Bill seeks to clarify law for carrying firearms in public

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Zabilde Lehi, UT
    Sept. 22, 2012 2:09 a.m.

    MightyhunterHaha please cite your stats, the vast majority of mass shootings are committed with handgund. AK and AR style weapons are actually very rarely used in such events, so why should you be scared of someone walking around with one?

    Others have mentioned Bars, you are right that firearms and alcohol do not mix. But it's already illegal to be armed while intoxicated.

    Open Carry used to be what honest people did, only crooks and cheats hid their weapons. Yet now so many want to make it a crime to carry a firearm. I don't fear the weapon I can see. You never see a robber walking around with a weapon on his hip, it's hidden in his hoodie pocket until he's ready to pull it out and start waving it around.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:33 p.m.

    " The key phrase here is " shall not be infringed" ":

    And there is the rub.

    That seems pretty clear to me. And I am not sure I like that society.

    So, NOT BE INFRINGED would mean that

    A kid can bring a gun to school (does age matter?) how about an 18 Year old to high school?
    One cannot stop guns in
    Why not airports and airplanes?
    Their businesses
    THeir conventions, sports events, concerts

    Shall NOT be infringed is pretty clear.

    I get the "slippery slope" argument, but is this really what we want? It works both ways.

  • mightyhunterhaha Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:17 p.m.

    I'm concerned about the idiots that carry a AK47, &MM or thers through parking lots just because they can or to prove a point. These individuals shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a firearm. I haven't seen to many mass shootings where an individual carried the concealed permit weapon to the scene. Most have been carrying rifles. Utah Leg. get a clue, wake up and stop the stupidity.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 10:28 a.m.

    Will they be able to openly carry their firearms into the neighborhood pubs, social clubs that becker has blessed the city with? I can't see anything wrong with that. Alcohol, Firearms, Late hours...What can possibly go wrong. Although, I'm assured the mayor will fill his pocket with money from special interest groups that pushed this through.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:32 a.m.

    Personally I believe America needs more gun restrictions, but as for the proposed idea of bearing arms in public, it would appear to be a constitutional right. The reluctance of those people to permit such public display may be based more on a set of cultural beliefs than legal and ethical beliefs. Oddly enough, I'm more concerned about concealed weapons than opening carrying them because at least the public and law enforcement are aware of who is possessing them. The more people who are eligible to possess weapons and carry them openly the more people will likely get used to them if there are few incidents. The problem occurs when irresponsible or criminal use occurs or when innocent people cause more injury and deaths than criminals. I still believe we need somewhat more control of who can possess weapons and ban assault and military weapons.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Sept. 19, 2012 9:43 p.m.

    DN Subscriber said: "It's not the guns, it's the criminals.

    The new version lists other Utah laws under which someone openly carrying could not be cited, including trespassing, interfering with a campus activity and disrupting a meeting.

    Ray's bill stems from an incident outside Orem's University Mall in January 2011 in which a 51-year-old man was walking on the sidewalk with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder and carrying a handgun.

    Would you know if this person carrying these weapons was a criminal with intent to kill masses of people? Sometimes common sense needs to prevail. The Constitution was written when there were only black-powder weapons and only one shot could be fired before the task of reloading. But, hey, Blur says we should be able to have weapons anywhere we want. So there really is no need for security at courthouses or airports anymore, as we have a right to carry a weapon at-will.

  • blur Murray, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 7:47 p.m.

    Once again we are debating a subject that has been clearly defined by the constitution of the U.S. To paraphrase the Constitution, the right of the people to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The key phrase here is " shall not be infringed". In spite of opinions to the contrary, I have the right to carry a loaded fire arm any way and anytime I care to. I also have the responsibility to use that fire arm appropriately.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 5:36 p.m.

    This law doesn't pass the smell test. Defining arms toting for the sake of law enforcement is fine, but authorizing anyone to carry lethal weapons as long as they are not concealed is beyond belief. At least concealed weapon permits have a vetting process.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 5:21 p.m.

    Part of the problem is that some overzealous cops, egged on by anti-rights officials at the University of Utah, have used this loophole to hassle law abiding concealed permit holders if their guns are even momentarily visible.

    Thus they have turned the law upside down, and want to interpret "being allowed to carry concealed" to making it a crime if is a gun is ever seen if you have a permit.

    The anti-gun crowd, when opposing concealed carry permits in 1995, claimed it was "fine for honest people to carry guns in the open, but only bad guys wanted to carry 'hidden guns' and that people should need a permit to carry concealed guns." All experience since 1995 shows virtually no problems with permit holders, so now the anti-gun crowd has changed their tune, and argue that it is just too scary for anyone to see a gun, and only bad guys want to open carry.

    Well, they were wrong with their emotion driven opposition in 1995, and their opposition to this continues to be emotional rather than driven by facts.

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

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 5:03 p.m.

    So if a person dressed in camo is walking towards your child's school with side arms and a AK47, he can't be harassed?

    Seems reasonable?

    I just don't understand the crowd who believe they have to parade around with their gun at the mall or park to impress or intimidate or compensate for being little men. We don't live in the old west anymore.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 4:29 p.m.

    Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
    The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.