Comments about ‘Gun bill would make concealed weapons permit unnecessary’

nrajr:

"Based on the number of felons (it is against the law for a felon to possess a firearm), who are found carrying firearms and convicted of these offenses, it is obvious that gun laws do not matter to felons, just as other laws don't have the desired influence on them"

What laws are you referring to? The one's that nobody enforces? That's the whole point. Gun laws have been weak and the ATF has been gutted by the congressional puppets of the NRA.

"Driving, flying, practicing medicine, construction" are constitutional rights as well as a couple of others I didn't mention which fall under the category of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

It's nice to know that so many of my fellow citizens believe that the 2nd amendment trumps all other considerations within our constitution and body of law. I hope you all use that as your defense when your creator asks you what you did to turn your swords into plowshares!

I previously lived just outside city limits in a state where it was okay to fire a gun on your own property so long as the bullets did not leave your property. The problem was that my property was very small and so was my neighbor's property. Our houses were only a few feet away from each other. This man liked to go into his small back yard and fire his gun into the ground. He wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, yet it was perfectly legal for him to fire a gun only a few feet away from my bedroom window. It was more than a bit stressful to hear the loud shots and hope that my house or my family didn't get hurt because of this man.

My point being that just because someone isn't a criminal, doesn't mean it's a good idea for them to have a gun. Accidents can happen.

One shouldn't have to get permission (get a permit)
to exercise a constitutional right, so this bill makes
sense.

Also hunters ought to be able to use silencers, this
would help stop hearing loss.

Finally a law that makes sense and doesn't require any other legislation or explanation. The only exception to this suggestion would be no restrictions of possession or use of a gun by any legal citizen not incarcerated or in jail, or impending citizens (legal immigrant).

I agree with the age of 18 for public carry but gun safety and practice has no age limit or restrictions. If a son or daughter of the USA can go to war and give their life then they qualify as an accountable citizen.

Another sad, sad news day about our Utah legislators. I am so sick of our elected officials and their "message to Washington, DC" bills. This one needs to be shelved right away.

@Pagan

Columbine happened during the last assault weapon ban, that's a bad example.

The Constitution says that the Right to Keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. Utah has finally figured out what that means. We are one step closer to law and order.

More guns DO keep us safe:

During the first year of the Obama administration, with national gun sales rising dramatically, the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages (FBI). 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales. The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control after the Columbine shooting.

The more Americans carry guns, the less violent crime we have.

All those school massacres, including Columbine and Sandy Hook, even the Colorado Theater, were in "Gun Free Zones". Hint: Gun Free Zones invite criminal attack. That's why the politicians won't make the US Capitol into a Gun Free Zone. They're not stupid, they just hope you are.

"Utah permits are extremely popular with many people from outside Utah because the permits are accepted in 35 of 50 states."

And that the requirements to get a Utah CCP are very lax.
4 hour class and no requirement to shoot the gun.

How do you distinguish a bad guy from a good guy? If I walk into a store and see a man carrying a semi-automatic weapon, how does this make you feel safe? Doesn't it just allow bad guys to carry without being nervous about it? Bad guys would just assume that you will perceive them as citizens who are exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

You can make it very easy for some guy to walk into a school with a gun and kills a bunch of children. Seriously. If it's legal, you can't stop him. It's only illegal as soon as he starts shooting, at which point it's too late.

People supporting this are losing their minds.

re Maudine
SLC, UT

Either way, George Washington believed that people ought to be able to form up into armed militias when the need arises and thereby not be overly dependent on the military. So for our purposes in this discussion what does it matter?

Also is it possible that he said similar quotes on similar occasions? When I Googled it I saw the quote both ways, the way you presented it and his way ..

'ThomasJefferson'
WELLSVILLE, UT

You may summon up all the reasons you want about taking away someone's second amendment right, but if that right is unalienable and it is guaranteed under the constitution, how does anyone assume the right to redefine it without limited someone's God given right to defend themselves from anyone, including governmental intrusion? It doesn't make since, any kind of sense, that because someone else(ie newtown, etc.)doesn't know how to protect, defend, and use a God given right, that anyone, including the government, has the right to take it away from me or any other citizen. A society like that is much scarier than a society where tragedies like Newtown happen! Unfortunately, every one espousing a gun free society won't be around to see the devastation that could, and most likely would, result from taking away any God given right, including the right to bear arms. The answers to Newtown have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and everything to do with creating a safe, loving, and principled environment for children at home.

"If I walk into a store and see a man carrying a semi-automatic weapon, how does this make you feel safe?"

Well, apparently not. When a guy brought a pistol and a semi-automatic weapon to an Orem Mall a couple years ago, there were lots of 911 calls.

The guns were legal to carry openly.

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin did not live in a world where every citizen carries a cell phone and where police are available at a moments notice. Nor did they live in a world of AK47's and automatic pistols with high capacity ammo clips that can be stacked.

GW was busy claiming land occupied by the Indians and sending men with guns to occupy it. Human rights and the sanctity of law did not even resemble the world that we know today.

Second amendment gun rights are out dated. Unabashed worship of the founding fathers and the constitution is out dated and bordering on the ridiculous.

It's time for a change.

Many of you are confusing individual examples with the community at large. Humans are at times violent. They always have been, always will be. The fact is, people get killed and hurt, with guns, without guns, makes no difference.

But in the US, LESS people get killed and hurt when MORE people are armed. If someone other than the bad guy and the security folks in the crowd had had a gun, Gifford may not have been shot at all. If a teacher in Sandy Hook had had a gun, there may have been FAR fewer deaths.

You can talk about individual tragedies all day, and we can quote overall statistics all day, and we can play the what-if game forever. But the FACT is, according to every crime statistic in the entire US, there are less violent crimes and LESS murders in places that have MORE legal guns, period.

Comparing the US to England or Japan is a red herring, they are TOTALLY different cultures, with different religions, ways of life, understandings of right and wrong, and the fact is that you cannot take my guns away, and remain the United States of America.

cjb said: "One shouldn't have to get permission (get a permit) to exercise a constitutional right"

and yet the same political hacks enforce "Free Speech Zones."
They don't allow you to cause fear by yelling fire in crowded places either, clearly a constitutional infringement.

What happens when it's not a middle aged bearded white guy that walks into JC Pennys, but a middle eastern bearded man with an AK, do you feel the same warm and fuzzy for your gun love? He would probably be shot by a racist patriot even if he would be legally within his rights to do so.

...and finally "Utah permits are extremely popular with many people from outside Utah because the permits are accepted in 35 of 50 states."

This would cost the state some revenue, the guys on the hill love their cash cows, more than their fantasy's about the wild west returning.

George Washington also owned slaves. Was that an unalienable right?

Within the rule of law we balance the rights of different citizens to avoid anarchy and bloodshed. The constitution is the starting point whereas legislators and courts define the details. In 1934 machine guns were banned and upheld by the supreme court. That made it constitutional.

The very fact that you all fight to retain THIS right at the expense of others is just telling, especially in the face of the death of so many children. 20,000 people die in this country every year by guns. That is equivalent to a town the size of Brigham City. We have a gun death rate similar to the country of Colombia. Is that the legacy you're trying to protect?

I'll make a deal. I'll give up all my rights, including my 2nd amendment rights, if everyone else will give up their right to abortion,gay marraige,illegal drugs, alcohol, immoral movies, violence of any kind, welfare, war, athiesm, and especially public education. Also, you have to give them up willing forever! Accordingly, I will give up my 2nd amendment rights, except for when I want to go hunting. If you will give up all those rights, I will swallow my pride and go down to the local law enforcement agency and check a gun out for hunting. Is anyone ready?

@ cjb: If you google it, you will find quotes of Abraham Lincoln commenting about the number of false quotes on the Internet. Reliable sources will provide the full context of the quote and debunk ones that are not accurate.

If the actual quote doesn't matter, why use it? Quotes by individuals like Washington are used to lend credibility to one's argument through an appeal to authority - using an incorrect quote shows a complete lack of credibility and no authoritative support for your position.

Words matter. There is a vast difference between "armed and disciplined" and "armed, but disciplined" - there is an even bigger difference between the rest of the fake quote and the real quote.

The inability to support one's stance without resorting logical fallacies indicates a problem with said stance. A position that cannot be defended honestly is a position not worth defending.

re Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

I think we all agree, one does not have a right to abuse any right they have, constitutional or not.

No one has a right to yell fire in a theater unless their is a fire, I do not have a right to falsely slander someone.

I do not have a right to brandish a gun or shoot innocent people.

Of course all that said, the governemt doesn't have a right to tape up a persons mouth or take away their guns, simply because a person might misuse them. Why, because of the constitution rights we have.

In the Old West, gun laws were pioneered in such legendary towns as Abilene, Wichita, and Dodge City. The Wyatt Earps and Bat Mastersons of those days knew how tough the job of a lawman was as is and they favored city ordinances prohibiting the carrying of firearms within city limits.

Now if the Utah of today becomes a state that requires a license to drive a car but no permit to carry a gun, that condition of moral and legalistic imbecility could truthfully be called a Wild West, not to be confused with the Old West of history. Post-Civil War city fathers seemed to be more idealistic visionaries than are legislators of the present.