Comments about ‘Nation's largest gun show promoter criticizes proposed firearms legislation’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Feb. 2 2013 1:30 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
dwayne
Provo, UT

There are some underlying differences between how people think. For example, Burbank believes there are limitations on constitutional rights. The Constitution doesnt allow us to place prior limitations on exercises of constitutional rights. Only criminal punishments for criminal acts resulting from exercises of constitutional rights. You cant limit speech before its spoken nor can you ban specific types of speech. For example, the word "fire" is equal with all other words and no laws can be passed prohibiting me from using a word.

Once I used a word my actions can be criminal or beneficial. If I yell fire in a crowded theater or bomb in an airport its NOT a crime. Its only a crime if theres no fire or bomb and yelling it is intended to cause harm and theres actual harm done.

It wouldnt be criminal if I yell fire in a crowded theater if I actually have reasonable beliefs there was a fire even though there wasnt. The Second Amendment guarantees unlimited right to any firearm we want and ability to carry it anywhere where property rights dont take priority. The government has no right to impose prior limitations on rights. Only punish crime.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

US citizens have every right to oppose unconstitutional alterations of our rights and freedoms. Opposing government and legislators is our duty and obligation to preserve our way of life and government of the people.

Guns are our current defense against government oppression and this is the most blatant and outrageous attempt we have ever faced in the last 250 years of existence. Many fear duty are ready for Absolute government control and the demise of this country. Rights to worship, talk, representation, and live as we please is ours to keep or surrender.

Obama has no intention of ever leaving he White House, he is an absolute dictator and evil man doing what no other man in world history has been able to do, destroy the United States. He has made sure we have no nation to call to help us defend against his Despotic ambitions of absolute power. Guns and armed citizens are his only road block and the proposed legislation is one that will have absolute power to disarm to enslave all americans.

If advocates think past events of suicide attacks by education disabled children, wait until the mentally able refuse to comply, thousands will die daily.

Aggielove
Cache county, USA

Well we'll address it sometime later. Next question?
The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

Whoa Nellie
American Fork, UT

Biden is such a flake. Let's start enforcing the drug laws in this country. If that were to happen he would be conducting this program from jail. I thought using marijuana was illegal. I guess that doesn't apply to the vice president.

Beverly
Eden, UT

The economic engine in our life doesn't always make our decisions good. Do we really expect a "Gun Show Promoter" to support actions that would slow gun sales? Pointing at mental illness, pointing at the lack of enforcement of current laws, pointing at the need for armed guards in schools, as Henry David Thoreau said, "Hacking at the branches of evil, when we know the root cause." Readily available guns is the root cause and, as the President stated, "We can do better." Over the past five years around 30,000 people, each year, die from gun violence. In this coming year, if another 30,000 Americans die from gun violence, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We can and should do better.

freedomingood
provo, Utah

How can he say he;s against TOUGHER background checks at gun shows when they don't do background checks at gun shows?

Bottom line is we somehow have to keep guns out of the hands of criminal and dangerous mental health persons. A little inconvenience of a background check shouldn't be a problem for a law abiding citizen should it?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Think just possibly this guy has a financial stake in the game? Hard to be objective when money is at stake.

Universal background checks was once supported, even promoted by the NRA.

"the NRA also took out an ad supporting background checks at gun shows:

The message of the NRA’s 1999 campaign was “Be Reasonable,” and the organization bought ads in top newspapers, including USA Today, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, to make its case.

“We believe it’s reasonable to provide for instant background checks at gun shows, just like gun stores and pawn shops,” the USA Today ad reads."

eastcoastcoug
Danbury, CT

Why should we care what this person thinks? Just another example of how the war against common sense with guns is driven on the far right by GREED. Pure and simple. Then there is the loud minority that somehow have bought into their thinking: that we are on a slippery slope to taking away everyone's weapons.

If you are so paranoid that you believe this nonsense, you are probably one of the crazy people that should not be trusted to own a home armory of assault weapons.

There is absolutely NO reason why everyone who buys a gun - anywhere - cannot undergo background checks and have to fully register the purchase. Instead of saying "no" to everything, let's start finding common ground and do something.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

The gun lobby can't have it both ways. It's inconsistent to state that gun violence is a mental health issue, and then in the same breath claim that we shouldn't have background checks to weed out felons and people with mental health problems.

Most people have trouble separating their politics and their pocketbooks.

Esquire
Springville, UT

I'm sorry, but I don't care one bit what Templeton thinks. He is acting solely in his self-interest. Why would the writer this paper think he would say anything else. This is like talking to oil companies about environmental issues. They will never, in a million years, do what's right, but only do what puts more money in their pockets.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

My question is, when did Chris Burbank become a justice of the Supreme Court? His quote in this article, “There are limitations to constitutional rights,” he said. “We need to … realize that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee you access to any firearm you want and the ability to carry it anywhere you want. Reasonableness says we're going to limit access.” is just plain scary. Of course there are some restrictions regarding the Second Amendment. One just can't go out and buy a fully automatic weapon without being properly licensed. Same thing with a cannon, or high explosives.

Since Burbank swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of Utah and uphold the laws of Salt Lake City, he doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing what laws he has to enforce and defend. Even though he chooses, at times, not to enforce lawfully enacted laws mainly because he doesn't like them.

Burbank needs to be summarily fired, and get someone that is interested in upholding and defending the law, even ones that he doesn't like.

Springvillepoet
Springville, UT

@dwayne:

Interesting. I do like where you are going with the discussion. Unfortunately there is a limited space here. The limitations you are speaking of in the 1st Amendment are part of the "Clear and Present Danger" clause rooted in the Supreme Court decision which jailed people speaking out against the Draft in WWI. They ruled against those speaking out against the Draft. There are also limitations on the 2nd Amendment, too. The average Citizen is prohibited from owning certain weapons as it is. The discussion, no matter what side a person falls upon, is the extent to which those limitations should be made.

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

Mr. Templeton is absolutely right!

In Utah over 2,000 people prohibited from buying guns were turned down, and their name and address and details of the felony were turned over to the BATFE. How many of those were prosecuted? Well, how many? Come one, must be hundreds at least.....

Less than a handful. The Deseret News needs to ask the local BATFE and the U.S. Attorney exactly how many. And, maybe why the other 2,000 were NOT prosecuted?

"Background checks" are not about keeping bad guys from getting guns, which they will get regardless of any laws ever passed, but are the number one priority for those who seek to create de facto registration lists of all guns and gun owners.

Registration never solves any crimes. Ask the Canadians how that $2 Billion long gun registration scheme worked out, before they decided it was worthless and eliminated it.

Registration is ONLY used for one thing, and that is eventual confiscation- the ultimate infringement. New York and California already have used registration lists to confiscate guns that had required to be registered, so this is not hypothetical.

It's not the guns, it's the criminals!

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The nation's largest gun show promoter has their own agenda, and it is not the welfare of the citizens of the nation.

Robert Fowler
Des Moines, IA

Burbank quit being a cop when he became Chief, that makes him a politician. Most of the Cops out on the street have no problem with armed citizens.

ECR
Burke, VA

dwayne - I would challenge you to show me where the Second Amendment guarantees "unlimited right to any firearm we want and ability to carry it anywhere where property rights dont take priority."

The Supreme Court - who, I would argue, is the final arbiter of the Constitution - said in their decision to strike down the District of Columbia's ban on gun ownership in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, "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...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."

This was not a liberal court, this is the court of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Olita. What they said, in a nutshell, was the right to bear arms is Constitution, but limitations on that right are Constitutional as well.

micawber
Centerville, UT

dwayne, The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that government can impose time, place and manner restraints on speech, if you believe the first amendment is a proper analog to the second.

I don't believe the Constitution "guarantees unlimited rights to any firearm we want and ability to carry it anywhere where property rights take priority." Even Justice Scalia believes some limitations are appropriate. The question is what the appropriate limitations are.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Are they going to give out free handguns as samples to anyone?

On the other hand
Riverdale, MD

Templeton's hangup with prosecuting background-check liars misses the point completely. I'm much less concerned about whether we prosecute the liars than whether we perform the check in the first place and prevent the sale of guns to people who shouldn't have them.

bricha
lehi, ut

Beverly, with that thinking should we ban all cars? Unfortunately I couldn't find the statistics for 2012, but in 2010 32,885 people died in car accidents. I mean we can do better, in 2010 the us sold over 12 million cars!! What a travesty! 12 million killing machines incredible!

to comment

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