The pain and mayhem caused by the consumption of alcoholic beverages far exceeds
that of firearms. It may be a good idea to require training and licensed
consumption of alcohol but no such requirement exists. Why? Because it is
unconstitutional. Likewise, the use of firearms are protected by the
constitution and all other arguments are irrelevant. What part of "shall
not be infringed" don't you understand?
The bill was poorly designed. I am all for second amendment rights. A CCW is
very easy to get in Utah. The gun laws here are not broken. It was trying to
solve a non-existent problem. If you are worried about your jacket covering your
open carry, then get off your butt and get a CCW and not worry about it.
Many paranoid people are also woefully naive. They think that government is the
answer to everything, and that more government will always offer them more
safety, security, and a better way of life. Anyone who really knows government
knows that government is run based on politics, and that those in uniform are
generally no more reliable, predictable, or capable than anyone else. In fact,
many of them get away with murder and other crimes, primarily because we are a
society where many are content to just ignore the facts and continue to
entertain the illusion that everything is exactly as it should be--and that
those in charge can always be counted on to act, and to act responsibly.
LDS Liberal"I'll let the cops decide if it's
Consitutional or not." Cops that shot that unarmed man on the
highway when they could've dog piled on him and subdued him?What about the cops who shot the unarmed woman in West Valley? Trigger happy
cops are just as big of a threat ans any person "not in uniform" openly
carrying a firearm. Typical people thinking America has to be run
like one giant prison. Not trusting people to make their own decisions, etc etc.
Examples of name calling:"It is the weak minded that want to go the
easy route and not defend the law that they don't like that are the
hypocrites.""The easy way out for simple minded people is to
simply say that it isn't fair"Quoting the 10th amendment is
irrelevant to the question I asked. DN Subscriber, and many other
conservatives, claim that "a majority wanting" something shouldn't
eliminate constitutional rights. They only use this to support their own
political beliefs. When the (insert one of your name calling labels here) use
that same argument, as they are by stating the 14th amendment supports same-sex
marriage, conservatives cry foul. I will ask you one more time, Redshirt, why
the double standard? I understand your previous responses
perfectly; they didn't address the question. It doesn't make me
stupid because you decided to avoid the question.
To "Claudio" I was not calling people names. I did answer your
question, you just didn't understand it. Let me clarify things again.The 10th ammendment to the US constitution says "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."Nowhere in the US constitution does it say that marriage is a right or power
given to the Federal Government. That means that it is up to the states to
decide what the definition of marriage is, and what rights it includes.The easy way out for simple minded people is to simply say that it isn't
fair, or something about love. For those that believe in the Constitution and
the rule of law, will defend the state's right to define marriage despite
their personal feelings on the issue. You see, the intellectually honest people
and those that have strong convictions about our rights will defend our rights,
even when they don't agree with how they are being used.
If I see anyone, anywhere in public - with a gun - and not wearing a
uniform....I will call 9-11 immediately, period.I'll let the cops decide if it's Consitutional or not.
Redshirt,Calling people names doesn't answer my question. If
it's a constitutional right, you would not have any need for the
legislation, right? Conservatives and liberals alike have said that
constitutional rights are not absolute; specifically, with regards to gun
rights. If you would like to actually address my question, as you
have yet to do, I remain open to hearing your thoughts.
HB76, passed the House 51-18 (barely being Veto proof)Meanwhile --
a poll released by BYU that found 82 percent of Utah residents support
tougher background checks — a flaw cited by some in HB76 that would allow
some who were denied concealed weapons permits a chance to buy a firearm without
going through that check. =========== Perhaps when the
House learned that 82% opposed what HB76 would allow tempered their zest to over
ride the veto that over 70% MOST Utahns also approved him for doing.
The liberals here are worrying over nothing. The Constitutional Carry bill is
no more dangerous than the open carry laws that are already in place. I would
think that liberals would be ok with the Constitutional Carry idea because it
makes it so that people would not see the guns. If they can't see the
guns, then how can you be afraid of them.The criminals will always
get guns and carry them illegally, why do you want to stop people from legally
carrying guns?To "Claudio" since marriage is not
specifically written in the Constitution, the 10th ammendment says that it is a
State's decision to make. Proposition 8 was an ammendment to the State
Constitution of California. It is the weak minded that want to go the easy
route and not defend the law that they don't like that are the hypocrites.
The conservatives are making the hard choice and are defending a constitutional
law that many don't agree with.
Re: DN Subscriber""A majority wanting" something should not be
a criteria when it comes to fundamental rights expressly laid out in both the
Utah and U.S. Constitutions."But you argue that it should be
when defending Prop 8 in CA. Why the double standard? This is an honest
question because I'm continually confused at how conservatives can apply
this argument to defend their political views, while denying the right to that
same argument to the other side.
If you see a person carrying a legal gasoline container with a rag inserted into
the spout, "then that's just too bad. Look the other way, or find
something else to think about. Unless you"re actually being threatened by
some weapon someone possesses, then it's none of your business".
Looking at the prevailing winds of politics, I seriously doubt the
Governor's veto will be overridden. Therefore, I would urge anyone who
feels they need to carry a firearm or long blade for personal protection to work
to get a concealed carry permit. If that's not feasible for one reason or
another, I would urge them to carry the weapon openly. If the sight of a weapon
is disturbing to someone in the public, then that's just too bad. Look the
other way, or find something else to think about. Unless you're actually
being threatened by some weapon someone possesses, then it's none of your
When their constituents realize they voted for this ridiculous bill, they
won't want to defend it at reelection time. I wonder how many of their own
spouses and family members are scratching their heads on this one. What were
This was an ill-conceived bill from the get-go. I'm glad the Governor had
the common sense, and intestinal fortitude to veto it. I have no problem with
packing. No problem with licensed concealed carry. But if you are going to
carry, you need to know what you are doing. This means at least a very basic
level of training, which this law did not provide for. Also, the idea of
carrying an unloaded gun for protection, is just plain stupid. An
"unloaded" gun is going to do nothing but get the person who carries it
killed in an armed confrontation. It is just plain ignorant
"A majority wanting" something should not be a criteria when it comes to
fundamental rights expressly laid out in both the Utah and U.S. Constitutions.
On the basis of article 1 Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, ANY limitation on
how a lawfully possessed self defense weapon is carried (openly or concealed,
loaded or not) should be thrown out.However, enough low information
voters were swayed by media misinformation and politically motivated promises to
re-elect Obama, so it is not surprising that "a majority wanting" has
become the criteria for many decisions, instead of demanding adherence to the
Constitutions that made our country and state great.Herbert is wrong
to veto this, and it would be right for the Legislators to pass it over his
veto.I don't know why Herbert decided to veto, but it suggests
he wants to create a "more moderate" image in hopes of further political
office seeking. Until this very bad decision I would have voted for him again,
but never more after this veto.
These legislators really need to get in touch with reality. Both the school
bill and the gun bill mentioned are big steps in the wrong direction and go
against what the majority of us want. It is just sad that our legislators
quickly forget that they are public servants not public masters.
Calm reason and serious deliberation as to consequences is probably a good idea
when dealing with firearms for everyone everywhere.
The Constitution gives you "the right to keep and bear arms"...it
doesn't say you have the right to hide them in your shorts...