"sponsor Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, said...that Utah's domestic
violence crime rate has long been higher than the national average"LOL, no.It is true that Utah has a higher percentage of homicides
due to domestic violence than the US as a whole (42% to 30%), but since
Utah's overall homicide rate is much lower than the national rate (1.8 per
100,000 vs. 4.9 per 100,000) the actual rate -- the frequency it occurs in the
population -- is much lower.When adjusting for rates, Utah's
domestic violence rate is roughly 0.8 per 100,000 population, nearly one half
that of the US domestic violence homicide rate of roughly 1.47 per 100,000.
As sad as it a for this young lady to keep her life over something as wanting a
divorce, the numbers just aren't there to warrant something like this by
the anti gun grabbers. It won't work, never has worked and never will. It
Yep Ute 95What's your problem with the small statement I made
within the larger post? Care to explain why that jumped out at you, or are you
willing to discuss the merits, and short falls of this bill?
Multi,"The intelligence that is me..."Really?
A new bill is being sponsored in the US Congress by the four Representatives
from Utah. It's called the "Hearing Restoration Act " which makes
it much easier for felons, kids and everyone else to get silencers for their
guns. Under the guise of "preventing hearing loss" the bill eliminates
the 9 month waiting period and the $200. tax for all who want a silencers to
hide their crimes. At least when the bill passes we won't be able to hear
our neighbors being murdered in their homes. I want to hear what law enforcement
will say about that bill.
LauraIf the Dnews is going to let people get away with describing
gun folks, I believe describing democrats is also allowable.The
point stands the Democrats seem to like taking freedoms away from the
individuals.Taking guns away isn't going to stop the problem,
separating yourself from the situation will help that problem however.Let's actually have a discussion, nobody seems to want to engage the
intelligence that is me, probably because I'll require the other party to
qualify their claims.
A well regulated militia would be one that was supervised by its state
legislature to make sure it trained its members, weeded out the unsuitable, and
kept guns in the armories safe and sound. Heller, a finding of an
aggressively partisan, dogmatic, and un-Constitutional legal faction temporarily
running the Supreme Court, has not a grain nor a scuple of historical or
Constitutional foundation. -dlj.
The bill is not sane, nor is the federal law. I have seen spouses, in order to
augment their divorce try, ask for an order of protection, and get it. Who ever
complains first is the victim, the other the perp. This law, if passed and
enforced, will be yet another assault on peoples constitutional rights. I grieve
with the father, I do, but adding more pain and suffering to domestic disputes
@ Multi wrote (10:04AM)"I mean it's no surprise that the
Dems like yourself don't like individual freedom.."This is
not a statement which is consistent with the DN standards of respectful,
UnrepentantBoth rights can exist at the same time, I know you
don't see it like that, but it's shortsighted to think we can't
have one without the other.I mean it's no surprise that the
Dems like yourself don't like individual freedom, your media has been
pushing the idea of censoring people's thoughts you don't agree with,
so what's wrong with taking away people's best right to protect
themselves right?Besides that life, and liberty aren't actually
codified nor even quantifiable rights. That is a feel good statement by
yourself. Tell me what the standard of liberty is, simply because my view of
liberty probably differs from what you believe it is.
DN Subscriber is correct. This bill will do nothing. Federal law already bans
for life anyone convicted of any DV offense from touching a gun.Federal and State laway already make it illegal for a prohibited person to try
to buy a gun. Every year over a thousand people in Utah are denied a gun
purchase because they are a prohibited person. Not a single person is
prosecuted for trying to buy guns. That means they remain free to go buy or
steal a gun, or to commit a crime of a violence without a gun.This
bill, like federal law, imposes a lifetime loss of rights with no chance to ever
regain that right. Zero chance for redemption, a lifetime scarlet letter.
Unlike felon convictions where there is a chance to regain rights, misdemeanor
DV convictions (and mental illness issues) have no chance for regaining
fundamental rights.We would not tolerate this for freedom for
religion, press, speech, privacy, due process, freedom to travel, nor any other
right.Federal law js bad in this regard, there is no reason to
mirror that in State law.
Geez, the gun folks are out in force.Does the sacred second
amendment trump a person's right to life and liberty? Wow what a claim.And besides all that, if the NRA (certainly no fan of gun restrictions)
is willing to work on a fix for the proposed law that aligns it with the federal
law, I don't understand the gun folks objections.How sad that
even reasonable restrictions to obscene abuses have their naysayers.
@DN Subscriber, you make a good point about the fact that existing laws
aren't enforced. But where did you get the idea that " the best advice
for those in an abusive relationship is to leave, get a gun and training "?
What evidence is there that having a loaded gun makes you safer than not?
Although well intentioned, this is a "feel good" bill that will not stop
bad guys, and opens the door to abuse by vindictive persons.The
father's analysis that it would not have saved his daughter is correct.The fact that the feds don't bother to enforce the existing law is
very important. If we are serious about keeping guns away from bad guys, we
need to enforce existing laws.Last year 2,335 domestic abusers,
felons, etc, in Utah tried to buy a gun in violation of both state and federal
laws. The ugly truth is that not a single one was prosecuted. Not one! If we
are not enforcing those laws, how will another "feel good" law make us
any safer?Meanwhile, the best advice for those in an abusive
relationship is to leave, get a gun and training to protect yourself, and a
piece of paper protective order to keep lawyers busy.This is not a
bill which will actually protect anyone, although very appealing on an emotional
basis.Prosecute those breaking our current domestic violence laws,
and those illegally trying to buy guns. No new laws until existing ones are
Mr. BoredTell me about the morality of taking away a constitutional
right when there is no judicial process to be put on that list? No hearing, or
evidence presentation, you can just end up on it somehow with no reason
given.That doesn't sound OK to me, I'm befuddled why it
sounds OK to you?
HaYou really can't argue with taking guns away from people who
have had domestic violence issues, but that in and of itself doesn't stop
the likelihood of people still dying. I got to tell you, I think I'd rather
be shot, than stabbed or beaten to death.The bill is already
scuttled however, saying this bill wouldn't have protected the person it
was meant to protect isn't a very good endorsement of the bills ability to
do what we are passing it for.So if women are seeking a divorce or
attempting to get out of a relationship, I'd suggest they leave the house
with the abusive person inside it. Don't hang around.
More gun laws will do nothing to stop gun violence. Why can't people see
the obvious? There are only 2 things that will reduce gun
violence. 1. Fear of being shot by the person or persons you attack, in
other words, more guns. 2. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for using a
gun in any kind of crime.This is not rocket science, let's use
our heads for a change.
We won't take guns from people on the "No Fly List", why would Utah
try this?We need more guns. One in each hand and one in our pocket
and one in our closet, etc....
This bill should be implemented on a case by case basis. I think there is a
place for intelligent limits on gun ownership, and people with a history of
violence should have barriers for owning guns.
This bill is a no-brainer, but it will never pass. US citizens are too in love
with their firearms to give them up.
This law and the advice of the judicial counsel to get rid of all of the weapons
in the home gives women a false sense of security. The Weber Sheriff's
advice to get a firearm and get training in addition to getting a protective
order is probably the best advice. A bullet proof vest wouldn't be a bad
idea either. If a husband is going to kill his wife (and possibly himself),
he's not going to worry about being arrested for having an illegal gun.
But if women are led to believe they are going to be safer because of this law,
they are being woefully misled. Too bad politicians pass worthless laws just to
look like they are "doing something."
It's too easy for a person to falsely accuse another person to take away a
person's constitutional right without being convicted of a crime.Besides taking away a gun isn't going to stop a person who really is
dangerous. There are too many other ways to hurt or kill a person. Murder was
very common before guns were invented.
If the state is going to take away a person's most reliable means to defend
themselves, the state ought to provide the person with an alternative reliable
means of protection.A 24 hour a day armed guard would be one way.No this wouldn't convenient, but taking away a person's
constitutional rights ought not be convenient or easy.
No, on this bill. Domestic Violence covers a very broad range. I have a friend,
who was having marital issues-his wife was cheating. They got into an argument
& he tried to leave to diffuse the situation by leaving. His wife grabbed
him by the belt to keep him from leaving then grabbed his car keys. He grabbed
his wife's hand to get his keys & she slapped him. He pushed her down
on the couch, got his keys and left. He came back home hours later & the
cops arrested him. His wife lied to the cops & they believed her. He did a
plea in abeyance & was sentenced to a years probation & counseling.
Cost him about 3K & had to give up his hunting rifles, which he eventually
got back. Now, if a guy punches his wife in the face & is abusive, I can see
the removal of guns. But, each DV is different and you can't remove their
rights. Cops will tell you, when there's a DV call, someone's going to
jail. And, they don't always get it right.