeBlow is right. The Constitution doesn't mean what is written in it... it only means what the Supreme Court says it says. That's why it is so important that we not let "Progressives" take over the Supreme Court and start morphing it into something you would never recognize as our founding document and out "bill of rights".

    Your rights can be taken away with a simple opinion by a group of activist judges. So don't take your government for granted. They don't GIVE these rights (they are natural rights). But they can sure TAKE them away.

    Keep bringing up the Constitution! I LIKE people who use the "Constititional" argument every day. I don't like opinions that are consistenly contrary to our Constitution and our Bill Of Rights (ala JoeBlow). Anyone that would CRITICIZE you for citing the Constitution isn't on the right track IMO.

    The Constitution is fairly direct and simple to understand on this topic.

  • SilverbackedGorrilla South Jordan, UT
    May 6, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    Chief Burbank should consider having his officers leave their weapons at the office and wear a shirt that reads "This Officer is a Gun Free Zone!"

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 6, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Time to put your money where your mouth is, conservatives. If you truly believe your right to guns "shall not be infringed" then please grab all your guns, arm yourself to the hilt, and walk into your nearest elementary school. Shoot off a couple of rounds to demonstrate your disgust w/ socialized education (1st Amendment) and then sit... and wait.

    When you're arrested, let's see whether you can win in court based on your "shall not be infringed" argument.

    Come on, show some conviction in your side of the argument.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    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.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    May 6, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    @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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    @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).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 6, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 6, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    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.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 6, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    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.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 6, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    @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.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 6, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    May 6, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 6, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 6, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    @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
    May 6, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 6, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 6, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    @airnaut

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

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    May 6, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    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."

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 6, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    @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"?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 6, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    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."

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 6, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    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."

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 6, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    "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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 6, 2013 4:52 a.m.

    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.