Quantcast

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

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 23 2013 6:10 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
one old man
Ogden, UT

The photo with this article does a lot to illustrate one of the worst problems Utah has with guns.

Look carefully at the photo. Do you see the problems?

And this guy could well be a "graduate" of our state's ridiculous CCP "training" that provides no training at all.

Notice the problems: 1) Gun is stuffed in the belt 2) no holster 3) no holster with trigger cover 4) finger on the trigger while drawing the weapon.

But he will certainly learn a lesson he won't forget if he pulls on that trigger just a little too much.

If anything, we need much TIGHTER AND MORE STRINGENT training and requirements for packing a gun.

Loosening those already non-existent requirements will be one more disaster.

one old man
Ogden, UT

So ThomasJefferson posts that he will pick and choose which version of a quote by the real Thomas Jefferson he will choose to use as he argues against gun safety.

Wow. What a display of arrogant dishonesty!

Aggielove
Cache county, USA

This guy is my hero.

SS
MiddleofNowhere, Utah

Those who think that hundreds and hundreds of people in Utah don't already carry concealed guns are ignorant. They are called concealed for a reason. I think it is unfounded paranoia to think that this will be a disaster and that Utah will turn into the "wild west." If you read the article it listed several states that already have this bill in place. Are you afraid to go to Arizona or Vermont or Wyoming? Gun control activists really need to start looking at why they are so scared of inanimate objects.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

I have a CC permit and I'm just fine with the process. My problem is, I know people who are law abiding citizens who I wouldn't trust with a gun in any circumstance. They have no common sense nor the brains to think properly about it.

The possession of a firearm for defensive purposes creates a great responsibility. Both moral and ethical. I'm all for personal defense and defense of other. And if a situation is created where deadly force is the final and only option left to someone, then the person using the weapon for deadly force needs to know that there will be consequences. Mostly mental.

The ability to use a weapon requires training, and a lot of it. Cops are supposed experts and see how many of them miss when the pucker factor increases. Just letting any Tom, Dick, or Harry pack without proper training doesn't excite me. I'm all for constitutional rights as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned, but just like you can't yell fire in a theater, proper use of guns requires training. Untrained, undisciplined shooters are as big a threat as bad guys/girls.

Gkwahlberg
Taylorsville, UT

@dlharman

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is not part of the constitution, that is from the Declaration of Independence.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Columbine had armed security...

when the shooting at Columbine happened.

Same thing at

Ft. Hood and Gabriel Giffords.

dlharman
South Jordan, UT

Gkwahlberg:

Actually the Supreme Court declared in 1897, "..the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.."

Regarding rights:

If we have the right to Life, why do we kill criminals and enemies in foreign wars?

If we have the right of Liberty, why do we prohibit trespassing?

If we have the right of Freedom of Speech, why do we prohibit Libel?

We balance rights, freedoms and law for the largest common good and security.

So far nothing the President has proposed is going to do much more to your gun culture than inconvenience you (speaking collectively of course).

Are all of you so intractable that you can't even consider a little inconvenience if it might reduce the number of violent gun deaths?

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Flashback,

"I have a CC permit and I'm just fine with the process. My problem is, I know people who are law abiding citizens who I wouldn't trust with a gun in any circumstance. They have no common sense nor the brains to think properly about it...."
______________________________

Your post makes a rational case for conceal and carry permits which I’m not opposed to under state licensing authority.

What’s alarming are proposed laws that allow issuance of a permit on demand or require no permit whatsoever! It used to be that permit applicants had to show cause (e.g. having received death threats, a job transporting large sums of cash, etc.). That reasonableness seems to have been discarded.

There must be responsible criteria for issuance of C&C permits and stringent enforcement of its conditions. At the top of the list would be the obvious (e.g. no record of arrests for violent behavior or threats made to harm someone, being under treatment for severe mental health issues, etc.).

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@dlharmon

"Are all of you so intractable that you can't even consider a little inconvenience if it might reduce the number of violent gun deaths?"

I'll answer for my conservative friends: YES

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

More Americans have died from domestic gun violence, than in all the wars since 1968...

combined.

CA. reader
Rocklin, CA

Although I favor the Second Amendment and the right of a law-abiding citizen to carry conealed, after 30 years of carrying a sidearm professionally, I doubt that most folks would bother to dress properly every minute of every day to carry a concealed firearm. You wouldn't have to worry about everybody at the local Mickey D's drawing weapons on some dumb crook who wasw trying to rob the place.

NeilT
Clearfield, UT

Flashback Kudos to your comments. By far the best of all the posts on the subject.

There was a woman who shot an armed intruder in Florida. That was a legitimate act of self defense. The problem was you could hear her husband on a cell phone yelling at her saying keep shooting him, keep shooting him. I heard the tape on Hannity. What if the intruder were already down and and no longer a threat. There is a fine line between self defense and murder. To many on the right feel the constitution gives them the right to be a judge, jury and executioner. Most people are not anti-gun or against the second amendment. Most people, myself included are againsst taking the law into their own hands, It is called vigilanti justice and that is what concerns me.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

This bill goes the wrong direction. The public is in a mood for more gun control, not less.

IndependentlyIndependent
South Jordan, UT

This bill is madness. I'm embarrassed that it's even being introduced. Welcome to the Wild West indeed.

Jewell in the Crown
Provo, UT

The people may be in the mood for more gun control... but the gun control they need should be to have more people able to hit the target, not the type of gun control they're demanding.

Combine this with increasing the permit requirements for the people who wish to get one (for reciprocity reasons, probably to something like 6-8 hours of shooting practice, 4-6 hours of 'class', instead of just the 4 hours of class) and it'd be a great bill. As it is, it's a good one.

And yes, issuing a permit on demand (short of mental illness or inappropriate police record) is a good thing.

Harley Rider
Small Town, CT

Until the drugging of the school children is stopped , nothing is really going to change as far as stopping all of these shootings.

Psychotropic are unbelievably dangerous and that fact has been proven over and over, as they are the catalyst behind all of the shooting mishaps.

Why Washington continues to ignore this fact is really not surprising

Mr.Glass
Salt Lake City, UT

The interpretation of the 2nd amendment as self-defense is a modern interpretation that began in the 19th Century. Arms, not guns, is mentioned in the second amendment, and those living in the 18th Century understood arms as military weapons in the service of militias or standing armies. Militias existed because people believe standing armies would rob us our liberty. The second clause of the 2nd amendment does say people have the right to bear arms, but you have to remember that in the 18th Century all people (really, meaning men, not women) were obligated to fulfill the civic duty of participating in a militia, which was government by states. Most states forbid people from traveling with guns because they believed people should be free from terror.

Furthermore, the Federalists, those who were pro-Constitution--our founders--understood the 2nd amendment as militia protection of the government. The anti-Federalists, those who resisted the Constitution, wanted to read it as protection from the government. A lot of folks have it upside-down.

2nd lantern
Payson, UT

There will always be someone passionate against Constitutional rights of others. When we shave away muck and opinion, the bottom line - the fundamental truth - is this: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Why criticize people who live in Utah just to make a self-centered point, while you yourselves live in Utah? If you are angry that someone is carrying a gun peacefully, are you not the one in error, promoting hostility? Are we so learned, so wise, so principled to think ourselves higher than the great God-inspired Constitution? Perhaps the gun some of you fear will save your life one day. The only thing that will take us back to the lawless wild, wild west days will be the continued unraveling of our Constitution. I applaud the courage and integrity of our legislators who are deeply concerned for the potential loss of Utah's sovereignty.

Harley Rider
Small Town, CT

How does the federal government plan to enforce these new gun control laws, if passed? Using GUNS, of course! The threat of force is what's used to gain your "compliance" with everything the government does.

The Second Amendment is the one right that protects all other rights. Without it, there would be no First Amendment, no due process, no right to remain silent, and no freedom whatsoever

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

What is the U.S. government planning that requires it to first disarm the American people? For if they really wanted to stop these school shootings , they would attack the real cause - School Kids on Psychotropic Medications , wish I could post some links on this forum, that are actual occurrences, not the made up kind by the MSM

to comment

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