Comments about ‘Burbank and gun laws’

Return to article »

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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

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.

South Jordan, UT

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!"

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Re JoeBlow...

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.

J Thompson

@ 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.

Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Far East USA, SC

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.

J Thompson


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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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....

one old man
Ogden, UT

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."


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

one old man
Ogden, UT

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?

Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

American Fork, UT

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

Springville, Ut

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?

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

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.

Springville, Ut

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?

Bountiful, UT

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.

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

GK Willington
Salt Lake City, UT

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

Contextually speaking, interpret & clarify are synonyms.


"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."

to comment

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