Utah Senate approves state gun without debate

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 10, 2011 3:02 p.m.

    I always find it interesting when people profess support for the 2nd Amendment and then proceed to limit it with the word "but". Thank goodness the US Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals and not the state.

    Why, Democrat, would you chose a hunting rifle when the M1911 represents a firearm that is 100 years old and is still carried to this day by many law enforcement agencies around the nation?

    You do realize I'm sure that the 2nd Amendment encompasses much more than just hunting?

  • Democrat Provo, UT
    Feb. 10, 2011 12:53 p.m.

    Rifleman: I can't speak for 2bits, you might be right. But I think a person can be for the Second Amendment and against a particular State gun designation or vice versa. I don't think the two are philosophically connected. That said, doubtless many people would line up on illogical yet predictable sides of the issue because that seems to be where we are headed in this country.

    Personally, had I been a legislator I would never have sponsored this or voted it out of committee. But I probably would have sponsored a floor amendment to change it to a Browning rifle or a hunting rifle more germane to Utah's cultural history of hunting. Next year someone will want to change it to the M16 and it will be like the sugar beat-onion debacle all over again.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 10, 2011 11:46 a.m.

    Re: Democrat | 9:09 a.m. Feb. 10, 2011

    Not so Democrat. People that have a problem with the 2nd Amendment also have a problem with designating a state firearm. The problem with the comment above from 2 bits is that he obviously doesn't have a clue what singular right the 2nd Amendment gives individual citizens.

    If Peter Corroon had been elected governor the question would be moot because he would have vetoed the bill. Problem for him was that he couldn't even carry Salt Lake County.

  • Democrat Provo, UT
    Feb. 10, 2011 9:09 a.m.

    The Legislature spends a lot of time on message bills, honoring people in the gallery and other things that a part-time legislature meeting two months a year has little time to do. Those few tokens like Sea Gulls and Sugar Beats used to mean something in an atlas or almanac and give a state some flavor, but now we add to and switch them around so much they have begun to lose meaning. I for one support Jason Chafetz on his desire to eliminate wasted time in the Federal House and wish our State House Members would do the same thing.

    Rifleman: Whether one supports having a "State Gun" and deciding what that gun should be has nothing to do with how much they support the Second Amendment. If that's how we are going to define someone or figure out what we/they stand for then we are in trouble.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 10, 2011 6:32 a.m.

    Re: 2 bits | 12:52 p.m. Feb. 9, 2011

    "I am all FOR the 2nd Amendment rights. I understand them. I appreciate them and will defend them. But this is just LOONY."

    If you understood the 2nd Amendment, 2 bits, you surely would have known that it gives individual citizens a singular right. Exactly which "rights" (plural) were you thinking of, and exactly how are you proposing to defend "them"?

    Folks like 2 bits who have such a problem with a state firearm should have voted for Peter Corroon for governor. He would have vetoed this bill. Unfortunately Corroon couldn't even carry Salt Lake County in the election.

  • Goet Ogden, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 6:29 p.m.

    On one side, I'm about as pro-gun as can get, yet this bill was such a grandiose waste of time.

    On the other hand, whatever keeps those fools on the hill from passing more restrictions on my freedom.....

    Can we get an official designation of State Jello Color?

    How about we argue about paint color on roads?

    Maybe we need designated Osmond-listening zones in downtown areas.

    Anything that will take up their time sounds good to me.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 5:20 p.m.

    But if you look at all the articles and posts clearly its not all the people of utah. One set of limited comments is not a valid statistical population. There have been multiple submited letters posted over the last few weeks with multiple for and against comments. Not hardly just the 24 comments you cite. Is your beef just the gun or any state designation. What is your opinion about the 2009 designation of the State Ship. If the M1911 represents to you gun violence, then what does the USS Utah represent? The guns on that ship killed many. Is the acknowledgement of the Navajo Code talkers a waste of time? They carried the M1911, and their code work ended up killing a lot of Japanese soldiers. When is the legislature allowed to acknowledge anything?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 4:05 p.m.

    Do we really not have anything more important to do?

    I don't have that much of a problem coming up with a state gun. But I do have a problem that the legislature attacked this issue before solving/addressing any of the more pressing ones, economy, education, infrastructure, immigration, etc.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 9, 2011 3:51 p.m.

    Having the Browning M1911 semiautomatic as our state firearm puts us on record as paying more than just lip service to the 2nd Amendment.

    Thank goodness the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right that refers to individuals and not the state. People who don't like will just have to learn to grit their teeth and live with it.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 3:50 p.m.

    This bill is so childish that it beggars an explanation. While I don't care what other states think bout Utah, it is difficult not to join in the ridicule. What happen if I have a Winchester and will never own a Browning? Do I lose my Utah citizenship? Legislators should not charge for the time spent on their "deliberations."

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 2:47 p.m.

    jsf | 1:19 p.m.

    What I was refering to when I said "the people" didn't seem to like it... was the response this topic got when it was discussed in this forum last Thursday (see "Kill handgun designation" 2/3/2011. There were 24 comments, only ONE of the 24 supported the bill (that was cjb | 6:36 a.m.)... the rest were against it or stated they thought it was an utter waste of time. one was neither for nor against the bill... just went off on gun rights rhetoric but didn't take a stand on the actual bill).

    I thought 23-to-1 was sort of an indication that most people didn't like the bill.

    That's what I was talking about... not that just I thought it was a bad idea.

    I made the broad assumption that the number of comments to at least a small degree reflected how DMN readers in general feel on the topic.

    We actually had traditionally left AND right leaning posters almost unanimously AGAINST this bill. At least from the people who commented on it.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Feb. 9, 2011 1:57 p.m.

    Nothing wrong with the 1911 being recognized when you consider the contribution its made to saving lives in horrible wars and being invented by a Utahn.

    The 1911 has a great history much like the Sherman tank, P-51 Mustang or the B-1 bomber.

    It is funny though to read the non-sensical/hysterical arguments against it though.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 1:19 p.m.

    Davis should note a number of state seals and state flags showing men hoding guns. 2 bits was unanimous in his position, the legislature needs to listen to him, the "people." I really don't recall a majority saying loud and clear, on these posts, they didn't want this to pass.

  • Murray Dad Murray, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 1:13 p.m.


  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 1:05 p.m.

    This is silly but given what they seem to want to work on... I'm going to encourage them to work on meaningless bills like this one, that way they won't make things worse with all the other stuff they want to do.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 12:52 p.m.


    I thought Utahns said loud and clear that they don't want this embarrassing bill to pass!

    Does the Legislature listen to the PEOPLE anymore???

    I'm going to find out who voted for this and campaign against them when they are up for election.

    I am all FOR the 2nd Amendment rights. I understand them. I appreciate them and will defend them. But this is just LOONY.

    Do we need a State TV now? (Since a Utahn invented the electronic TV)?

    When do the nutty stunts on the hill stop? It's up to us to get people in there who take their job SERIOUSLY.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 12:33 p.m.

    Kentucky Fried Chicken's first store was in Utah...

  • mightyhunterhaha Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 12:14 p.m.

    This is the most stupid bill Utah has ever done. Give me a break. What's next a State Car, A State Color, A State Restuarant. That gives me an idea. Gene Fuller had a restaurant here in Utah it needs to be recognized.

  • Sweet_Mustache Roy, UT
    Feb. 9, 2011 12:04 p.m.