Comments about ‘Bishop Wester joins voices calling for veto of controversial gun bill’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 15 2013 12:20 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

I don't think this bill will be harmful or be of much value either way. Those who really wanted to carry found it rather easy to get the concealed carry permit to begin with. And if a person really didn't want to carry, I doubt many will now just pick up a gun and carry because they can. I'd be surprised if it changed peoples behavior much if any. And after all, that's what we are talking about with most any law, controlling peoples behavior. Arn't we?

Cottonwood, AZ

What part of "shall NOT be infringed" does no one understand? The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting; it's about freedom and liberty and protecting ourselves, our family and others. When the founding fathers drew up the Bill of Rights they started out with basic GOD GIVEN rights then asked themselves how are we going to guarantee those rights from an overbearing government. We as humans have a BASIC right to protect ourselves. The only thing the police can do after the fact is clean up the mess and find the perpetrator; they cannot protect us. That is our job.

Bountiful, UT

Criminals carry without a permit. Criminals carry without a background check. Criminals carry without gun safety training. All this law does is put law-abiding citizens on the same footing as those who threaten our property, our safety and our lives. I am in favor of having a fighting chance to protect mine. Please, Governor, don't veto this law.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

I find regestration of guns a step forward. I have to get my automobile license plates renewed annually and my vehicle operator's license renewed every five years. Resistance to gun registration would be negligible were it not for laws requiring it having been so lax or nonexistent before now. Change always takes some getting used to.

m.g. scott

The only trouble with your argument Craig Clark is that the gun issue is a constitutional 2nd amendment issue. Like free speech or religion in the 1st amendment is. Driving is not a constitutional right, but a privilige given by states.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Driving is niether a right nor a privilege. It's a regulated activity under state licensing authority. The 1st Amendment doesn't give an atheist the right to enter a church with a bullhorn to shout his views where people are at worship. No right is without limits. That's not what American liberty is about.

St. George, UT

Maybe liberals ought to get together and figure out a way to get criminals to get background checks, safety training, gun law education, and gun registration. Good luck!!!!!!!!!
Gun owners do not want to give up any rights because once you get these things you want now, you'll move onto other laws that infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.
Reminds me of the liberal progressive tax system we have!

Centerville, UT

"I have to get my automobile license plates renewed annually" Not so you can have the privilege to drive it, but for the purpose of taxing it.

m.g. scott

Re: Craig Clark, by the way I commend you for using your name when posting.

The thing is, with the atheist entering a church and shouting his views, that would simply be called a trespass on private property violation. He does have the right to shout those views anywhere in public and that right does come from the 1st amendment. Yes, it has been found by courts that rights do have some limits. Yelling fire in the theater, or making private ownership of maching guns illegal for most people. Still, courts have usually been very specific on those limitations. Trying not to step on the right as a whole.
And I do think that when a judge takes away a drivers license he calls it "revoking a privilidge."

Salt Lake City, UT

The legislature rejected a proposal to tear down the "Zion Curtain." They want to allow the carrying of a gun without a permit (and thus no training). After all, seeing a drink mixed by a professional baretender is more dangerous and lethal than an untrained citizen with a concealed weapon. What you don't see can't hurt you.

Redding, CA

Thank you Bishop Wester for speaking out where necessary. Thanks Gov Herbert for already speaking that this is a bad law, I hope you veto this law and don't call the "legislature" that tried to do this back into session. The "lawmakers" who did this are deluded, nutty.

You want to carry a concealed weapon? legally? go thru the law's steps that attempt to verify that you're clear minded enough and not a threat to the rest of us. that's a reasonable limitation on the 2nd amendment.

Bountiful, UT

If taking guns away from the law abiding made
anyone safer this call to the governor would
make some sense.

Springville, UT

It's obvious to me where the DesNews is going to take us. KSL has had Doug Wright telling us now for two weeks straight that some gun restrictions are necessary. And now, by posting the good Bishop's opinion, it isn't difficult to figure out what the "powers that be" are trying to espouse through their communication channels.

The fact is, that by putting restrictions in place regarding gun ownership or gun rights, we are violating the 2nd Amendment. And if any type of "infringement" of those rights can be put in place, and the Supreme Court goes along with it, then the 2nd Amendment is dead, and with it our freedom.

We should be addressing mental illness and violence in our entertainment, which often glorifies mass murder.

The rationale of the left (and those who like to cozy up to the left) regarding guns is the same as taking all fatty foods from everyone because a few people ate themselves to death. Oh wait, they're working on that one too.

Let's not forget that freedom and liberty are at the root of this issue.

Bountiful, UT

A right, especially a constitutional right should
only be infringed when exercising that right
curtails the rights other people have.

Good law abiding people having and carrying
guns does not curtail the rights of anyone.
Therefore taking away the gun rights of the
law abiding ought to be seen for what it is. An
infringement of 2nd Amendment rights.

Manti, UT

Once upon a time, there were no firearms laws and people were happy. Then somebody thought they should impose laws on law abiding people. And they didn't work. So they thought they would impose more laws. And that didn't work. Now they want more laws, that won't work. Why make criminals out of law abiding citizens. The real criminals go through the judicial revolving door and are let back out on the streets to violate again and again. The said you couldn't carry a loaded gun in your car, and that was repealed. What happened? Nothing. Repeal the registration laws and what will happen. Nothing. Just a free society. If these laws work so well, why don't we just make a law that says, "Murder is illegal." Oh, wait, we have that? How is that working for you? If Herbert veto's it, it will be his last term.

O-town, UT

I need weapons grade plutonium to protect myself from a potential government threat. From reading the postings on this board, I think the second amendment gives me that right. The right to bear arms. a nuclear missile or bomb is an arm of types. Get off my back government...I am a responsible person...no need to worry.

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.

One of the definitions of Militia:

a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

Doesn't that sound like the National Guard? I don't think Thomas Jefferson had envisioned a day of assault weapons and WMD--I don't think it was his intent to protect those at the expense of the safety of the public. Regulation doesn't equate to infringement.

Not to worry, Governor Herbert is spineless and will sign it along with the bill that would help 150,000 people get health coverage. Does this sound like good governance?

Move over Mississippi--here comes Utar, God bless the Beehive State!

Cottonwood Heights, UT

More "blood in the streets" fear-mongering. The gun-grabbers who don't trust the law-abiding electorate have used that argument for decades in trying to prevent the proliferation of "shall issue" concealed carry legislation across the country, and the growing movement of "constitutional" carry legislation, starting with Alaska, then Arizona and Wyoming. You'd think they'd be embarassed to be proven wrong so many times.

The Hammer
lehi, utah

This bill is bad for citizens because it doesn't help them understand the use of deadly force. Carrying concealed if for one purpose and that is to use their weapon in a time of great urgency. Proper training should accompany that time so they know when they can pull their gun, when they can fire in self defense and where they are ok to carry. The current law does not infringe on our rights to bear arms all it calls for is education prior to carrying deadly force concealed in public.

Poplar Grove, UT

So for everyone that is in support of unlimited, unfettered access to guns I have a question for you. Would you be ok with nudity, and every profane word ever invented on broadcast channels during prime time? Should I be able to walk around the city without pants or underwear on? What about sex in public? Should I be able to walk into a movie theater and scream that the place is on fire to cause a panic? Or are restrictions on these things reasonable in the name of decency and public safety? Or is it only the 2nd amendment that can have no restrictions?

Bountiful, UT

Suggestion to Utah government.

Put educational videos on the Utah government web
to teach people the rules of gun safety and the legal
use of guns in Utah.

Guns like cars need not be scary and most people
can be counted on to use them responsibly, but
education will help.

to comment

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